Eminent Domain

Eminent domain means that local authorities are allowed to take private property for public benefit; for example, if they are building a highway, they can take the houses that are in the way and pay the owners for them. This has been true for a long time but, of course, local officials are all elected and this is not too popular, so it doesn't happen very often. Usually they do their best to route things around the houses, but sometimes they do end up taking them. It is becoming more and more of an issue because private developers are becoming more and more powerful and politicians are becoming more dependent on them for money.

The Supreme Court recently voted, in Kelo v. City of New London, that the local authorities can also take houses for private development if it benefits the "public" -- for example, they can build a shopping mall that will bring more tax revenue to the area. This ruling was generally considered an expansion of the longstanding eminent domain principles, and a lot of people around the country have protested because it represents a dangerous shift of private property rights away from the people and toward the rich and powerful developer interests, which are buying many of our local politicians. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the court, which Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. There were some dissenting votes on the Supreme Court, but they were in the minority -- O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with the likes of the latter three, but there you have it. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Or any Justice's home with a hotel.

Some states have since passed laws forbidding this type of thing, or at least making it much harder. See "Public Power, Private Gain," which includes documentation on state-by-state cases and what's been happening over a period of years.

Meanwhile, Logan Darrow Clements of California started a campaign to take the house in Weare, New Hampshire, of Justice David Souter (one of the Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of the expansion of eminent domain) and replace it with a hotel. Very clever.

I don't dislike Justice Souter but I think this particular decision was an abomination and I support the effort to take his house because I think it sends an important message. Why not take his house and put a hotel there? It would benefit the local community by bringing in tourism, and I bet some people would come and stay at the hotel just because of the publicity. That would bring in more tax revenue, thus benefiting the public. If three out of the five local leaders vote to do so, they now have that right. There is a rally there this weekend (January 21-22) and they'll be voting in March 2006. I hope they do decide to take it and he has to lose his house. The only thing that might stop it is the fear factor - the fact that he is rich and powerful. I doubt the mansions in Potomac will ever be seized, for example, because they can afford the best lawyers in the country to fight it. It's always the little nobodies who have their houses seized. Rich and powerful people hardly ever have to suffer from the policies and laws they impose on others. I think they should be subject to the same systems they impose on the rest of us.

See the press release here. CNN just put out an article on the topic here. See more on the case that started it all here. The latter Web site includes links to the documents in the case and other interesting facts.

Not in Our Name: American Torture

There's a dark cloud over America. One of its long shadows is the open discussion of whether or not torture is a good idea, accompanied by the ongoing practice of it despite the expressed intent of Congress, and the support of it through the use of semantic games, euphemisms, deliberate ambiguity, and secrecy at the highest levels of our government.

For those who think this is just a partisan or anti-Bush issue, just a bunch of whiny weak liberal tree-hugging hooey, or that it's not really happening, I have just two words: John McCain. Tortured as a detainee for five years himself, Sen. McCain worked hard to get a reluctant President Bush to agree that the U.S. will stop torturing detainees, either at home or abroad. Sen. McCain knows first-hand why it's not a good idea, and he doesn't want it happening to our troops. Unfortunately, despite the photo opportunity with a smiling President Bush publicly agreeing with Sen. McCain that the U.S. is not that kind of a country, while nobody was looking President Bush issued a "signing statement" reserving the right to blow off John McCain and his quaint amendment whenever he pleases, despite his having signed it. This must have brought a smile to Vice President Cheney's face as well, who worked hard behind the scenes to allow an exception to the McCain amendment for the CIA. If the torture and degradation of detainees is not a policy of the U.S. and is never practiced, as they continually assert, then why the need for an exception? Why the need for a signing statement that contradicts the will of our elected representatives, both Republican and Democrat?

If you think that what is being perpetrated in our name, in dark dungeons in distant lands, does not rise to the level of "torture" or if you still are unaware of the facts, here are a few highlights of the fun and games that have been going on for quite some time: (1) Waterboarding, which involves strapping a detainee naked to a board and holding his face underwater until he thinks he is drowning. (2) Stripping a detainee naked, then turning down the temperature until he is shaking and hypothermic. (3) Forcing a detainee into sleeping bags and convincing him he will suffocate. A number of our country's detainees have died as a result. Some have broken bones and scars from the beatings they have endured. Check out the facts in the latest Human Rights Watch report, U.S. Policy of Abuse Undermines Rights Worldwide. I hope none of those who think torture -- or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment -- is justified in the name of the War on Terror have the nerve to call themselves Christians.

And here's the worst part. If you think this is all justified because our detainees are the "bad guys" and deserve it, think again. Many interrogators reportedly believe at least 90 percent of those we round up and throw into prisons for indefinite periods of time are innocent. That's right: innocent. As innocent as your own mother, your father, your sister, your brother, your daughter, your son, your best friend, yourself. Think about it, American electorate. Then think some more. This is what you voted into office. All the facts were out there before the last election. Hundreds of innocent people have been rounded up, in our name and with our tax dollars, and thrown into prisons without charge or trial, where the unlucky among them are subject to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment that, in some cases, rises to the level of torture. They have been cut off from family and friends. They have been denied representation or a voice in their defense.

And if you think this is about supporting the troops or supporting the war in Iraq, or that criticizing our policy is aiding the enemy, think again. Many military people are begging for a clear standard to be set. They don't want to continue working under conditions where the rules are so ambiguous that they risk prosecution in the future for crimes against humanity committed while they thought they had permission or were just following orders. It has happened before in history, and even today low-level soldiers are being made scapegoats for participating in the degradation that has become U.S. policy. As for supporting the war in Iraq, many on the ground report that the Abu Ghraib atrocities have only fanned the recruitment flames of the insurgency and the terrorists. We've handed them ammunition against ourselves. We've aided and abetted the enemy's work. We've damaged our own country. Whenever someone oppresses another group, that oppression will come back to haunt one's own group.

I don't know if the resulting damage to our most cherished American principles and to our international standing and moral stature as a defender of human rights will be repaired in my lifetime. I do know that I've never before been so ashamed of my own government. And please, please don't tell me that it's not as bad as what Saddam did. If that is to be our new standard, may God help us all.

Torture is not merely evil. It simply doesn't work, and is counterproductive to everything we say we want to accomplish. How are the Iraqi hearts and minds supposed to take us seriously when their fathers and sons are coming home with tales of being stripped naked, led around on leashes, almost drowned, degraded sexually, and beaten senseless? How would you feel if your dad came home with these kinds of stories, and the physical and emotional scars to prove it? How would you feel about the perpetrators and their government, especially if you had little other knowledge of their culture than what you could see right in front of you?

One former U.S. interrogator in Iraq, Tony Lagouranis, noted in a Hardball interview that he never got good information out of detainees by torturing them. Don't take my word for it. Check out the transcript here. Further, those who practice torture suffer from lingering psychological problems. Vladimir Bukovsky, a Russian in a position to know, said recently that many perpetrators of torture in the former Soviet Union ended up severely mentally ill, alcoholics, or violent criminals. Bukovsky said that we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Examples abound all over the world from which we can learn how torture doesn't work, and how it has a corrupting influence on the society or the organization that practices it, either openly or covertly. The good people tend to leave because it makes them uncomfortable, and the sadists who remain are given free rein. Read his remarkable Washington Post article, "Torture's Long Shadow," here.

I don't want to see that even begin to happen to the best military force in the world. I don't want the majority of good men and women in our military to be stained by the actions of a few. I don't want even one of our fine, brave young men and women -- people like one of my closest friends' sons, who is about to be deployed to Iraq -- to join the military with noble hopes of serving our nation's highest principles only to come home broken, permanently seared by the knowledge of having participated in grave evil. Support our troops. Demand that the American principle of the humane treatment of detainees be restored.

The true patriots are those like Sen. McCain who have stood up and drawn the line and said, "No more." As he said, it's not about who they are. It's about who we are. And the fact that some of us now apparently feel free to openly discuss torture as a dandy idea says something about what has happened to our country that I don't even recognize from my entire lifetime as a patriotic American. Who are we?

A River of Words

This is my first post to the blog. I envision Potomac Current as a river of words both common and heretical on current events, politics, customer service, Potomac-area attractions, advice for newcomers - in short, whatever jolly well pops into my head. It's a busy head, full of chatter, and it needs a healthy outlet and some company, so don't just stand there on the shoreline. Grab a boat and come along for the ride. The current is strong but the view from the water is always better.