The Spanish Inquisition

Recently, a Spanish court under judge Baltasar Garzon announced that it may “within days” issue arrest warrants for six former Bush administration officials for having provided legal justification for torture.

The ex-Bush officials are Alberto Gonzales; former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith; former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington; Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee; and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes.

A detailed AP Report can be read here

From The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 2(2):


"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture"

The United States has signed this convention, and the abovementioned article should describe, categorically, what this country’s position on the issue of torture is.


During the presidency of George W. Bush, The United States became a country that tortured and broke the laws of international aggression (invading another country without legal justification).


The bottom line is that these two crimes make the United States, in these two respects, no different from countries that have been charged with international crimes in the past, including:


- Iraq when it illegally invaded Kuwait, and


- Augusto Pinochet in Chile when he had people tortured



The United States lost it’s moral high ground under Bush, and can no longer speak to the rest of the world with any amount of weight about legal issues. The world has simply stopped listening. Why? Because these crimes have not been dealt with, and the criminals are still at large, and in fact, one (Jay Bybee) is still sitting a federal judge.


Spain considers crimes such as torture to be punishable anywhere, wherever they occur. At the very least if the crimes are committed by countries that have signed the Convention Against Torture, like the United States.


The most interesting thing about the possible charges is that the Spanish court goes after officials that enabled torture to occur, and not the torturers themselves, who are also punishable under the convention. The possible charges mean that this process will only be one step away from charging former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney.


Obviously, all these people should be charged in the United States before they are charged in Spain! However, the Obama administration seems unwilling to actually deal with the crimes committed by the Bush administration.


A “Truth Commission” is definitely not the proper way to deal with such crimes, because such a commission gives criminals immunity, which is undemocratic and immoral.


In a country of laws, there is a very simple premise to how society functions: if you break the law, you will be punished. Does it make sense that some poor bastard who sells crack on the corner should get 10 years in jail while those who torture, invade and kill people should remain in their jobs as judges or drink beer on a cozy ranch in Texas?


That simplistic question is really the essence of the problem. We cannot move on until the Bush administration, including the former President, is charged with war crimes in court.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

Reverse, Restore, Expand and Punish

A lot of commentators are currently urging Obama to aggressively pursue the policies that he campaigned on. I can only join this choir. As other commentators have also pointed out, conservatives, such as William Kristol and journalists on CNBC, are currently deluding themselves into thinking that somehow, Obama is not the socialist in disguise as they said he was only a few weeks ago; he is actually a conservative in disguise. I’ll believe that when the Pope converts to Protestantism.

George W. Bush’s crimes against the American people are many… so many. Bush squandered American prosperity, he further removed social safety from the most vulnerable Americans, he repeatedly stomped on the American worker, the American retiree, the American poor, and any American who was not fortunate enough to already have his or her needs met beyond most people’s wildest dreams. Bush’s staunch and relentless opposition to providing health care to those who need it has undoubtedly killed tens of thousands of American during the last 8 years. George W. Bush’s presidency can basically be summed up in the following way: it was an unbridled and unforgiving 8-year assault on everybody who was not like him. George W. Bush has, unequivocally, been the worst President in American history. Although not entirely appropriate yet, writing about him in the past tense is positively exhilarating.

Bush started a judicial revolution, putting himself above the law, above Congress, above the courts, and above the world. What were his main objectives with doing this? It was legalizing torture. Bush threw International Law and International Humanitarian Law (which governs Human Rights and prohibits torture), out the window. Bush has a lot of blood on his hands by now, but ending America’s commitment to these principles is what caused the most deaths in total. Thousands of American soldiers have died, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and tortured, spent and humiliated prisoners have taken their last agonizing breaths in ghost prisons around the world. Bush could have been impeached over a number of these atrocities, but because of the totally spineless politicians in Congress, he was not.

Obama’s first objective must be to stop all the developments that were started during the Bush years, so that the situation does not get worse. Bush is currently trying to deliver a few last kicks in the American groin by further ruining environmental standards, worker rights and more. Bush is now trying to poison the possibilities for his successor, so that the successor will be less successful. This is sometimes done in the world of business. A board of a company will try to make it so that, if a hostile takeover is done, the company will be in such bad shape when the takeover is complete, that there would be no point in trying to buy the company in this hostile way. Compare it to a bug that tastes so bad that no bird will try to eat it. Bush must be stopped now, before he can inflict yet more deliberate harm on the country.

Turning now to what Obama must work to RESTORE. Seeing that Obama is a bona fide constitutional scholar, I have no doubt that he will immediately work to restore the rule of law in America and internationally. America must get out of Iraq, close Guantanamo and all the other ghost prisons around the world immediately. Obama must reverse the Bush tax cuts, and obviously institute a more progressive tax collection formula. He must end the damage to the provision of health care that does exist caused by Bush, such as the barring of bargaining with drug companies for cheaper prices of drugs (I’ve rarely heard of a more stupid idea, by the way). One of the most philosophically atrocious things Bush did was to veto spending for sick, poor children. I seriously don’t think that even Mussolini or Franco would have done that.

Much damage has also been done to the competitiveness of the American economy. Every economy will try to have what is known as a “competitive advantage”, I. e. something that that economy can do better than others. This can be a 2,000 year-old engineering tradition, such as the one in Germany or relentless technological innovation, such as that in Japan. Bush decided that for America, the advantages were going to be, not what America could do well, but how America could be mercilessly exploited. Bush enabled companies to treat workers as they saw fit, squeezing ever more profit out of them while paying them less and treating them worse. Bush enabled companies to treat the environment as a dumping ground and excavation pit while enabling them to spew ever more poisons into the air by going back on the commitment to the Kyoto Treaty. Obama must restore the environmental legislation, end exploitation as a competitive advantage in lieu of expertise and innovation, and focus on local economic growth.

Obama ran on a platform of change. Conservative commentators are, as I said, trying to tell themselves that this “change” basically means “business as usual”. They seem to think that it means appointing lots of Republicans to important posts, reaching across the aisle to the right-wing of the Republican Party that is still left in office after the elections, and basically run a third term for George W. Bush. Any sensible person knows this will not happen. Obama must EXPAND the state and make it work for its citizens and provide the security that they deserve.

No longer must 30,000 American per year die because they don’t have access to health care. No longer must people have to file for bankruptcy because of medical bills. No longer must young kids have to sign up for the military just to get a college degree and then wind up being sent to Iraq. No longer must corporations stomp on the American worker by denying them the right to basic influence in the workplace and a fair wage. No longer must the American infrastructure, and in particular public transportation, be allowed to deteriorate even as the population continues to grow. No longer must people over the age of 70 have to work just to make ends meet. NO LONGER MUST AMERICA BE A SECOND-WORLD COUNTRY FOR ITS OWN CITIZENS!

I am dead serious about the crimes committed by George W. Bush. They must be investigated in the same way that Nixon and his administration was investigated. Bush must be held responsible for all the lies he told, the laws he broke and all the harm he caused. He must be charged as an individual. In addition, similarly to Nixon, Bush has allowed the intelligence agencies to run wild. The CIA was only too happy to torture people when Bush gave the go-ahead, and the FBI happily listened to people’s phone conversations, and so on and so on. There are probably many things that these agencies have done that we don’t know about. That is why we need a Congressional commission like the Church Commission in the 1970s. The Church Commission investigated how these agencies had run wild, and in the end imposed restrictions on them that lasted until Bush’s legal revolution and usurpation of all kinds of powers.

This is a plea to Obama: reverse, restore, expand and punish!!!

A Road Ahead For Barack

Since Nixon, the every-man-for-himself society has been said to bring the American dream to every man. It did not.


A large group of political and philosophical scholars subscribe to the idea of a “natural societal progression”, in some form or another. My take on that idea is that, in a reasonably democratic society, you can expect the people to create certain things through electing politicians who favor these things. The theory supposes, like most political theories do, that people are predominantly selfish in their voting habits. The usual story in the West has been that the introduction of democracy has led to the creation of economic security for citizens first, and later, elements of “softer” values such as the environment, feminism and cultural issues have gained in importance. In other words, when citizens are given a right to vote, they tend to see to their own, down-to-earth, “put-food-on-the-table needs” first, and only later move on to really care about whatever philosophical convictions they may have. Generally speaking, the introduction of democracy in Western society has in the vast majority of countries, in the initial stage, created a progression that looks something like this:


1. Labor rights, including laws regarding safety, collective bargaining, vacation time and influence in decision-making


2. Pension rights, guaranteeing all workers an adequate amount of pension beyond the working life


3. Health insurance, free for everyone for life


4. Access to affordable education through MA level


For the most part, these goals were achieved in all Western countries by the 1960s. These innovations and reforms became hugely popular among the citizens of these countries, and to this day, it would be political suicide to try to get rid of them. As in many other aspects of politics, The United States is the exception. The United States has never created a social safety net for its citizens, and for whatever reason, not many politicians are advocating such a creation. The country was on its way of creating a social safety net in the middle part of the 1900s, but after the societal convulsions of the 1960s, “put-food-on-the-table” needs were wiped off the political agenda in favor of cultural issues. This started a process like the “natural societal progression” completely in reverse! Instead of non-wealthy voters desiring more security, they elected politicians who advocated, for them, less security. As the voters got less security, they did not focus on getting more, but they focused more on cultural issues.



This is truly unique in the modern world, but I believe, as many do, that this brand of politics is coming to an end. With the election of Barack Obama, the writing is on the wall.


I believe that Obama represents a return to a focus on social safety for American citizens, and there is no doubt in my mind that that is why he was elected president. If Obama is able to successfully implement reforms that will bring social safety to Americans, it will become political suicide for American politicians to try to get rid of them. Imagine a situation where all inhabitants in a poor constituency in Virginia enjoys free healthcare, six weeks vacation per year, and good pensions. If a politician were to suggest to get rid of all that, in exchange for unfettered gun rights and lower taxes for the rich, what do you think the voters would say?


Barack Obama now has the clearest of mandates from the American people to do what he thinks is right. Obama must implement social reforms step by step, and implement them well. He must reverse the trend that has brought America back to the social situation of the 1920s, and if he does, no matter how Wall Street is doing, he will be elected again. The election of Brack Obama represents the end of an era of a misguided economic philosophy that dictates that an every-man-for-himself society can create wealth and well-being for every man.

Economic Suffering Explained

A lot of people are struggling and suffering today in America. It is obviously very important to talk about what needs to happen in the future, but in order to do that we need to look at history and figure out what went wrong, so that it can be avoided going forward. We cannot just move on without reflection, and we must actually assign blame to the people who made things this way. We need truth first, then reconciliation. More specifically, we need truth and accountability out in the open, so that voters can make an informed choice in the upcoming presidential election. I use the word “reconciliation” because, in the last decade, things have gotten so bad for the American people (and the American economy) at large, that a normal reform politics platform is not enough to bring about something that comes close to a reversal of the misfortunes of late.

America’s economic and societal problems are many at the moment. Some of them can be traced back to recent political decisions, or lack thereof, while others can be traced back much further in time because they constitute changes of a systemic nature. The upcoming presidential election seems to be, in large parts, about undecided working class voters, and I will focus my description of economic and societal problems on how these problems relate to them (although these issues obviously affect everyone in society to a very great extent). The problems that we are experiencing now very much constitute a combination of immediate financial problems, and the old structural changes that amplify them.

For instance, a construction worker who loses his job as a result of the current financial and housing crisis now faces a myriad of problems and dangers because the social safety net in America has been almost completely dismantled. A comprehensive social safety net is meant to ease the blows that financial and personal circumstances will almost inevitably deal most of us at some point during our lifetimes. In other words, it creates a floor of the standard of living in society as a whole, and every industrialized country except for the United States has one. Some of the problems that our laid-off construction worker faces in the current climate includes (but are definitely not limited to) the following:

- He has access only to very meager jobless benefits
- He has no health insurance for himself or his family
- He has very limited abilities to send his kids to college
- He has dire prospects for retirement

By contrast, in societies where there is a social safety net, the jobless benefits would usually go on for much longer and pay him at a much higher rate, so that a transition into a new job can be less painful. The remaining three issues would not be issues in the first place because they are completely covered by the safety net (or other government benefits) in almost every other industrialized country.

Some might say that America does have a social safety net, but I argue that the country in fact, does not, in large parts as a consequence of the four issues faced by the construction worker that I mentioned above. The amount of protection given does not measure up to something that could be described as a social safety net.
So, from my example with the construction worker, which describes a typical type of hardship in America today, two questions emerge:

1. Who dismantled the social safety net?

2. Who is responsible for the current (and extremely grave) financial crisis?

1. On the question of who dismantled the social safety net, many detailed policy changes can be pointed to, but a more helpful approach to answering this question would be to talk of a prolonged strategy and ideology on the part of politicians, parties and other actors in politics. I argue that the strategy of “laissez-faire” and “small government” is unequivocally what has led to the gradual dismantling of the social safety net in America.

Prior to the 1970:s, the social safety net was still in the process of being constructed. In the early 1970:s, the republican party took a sharp political right turn during what many refer to as the “conservative backlash”. In terms of tangible economic policy, however, this right turn did not show during the 1970:s, as the social safety net remained largely intact, and was even expanded in some respects during republican rule.

Then came Reagan. Reagan fully immersed the country in the practical application of theories of laissez-faire, small government and supply-side economics. According to these theories, the provision of a social safety net is something that the government should not be involved in, and hence it makes perfect sense that Reagan vigorously tried to dismantle it.

Reagan was shameless in his pursuit of these philosophies, as he, among other things, was the first president in American history to simultaneously increase taxes for the poor and lower taxes for the rich. Reagan’s campaigns to privatize and de-regulate are policies that take a very long time to fully play out in the economy, and the effect of them can last for a very, very long time. The only short-term effect you will see in a privatization campaign is a windfall of cash for the government, which is traditionally used to lower taxes, according to the Reagan economic doctrine. We are seeing enormous effects of the policies of privatization and de-regulation today as vital infrastructure has been transferred into the hands of the top echelons of society and the financial industry is convulsing due in part to a lack of regulation. (I will return to the subject of de-regulation later on). Reagan also severely weakened the Social Security Program, with the help of an important fellow who I will discuss below.

A figure who was to become very famous and much discussed later on, emerged during the Reagan era - Alan Greenspan. It is VERY important to study Greenspan’s personal philosophical foundations, as they help to describe much of his behavior, and the fate of this country’s economy. Greenspan was a close friend and follower of the philosopher Ayn Rand, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that Rand’s, and hence Greenspan’s, views on economics are close to anarchistic (a more accurate term for what many describe as “libertarian”). In their view, the government should do almost nothing except for provide the country with armed forces (if that even, now that America to some extent relies on private armies such as Blackwater).

During the Reagan administration, Greenspan was put in charge of a commission that was to give recommendations for the future of the Social Security program. The final report that the commission indicated that the program faced serious financial challenges in the future (because of demographic and other concerns), but instead of strengthening the program by investing more money into it, the commission suggested taxing the payments from the program, hence, at the end of the day, decreasing the total amount of money dispensed by the government. The surplus that this decrease in dispensation created was to be put in a fund for the future. However, this fund was instead used to support tax cuts (even though so-called “lockbox” legislation was created), so the final result of the changes made on the recommendation of the commission headed by Greenspan were:

1. a severe weakening of the entire Social Security program, and

2. yet more tax cuts for the wealthy

The combined effect of these two was simply a transfer of wealth from the lower echelons of society to the higher ones, an uninterrupted process that has been going on for almost 30 years in the United States as of the present day.

The destruction of the social safety net was temporarily put on hold during the Clinton years (except for the welfare reform), but not much was done in order to repair it. An interesting comparison can be made between the United States and Great Britain, because Thatcher and Reagan largely had the same agenda, as did Clinton and Blair. The Clinton-Blair years in terms of ideology constituted the destruction of traditional leftist values, as much of the agenda of Reagan and Thatcher was adopted instead. In other words - right-wing influence on the mainstream left was large, which seems like a strange thing, and it was.

With the election of Bush Jr., however, the fight to dismantle what was left of the social safety net was started. Bush turned his attention to the healthcare industry, and was able to pass into law some astonishing policies. Most countries try to keep the prices of drugs low, so that their citizens don’t die because they can’t afford to pay for their treatment. Bush, on the other hand, was able to pass a law that prohibits negotiating with drug companies for lower prices! He vetoed a bill in California for the expansion of a healthcare program covering children. So much for “compassionate conservatism”… It seemed as if Bush were on a pre-emptive campaign against the restoration of social safety in American society. These policies have undoubtedly already led to numerous deaths within the American population. In addition, Bush Jr. has systematically tried to cut funding for just about every other government program that is not related to the promotion of religious fundamentalism within the United States, or the fight against religious fundamentalism abroad.

Privatization, de-regulation, weakening of the social services are policies that all started a slow-moving process of punching huge holes in the social safety net, and the onus lies mainly with Reagan, Greenspan and Bush Jr.. I believe Reagan’s policies created a permanent shift in American policies with respect to social services and government spending in general. The policy of “small government” seems to have been made permanent, and we will continue to see more effects of this within a short time, and these effects will be amplified by the financial crisis.

2. Turning now to the question of who is responsible for the current financial crisis, let me first make one thing clear: even though George W. Bush certainly has not been helpful, he is not responsible for the current financial crisis. Bush has definitely made things worse by being perhaps the most fiscally irresponsible president in history, but the effect that this will have in the end is that the crisis will go on for longer (and it will probably also negatively affect American foreign policy aspirations).

I believe that the reasons behind the financial crisis have a lot to do with the Reagan doctrine of de-regulation and privatization, so in that respect the creation of the crisis is intertwined with the destruction of the social safety net. The question of de-regulation, or regulation for that matter, of the financial markets is extremely complex, especially in a large federation such as the United States. There is no single authority in the area, and even the most experienced scholar, economist or lawyer would be unlikely to say that he or she has sufficient knowledge of the issue. Basically, what Reagan started was a process to make it easier for the financial industry to operate and grow, in the hopes that this would benefit society. He did so by helping to remove a lot of regulation that had been created in the 1930:s after the depression, that was meant to prevent another financial crisis among banks, companies and investors. Regulation such as minimal capital ratios, what business banks can be involved in, consumer protection legislation, food safety regulation and the legislation guaranteeing the ability to organize unions was in large parts gotten rid of. Reagan was not the only one who assisted in this process.

The 1990:s was filled with joy over what bountiful fruits the financial markets could bring everyone, and Clinton used this to his advantage. Clinton continued de-regulation. It seemed that the markets could provide the people with great prosperity by growing uninterruptedly, so why would the state have to pay for things like pensions or infrastructure? In addition, the magic of the markets could sometimes kill two birds with one stone - enter the sub prime loans. Through de-regulation, the existence of sub prime loans was enabled. It was a stated goal of the Reagan era to move to an ownership society. By borrowing that philosophy, Clinton thought it would be a good idea to bring minorities out of poverty by making many of them into property owners. Maybe then their inner city areas would stabilize, and the invisible hand would guide them from cradle to a late grave. Banks jumped on board with a new strategy known as “reverse red-lining”, that would aggressively market sub prime loans to poor minority areas.

The great prophet in the background was Alan Greenspan. Regulatory freedom, the abolishment of labor rights, enormous amounts of cash released through privatization, the internet boom, and American global economic, military and cultural hegemony, all created an enormous potential for economic growth in the United States. Pax Americana ruled supreme (until Bush ended it completely). Greenspan decided that the best strategy was to fuel the fire of growth as much as possible, and aggressively cut interest rates again and again. When so many factors contributing to economic growth are present at the same time, this can be a very dangerous strategy. It ultimately led to the tech crash less than a decade ago. However, this was only the beginning, because the underlying philosophy and the altered regulatory and financial structure was still there.

Financial companies soon realized that, as a result of de-regulation and a climate supportive of Wall Street, it could take financial innovation to new heights. By creating a refined web of packaged securities, risk was spread around the world. The financial industry would describe the new situation as a giant insurance system, which would guarantee that losses will no longer be as great in one country or one sector. This is not true, because this system undermines the confidence in financial products in general and is far more detrimental to markets than problems in one isolated sector. Instead, an analogy describing the system of packaged and re-packaged securities as an incurable virus is much more appropriate because nobody knows where the bad assets are, and hence there is not much that can be done about them.

Now, in 2008, the value of private pension plans have been seriously hollowed out, ordinary people’s savings have been diminished, many have lost their jobs and their homes. The situation is the worst for minorities, whose ownership situation is worse now than when the process of trying to make them into property owners started in the 90:s. In addition, the American government is bankrupt, which we will see signs of in years to come (and this is obviously George W. Bush’s fault).

I blame this financial crisis principally on Reagan, Greenspan and Clinton because of their crusades for de-regulation, relentless dedication to market solutions and privatizations and general lack of insight into the eventual results of their actions. The American economy needs to be pushed forward in a wheelchair right now, and George W. Bush’s economic policies amount to slashing the tires and hanging lead weights on the chair.

It is now clear to see that there are two people who have been heavily involved in the creation of both of the problems that our construction worker in the beginning faced: Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. These two have somehow been hailed as heroes for a long time, and in the case of Reagan, this obviously has a lot to do with the end of the Cold War. People are not so sure about Greenspan anymore, and it is my view that anarchists do not belong in the world’s most important governmental positions. As for Reagan, I hope that America will have to re-evaluate his “contributions” to the American economy. It is hard for people to see the connection, but it is my belief that Reagan is behind most of the financial suffering that the American people go through today, and that which lies ahead.

It must become known that these people are responsible for the suffering we see today, because this has a direct link to the presidential election of this year. John McCain describes himself as a former "foot soldier of Reagan", and wants to continue the Reagan and Bush economic legacy. This would simply be absolutely disastrous.