The Right To Vote Should Never Be Denied To Any Citizen

Our Founding Fathers created a representative democracy - one that would be controlled by the voters of the country. It was far from perfect, since only men (mostly white) who were property owners could actually vote.

Slowly, that was rectified. A constitutional amendment and civil rights law extended that right to citizens that were not white - and another constitution amendment extended the right to women.

Many Americans now consider the right to vote is firmly established for all citizens (even though Republicans are currently trying to restrict the right of those they think might vote against them).

I disagree. The right to vote is still denied to millions of American citizens. I refer to the millions of prison inmates and people on probation or parole. State laws deny the right to vote for these people. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about denying the right to vote for those convicted of a crime.

This is an additional punishment levied by states for the conviction. But a court has already decreed their punishment, and that was probation or incarceration. Why should the state be allowed to add another punishment?

In a democracy, the right to vote is sacred. It should not be denied to any citizen for any reason. Even though incarcerated or on probation, these people are still citizens - and the elected government (both state and federal) affects their lives - sometimes dramatically! They should still have a voice in determining the government.

I know that these people have committed a crime - sometimes a heinous crime. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished. But that punishment should be left to a court of law. And the punishment should never include taking a citizens right to vote away from them.

When the right to vote is taken from one group, it endangers that right for all groups. The right to vote should never be taken away from any citizen - for any reason! 

U.S. Still Imprisons A Higher Percentage Than Anyone Else

According to the Pew Research Center, the amount of citizens imprisoned in the U.S. has dropped -- from 1,000 citizens per 100,000 to 810 per 100,000. That is a good thing, but it still is too large. The United States puts a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other country -- currently about 2.1 million.

There is no reason for this to happen, except that the United States tries to solve social problems with its law enforcement (like drug use). But this does not solve those problems. It just exacerbates them, and makes a laughingstock of U.S. claims to be a free nation.

People are the same all over the world, and U.S. citizens are no more criminal than the citizens of other nations. It is to our shame that we lock up so many of our citizens. We must change that. 

All Citizens Should Have The Right To Vote (Even Prisoners)

The meme at the right is true in most of this country. When someone in the United States is convicted of a crime, and either imprisoned or placed on probation, they lose their right to vote -- and in some states they can never get that right back. In many others, they can vote again only after finishing their sentence (including any term of probation and parole).

I don't believe this is right. Convicted people don't lose all their rights as a citizen, so why should they lose the right to vote -- one of the most important rights of a citizen in a democracy. These people still live in this country (even while incarcerated) and are subject to its government. They should have the same right to vote as all other citizens.

Here are some thoughts about this from Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times:

Why disenfranchise felons at all? Why not let prisoners vote — and give the franchise to the roughly 1.5 million people sitting in federal and state prisons? Why must supposedly universal adult suffrage exclude people convicted of crimes?

There is precedent for this idea. California allows voting for those in county jails (with limited exceptions). Colorado does too. New York recently allowed those on parole or probation to vote. And two states, Maine and Vermont, already let prisoners vote. In fact, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont affirmed his support for voting rights in prison the same week Warren backed automatic enfranchisement for former felons.

“In my state, what we do is separate. You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad,” Sanders said, responding to a question at a town hall. “But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote. I believe in that, yes, I do.”

Warren was also asked to weigh on this question, but deferred it, saying only that it’s “something we can have more conversation about.”

We ought to have that conversation now. Americans may see it as common sense that you lose your right to vote when you’re imprisoned, but in many democracies prisoners retain the right to vote. When that right is revoked, it’s only for particular crimes (in Germany, it’s for “targeting” the “democratic order”), and often there is a good deal of judicial discretion. Mandatory disenfranchisement is unusual, and permanent disenfranchisement is even rarer.

Mandatory disenfranchisement is constitutional — the 14th Amendment allows the government to restrict the right to vote because of “participation in rebellion, or other crime” — but there are few good reasons for the practice. The best argument, outside of the case from custom and tradition, is that committing a serious crime voids your right to have a say in the political process. You lose your liberty — your place in civil society — and the freedoms that come with it. 

But doing it that way — subjecting prisoners to a kind of social death — is in conflict with the idea of “inalienable” rights that cannot be curtailed.

As it stands, incarcerated people retain a variety of rights, some of which touch on the political rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Prisoners have freedom of worship. They can protest mistreatment and poor conditions. They can exercise some free speech rights, like writing for newspapers, magazines and other publications. To that point, there is a rich literature of work by incarcerated people tackling complex social and political issues. Voting would be a natural extension of these activities.

An obvious objection is that criminal transgressions render prisoners unfit for participation in democratic society. But there’s nothing about committing a crime, even a serious one, that renders someone incapable of making a considered political choice. Losing your liberty doesn’t mean you’ve lost your capacity to reason. Prisoners are neither more nor less rational than anyone else who is allowed to vote.

If anything, the political system needs the perspectives of prisoners, with their intimate experience of this otherwise opaque part of the state. Their votes might force lawmakers to take a closer look at what happens in these institutions before they spiral into unaccountable violence and abuse.

There are practical benefits as well. Racial disparities in criminal enforcement and sentencing means disenfranchisement falls heaviest on black communities. This is not just a direct blow to prisoners’ electoral power; it also ripples outward, depressing political participation among their friends, families and acquaintances. On the other end, suffrage in prison may help incarcerated people maintain valuable links to their communities, which might smooth the transition process once they’re released.

“Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority in Trop v. Dulles, a 1958 case dealing with the rights of a military deserter. And, he continued, “citizenship is not lost every time a duty of citizenship is shirked.” Yes, prisoners have committed crimes, and yes, some of those are egregious. But depriving any citizen of the right to vote should be the grave exception, not a routine part of national life. Universal suffrage means universal suffrage.

U.S. Has Highest Prison Incarceration Rate In The World

The United States just finished celebrating Independence Day -- the day when Americans revel in their "freedom". But that "freedom" is questionable. The chart above (made with information provided by the Prison Policy Initiative) shows that this "free" nation has more of its people in prison than any other nation in the entire world.

I just picked some of the world's nations to include in my chart, and if you want to see the entire list (with their rates of incarceration), you can go to prisonpolicy.org. The nation with the lowest incarceration rate is the Central African Republic (16 per 100,000). The nation with the highest incarceration rate is the United States (693 per 100,00). That's significantly higher than second-place Turkmenistan (583 per 100,00).

Why does the United States incarcerate so much more of its population than other countries? Are Americans a more lawless people than those living in other nations? Of course not. The United States has decided to try and solve its social problems by throwing people in prison. An example of this is the people sent to prison for the simple possession of small amounts of marijuana.

How can we call ourselves a free country when we incarcerate such a large percentage of our population? No other true democracy has anywhere close to the rate of the United States -- and sadly, even no nation generally regarded as a police state has a rate as high as the United States.

Land of the free?

Screwed-Up State Policies On Marriage

If you're on any social media sites, then you'll probably recognize the photo above (from CNN). It is of 80 year old multiple murderer Charles Manson and the sick young 26 year old who wants to marry him. The state of California has already issued the pair a marriage license, and when prison officials get the paperwork done, they be married some time this month. Now I couldn't care less whether these idiots get married (as long as Manson never gets released). That is a California problem. But it did get me to thinking about the screwed-up marriage laws in some states.

Like, for instance, in my own home state -- Texas. Texas also allows convicted and incarcerated criminals to get married -- even murderers living on Death Row. A perfect example is Karla Faye Tucker. Tucker was convicted in 1983 of using a pickaxe to murder a woman (leaving the pickaxe protruding from her chest) and later bragging about getting sexual gratification from that vicious murder. She was given the death penalty. So what happens in 1995? The state of Texas issues her a marriage license and allows her to marry a prison minister.

Now the same state (Texas) that sees nothing wrong with allowing this vicious murderess to get married while awaiting execution on Death Row, has laws that prevent decent, law-abiding gays and lesbians in a loving relationship from marrying the person they love. I ask you -- does that make any sense at all? Shouldn't law-abiding citizens have at least the same marriage rights as convicted murderers? I say yes. It is sheer insanity to give more rights to a convicted murderer than a law-abiding citizen.

Now some fundamentalists will quote the bible at this point, especially some old testament verse. There are two reasons why that stinks as badly as what comes out of the south end of a north-bound bull. First, the laws of this country aren't based on your bible, but on our secular Constitution (which guarantees equal rights under the law to ALL citizens). And second, if your religion approves of granting convicted killers more rights than law-abiding gays/lesbians, then you believe in a sick and perverted religion -- and you need to do some serious reconsideration of your religious views.

That's what I think. What do you think?

Republicans Are Outraged At Obama - Again

Republicans say they are outraged with President Obama (although it seems like they live in a permanent state of outrage over the president). This time it's because he successfully negotiated the release of an American soldier who had been a prisoner of Afghan militants for the last five years (Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl).

Why are the Republicans so outraged? They claim that the president negotiated with "terrorists" -- and illegally released prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl.

Their outrage is ridiculous. First, because it was no secret to begin with. Congress was notified that the talks were going on before any agreement was released. Why are they just now expressing their outrage. Could it be that they didn't really oppose the negotiations, but just wanted to get some barbs in at the president?

As for prisoners being released from Guantanamo, I would just ask why they weren't all released. Both of the last two administrations have admitted that for most (if not all) of the detainees in Guantanamo, we have no evidence that they have committed any crime or taken action against this country in any way. They are there because someone in their native country made claims (which can't be proven) and turned them in for a cash reward. For all we know, they are there just because of someone's greed or hard feelings that have nothing to do with the war (or terrorism).

In short, we shouldn't even be keeping those detainees in Guantanamo. If there is evidence against them, then they should be charged and tried in a court of law -- and if there isn't, then they should never have been detained (and should be immediately released).

And finally, where was the Republican outrage when their own right-wing icon, Ronald Reagan, not only negotiated with Iranian terrorists but sent them weapons in exchange for the release of Americans. Isn't sending weapons to an enemy a lot more dangerous than the release of five people we have no evidence ever did anything?

But we all know the reason for the GOP outrage -- and it has nothing to do with negotiating with terrorists or releasing prisoners from Guantanamo. It's because they simply can't stand the idea of an African-American being president.

(The image of the GOP elephant above is by DonkeyHotey.)

# Of Atheists In Prison Is Worthless Statistic

Another blogger, a fellow atheist, has asked for and received some new statistics on the number of people in prison who claim to be atheists. And he found that the number of atheists in prison was incredibly low -- only about 0.07% of prisoners. Some atheist bloggers have jumped on that number and are using it to claim that atheists are somehow less prone to criminal behavior than religious people.

As an atheist, I would like to believe that -- but I don't. I don't believe it because I think the statistics are worthless. They are worthless because those prisoners have too strong an incentive to lie. And when respondents to any poll or survey have a strong incentive to lie, then that poll or survey cannot be trusted.

I worked in the criminal justice system for over 25 years, both inside a correctional facility (as a corrections officer) and outside (as a parole officer). I wish I had a dollar for every prisoner who claimed to have been converted to religion, or showed up to the parole office for his/her first visit with a religious text in hand. I would be a rich man.

Most prisoners (and parolees) are smart enough to know that you do not appear before a parole board composed of religious people and claim to be atheist, if you really want to get out of prison -- and you do not impress a parole officer who is probably religious by claiming to be an atheist, if you want to stay out of prison. They know that most people in this country are religious, and that the perception of many in this country is that religious people are more moral than non-religious people. That perception is not true, but it is real, and prisoners and parolees are smart enough to take advantage of it -- so many of them lie, and say they have found religion.

We can understand why they claim, many times falsely, to be a religious person. They want out of the very bad situation they have put themselves in -- and the easiest way to do that is to use religion.

The truth is that there are many religious people and many atheists who are moral, and many who are not. Neither religion nor denial of religion is an indicator of good (or bad) moral character. But as long as the false perception exists among Americans that religion and morality are somehow tied together, the incentive for prisoners to lie about religion will exist.

And where a strong incentive to lie is evident, statistics cannot be believed. That means the new statistics on the amount of atheists in prison is worthless.

Supreme Court Upholds Police Taking DNA Swabs From Those Arrested

In more than half of the states in the U.S., when a person is arrested they are given a check swab to collect DNA at the same time they are fingerprinted and photographed. In those states, it is just a part of the arrest procedure. Like fingerprints, this is collected just for law enforcement purposes, and is not shared with any other entity (employers, insurance companies, etc.).

But there are those in this country who believe this is a violation of privacy, and no DNA swab should be taken or tested without a warrant issued by a judge. Recently, a case went to the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of routinely taking DNA cheek swabs of arrestees. The case was that of Alonzo King Jr. of Maryland. After being arrested for an assault, his DNA was taken and tested -- and it was later matched to the DNA from a sexual assault (a crime he was never suspected in). He was convicted of the sexual assault, and appealed the conviction.

A Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with King, and said his privacy had been violated -- since he had not been convicted of a crime when the swab was taken, and should have enjoyed a higher right of privacy than a convicted felon. Yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, and upheld the right of the state to take the DNA swab of arrestees. In a majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the court said:

"When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." 

The decision was a close one -- only 5 to 4. Kennedy was joined in the majority by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, and Thomas. Justices in the minority were Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Scalia wrote the minority opinion, and said this procedure violated the rights of those who were truly innocent (as found later by a court).

I may be prejudiced, since most of my working life was spent in various aspects of law enforcement, but I believe the majority decision was correct. If the DNA swab is an invasion of the right to privacy, then so is the photographing and taking of fingerprints. I see no difference between the three procedures, since all three are used in the same way. And I don't believe any truly innocent person needs to be worried about a DNA swab. If it shows they committed a prior crime, then they weren't innocent, were they?

I have not been thrilled with all of this court's decisions, but they got this one right. I expect that, as a result of this decision, many more states will now incorporate the cheek swab for DNA as a regular part of the arrest procedure. And the only people that is bad for are those trying to hide a previous crime, and personally, I will shed no tears for them.

That's my opinion. Do you agree?

A Terrible Idea

Prisons for profit may be one of the worst ideas that conservatives have come up with. Right-wingers would like to think that the private sector can always do everything better than the government. That is simply not true, and prisons are one area where government does much better. As the picture above implies, when you build a private for-profit prison you must fill it with prisoners (so the private owners can maximize their profit -- which can easily lead to people being sent to prison, when they could have been dealt with in a less restrictive and more effective way.

Private prisons are also just lawsuits waiting to happen (which the government would be liable for, since they send the prisoners there and pay for their keep). They pay their guards less, and therefore get an inferior quality employee (who is probably not properly trained, since training costs money). The owners also have the desire to cut corners on food, medical care, and other things to squeeze out a little bit more profit -- most of which could easily result in other lawsuits, since the Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners have a right to decent food, good medical care, and proper shelter.

The government sends people to prison, and that means the government is responsible for those people while they are in custody. Putting them in the care of a for-profit penal institution is just asking for trouble (which will surely come). And in the long run, it will be more expensive.

Leonard Peltier Should Be Freed

The man pictured above is Leonard Peltier. He was one of the leaders of the American Indian Movement in the early 1970s, when he was unjustly convicted for the murder of two FBI agents. He has now been in prison for 37 years this month. I have never believed he was guilty, but that the FBI needed to convict someone to save face -- and convicting Peltier not only accomplished that, but hurt the AIM organization. It is time that Peltier be released. Here is a bit of history regarding this miscarriage of justice:

On February 27, 1973, protesting the injustice and conditions on the reservation and bringing attention to the broken treaties, some 200 members of the American Indian Movement and their Oglala Lakota supporters occupied the town of Wounded Knee on Pine Ridge, the site of the 1890 massacre by the US 7th Cavalry which killed at least three hundred unarmed Indians - mostly women and children.

The occupation of Wounded Knee was met by a massive show of force by the FBI, US Marshals, and Tribal Police. Military armoured personnel carriers rumbled down the reservation's roads, and the occupation ended after a 71 day standoff which saw two Indians, Frank Clearwater and Buddy LaMont, killed by gunfire.

What followed was a period on the reservation referred to by those who lived through it as the "reign of terror."

Dick Wilson's tribal government funded GOON squads began a campaign of violence against anyone thought to be an AIM supporter or traditional Oglala Lakota. Entire neighborhoods were shot up, houses were burned, and at least sixty members of AIM or their supporters on the reservation had been found murdered.

The traditional people on the reservation invited AIM to play a more active role in helping protect them from Wilson's gangs. Leonard Peltier was one of those who came to Pine Ridge to help safeguard the community from the violence which engulfed them. . .

It was in this atmosphere that on June 26, 1975, two under cover agents of the FBI drove onto the private property of the Jumping Bull residence where members of AIM had a nearby camp.

Soon after a shootout erupted, with women and children fleeing in the crossfire, FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams were killed.

The camp was soon surrounded and came under a hail of gunfire while people continued to flee.

A third death, that of Native American Joe Stuntz, shot through the head by a sniper's bullet, has yet to be investigated.

After one of the largest manhunts in FBI history, Peltier, who was at the AIM camp on that day, was arrested in February 1976 in Canada and accused of killing the agents.

Dino Butler and Robert Robideau, arrested in the United States, were also charged with the killings. However, both of them were acquitted of these charges by a federal jury in Cedar Rapids,Iowa, on the grounds of self-defense.

The jury decided that had they been among what was reported to be up to thirty or so involved in the shoot out, and had they been the ones who fired on and killed the agents, due to the fear and violence in the community at that time, those acts would have been justified.

Nevertheless, the FBI was determined to hold someone accountable for the deaths of their agents and turned their focus to Peltier.

Peltier was extradited to the United States for trial based on an affidavit signed by a young Native American woman named Myrtle Poor Bear who stated that she was Peltier's girlfriend at the time and had been a witness to the killings.

Myrtle Poor Bear, known to have been mentally unstable, later recanted, admitting that she had never met Peltier but was threatened into making the incriminating statements by the FBI.

The court in Peltier's case barred her from testifying about FBI misconduct on the grounds of her "incompetence."

The court also prohibited Peltier from using "self-defense," as Butler and Robideau did successfully in Cedar Rapids, as his own defense.

The Prison State Of America

I believe this is probably true, and if it is, then our own prisons would surely be a serious indictment against this country. That's because our society has decided that the cure for all of society's ills (race, poverty, drugs, etc.) is to criminalize people and lock them up. And because of that, we have more people in our prisons than any other nation in the world (even those countries generally regarded as police states, with no freedoms or human rights). And that is true both as a raw total of prisoners, and as a percentage of the population. If we are not the world's biggest police state, then we are surely the world's biggest prison state -- and there is something seriously wrong with that.

An Unnecessary Death

The man pictured above is Adnan Farham Abdul Latif. He is a Yemeni citizen, and had been held in the prison at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. He was being held in isolation because his jailers said he was a "disciplinary problem" -- having been on a hunger strike (that he ended in June) and having thrown a "cocktail" of food and bodily fluids at guards. On Saturday, he was found dead in his cell.

He had threatened to commit suicide, and may have done so -- the results of an autopsy have not been released. And the NCIS is investigating his death. But whatever the actual cause of his death, it was an unnecessary death that should not have happened -- at least not at Gitmo.

Three years ago, an administrative panel had cleared Latif for release -- a decision that could not have been reached without the agreement of all of the intelligence services (who evidently did not consider him to be a danger to this country). He had also been cleared by a United States judge, who said accusations that he was connected to al-Queda were "unconvincing". Latif had also never been charged with any crime.

This all brings up a good question -- Why was he still in custody at Gitmo THREE YEARS LATER? The only excuse the government has come up with is that the Obama administration had appealed his release because they didn't want to send him back to the "unsettled" country of Yemen. That's simply not good enough. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and we should not be holding people in prison without charges, especially after they are cleared for release, just because of the unsettled political situation in another country.

This was a death that need not have happened. And it is a death that must be laid at the feet of the Obama administration. He should have been released three years ago. But he is not the only one that is still being held without charges or proof that they pose any kind of danger to this country. It is time (actually way past the time) for the United States to finally live up to its reputation as a nation of laws -- and release those prisoners it has no intention of charging or trying in a court of law.

Iranians Use Gitmo To Justify Mistreatment

As you've probably heard by now, the Iranian government has released a couple of American hikers who wandered into their country -- supposedly by accident. They were accused of being spies and imprisoned for more than two years under less than desirable conditions. The prison conditions were poor and they were forced to spend long periods of time in isolation. And when they complained about their treatment, the guards justified the treatment by because of the way the U.S. treats prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (and other CIA prisons around the world). The hikers said:

In prison, every time we complained about our conditions, the guards would immediately remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay. They would remind us of CIA prisons in other parts of the world, and the conditions that Iranians and others experience in prisons in the U.S. We do not believe that such human rights violations on the part of our government justify what has been done to us. Not for a moment. However, we do believe that these actions on the part of the U.S. provide an excuse for other governments, including the government of Iran, to act in kind.

This could have been (and was) predicted many years ago when the Bush/Cheney administration set up Gitmo and authorized the mistreatment (and even torture) of prisoners. And sadly, while the Obama administration says they have stopped the torture, the prison at Guantanamo continues to operate. This is what happens when this country decides it doesn't have to abide by international law -- it frees other countries to do the same to American citizens.

Isn't it time to close Guantanamo? Isn't it time to climb back up to the moral high ground? Torture and mistreatment of prisoners gains us nothing in security, but it has hurt our reputation around the world.

A Right To DNA Testing ?

There is an interesting case being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court right now. The issue being argued before the court is whether a convicted person has the right to demand a DNA test be conducted in his case. If the questioning done by the justices is any indication, it looks like this will be a very close decision and could go either way.

There are only six states that don't have some kind of DNA testing law, and Alaska (where the case is from) is one of the six. But the states that do have DNA testing laws have different standards laid down for the testing. A Supreme Court ruling that there is such a right would standardize DNA laws and rights in all 50 states. That is why even some states with DNA laws are opposing the court establishing the right to DNA testing.

Surprisingly, it looks like the Obama administration may also oppose giving convicted felons this right. Obama appointee, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, told the court, "This is a particularly poor candidate for recognizing a new constitutional right." (The convict has already been paroled, and revoked on a new felony charge.)

Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project countered that saying, "All they're getting is a darn test. And they're staying in prison while they get that darn test."

I have to agree with Neufeld. Especially considering that 232 convicted felons have been found to be innocent by DNA tests since 1989. That figure alone tells us there are probably many more innocent people incarcerated in this country.

So what is the problem with giving convicted felons the right to ask for a DNA test? Are they afraid the labs will be flooded with tests, or that states (and DA's) will look bad if hundreds more innocent people are found incarcerated?

If it is the former, it would only be for a limited time -- since most cases with DNA today are already testing that DNA. If it is the latter, why should we care? Isn't freeing innocent people more important than covering up for incompetence?

I'm surprised the court decision is a close one. I would have thought protecting the rights of the innocent would be an important concern for the court.

Guantanamo: A Legacy Of Shame

It will take the United States many years to live down the atrocity known as Gitmo - Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. It was bad enough that the Bush administration was lying to everyone about the torture going on there. Torture was commonplace. The Bush administration says what they did at Guantanamo garnered them valuable information about terrorism. However, CIA analysts who had to evaluate the information said it was worthless.

Of course, most information gathered by torture is worthless. A man being tortured is far more interested in telling you what you want to hear than in telling the truth. That's because when you hear what you want to hear the torture will stop, whereas the truth might only invite further torture.

But now we learn via an investigation by McClatchy News that there is another reason the information was worthless. Hundreds of the detainees were either very low-level Taliban foot-soldiers, or they were not connected to terrorism at all. In other words, they had no information to give.

They were reported to police or American soldiers as terrorists, because of old fueds and disputes or simply to get some reward money. Very soon after the U.S. entered Afghanistan, it was learned that the U.S. would pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for anyone with terrorist ties, and did little or no checking to verify the truth of accusations. If you didn't like someone, just tell the authorities he was a terrorist. They would arrest him and pay you a big bounty -- whether it was true or not.

The sad thing is that the Bush administration knew this was happening. But they were so paranoid about letting a real terrorist slip through their hands, that they imprisoned over 770 at Guantanamo anyway. Of that 770, only six have ever been charged with a crime. Hundreds of others have been finally released after years of incarceration and torture.

There are still nearly 300 detainees at Gitmo. One is left to wonder, why have only six been charged if all of them pose a danger to the United States. Obviously, no evidence exists of this "danger", except in the depraved minds of members of the Bush administration. If any evidence existed, charges would have been filed.

Now it becomes clear why the Bush administration wanted to deny even the most basic legal rights to the detainees. They had absolutely no evidence on which to hold them, but were afraid if they released them that one or two might actually turn out later to have been a terrorist. It simply did not matter to them that hundreds of innocents were being imprisoned and tortured.

Bush seems to think that history will vindicate him in the long-run. I think just the opposite will happen. I think as more and more of the truth comes out, future generations will revile him and wonder how our generation could have allowed him to do such terrible things. In fact, I wonder that myself.

This generation tried to impeach one president for getting a "blow-job" in the White House, but let another get away with starting an unnecessary war that killed thousand of innocents and tortured and imprisoned many others.

I was going to ask where are our values, but I think a better question may be -- do we have any values other than fear and greed?