How health care ambivalence recedes

It wasn't only the speech that eroded my abiding ambivalence on health care reform, but it sure didn't hurt. As expected, it was a really good speech. President Obama was eloquent, passionate, and tough. But in the end, it was just a speech.

My primary issue on this topic has always been the cost. I conceded from the start that we had a moral obligation to provide better care and coverage to Americans, but I really hate indeterminate costs. The President now says health care reform is going to be deficit neutral. And you know, he's probably wrong at the end of the day. Government initiatives are never as cheap as their proponents think they're going to be, whether we're talking about wars or entitlements.

But, then again, my (private) insurance premiums are going up too, along with copays, deductibles, non-covered medical expenses, etc. The CBO's estimates do say they don't see enough fundamental changes in the current bill to drive down medical costs substantially, but of course that was the bill that assumed the public option wouldn't get more than several million customers....I'm betting on another score coming after tonight anyhow. Either way, against the status quo it could be kind of a wash, and the bottom line is we don't have any earthly clue what our budget profile is going to be in ten years. So let's just agree that we also have a moral obligation, if we're going to do this, to do it responsibly, concede that we might be facing a bigger bill at the end of the day, and put that question aside, just for a moment.

This week marks the eighth anniversary of 9/11, the day we were reminded that evil can still be made manifest in the most profoundly threatening ways, even in this post-Enlightenment world we thought we conquered decades ago. Since that awful, awful day, the prevailing and conventional view of government in America has been that its most sacred and verifiable mission was to Keep Us Safe, plain and simple. Everything else was deemed secondary. We weren't always so single-minded; as a people we've long acknowledged other responsibilities, ones related to the unspoken contract that we have with each other, both as citizens and as human beings. Some of us even believe that honoring that contract is a mandate from on high - to be servants to one another in all things. From time to time we've turned to the democratic process to make those commitments real, and there are those who argue that in those moments America was at her very best.

But in the new post-9/11 world, even thinking along those lines, much less doing anything about it, has had to take a back seat. We were angry and we were scared. And so, in an effort to recover a little bit of our 9/10 peace of mind, we let a lot of bad stuff happen. We happily turned over liberty after liberty to the new security state, converted our desire for justice into the havoc of unilateral, global shock and awe, and eviscerated our once-unmatched devotion to laws governed by the People. At the same time, not coincidentally, we doubled down on our faith in undirected markets to keep us prosperous, ratcheting up material consumption to new heights wherever and whenever we could, and fooling ourselves into believing we were creating actual wealth, without producing the commensurate value. We had ups, we had downs, and then we had a really big down when the whole house of cards crashed to earth. But through it all, I would submit that the one thing we really haven't been worrying much about is what we citizens owe each other, just for being citizens. When it comes to everything but safety from terrorism, which we leave in the unchecked hands of government, all we've asked for from our institutions is a nominally fair playing field for a blind market to work. More than ever, the results, material or otherwise - what kind of society our policies left us with - have simply been deemed out of human control, subject only to the whims of the Impartial, Invisible Hand. The most dramatic result of letting such a worldview spin out of control, in my most humble opinion, was a whole American city precipitously falling into the Gulf of Mexico. And we've wondered how could all this happen to a country that claims to lead the world?

After eight years of this, I can't escape the feeling that we simply haven't grown like we should have in that time. We're still angry; maybe we're slightly less scared. Not only that, but as I look around it seems that we're no smarter, healthier, or richer than we were at the beginning of this decade. It's like we're in the same place we were in 2000, except with iPods.

There was a reason the whole world lowered their flags on September 11. There was a reason, with all our imperfections, that having something so abominable befall this particular nation drew a nearly universal outcry of grief and support. Something about us, our government or our people, screamed that we simply didn't deserve it. We responded so bravely on the day it happened; even before we were angry, we were generous and embracing with each other, prouder to be Americans than we had been in years. I can remember vividly, driving home in bumper to bumper traffic at 11AM that morning, listening to a guy on the radio talk about having just maxed out his credit cards that morning, to the tune of about $20K toward the relief efforts. He just figured he'd make it all back someday; for now, other people he didn't even know needed it more than him. That was American heroism, just like the passengers of Flight 93 - and it was everywhere in the days after 9/11. Since the immediate aftermath, it's harder to see. Can we honestly look at ourselves in the mirror and say we've nourished that spirit in the way it deserved, to the best of our ability in the years since 2001? For an instinct so important and so special, has the conviction that we're truly all in this together been at the top of our minds and hearts with the same fervor that vengeance and victory have been? Or did that generosity of spirit merely serve the purpose of that moment, appropriately giving way to a collective American will that's best articulated in bombs and bullets?

After some weeks of reflection, I submit that the health care reform debate is the best chance we've had in some time to take our civic generosity out for a long-overdue spin. It's time to once again put our beliefs to the test, that what makes America great isn't our unmatched military or our powerhouse economy, but rather our centuries-long commitment to share our burdens and join our interests - young and old, rich and poor, immigrant and native alike. We take care of each other here, even at some risk to ourselves - and that, more than anything else, is how we stay strong and safe and free.

I don't know if health care reform is going to raise my net costs or lower them, or by how much. Taking care of myself and my family might end up easier, it might end up harder; I'm willing to admit I don't know. What I do know - what I've always known - is that there are people hurting in this country for want of better health care, and that if we don't do something, things are going to get harder for a lot of them. Maybe it's 5 million, maybe it's 40 - it doesn't matter. We can endeavor to treat more people, prevent more deaths and sicknesses, ease more pain and suffering, and if we go into it with integrity and fearless determination to do good, I don't believe the sky will fall down on us for it. My faith tells me that we're all family; it's high time we started acting like it, and just this one time, bicker a little less about dollars and cents. This is something we can try, at long last, to do for each other, as Americans.

So on those grounds, the President has my support. Obviously this isn't a defense of any specific policy; we'll get there, I'm certain. But I for one am done arguing from self-interest. If you agree, pass this sentiment on, and let's make this a vibrant September, full of vigorous and passionate debate. Let's resolve not to be prejudiced toward inaction, and let's see how we can get the best possible result for all American citizens, not just those in our particular class or income level. And then let's decide what's next, and nail that too.

Some day, after we have mastered the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness the energies of love. Then, for the second time in the history of the world, humans will have discovered fire. ---Teilhard de Chardin

God bless America.

Two views on TARP

Daniel Gross says that there's at least a sliver of a chance that we won't lose absolutely all of the TARP money that was paid out. Whooppity-do.

More interestingly, and depressingly, in another piece of essential long-form journalism, Vanity Fair describes the process (or lack thereof) under which the TARP money was actually distributed, and the governments comprehensive inability to control or even stay aware of what the money was used for.

It really is more painful than it seems being right all the time.

The case of Abdullah al-Kidd: Ashcroft not immune from civil suit

The material witness statutes permit the government to detain an individual, even if that individual is not suspected of having committed or planning to commit crime, on the grounds that he or she is required as part of a prosecutorial action against someone else. If you're needed as a witness, and the government has a good faith reason to believe you're gonna skip town, they can lock you up until you've testified. In the months following September 11, John Ashcroft's justice department had an explicit policy to use the material witness statutes to detain individuals suspected of terrorist sympathies, not for the purpose of prepared prosecution, but as an end run around the arrest process. Keep in mind that conspiracy to commit terrorism and material support for terrorism are punishable crimes; the system by no means waits for an act of terrorism to actually be committed before the government is permitted to act. The material witness abuses were for those people against whom there was no actionable evidence at all - only suspicion.

Abdullah al-Kidd is a black American who had recently converted to Islam. He had a wife and two children, and a government job. He was planning to visit Saudi Arabia to study Islamic law and culture, when he was picked up by the government on a material witness warrant. He was held for two weeks in cells lit 24 hours a day, and transferred between three separate prisons in shackles on his wrists, waist, and ankles. When he was released by court order, his movements were restricted by the government, and he lost his security clearance (and therefore his job). He was never called as a witness in any prosecution, and subsequent facts have revealed that the warrant used to secure his arrest contained lies about whether he had a one-way or a round trip ticket to Saudi Arabia, and omitted details about his previous cooperation with the FBI on matters related to national security. The U.S. government has never even attempted to make a case that al-Kidd had any intention or motive to do anything wrong. Again, no evidence of either conspiracy or material support for any illicit activity at all; just someone they wanted off the streets.

al-Kidd has sued John Ashcroft for damages related to his incarceration and persecution, on the grounds that his policies to abuse the material witness statutes led directly to his life being turned upside down for no good reason. Ashcroft, of course, has claimed immunity. The Ninth Circuit, led by a judge appointed by George W. Bush, has ruled in al-Kidd's favor - John Ashcroft has no immunity.

Critics of Obama, take note. Read what happened to Abdullah al-Kidd, and consider the fact that if government officials have no liability for abusing the authority granted to them, the only thing standing between an ordinary citizen and indefinite detention is the good graces of the President. Now Ashcroft can try to make the case in court that the al-Kidd material warrant was justified, and he's personally motivated to do so.

What if torture really is effective

Proving a negative, as we all know, is impossible. As long as it's established fact that Khalied Sheikh Mohammed delivered a single piece of verifiable intelligence at some point following being drowned and pulled back from the brink of death 183 times, then there's an extent to which shouting "Post hoc ergo propter hoc!!" is a clear waste of breath. There's just no deductive way to prove that the torture wasn't the only way, or the fastest way, to get what needed doing done, the convictions of everyone from Ronald Reagan to Dwight Eisenhower to Winston Churchill aside. Based on that inconclusiveness, Richard Cohen is sure that taking this particular weapon out of our arsenal is bad for the country. David Broder says that since we'll never really know the truth, any investigation and/or prosecution is doomed to degenerate into pointless political bickering. (Again, by the way, so much for the liberal press.) Cohen and Broder, like the President, would prefer that we all just Look Forward.

Well, I am looking forward. Discussions about crime and punishment, as Eric Holder knows, isn't just about retribution, it's about setting the standards for future behavior. It's about making it clear, in advance, what happens when individuals break the law, so that they think twice about doing it even when it's tempting. What the Justice Department does about torture that happened in the past is a good predictor of whether torture will occur in the future, whatever transient presidential proclamations exist - indeed, the law is just about the only mechanism that we the people have of ensuring that political office doesn't come with a license to make it all up as you go along.

So let's grant, for the sake of argument, that we'll never make an airtight case against torture based on its inefficacy. That means there are two questions that require our attention. One, is whether this is the best way to fight the war against al Qaeda, and of course I would say no. In the past few days others have made this case just as well as I could, so I won't bother repeating it all here. The second question that needs answering, related but distinct, has received less attention. That is, if we do accept torture as a valid means to an end against al Qaeda, what's our argument to keep it in that particular bottle, given all the other threats out there? Indeed, do we have such an argument?

The second worst terrorist attack on American soil took place in Oklahoma City 14 1/2 years ago. Not by a foreign extremist, but by a fellow citizen, in response to perceived government overreach at Waco and Ruby Ridge. In June of this year, the Holocaust Museum was attacked in broad daylight by an avowed white supremacist and anti-Semite. Dr. George Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church by an anti-abortion fanatic, after which the killer claimed to know of other acts of violence being planned by ideological compatriots. Terrorism as a tactic is clearly not limited to Islamic extremists

It's folly, as well, to consider this all these domestic threats just a random series of isolated events, with no discernible ideological pattern. Of course, the individuals were deranged and disturbed, but they were part of a network, all the same. There were websites, support structures, funding in some cases. What's more, most of the violence was in no small part motivated and inspired by a warped religious impulse, just like al Qaeda - they were fanatics. And just to bring it all up to the present day, at legislative town halls around the country discussing health care (health care!), we have people wearing T-shirts quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said "The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." We all know Jefferson wasn't speaking metaphorically when he said that, and some of these people are packing heat.

Only a fool would conclude that there was no threat to the public from domestic sources, even if the town hall creeps are just full of hot air, which, let's face it, they probably are. But make no mistake, people have already died from this kind of thing, this year, and we know the United States government takes the threat seriously. What, then, I ask, is the logic, if we allow that it could work, behind refraining from the use of 'harsh interrogation tactics' on the next Timothy McVeigh and his crew, as long as we were reasonably sure who they were? Does enforcing the Constitution represent an unnecessary, inconvenient, and dispensable threat to our safety, or not? We've concluded it could potentially be of value for international terrorists - wouldn't it be best to make accommodations to domestic law enforcement now, before we suffer another serious attack in the homeland?

It seems to me that it's enough to know what would happen if we did strap George Tiller's murderer to a table and fake-drown him until he talks. Or if we shut down every right-wing website, rounded up every dissident, confiscated every rifle, and generally suspended the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments just as long as we perceived a threat. We all know that would mean the beginning of the end of the legitimacy of the U.S. government. It would add weight to the arguments of those who take up arms against us, and make defending fundamental American decency far more difficult, if not impossible. In short, it would cause things to get worse, not better. Not because the criminals we were trying to stop deserved more humane treatment, but rather because our whole claim to moral authority in the first place is based on doing more than what is easy and expedient.

So back to macro then. If we agree that torturing those who represent domestic threats is a path best not taken, what precisely is the difference when we bring al Qaeda into the mix? Isn't it reasonable to assume that in the international arena, our policies have made things worse, not better, by the same exact logic? And if so, doesn't that mean that we were right about torture to begin with, even if we can't conclude it never, ever works?

Support Eric Holder. Let's walk through this, wherever it leads, and make sure it doesn't ever happen again, inside or outside our borders.

Bookmark Glenn Greenwald

Although I do my level best to maintain a diverse set of news sources, across the political spectrum, at some point it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge the unique debt I owe to Glenn Greenwald at Salon. Greenwald is known as a "civil-liberties fanatic" by his detractors, as though that's somehow a bad thing. He is tireless, merciless, arrogant, unapologetic, and singularly focused on one thing - accountability in government and the media. He has taken on George Bush, Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Dick Cheney, Chuck Todd, Keith Olbermann, Richard Cohen, David Brooks, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, and dozens of others - basically anyone he suspects of being more influenced by money, politics, influence, or prestige than they are by their various responsibilities to the public. He has no ambitions to be a TV star, and is famous for being exhaustively detailed and comprehensive in his arguments. On the torture issue in particular, he has a greater command of fact than pretty much anyone, save perhaps Jane Mayer. I don't by any means agree with Greenwald all of the time, but he is among the very best at what he does, and what I try to do on this page.

This week Greenwald is taking some heat from Joe Klein, for making public some disparaging comments the latter made about him in a supposedly private online journalists forum. Klein's been taking potshots at Greenwald for a couple of years, ever since Greenwald ripped apart some opinioneering Klein did on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. So I'm taking this opportunity, along with many others, to give Greenwald the support he deserves.

If you do a daily news roundup each morning, whether you're conservative or liberal, do yourself a favor and include this link in what you read each day. You won't regret it.

A quick business trip (darn actual work) has interfered with my upcoming post on what to do if you just can't conclude that torture never ever works. Looking forward to hearing what people think, so hopefully later this week.