How Many Americans Misunderstand the Separation of Church and State

© Josh Sager – August 2012

www.sarcasticliberal.blogspot.com

The United States is a purely secular country and was founded on the ideal that government should be completely separated from any religious sect. The term “separation of church and state”—a quote from Thomas Jefferson—is the most common label for the freedom of religion guaranteed by the 1^st Amendment of the constitution. Unfortunately, many modern citizens and elected officials have begun to twist the ideal of the 1^st Amendment to facilitate religious discrimination and the imposition of religious laws over non-believers.

The first sentence of the 1^st Amendment reads as such:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

-- 1^st Amendment of the Constitution—

The 1^st Amendment establishes a double-edged separation of church and state; one side of this separation prevents religion from taking control over the government, while the other side prevents government from interfering with religious expression.

The first edge of the separation of church and state prevents the state from establishing a religion. No legislation, either on the federal or state level, is constitutionally allowed to sanction or officially enforce a religious ideology; any law based upon a religious doctrine (ex. Muslim Sharia laws) is considered a violation of this amendment. In addition to preventing religious laws from being enacted, this separation prevents and official endorsement of a religion by the state (ex. mandating public prayer), and prevents the establishment of a state religion/church.

The Second edge of the separation of church and state ensures that the government cannot interfere with personal religious practices. Except in extreme cases (ex. human sacrifice), the government is barred from stopping of obstructing religious expression by individuals.

In modern politics, several right wing factions have begun to attack the very idea of the separation of church and state. Numerous political groups and politicians (ex. Rick Santorum) have begun to actively deny that this separation exists, and openly seek to establish religious laws. Unfortunately, three fundamental misunderstandings surrounding the separation of church and state have aided these individuals in their quest to erode the 1^st Amendment and impose their religious doctrines over secular society:

The separation of church and state does not prevent the government from stopping people from imposing their religion on others

The right to free exercise of religion is a personal right, and you have no constitutional right to impose your religion over anybody else. The government is not only allowed, but obligated, to step in and prevent an individual or organization from violating the religious practices of another. Just as everybody has the right to practice their religion, they also have the right not to be interfered with by other religions.

Many religious Americans are upset when their attempts to impose their religious practices over others are thwarted-they claim that their religious overreach is actually a religious practice and see any attempt to protect society from their religion to be an attack on religious liberty.

In the last several years, there have been large debates over the rights of homosexuals to marry, and the right of employers to refuse to cover contraception; both of these issues are examples of religious individuals attempting to impose their religion on society. If an employer’s religious beliefs dictate that they should not take contraception, they may choose not to take contraception, but they may not refuse to offer contraception in their employees’ insurance plans. If an individual believes that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage immoral, they are perfectly within their rights not to be gay and not to marry somebody of the same sex; however, they have no right to refuse others of the right to be gay or get married.

Religious beliefs do not exempt the religious from having to comply with civil laws

Even with the 1^st Amendment separation of church and state, an individual’s religious beliefs do not supersede the obligation to follow civil laws. Any exercise of religious beliefs that violates secular laws or endangers other citizens is not protected under the aegis of religious freedom.

Functionally speaking, this limitation on religious expression prevents people from shielding anti-social behavior by claiming that it is protected by religious freedom. For example: despite the fact that the bible actively promotes the execution of gays, rape, slavery, human sacrifice and genocide, these anti-social behaviors are not protected religious practices.

In modern politics, many politicians have begun attempting to carve religious exemptions into the civil law and allow religious individuals to have their own set of laws. The most pervasive examples of these exemptions are the attempts to insert conscience clauses into state medical laws. Numerous states have passed, or tried to pass, laws which would allow Christian doctors to refuse contraception or abortion services, even if this would risk the life of the mother.

Put plainly, the recent attempts to allow religious Americans to live under a different set of rules than secular Americans are wrong. You must follow the civil laws, regardless of whether or not they conflict with personal religious convictions. If you are a doctor who does not want to perform abortions, you have no right to take a job which would put you into the situation where you must perform an abortion to protect the mother, but then refuse to do your job—you can still be a doctor, but not one that may be required to perform an abortion (ex. and anesthesiologist). Amish individuals have the right to their beliefs, but they have no right to sue for discrimination when they are hired as a bus driver yet refuse to drive a bus because of their religion

Freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion

Just as the separation of church and state protects the right of individuals to practice their religion, it also protects the right of an individual to practice no religion. Atheism is not a religion, but it is accorded the same legal rights of any religious group. The right to not believe in god is protected and any attempt to infringe upon this right should be fought with the same level of intensity as any other type of religious bigotry.

Any attempt to impose institutional prayer or inscribe the idea of a god upon the public, regardless of the religion, is a violation of the separation of church and state. Those who argue that they can mandate prayer because they don’t specify a religion which must be practiced (ex. official school prayer), are simply wrong and must be fought.  

The most extreme examples of bigotry against atheists can be found in cases of custody battles where the atheist parent loses custody of their children. In several instances (ex. Craig Scarbury of Illinois), judges have used atheism as a justification of removing custody of children from parents during divorce preceding—the religious parent is given custody over the child, regardless of the other factors, based entirely upon their religion. This situation is analogous to a Jewish parent losing custody because the judge of the case supports the Christian parent, yet there is comparably little outcry when the victim of this discrimination is an atheist.

Conclusion

A great many Americans misunderstand the idea of the separation of church and state. The misunderstandings surrounding this separation have opened the door to religious zealots imposing their religion over civil society. Religion is not a shield which allows individuals to ignore the law, nor is it a protected religious practice for an individual to impose their religion over others. Put plainly, until a vast majority of Americans understand the separation of church and state better, we will continue to see politicians attempt to perform end-runs around the 1^st Amendment.   

The Criminalization of Students - Occupier Version

© Josh Sager – January 2012

Students in the United States are currently facing numerous problems with their educational system; these problems are widely varied and include issues ranging from the shrinking school budgets and resources to the decrease in extra-curricular activities. Out of all of the problems facing students in primary schools, the criminalization of students is arguably the most dangerous and costly. Unfortunately, there has been little to no public scrutiny on the criminalization of students, nor the motives behind this criminalization.

In recent years, behavioral problems in primary school students have transitioned from civil school offenses, punished by detentions, to criminal offenses, punished through fines and even jail time. Students who get in trouble, even for non-violent offenses, are increasingly likely to face jail time or significant fines rather than detentions or suspensions; this criminalization of student behaviors has been labeled the “school to prison pipeline” by activist groups, and has become a significant issue in some areas of the United States.

Here are just a few examples of the school to prison pipeline:

• A 13 year old student in Florida was arrested for farting in class, and charged with “disrupting school functions”.
• A 12 year old student in New York was handcuffed and arrested for writing “I love my friends Abby and Faith” on her desk in erasable pencil.
• A 10 year old student in Florida was arrested and charged with “possession of a weapon on school property” (a felony), for bringing a steak knife to school in order to cut a part of her lunch—a piece of steak.
• Two 8 year olds in New Jersey were arrested and charged for making “terroristic threats” when they used paper guns during a game of “cops and robbers”

The school to prison pipeline only serves to victimize students for normal childhood behavior and enforce draconian punishments on even minor discipline problems. While farting, doodling, fidgeting, or acting out in class may be irritating to teachers, there is no way that these things should become criminal offenses. Student discipline problems must be punished, but this punishment should be limited to detentions, suspensions or, in serious cases, expulsions.

When minor disciplinary offenses are criminalized, the students and families suffer immense consequences. Criminal records, even for trivial offenses, will follow a student around forever and can have terrible disruptive effects on later life. Fines and court fees are often heavily burdensome on families, particularly when the families are poor, and act as a backdoor tax on children’s education.

If a student is criminally charged, rather than simply given a detention, it goes on their record and can haunt them forever. Any student who has a criminal record often has a very difficult time obtaining financial assistance for college, and can often have a difficult time getting a job. Criminal records limit the options available to students and can often result in a huge decrease in lifetime achievement. Due to the severity of the consequences for criminalizing student behavior, it makes no sense to punish minor offenses criminally; some student offenses, such as assault, drug dealing, and theft, should be dealt with by the police, but farting in class is obviously not worthy of such criminal scrutiny.

Criminalizing student behavior often involves massive fines and court costs levied against the child’s families. Fines for “disruptive” conduct—such as farting, fidgeting, being late, or having untied shoes—and court costs have become commonplace in many schools which embrace the criminalization of student offenses; such fines and court costs quickly add up and can easily cost families hundreds of dollars a year. Families which are struggling in the modern economic woes of the United States cannot afford such costs and may face the choice between putting food on the table and paying the fines accrued when their child farted in class. If the fines and costs are not paid, the students will often face increased consequences and can sometimes be arrested and jailed for a failure to pay.

Fines and court costs are a type of backdoor tax which acts as a highly regressive source of income for schools. By increasing fines, schools are able to raise money from students’ families and politicians are able to claim that they aren’t raising taxes; as raising taxes is toxic in many conservative areas of the country (ex. Texas), fines and court costs are an effective way to fund schools on the backs of the least fortunate. By fining the poor and middle class students, schools are able to redistribute costs away from the general public and allow politicians to justify cutting taxes on the wealthy. Schools are given a financial motive to criminalize their disciplinary systems, and students are simply the innocent bystanders who are bled dry.

Not only is the criminalization of student offenses costly to students and their families, but it fosters discrimination. Recent studies by the Department of Education have shown that minority students are over 3 times more likely to receive punishments for discipline problems in schools; this problem is exacerbated further in many areas of the south, where racism and latent bigotry often increase this disparity between punishments. When combined with the disparities in punishment based upon race, the criminalization of students leads to a massive problem for minority students. Minority students are far more likely to face criminal punishments than white students and thus are far more likely to suffer the severe consequences associated with criminalized school offenses. 

The situation which is created during the criminalization of students is one of a two tiered educational system: on top, there are the wealthy and white students who avoid punishment and are not likely to suffer severe criminal offenses; on the bottom, there are the poor and minority students who are arrested, fined, jailed, and labeled as criminals simply for acting like the children that they are.

Gun Regulations Modeled off of Abortion Restrictions

© Josh Sager – 7/22/12

www.SarcasticLiberal.blogspot.com

The United States constitution guarantees residents of the United States certain rights and restricts the government from infringing upon many of the free choices of individuals. Among these rights, the right to bear arms and the right for women to choose to get an abortion are two which have been subject to extreme controversies.  By saying that abortion rights and gun rights are both controversial constitutionally protected rights, I do not support a false-equivalency between abortion and gun ownership past the facts that they are both constitutionally protected rights which have been controversial and polarizing issues in US politics.

Abortion rights are a matter of personal control over ones’ body and are protected under the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment (as established by Roe v. Wade); under current interpretation of the constitution, abortion rights are protected until the fetus is viable and any attempt to limit the right to an abortion before viability is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, many religious individuals, particularly right wing Christians are extremely active in their fight against abortion rights and have promoted unconstitutional restrictions on abortion rights; these restrictions seek to narrow the scope of abortion rights, make it harder for women to get abortions/shame women, attack abortion providers, and make it more expensive to access abortion services.  

Modern gun rights are established by the interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment of the constitution and are justified through an argument that people have the right to defend their person; unlike with abortion rights, gun rights are potentially dangerous to others and the current interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment allows for regulations which restrict gun ownership (ex. barring convicted felons from owning weapons). In the last decade, gun control regulations have decayed to the point where assault weapons (assault rifles) and expanded magazines are legal in some states, and gun shows can sell virtually any weapon to virtually any individual (without a background check). 

While both abortion rights and gun rights are constitutionally protected, gun rights have been expanded and protected beyond their constitutional intent, while abortion rights have suffered from innumerable, unconstitutional, restrictions. This disparity is due to several reasons, but the primary reason is that there have been concerted and well-funded campaigns to attack abortion rights and protect gun rights enacted by right wing groups; in the absence of an organized left wing pushback against these right wing campaigns, abortion rights have shrunk and gun rights have expanded during the past decade.

In the face of the dichotomy between the protection of gun rights and restrictions on abortion rights, I propose a campaign where left wing politicians translate a parody of right wing abortion restriction onto gun rights; this campaign consists of getting left wing politicians to transpose the draconian anti-choice regulations and legislations into analogous restrictions upon gun buyers/sellers. By reversing the anti-choice regulations onto guns, left wing politicians will be able to highlight the absurdity of the right wing attacks on abortion, while either forcing the right wing to contradict the justifications behind their ant-abortion regulatory regimes or significantly reducing the number of gun sales in their states. If right wing states wish to impose unreasonable and intentionally burdensome rights upon abortion, a constitutionally protected procedure, then they should have no problem with left wing states imposing similar regulations upon gun sales.

Restrictions on Gun Sellers:

Anti-choice activists and politicians have recently begun attempting to restrict the providers of abortion services to the point where they are unable to perform their function. By attacking abortion providers, these activists are able to de-facto ban abortion without overtly banning the procedure (and running up against the wall of Roe v. Wade). Strategically, this indirect method of attacking abortion is far more effective and pervasive than overt attacks on abortion rights.

The justifications that anti-choice activists use to argue for increased regulations on abortions include the protection of the women who seek abortions and the promotion of good medical safety but these justifications don’t hold up to scrutiny. While promoting medical ethics and safety are admirable, the regulations pushed by these individuals are intentionally over-restrictive. If the creators of these regulations truly desired women to have access to safe abortion services, they would not be attempting to ban abortion and bring back the days where back alley abortions and coat-hangers were the only ways by which women could access abortion services.

Two good examples of intentionally draconian restrictions, also referred to as “TRAP” laws, would be those passed in Virginia during the latter half of 2011 and those passed in Mississippi during 2012:

In Virginia, abortion clinics were mandated to follow the architectural codes of normal hospitals, despite the fact that they don’t specialize in surgical services; these regulations demanded that the hallways and waiting rooms of abortion clinics be certain dimensions (necessary in hospitals to allow many wheelchairs and stretchers to pass each-other) and that the electrical wiring/air filtration of clinics be far above what is necessary. Abortion clinics are often small and have a very difficult time complying with such restrictive regulations, thus these regulations are often a death sentence for the clinic.

In Mississippi, the state has passed a set of restrictions on abortion providers and doctors so strict that the only thing preventing MS from being the first state to ban abortion is a judicial order. These restrictions not only put new regulations on the facilities of abortion providers, but forces all doctors who provide abortion services to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The requirements for admitting privileges at local hospitals are fairly detailed and are virtually impossible for abortion doctors to obtain—they simply do not admit enough people, often live in another state (only MS residents can get admitting privileges), and face incredible pushback from local activists.

States with conservative Republican or fundamentalist religious legislatures have been passing dozens of intentionally over-restrictive abortion regulations in service to their anti-choice ideology. Progressives and Democrats need to take the very restrictions which right wing anti-choice activists use and translate versions of them onto gun sellers. Through restricting the location where gun sellers can set up shop and mandating that they have specific/costly building requirements, progressives can parody anti-choice regulations and force right wing activists into a corner. In reacting to such gun regulations, conservatives must either debunk their own tactics against abortion in service to their pro-gun agenda, or abandon their pro-gun agendas in liberal states.

Restrictions on abortion providers are justified through medical safety arguments and restrictions upon gun sellers can be justified through the similar argument of public safety; new regulations on gun sellers should mimic TRAP abortion regulations by forcing gun sellers to comply with extremely stringent and expensive measures to ensure the safety of their establishments. Here are a few examples of such draconian regulations:    

• Ø  Limit the locations of gun shops to ensure that they are a certain distance away from schools, public parks, and areas where children gather.
• Ø  Mandate that all gun shops have bullet resistant walls and windows—just in case there is an accidental discharge of ammunition.
• Ø  Mandate that all gun shops have two very high grade safes—one for guns and the other for ammunition.
• Ø  Mandate that all gun shops have top of the line security systems and be staffed with a live guard at all times.

These new regulations on gun sellers would be extremely expensive and difficult to comply with—just as TRAP abortion regulations are to abortion clinics—and would be very costly to the states’ gun sellers. The overlap between the anti-choice and pro-gun ideologies (essentially the entire right wing) means that this course of action would give anti-abortion activists a taste of their own medicine—a medicine which they cannot fight without attacking their own attempts to impose restrictions on abortion clinics.

In addition to regulations on facilities, several states have attempted to make abortion doctors legally liable if they unintentionally perform an illegal abortion. An analogous regulation for gun sellers would be to hold gun shop owners partially liable for all harm done by a weapon which they sell to an individual who has a criminal record or who lacks a current gun permit; I do not see this as an unreasonable statute; however, it is modeled upon an anti-abortion law and can be enacted in parallel to the other, more extreme, restrictions.

Restrictions on Gun Buyers

Draconian abortion regulations have not only targeted abortion providers, but the women who are seeking abortions. During the past few years, waiting periods, mandated evaluations, financial penalties, and even invasive procedures have been used by state governments to attack abortion rights. These restrictions attempt to make abortion as painful, embarrassing, expensive and difficult get as possible, in an attempt to shame women from exercising their rights.

While over a dozen states have passed a these legislative shamings of women, the most extreme and egregious example of this type of regulation was seen in Virginia. In the early months of 2012, the Virginia legislature attempted to pass a bill which mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds for all women who are seeking an abortion—regardless of whether these women were raped, incest victims, or underage. A trans-vaginal ultrasound is an ultrasound delivered via vaginal probe, thus it is extremely invasive and entirely unnecessary. This law is so extreme that many have described it as the legislation which legally mandates the rape of women who are seeking abortions.

Here are a few examples of draconian gun laws based off of existing abortion restrictions:

• Ø  Mandate that all individuals attempting to buy a weapon receive a full physical examination, CAT Scan, and colonoscopy before buying their weapon—simply to ensure that they are healthy enough to properly handle a gun. In order to keep governmental costs down, the individual will be forced to pay for the procedures out of pocket.

This mandate is based around the various laws which anti-choice legislators have passed to mandate unnecessary medical procedures on women who are seeking a constitutionally protected service. To add insult to injury, women are often forced to pay for these medical procedures. In recent years, such laws have been passed in numerous states, including Virginia, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Texas. If it is okay to mandate unnecessary and invasive procedures on women who are seeking an abortion, it is okay to mandate such procedures on men who want guns.

• Ø  Mandate that all individuals who wish to purchase a weapon have a psychological evaluation before their purchase; this evaluation should occur in a state facility, of which there is only one in the state. These evaluations must happen before each gun sale, regardless of whether the buyer has received previous evaluations.

This mandate is based off of the abortion restrictions which have reduced the numbers of abortion clinics in a state, thus forcing women to travel significant distances to receive their procedure. By making the process of buying a gun inconvenient and mandating that prospective buyers travel to inconveniently located evaluation centers in order to get their evaluation, gun buyers can get a taste of what it feels like to have the practice of their rights obstructed.

• Ø  A three day waiting period must be enforced from the time of application for a gun license and a gun purchase; during this waiting period, the gun purchaser must visit a crime victim support center and listen to the stories of several parents who have lost children to gun violence and view graphic photos of gunshot wounds—so as not to be overly cruel, the purchaser may choose to look away from the screen during the viewing of these pictures.   

Numerous states have passed mandatory waiting periods for women who are attempting to get abortions, and many have mandated that these women visit “pregnancy help centers” during the wait. The waiting period is intended to draw out the decision (giving the women time to regret her choices and feel guilt) and be as obstructive as possible. Pregnancy help centers are most often run by anti-choice activists and religious groups and are nothing more than places where women are told that they are evil for considering abortion, lied to about the side effects of abortion, and told that they are going to hell; in short, they exist to shame/scare women from away from exercising their constitutional rights.

If anti-choice legislatures are able to pass laws which mandate women to have waiting periods and visits to anti-choice groups, then it is possible for anti-gun legislatures to pass laws which mandate similar things for gun buyers. Instead of going to religious faux-clinics, prospective gun buyers should be forced to go to victim’s advocacy centers and witness the effects of gun violence. As several states have passed legislation forcing women to look at their ultrasounds and have the fetus described to them, it is certainly okay for these centers to force prospective gun buyers to listen to parents who have lost children to gun violence and view graphic photographs of people killed by guns (similar to the old shock videos around car accidents shown in traffic schools).  

Conclusion

Ultimately, what we, as a society, need is a balanced system of laws and regulations for both gun rights and abortion rights. Regardless of ones’ personal opinions on these rights, they are part of our constitution (or at least it interpretation), and cannot be abolished without a constitutional amendment.

If the right wing wishes to enact absurd, repressive and ridiculously harsh regulations on abortion providers in order to shut them down, they cannot protest if the left wing does the same to gun sellers. The right to bear arms is far less absolute than the right for a woman to have access to an abortion (gun rights can constitutionally be taken away in some circumstances, yet abortion rights cannot), and there must be a re-balancing of the regulatory scales to reflect this truth.

Most, if not all, of these draconian regulations on guns are far too extreme to be rational gun laws; this is okay, because they were designed as a protest rather than rational policy (similar to how some pro-choice legislators have attempted to attach mandated prostate exams for men who want Viagra to TRAP abortion restrictions). By enforcing extreme gun-control laws which parallel extreme anti-abortion laws, pro-choice activists can create a parody of anti-choice policy and ensure that gun enthusiasts (who are often right wing “pro-life” activists) feel the very pain which they would impose upon women who are seeking abortions.

Rational Gun Laws

After discussing intentionally draconian gun laws, it is important to conclude with a platform of rational gun laws. Unlike anti-abortion activists, who simply live within the binary choice of banning abortion, supporters of gun-control must suggest rational laws to regulate firearms. Here is a short summery of my ideal gun-control regulatory regime:

1.      Nobody with a felony record, mental illness, pending criminal charges, or place on the terrorist watch list is allowed to buy or carry guns within the United States. In addition to these restrictions, nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to own a gun and nobody under the age of 15 should be allowed to operate a gun (even with parental consent/supervision).

2.      No guns are to be allowed in the following locations: Religious institutions, schools, government buildings, national parks, places where alcohol is sold/consumed, sports stadiums, large public gatherings, political rallies/voting location, or any areas which have large numbers of children (zoos, amusement parks, playgrounds, etc.).

3.      Before buying a gun, an individual must pass a psychiatric evaluation (with federal standards), and be certified competent in the safe handling of a firearm (identical to a driving test for the right to drive a car). The results of these tests will be confidential and not used in any capacity other than determining whether an individual has the ability to safely handle a firearm.

4.      The only guns which are legal for civilians within the United States are bolt-action rifles, scatter-guns (shotguns/bird-rifles), and non-automatic pistols (revolver or semi-automatic). Any individual seeking another type of gun may attempt to buy one, but only after submitting a written statement to the federal government, describing the exact purpose and need for such a firearm (ex. private security personnel may require assault weapons for overseas government contracts).

5.      All legally sold guns must have their barrel striations and firing pin imprints logged and registered to the government; any intentional alterations to these components should be a felony and result in an immediate loss of the right to carry a firearm.

6.      Straw-purchasing and the personal sale of firearms without disclosure to the government should be a felony. If a gun is stolen, the legal owner has 72 hours from the discovery of the theft to report it to the police, or they will lose their right to own a firearm for a minimum of a year and will be subject to a fine.

7.      All ammunition sales should require identification and should be immediately reported to the government. In addition to this reporting, there should be caps on ammunition sales, both on the number of bullets which can be bought in a single instance and on the number of bullets which can be bought per year; gun ranges and professional shooters are exempt to these limits, but only after receiving a federal waiver.

8.      No extended magazines or specialty ammunition are to be allowed for civilian use (tracer, explosive, sabot, etc.); a waiver can be obtained for this restriction, but only after a written application is submitted to the government, and the individual has been certified in the safe handling of the ammunition (ex. if a movie crew wants to use tracer rounds for a scene).

9.      Without receiving a federal waiver, no individual may own more than three of a single category of firearm (sidearm, rifle, or scatter-gun), putting a cap of nine guns for each individual. If an individual wishes to obtain more than three of a single category of gun (hunters, collectors, etc.), they must be evaluated and approved by the federal government.

10.  When storing a firearm, it must have a trigger-lock (fingerprint based, if possible) or be stored in a secure location (locking drawer, lockbox, safe, etc.). Any violation of this regulation which is discovered by authorities will result in a fine or loss of the right to own a gun for a period of time.

In order to ensure that there is no race to the bottom for gun control, these regulations should be based in the federal government. Any state which wished to further restrict gun rights should have the right to do so, but the above regulations should create the federal baseline for American gun laws.

Petition: Don’t Prosecute Whistleblower Who Revealed Torture Program

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/26047/dont-prosecute-whistleblower-who-revealed-torture-program/

BY JOSH SAGER ON JULY 7, 2012 

Target: The Department of Justice

Goal: To stop the prosecution of John Kiriakou — an ex-CIA agent who is being prosecuted for revealing the United States torture program.

During much of the Bush administration, the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) captured, imprisoned and tortured numerous suspected “enemy combatants”. These combatants were held in secret prisons or on foreign US military bases and were not given access to any legal or humanitarian assistance. For years, the United States public was unaware of the terrible actions of its government, but eventually the US torture program was leaked.

Once allegations of torture surfaced, the US government attempted to cover itself from liability through the relabeling of torture techniques as “enhanced interrogation” techniques; these techniques included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and mock executions — all of which are recognized torture techniques under international and domestic law.

John Kiriakou was the first primary source to publicly call the actions of the United States torture, rather than the official falsehood “enhanced interrogation”. Unfortunately, the United States government retaliated by charging Kiriakou under the 1917 Espionage Act for his exposure of “confidential information”. Kiriakou’s only “crime” was to expose the war crimes of the United States government to its people, and he should be protected as a whistleblower.

Sign this petition to demand that the Department of Justice stop its prosecution of John Kiriakou for his exposure of torture. It is absurd to charge a man who exposed torture to the public for espionage, particularly given the fact that the torturers (even those who admit their crimes publicly) have yet to feel any consequences for their crimes.

PETITION LETTER:

Dear United States Department of Justice,

You are currently prosecuting John Kiriakou, an ex-CIA agent, for the offense of revealing the United States torture program. In 2007, Kiriakou gave several interviews to media outlets, during which he revealed information about the CIA interrogation program and refuted the legal fig-leaf of the term “enhanced interrogation”. Kiriakou’s actions, while they did reveal confidential information, are clearly those of a whistleblower and should be protected rather than punished.

The exposure of illegal actions by the government, particularly where there has been a cover-up by officials, is not treason. The prosecution of whistleblowing who release such information appears to be politically motivated retaliation, if not an intentional attempt to intimidate future leakers.

I, as well as everybody else to sign this petition, implore you at the DOJ to drop the prosecution of John Kiriakou for his whistleblowing activities. Whistleblowers are necessary and prevent our government from escaping accountability by simply classifying all things which make it look bad. Your agency is threatening a man who exposed war crimes, yet you have declined to prosecute the perpetrators of the war crimes which were exposed; this is not justice.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

Petition: Stop New Hampshire From Privatizing its Prison System

Stop New Hampshire From Privatizing its Prison System

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON MAY 27, 2012 6:11 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/21900/stop-new-hampshire-from-privatizing-their-prison-system/

Target: The New Hampshire Department of Corrections

Goal: Do not continue the plan to fully privatize the New Hampshire prison system for adult males.

The New Hampshire Department of Corrections is currently in the middle of a process aimed at fully privatizing the prison system for adult male inmates in their state. The Proposal by the NH Department of Corrections, offered at the end of 2011, proposed several different options for the prisons contract and asked for private prison corporations to submit plans and bids to the state. If a plan and price is agreed upon, and this privatization plan finalized, New Hampshire would become the state with the largest percentage of its prisons being privatized.

Private prison corporations claim that their prisons are cheaper for the state, more efficient, and just as safe as publicly run prisons; unfortunately, these claims have not been upheld up by the facts. As shown by a study, performed by the Arizona Department of Corrections (in relation to their private prisons), private prisons cost slightly more money to the taxpayer to operate and supply an inferior product.

In order to reduce their costs and increase profits, private prisons utilize several tactics which harm the public: They cherry-pick prisoners who are less expensive to imprison and don’t operate rehabilitation programs within their facilities. As healthy inmates save money on medical costs and non-violent inmates save money on the costs of guards, most private prisons intentionally stack their populations with these types of prisoners; the sick and violent prisoners remain in the public prisons system, for the public to pay for directly. Once in a private prison, most inmates will not receive sufficient rehabilitation programs, because such programs cut into the bottom line of the corporation; rehabilitation helps prevent future crime, and the private prisons’ rejection of it for a personal gain raises the risk of future damage to society (recidivism).

In addition to supply an inferior product and costing more, private prisons lobby to increase criminal penalties. By lobbying politicians to criminalize more actions, increase sentence lengths, and apply minimum sentencing laws, private prisons attempt to increase the number of people in their institutions.

This petition is directed at the New Hampshire Department of Corrections and is intended to convince them of the terrible mistake which they are verging on making. Private prisons are ineffective and lead to a perversion of the ideals of the justice system; the goals of the justice system should be justice itself, not turning a profit. Please sign this petition in order to join in this protest and protect the integrity of the justice system in New Hampshire.

PETITION LETTER

Dear New Hampshire Department of Corrections,

Your agency is currently considering the mass-privatization of the prison infrastructure in your state. Unfortunately, this course of action has proven to be expensive, ineffective, and with some serious negative externalities.

States which have privatized portions of their prison infrastructures (for example, Arizona) have not experienced decreases in costs. In addition to the lack of a decrease in cost to the taxpayer due to privatizing, private prisons have sub-standard rehabilitation programs and provide a lower quality of life to their prisoners compared to state prisons; you are literally paying more for less when you privatize your prisons (under the current privatization model).

Once installed in a state, private prisons lobby state legislatures to increase criminal penalties, in an attempt to increase the prison population. The more people who go to jail, and for longer, the more of a profit these corporations make (particularly if these criminals are non-violent offenders). The mal-incentive created by attaching a profit motive to imprisoning American citizens will inevitably lead to tragic results.

I would not expect you to take my word on these claims against your plan to privatize without evidence: Please review this study, created by the Justice Policy Institute, or other non-private prison industry studies assessing the consequences of prison privatization to confirm the validity of these claims.

I, as well as everybody else who signed this letter, implore you to reject the idea of prison privatization in the state of New Hampshire. Please look at the available evidence and choose the safer, less expensive and more effective option — keeping prisons run by the states, as institutes of public service — rather than transforming them into a for-profit industry.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

Petition: Demand Accuracy in Casualty Reporting for Drone Strikes

Demand Accuracy in Casualty Reporting for Drone Strikes

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON JUNE 1, 2012 5:25 AM

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/22425/demand-accuracy-in-casualty-reporting-for-drone-strikes/

Target: President Obama

Goal: Stop considering all military-age males killed in drone strikes to be “enemy combatants,” which can lead to under-reporting of civilian casualites.

For the past several years, the United States has been utilizing drone strikes in order to kill those suspected of terrorist activity. These drone strikes have been promoted as very effective in killing terrorists, completely safe to American troops, and having a low collateral civilian casualty record. Unfortunately, recent revelations as to how the military classifies civilian casualties versus killed enemy combatants have shown that the US drone program may have  serious problems in the accuracy of its casualty reporting.

Current casualty statistics, intended to show the effectiveness of drone strikes, count all military-age males killed in drone strikes to be “enemy combatants.” Unless those killed as collateral damage of the drone strike are posthumously proven to be innocent, which is particularly difficult considering the fact that missile strikes often leave their victims unrecognizable, they are reported as hostiles. This method of reporting casualties is absolutely inaccurate and can only lead to the underreporting of civilian causalities caused by drone strikes.

If all males of military age killed in drone strikes are reported to be enemy combatants, barring proof otherwise, it will inevitably lead to the over-reporting of killed combatants and the under-reporting of dead civilians (as many killed civilians are counted as combatants). This method of reporting will skew the analysis of the effectiveness of drone strikes and will minimize the number of innocent people reported to be killed in collateral damage.

To put this situation in perspective: If two suspected terrorists were killed with a missile-strike during a soccer game and eight other players (young males) were killed, it is conceivable that the casualty statistics would reflect ten killed enemy combatants, rather than two dead combatants and eight dead civilians.

Regardless of whether one supports the drone program, everybody can agree that reporting of casualties caused by drone strikes should be as accurate as possible. Inflating the numbers of combatants killed, while minimizing the number of civilians killed, is simply bad reporting and will lead to people supporting bad policy.

This petition is directed at President Barack Obama, and is intended to convince him to push for changing the methods by which drone strike casualties are reported. Those confirmed to be terrorists should be counted as such, but all who are killed as collateral damage should be considered innocent until proven guilty. While this change will not help the families of the innocents killed in drone strikes, it will allow us to accurately assess whether the civilian cost to life from drone strikes justifies the benefits.

PETITION LETTER

Dear President Barack Obama,

Currently, the United States is engaged in a widespread armed drone campaign. While many Americans see this campaign as controversial, this letter is not addressing the use of drones, but rather the methods of reporting casualties.

It has recently come to the attention of the public that all male, military age, casualties, of drone strikes are, by default, considered enemy combatants. Only through a posthumous investigation, which is sometimes impossible, can such a casualty be considered a non-combatant.

This method of classifying casualties from drone strikes is deceptive and can only result in inaccuracies in the statistics of drone strikes; many casualties who are actually civilians will inevitably classified as enemy combatants.

I, as well as everybody else who signed this letter, ask you to push for the re-classification of drone strike casualties. Casualties of drone strikes should only be considered enemy combatants if there is conclusive proof of guilt, and the default classification of casualties should be non-combatant. You were a constitutional law professor, thus you know – and probably taught your students – that the American Justice system is built upon the ideal of a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven; while drone strikes are not a domestic legal situation, there is no reason why this assumption should not apply in the reporting of casualties from drone strikes.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]