Accountability for Torture (in Britain)
The contrast could not be more distressing.
The British government has decided to pay former detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, tens of millions of dollars in compensation and conduct an independent investigation into its role in the mistreatment of prisoners.
The United States still operates the Guantánamo camp, with no end in sight. None of the truly dangerous terrorists there have been brought to justice, while many prisoners are still held who never should have been. The government not only refuses to come clean on this ignoble history, but it is covering up the Bush administration’s abuses by denying victims a day in court.
...
The United States has neither compensated victims of illegal detention and abuse nor taken steps to hold the architects of the human rights abuses accountable. Indeed, some of the Obama administration’s biggest legal victories have come in shielding Bush-era officials ...
http://www.nytimes.com/... |
The Empty Earmarks Pledge
Millions of Americans are out of work. The government is running a $1.3 trillion deficit. We just had an election that sent at least one clear signal: cut that deficit. So what is Washington talking about? Earmarks, the $15.9 billion in projects designated by Congress in the last fiscal year for favorite projects. That’s less than half of 1 percent of federal spending.
Blaming earmarks for the country’s fiscal ills has been a favorite Tea Party talking point and a way to avoid a more serious discussion of the real mix of difficult spending cuts and tax increases that are the only way to dig the country out of this hole.
...
The reforms put in place by House Democrats in recent years have already eliminated some of the worst practices. Secret earmarks, which made it impossible to know which member had requested particularly egregious items, are now banned. All House members are now required to post their requests on the Web where voters can judge for themselves whether the spending is outrageous or useful. House members also have to certify that they have no financial interest in an earmark, and spending cannot be directed to for-profit enterprises.
The Senate should embrace the same transparency.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
|