National Security

Peter Roskam Opponent Ben Lowe Reacts to Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Renewal

On April 8, 2010, in Ben Lowe, Military, National Security, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

Republican Peter Roskam has been a staunch supporter of the Bush-Cheney brand of militarism that has bankrupted our country and gave us an illegal and totally unnecessary war in Iraq and has left us in a quagmire in Afghanistan through neglect and mismanagement. So we were not at all surprised when we heard him on WLS AM this morning, trashing the new START treaty with renowned disarmament experts Don Wade and Roma. If you like wars and lots of them, Peter Roskam is your man. If you like military spending that exceeds that of the next highest 45 countries combined, then Peter Roskam is your man. If you think the quest for ever more destructive weapons is a good thing, then Peter’s your guy. If you want a new cold-war style nuclear arms race, Peter’s on it.

We happen to think there is a better way and we support the leadership of President Obama in taking the first step toward elimination of nuclear weapons since the original treaty was signed in 1991. And we think that Peter Roskam’s opponent, Democrat Ben Lowe of Wheaton is of the same mindset.

Ben doesn’t have the same instant access to media that Peter Roskam does, so you didn’t get to hear him on the radio this morning to present another side to the issue of the START treaty. But we did receive from his campaign this morning a statement, so here it is:

“Today’s signature and renewal of START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), sends a strong message to the world that the United States is committed to being a leader in the reduction of nuclear weapons, as well as their systems of delivery. We must not be under any pretensions that this treaty in any way eliminates the danger of massive nuclear damage to our civilization. However, we are convinced that it is a significant step in the right direction towards a world free of nuclear weapons. Ultimately this event highlights American leadership in light of rogue states heading in the opposite direction in their nuclear warfare programs, and, proposes a significant shift towards a more sensible moral compass on life and inter-government cooperation.

We are also in agreement with President’s Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review released a few days ago, and encourage the assessment of nuclear weapons as a measure of very last resort. The administrations decision to refrain from using nuclear weapons in the face of biological and chemical attack is extremely controversial but we agree with it on the principle that responding to a non-nuclear attack with a nuclear attack could easily spiral out control as the attacking enemy would be dealt a far more devastating blow than they originally inflicted upon the US, and, would be far more willing to entertain an even more disastrous nuclear response.”

Tagged with: • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam’s Fear About Guantanamo Transfer is Misplaced

On December 16, 2009, in Homeland Security, National Security, Peter Roskam, Terrorism, by RSR
0

As the administration announced this week its intention to acquire the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois in order to house prisoners to be transferred from the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Peter Roskam  continued his efforts to sow fear about the planned transfer. Roskam issued a brief statement on Tuesday:

“The decision to move some of the world’s worst terrorists to Illinois is an ill-advised move that ultimately will be regretted. The proponents have failed to prove how this move will make America safer. Let’s be clear: the Administration is not closing Guantanamo, they are simply moving Guantanamo to Illinois. Illinois deserves a better Christmas present than hardened terrorists. ”

He later held a press conference with the rest of the Illinois Republican delegation to object to the proposed transfer.

Roskam’s arguments against the move have been unsubstantial. He does not define how the housing of these inmates in a supermax facility will pose a threat. His stance appears to be political posturing rather than a serious concern about a security threat.  It is sad that he would block the move for political gain at the expense of the people of Thomson, who favor the move and desperately need the jobs the prison will provide.

Senator Dick Durbin and Governor Quinn offered a saner perspective on Thomson yesterday:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is reason to be disconcerted about the transfer of Guantanamo inmates to Thomson, though not for reason of a security threat as Roskam would have us believe.

No, the problem is that the Guantanamo closure, while perhaps a symbolic measure of some importance, leaves unresolved the issues associated with the use of military tribunals and of indefinite detention of prisoners without criminal charges or trial. The President and Congress must still act to correct the abuses that they inherited from the Bush Administration. They cannot simply sweep them under the carpet. That is what we should really be afraid of. The American Civil Liberties Union had the following reaction to the news about Thomson:

“Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor’s policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it’s occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one’s accusers.

“It is also greatly disturbing that the administration will continue the use of military commissions, which are no more acceptable in Illinois or any other U.S. state than in Guantánamo. Despite some improvements, the commissions still fall far short of the legal standards necessary to comply with constitutional and international standards, allowing, for example, the use of coerced and hearsay evidence that would not be allowed in federal court. The proceedings will achieve neither reliable justice nor a restoration of America’s credibility around the world.”

“The administration must also make very clear what category of detainee will be transferred to Thomson in the future and what kind of prison conditions will apply. Detainees not charged with a crime should not be subject to punitive conditions meant for sentenced prisoners who have been found guilty in a court of law, and all conditions must comply with the Geneva Conventions. “The administration will no doubt be looking to Congress for legislative buy-in for this facility, and as both branches work together, we strongly urge lawmakers to legislate responsibly and not set any policies or precedents for indefinite detention on U.S. soil, or create any violation of the Geneva Conventions.

“The Obama administration’s announcement today contradicts everything the president has said about the need for America to return to leading with its values. American values do not contemplate disregarding our Constitution and skirting the criminal justice system. After detaining hundreds of individuals without the basic due process rights that define our justice system for almost eight years, it is time to charge suspects where evidence exists and repatriate and transfer the rest to countries where they won’t be tortured.”

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Should Co-Sponsor “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010″

On December 1, 2009, in Deficit, Military, National Security, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

Republican Congressman Peter Roskam seems to be gearing up to run for re-election focusing on the enormous national debt amassed during the Bush Administration and in cleaning up in the aftermath of his failed Presidency. Roskam’s campaign recently launched a new website, www.americasnationaldebt.com,  featuring, among other things, one of the best photographs of Roskam I have seen. (So sad he’s aligned with the bad guys – we need more cute Democratic candidates). There is some solid information on the site, and Roskam is correct in identifying the growing debt as a serious issue.

Roskam speaks of the need for bipartisan efforts at dealing with this enormous problem:

This is a problem created by both political parties, and as such, both political parties need to come together to decrease the national debt with the same vigor and enthusiasm with which Congress indebted the American people.

Roskam, of course, doesn’t mention the role the irresponsible Bush tax cuts and military adventures played in incurring all this debt, nor does he mention the enormous costs we are incurring in cleaning up after the financial crisis resulting from Republican de-regulatory policies. But Roskam is right in saying that we need to work together to fix the problem.

And Roskam now has a perfect opportunity to put his money where his mouth is.

If we are to take Mr. Roskam seriously about the nation’s debt – if this is not merely political posturing – then Roskam must sign on as a co-sponsor of H.R. 4130, the “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010″. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a temporary surtax to offset the costs of the Afghanistan war.

This bill’s sponsor, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, lays out the rationale:

“For the last year, as we’ve struggled to pass healthcare reform, we’ve been told that we have to pay for the bill – and the cost over the next decade will be about a trillion dollars. Now the President is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the healthcare bill, that would not be paid for. We believe that’s wrong,” said Obey. “Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for.”

“The only people who’ve paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families,” Obey added. “We believe that if this war is to be fought, it’s only fair that everyone share the burden. That’s why we are offering legislation to impose a graduated surtax so that the cost of the war is not borrowed.”

Working on the principal that if the President and the nation decide that the war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for, the Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010 requires the President to set the surtax so that it fully pays for the previous year’s war cost. However, the bill allows for a one year delay in the implementation of the tax if the President determines that the economy is too weak to sustain that kind of tax change, and it exempts members of our military who have served in combat since September 11, 2001 along with their families, and the families of the fallen.

“As presidential historian Robert Dallek reminds us, ‘war kills off great reform movements’,” Obey said, noting that World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. “If we don’t address the cost of this war, we will continue shoving billions of dollars in taxes off on future generations and will devour money that could be used to rebuild our economy by fixing our broken health care system, expanding educational opportunities and job training possibilities, attacking our long term energy problems and building stronger communities. We cannot allow the war to derail that potential”

Under the bill, a 1% surtax would be imposed on families with incomes of $150,000 or less. Higher surtaxes would be imposed on more well-to-do taxpayers. Military service members and their families would be exempt.

Even the rather conservative news magazine, The Economist, has endorsed the plan:

The “Share Our Sacrifice Act”, the proposal by David Obey, a Democratic representative from Wisconsin, to institute a “war tax” to fund America’s war in Afghanistan, is a bill that probably should have been passed eight years ago. The Bush administration’s decision not to increase taxes to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was likely taken with the view that hiding the costs would increase public support. In fact, it undermined it.

As Spencer Ackerman writes, Yoking the war to the public in whose name it is waged will allow for a healthy public pressure to be placed on the Obama administration. Anyone who has covered the military during the past eight years—and especially those of us who’ve been to Iraq and Afghanistan—has heard endlessly the military lament that only a select and small proportion of the country is actually at war. The war tax ends all that. I won’t be revealing any confidences when I say that one military listserv I’m on is mightily impressed by the idea for that reason. You want to support the troops, right?

The proposal presents Republicans with a defining choice. If they are serious about deficit reduction, and serious about pursuing the war in Afghanistan, it is impossible to imagine under what logic they could oppose this bill. If it garnered substantial Republican support, it would be sure to pass. (To the extent that mainstream commentators are sure it will not pass, that seems to reflect extremely low expectations of any sort of sensible behaviour from Republicans.) If it passes, that would be good news for America, and for America’s war efforts in Afghanistan. A thousand calls to war have cited Kant’s maxim: To will the end, you must will the necessary means. That goes for the means of payment, too.

So, Peter, if you are serious about doing something about the debt, you’ll sign up tomorrow as a co-sponsor. If you’ don’t, then we’ll know for certain that this noise you are making about the debt is just more of the scare tactics and partisan obstruction that have defined your tenure in the House. Tonight you endorsed war without end in Afghanistan at the same time you were denouncing government spending as “generational theft”. There is only one way you can reconcile those positions and that is to support H.R. 4130.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Peddles Fear Because He Doesn’t Have Anything Else to Offer

On November 17, 2009, in Congressional Elections, Mark Kirk, National Security, Peter Roskam, Terrorism, by RSR
0

Future ex-Congressman Peter Roskam missed 3 critical postal facility renaming votes today in order to hold a news conference where he demonstrated the entirety of his limited repertoire: sowing fear among his constituents, bashing the Obama administration, and whipping his teabagger base up into a frenzy.

Roskam joined with the also soon-to-be retired Congressman and notable flip-flopper Mark Kirk (who was for closing Guantanamo before he was against it), Congresswoman Judy Biggert, and Congressman Don Manzullo to protest the administration’s proposal to bring prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to a largely unused facility in Thomson, Illinois.

Roskam asserts that that to bring these prisoners to Illinois would put the public at risk and “dissuade businesses from coming to the state”.

“The Obama administration’s utter inability to create jobs here does not somehow make sending some of the world’s worst terrorists to our backyard a good idea,”

And if we are to believe Mark Kirk (who actually voted for the Guantanamo closure before he fell in love with Sarah Palin), Osama Bin Laden himself is likely to take up residence in Skokie and Chicago’s most prominent landmarks immediately destroyed.

All of this is, of course, a big load of hooey. The transfer could produce 2,000-3,000 job in a state that badly needs jobs. And the state has for some time already housed terrorists in federal facilities without any of the problems that the “Frightening Four” predict.

Fred Kaplan at Slate does an excellent job of destroying Roskam and his crew’s phoney arguements: There Are Already 355 Terrorists in American Prisons.

It’s pretty sad that this is all the Congresman has to offer his constituency:

  • We can’t address climate change because the entire economy will collapse
  • We can’t provide decent healthcare to all Americans because it will bankrupt our children
  • We can’t do the right thing and close Guantanamo because Illinois will be destroyed by Jihadists

I’m pretty sick of Roskam’s scare tactics but fortunately, we can now choose hope instead of fear. Ben Lowe’s campaign to replace Roskam in Congress is off to a good start and Ben is offering the district real solutions when Roskam offers only fear.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam and Misogynistic, Homophobic Republicans Vote to Defund State Department, Peace Corps

On June 20, 2009, in Abortion, Foreign Policy, Gay Rights, Human Rights, National Security, Peter Roskam, Wingnuts, by RSR
0

H.R. 2410 is  another bill that came up while I was vacationing down south. Hence my tardiness.Here’s what happened.

On June 10th, the Foreign Relations Authorization for F.Y. 2010 and 2011 came to a vote on the House floor. This is the measure that funds the State Department, the Peace Corps, and U.S. contributions to the United Nations and other international organizations like the Organization of American States. The bill passed 235 to 187. So what caused Peter Roskam and the bulk of his Republican cohort to vote against funding the State Department in this time of multiple international crises? It was the bill’s support for some of the things Roskam and Republicans hate most:

  • Gay people
  • Women’s rights
  • The United Nations
  • Peace
  • A living wage

I highly recommend that you go read the Republican legislative digest for the bill. The bulk of the discussion of objections to the bill is devoted not to foreign policy questions but to culture wars stuff and  trying to pacify the 13% of Americans who still think the Republicans are doing a good job. It’s pathetic. It even specifically notes that extremist culture wars groups like Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America are against the bill. Crazy, no?  There’s  no mention of any evaluation by groups with expertise in say…foreign policy.

So what are the wingnuts  all worked up about?

  • The bill requires the State Department to work to repeal laws that criminalize consensual homosexual conduct or restrict freedoms enjoyed by gay people and gay organizations. (This runs contrary to the Republican aim to bring back Iran-style public executions  of gay folks here at home.)
  • It requires the State Department to track violence against or restrictions on persons based on sexual orientation and gender identity (the Republican digest equates these with prostitution, pedophilia and exhibitionism)
  • The bill affirms as authoritative the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This is a bill of rights for women adopted by the U.N. general assembly in 1979. The Convention defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”  (The Republican digest calls it a “tool of radical social policy”.)
  • It authorizes payment of arrears in U.S. contributions to the United Nations and increases the cap on U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations. (Republicans want to do everything in their power to cripple the United Nations, preferring instead the Bush model of foreign relations).
  • It funds 2200 new foreign service positions and increases wages for foreign service officers as an aid to recruiting and retaining talented people. (Republicans, of course, during the Bush years attempted to emasculate the State Department and pursue military adventures instead of diplomacy, bringing our country to to the low state it is at today in terms of influence over world affairs).

After looking at this, its no wonder that Peter Roskam and his Republican brethren in Congress have a miniscule 13% favorable rating.

Tagged with: •
 

Peter Roskam Votes Against Key Measure to Defeat Al Quaeda & Taliban

On June 19, 2009, in Foreign Policy, National Security, Organized Labor, Peter Roskam, Terrorism, by RSR
0

On Thursday, June 11th, while I was vacationing in secessionist Texas, our Republican Congressman Peter Roskam voted against H.R. 1886: Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009, choosing to play political games at the expense of national security and the fight against terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The bill, introduced by Democrat Howard Berman of California, provides increased military aid to Pakistan designed to improve its ability to conduct counter-terrorism efforts aimed at defeating Al Quaeda. It also increases economic aid with a focus on strengthening Pakistan’s democratic institutions and offering opportunities to its citizens to counteract recruiting efforts by extremist groups.

The measure provides for rigorous oversight and auditing (an anathema to Roskam and his Republican colleagues who generally disdain Congressional oversight and prefer a blank check approach – remember the pallets of cash being dumped in Iraq during the Bush years). This oversight allergy is probably related to Republicans’  longstanding coziness with defense contractors. The bill also requires that military aid be directed through the democratically elected government of Pakistan, that it be used for counter-terrorism  purposes, and that Pakistan make demonstrable progress in counter-terrorism efforts as a condition to continuation.

H.R. 1886 also creates Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Goods produced in these areas could be exported duty-free to the United States. The idea is to promote work alternatives to hamper recruitment by the Taliban and Al Quaeda. A condition for producers to participate is their cooperation with a labor monitoring program to protect worker rights and maintain acceptable working conditions. This condition caused widespread fits amongst Roskam and his fellow anti-labor Republicans. God forbid we should do anything to protect workers. Why that’s Communism!

H.R. 1886 passed by a vote of 234-185.  If I understand this correctly, the bill was incorporated as passed into H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which will now have to be reconciled with a Senate version that is lighter on oversight.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •