The Nation

Academic Freedom? What's That?

It's irresistible to beat up on rich, elite universities like Harvard, Yale and Stanford when they disregard the rights of low-wage workers. (I myself enjoyed beating up on Stanford just last month.) But workers who toil on lesser-known campuses deserve justice, too. At Nova Southeastern University in Broward County, Florida, janitors have been attempting to join the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The workers, mostly Haitians, have been enduring terrible wages, no benefits and no potable water. Many have lost their jobs for trying to organize, according to a National Labor Relations Board complaint filed by the workers. Often, when august institutions of higher learning find their inner Wal-Mart – as they frequently do, when their workers try to organize -- students and professors rally in support of the workers. Nearby University of Miami is a good example – there, workers were able to organize thanks to aggressive action from the campus community. Nova has taken some extreme steps to make sure this doesn't happen.

Earlier this year, it appeared that the university was not only violating workers' freedom of association, but also the free speech rights of faculty and students. For a few weeks in February, the university blocked emails with "seiu" in the address, according to Tanya Aquino, a spokeswoman for SEIU Local 11. (This way, the only updates professors and students received on the labor situation came from Nova's president.) University officials have also discouraged students – most of whom are commuters, and therefore rely on email for information about campus life -- from sending each other updates on the workers' struggle. Some students have been admonished in threatening ways, with officials implying that they might be disciplined for participating in the campaign. (Nova officials did not respond to a request for comment.) The result of all this, according to Aquino, is that few faculty and students are willing to stand up up for the rights of the Nova workers. It's a dreadful example of how, in suppressing workers' rights, a university can diminish itself as a place of higher learning. How much could one learn at a school that forbids the expression of views on such critical human rights questions?

The Real ANWR

A Canadian mining corporation, Northern Dynasty Minerals, is trying to create one of North America's largest open pit gold and copper mines in the heart of Alaska's Bristol Bay - a wonderland of fish-filled lakes, rivers and streams - home to some of the last great wild salmon runs and rainbow trout.

Most Americans who keep up on the news are familiar with the fight over drilling for oil exploration in the ANWR preserve but the real threat to Alaska's fishing and hunting ecological systems is not ANWR, but rather the proposed development of an open pit mining district at the headwaters of the two most famous salmon producing river drainages in Alaska.

At the core of Pebble Mine, covering some 15 square miles, would be an open pit measuring about two miles long, a mile and a half wide and 1,700 feet deep. Over its period of operation, the mine is estimated to produce three billion tons of waste. Moreover, the proposed Pebble Mine, would just be the first of many, and include the largest dam in the world, larger than the oft-criticized Three Gorges Dam in China, and would be made of earth not concrete, which is less effective in holding back the toxic waste created in the mining process.

The rivers and creeks of Bristol Bay provide pristine spawning grounds for all five species of Pacific Salmon. The freshwater lakes offer abundant habitat for Rainbow Trout. What's more, Lake Iliamna, just south of the pebble mining claim, is the largest body of freshwater in Alaska.

Bristol Bay is also home to the world's largest commercial wild salmon fishery. The harvest and processing of Bristol Bay fish generates nearly $320 million a year and employs about 12,500 people, which could be endangered by Northern Dynasty's project.

So this project is bad news for the environment, bad news for the local culture and, at best, a questionable economic proposition. The only certain benefit would be a rise in Northern Dynasty's bottom-line. That's why local opposition to the proposed open pit Pebble Mine, and the related 1000 square mile mining district around it, has been registered at more than 75 percent by one recent poll by Hellenthal and Associates.

Support the community by asking the US Bureau of Land Management to retain its prohibition of rock mining in Bristol Bay, help spread the word about this under-reported issue and write your local newspaper asking them to take a stand on the issue. And if you're a resident of Alaska, ask Governor Sarah Palin to maintain the current prohibition on hard rock mine prospecting and development on the publicly owned land it manages in Bristol Bay.

Thanks to the Care2 network for the tip on this campaign.

Death Penalty Gets New Airing

Written and reported by Matthew Blake:

The death penalty is finally beginning to remerge as an issue inside the halls of Congress--and it only took the second Congressional power shift in 50 years and the unprecedented Department of Justice dismissal of 8 or 9 US attorneys to make it happen.

Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold on Wednesday held a hearing of the Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution that drew attention to the lack of information available about when the Justice Department seeks capital punishment and the financial and social costs involved when it does. Fired US Attorney Paul Charlton testified that even he did not know death penalty protocol under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and told the committee that he was fired after refusing to authorize the death penalty for a case with no corroborating forensic evidence.

"It is fitting that we will hear from some of the same organizations that testified at that last hearing in June 2001," Feingold said, in reference to the last time the Senate held a hearing on the subject. "That is because in some respects, we know little more today than we did six years ago."

The US is the only Western democracy that still employs the death penalty. Yet since 2000 the Justice Department has not released any data on how many capital cases it has decided to prosecute, the success rate of its prosecution, the race and ethnicity of the defendants and the cost of pursuing a death penalty case. This is not merely another instance of the Bush administration keeping the public in the dark--the department itself apparently does not keep track.

"A lot of resources go into prosecuting a death penalty case," Feingold said to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Barry Sabin, who represented embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "Now, does the department track monetary cost in any way?"

"I don't believe we do that," Sabin said.

"Do you have any sense of what it costs for the US attorney's office to pursue a death penalty case?" Feingold asked.

Sabin replied he did not and when Feingold requested the Department look into the matter, Sabin said he could not promise that such information is readily obtainable. In preparation for the hearing, Feingold had learned from DOJ that in one-third of all cases where the Department sought the death penalty the Attorney General overruled a prior decision from a US Attorney that capital punishment should not be pursued.

One such overruling has played a starring role in the scandal surrounding Gonzales's dismissal of Arizona prosecutor Paul Charlton. Charlton concisely told the committee that in United States v. Ricos Rio, he defied the Justice Department's authorization of the death penalty in a murder case after the Department declined to fund exhumation of the victim's body, which likely would have determined the defendant's guilt. Charlton had requested to meet with the Attorney General about Ricos Rio and was denied. He was told by former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's staff that "McNulty had spent a significant amount of time on this issue with the Attorney General, perhaps as much as 5 to 10 minutes."

Stunningly, that's more time than Congress spent on the issue over the past six years.


The Power of the Dark Side

Stop me if you've heard this one. Last week the Vice President's lawyer, David Addington, argued that the VP didn't have to catalogue his secret documents because his role as President of the Senate means he's not really a part of the executive branch and therefore doesn't have to abide by the laws governing it. After this led to late night mockery, Addington argued instead that Cheney doesn't have to comply because both the president and the vice president are exempt from their own executive order.

In other words, Dick is saying to the Constitution what he said to Senator Leahy. (Hint: It begins with an "f.")

Normally, this would be the point where tragedy becomes farce and the entire country leans back and takes a bong hit for Jesus if it weren't for the four-part Washington Post series on Cheney. The article tells the story of the leader of the Senate, who starts an unnecessary war for the purpose of consolidating unconstitutional powers and turning the republic into an empire, while at the same time seducing a vain younger man with anger issues to the dark side.

The details are captivating, chilling, and too numerous to go into now, but here's the big surprise: [Spoiler Alert] Dick Cheney isn't really Senator Palpatine; he's actually the Emperor.

Not Quite Knocked Out by Knocked Up

Last night I finally saw Knocked Up, Judd Apatow's hilarious new movie, a raunchfest with a family-values core --- carrying on with accidental pregnancies, marriage as responsible adulthood, staying together for the sake of the kids. I'm not going to get into that here, except to second Dana Stevens' great piece in Slate on Hollywood and TV's cowardice about abortion (referred to in Knocked Up by the hero's slacker roommate as "rhymes with shmashmortion" and, by the heroine's ice-cold mother, as "taking care of it").

As she points out, legions of single women in their twenties who get pregnant accidentally like Alison (Katherine Heigl) or Jenna (Keri Russell) in Waitress, have abortions; on the big or small screen, they have miscarriages or babies. In the movies, I might add, accidental babies solve the very issues (men, work, money, dreams) that, in real life, they often worsen. Jenna gives birth, dumps her abusive ox of a husband, wins the baking contest he'd barred her from entering and opens her own pie diner. Alison falls in love with Ben (Seth Rogen), her one-night drunken stand, and, after spending the whole movie hiding her pregnancy to keep her celebrity-reporting job at E!, gets outed -- and promoted. Pregnancy polls really well-- who knew?

Actually, though, the real subject of Knocked Up is the immaturity of men: only under the most desperate circumstances will they put aside their bongs, or their porn, or their even more idiotic friends. If a woman had made this movie she'd be labelled a total man-hater: there isn't one man in it who isn't basically a teenager. But a woman never would have made this movie, because women don't have the fantasy in which willowy creamy world-class beauties like Alison, with brains, great clothes, and tons of self-confidence in bed and out of it, go for men like Ben (Seth Rogen), who is not only an unemployed and underbathed stoner with no ambitions and no visible means of support, but physically unattractive to an alarming degree. A real-life Alison wouldn't have spent one night in his filthy teenage-boy lair of a bedroom, or hung out for one evening with his uber-slacker friends . I'll give you that she might have called him when she discovered she was pregnant-- but offer to entwine herself in coparenting for life with a one-night stand she couldn't even get through breakfast with the next morning? Invite this virtual stranger to all her prenatal checkups? I didn't even invite my husband!

No, this is a male rescue fantasy, like Sideways, in which Paul Giamatti, an bitter, mean, alcoholic, very unattractive failed writer is saved by Virginia Madsen, a gorgeous kindhearted waitress. And like The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Apatow's previous movie, in which Steve Carell, the nerdy obsessive-compulsive loner, is saved by the delightfully easy-going hottie Catherine Keener. The family-values morality of Knocked Up is just window dressing, in my view. It isn't marriage, per se, that makes Ben grow up and get real -- it's Allison, who besides being lovely, is warm, good-hearted, down-to-earth, mature, doesn't ask for marriage or money, and -- this is important -- laughs at his jokes, which are indeed funny.

I'm trying to think of a romantic comedy where these roles are reversed. A clever, screwed up, ugly woman gets the gorgeous hunk who sees her inner beauty. My Big Fat Greek Wedding is the closest I can think of (made by a woman, naturally), but Nia Vardalos's character is actually great looking once she gets out from under her father's thumb--her mousiness in the early scenes is just a reflection of her downtroddenness. By the end of the movie she looks like, well, a movie star. A Greek movie star. Mostly in films the supposedly ugly-duckling heroine is actually pretty and in great shape, she just needs a makeover and a social life, like Cinderella.

The guys, though, remain their unprepossessing selves. Instead, they grow up just enough to make it to the altar with a hot babe. After that? It's clear that their wives will be the sergeants in the boot camp of married life. They'll be versions of Allison's married sister, who spends her life mourning her declining hotness and reminding her husband of errands and chores he denies having promised to do. This man is so childish that he sneaks out of the house on pretext of work not to have an affair, as his wife fears -- but to play fantasy baseball with the guys.

That's marriage in today's family-values Hollywood-- dysfunctional schlub meets hottie with a heart of gold. Boy meets Mom.

Senate Subpoenas Cheney, White House Documents on Spying

After putting up with months of stonewalling by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their aides, the Senate Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas seeking information about internal debates regarding the legality of warrantless wiretapping programs that were promoted by the vice president and authorized by the president.

Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy today issued subpoenas to the White House and, in particular, to Cheney's office demanding documents relating to the National Security Agency's spying program.

The fact that a primary target of the subpoenas is Cheney's office confirms that the focus of the committee's investigation of White House collaboration with embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has expanded to include a sharp focus on the role that the vice president played in promoting lawless actions and in pressuring others in the administration to go along with him.

Subpoenas have also been dispatched to the Justice Department and the National Security Council.

All must be answered by July 18, according to Leahy, who wrote in the cover letters for the subpoenas, "Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection. There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."

If Cheney's office and the other targeted agencies do not comply by the 18th, Leahy can take the matter to the courts -- provoking a conflict like that seen when the Nixon administration when it refused to comply in the 1970s with Congressional investigators of the Watergate scandal.

By expanding the Gonzales inquiry to include consideration of the warrantless wiretapping program, Leahy has brought to a head a simmering conflict between the executive and legislative branches that is more than a year old.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who last year proposed censuring President Bush for authorizing the illegal spying program, hailed the move.

"It has been more than a year and a half since it was first disclosed that the President authorized an illegal warrantless wiretapping program," he said. "After a year and a half of stonewalling by the Administration, the Judiciary Committee is finally taking appropriate action by issuing subpoenas for information that will tell us how and why high-ranking officials authorized this illegal program."

Specifically, the Judiciary Committee is seeking information about when high-ranking members of the administration were made aware of the fact that even their own appointees and allies believed the warrantless wiretapping program was in conflict both with specific laws and privacy protections outlined in the Constitution.

The decision to issue the subpoenas has bipartisan support, as the committee voted 13-3 to authorize Leahy to dispatch them. The ranking Republican on the committee, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, has consistently sided with Leahy on this issue.

"The bipartisan support for issuing these subpoenas demonstrates that both Democrats and Republicans are fed up with the misleading statements from the Attorney General and the Administration about this illegal program," explained Feingold, who chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution.

And the committee has a good sense of what it wants. The authoritative Center on Democracy & Technology has prepared a list of the seven "most wanted surveillance documents."

They include:

1. Memorandum prepared by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey which, according to Comey, was sent to the White House shortly after March 10, 2004. The memorandum followed a review of the classified surveillance program (to which Comey referred in his May 15, 2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee) and it apparently explained why the Department of Justice in 2004 would not certify the surveillance program as lawful.

2. Memorandum from Department of Justice former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, who participated in the DOJ's review of the classified surveillance program. This memorandum was attached to the Comey memorandum and was prepared in the same time frame as that document.

3. Department of Justice Office of Intelligence Policy and Review legal memorandum discussing the classified surveillance program, and drafts of that document. The final document was probably prepared in early March, 2004.

4. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum prepared in early 2004 -- by Comey's account -- laying out OLC's legal concerns about the classified program.

5. Memorandum from then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales received by Comey shortly after March 10, 2004 that responded to the determination by the Department of Justice not to certify the lawfulness of the classified surveillance program.

6. January 10, 2007 orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing what the warrantless surveillance program the Administration calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

7. Court order applications related to the FISC authorization of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.


John Nichols's book The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press) is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney." The London Review of Books says The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney "makes a persuasive case…that the vice-presidency is the real locus of power in the current administration: Cheney runs the show."


Voices of Tomorrow

You've heard all the stereotypes. Students are apathetic, complacent and unaware of the world around them.

There's a grain of truth to that statement. But a whole lot of falsity. Just ask the 1,000 student journalists and activists who converged on Washington early this week from every single state for the third annual Campus Progress conference.

On Monday The Nation co-sponsored a journalism training day at the Center for American Progress with over 150 student journalists, featuring speeches by Katrina vanden Heuvel and two of America's best muckraking journalists, Barbara Ehrenreich and Eric Schlosser, panels on covering corruption and the courts, featuring the likes of Helen Thomas, Dahlia Lithwick, David Corn, John Nichols and yours truly, and workshops on culture, blogging, investigative journalism and reporting beyond the Beltway.

In her lunchtime address, Ehrenreich implored students to focus on issues like race and inequality that are so often excluded from mainstream media. She told a story about how an indifferent editor in a posh Manhattan restaurant agreed to let her do a piece on poverty as long she "made it upscale." Yet by ignored these petty dictates and immersing herself in the lives of her subjects, Ehrenreich has been able to produce such memorable and lasting work as her book, Nickel & Dimed.

Schlosser, the author of the best-selling Fast Food Nation, also spoke of spending years chronicling stories of struggle and injustice: undocumented migrant strawberry pickers in California, workers fighting to unionize for better pay, horrific conditions for employees at massive hog farms, and most recently, for an upcoming book, the millions of Americans incarcerated in prisons. This kind of work isn't easy, Schlosser said. But it is more necessary than ever.

Excerpts of the journalism conference will soon be available on The Nation's website and broadcast in the coming weeks on Radio Nation with Laura Flanders on Air America Radio.

At day-two of the conference on Tuesday, hundreds of activists joined their journalist counterparts. Prominent speakers like legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison moved beyond cliché by articulating not just the unprecedented challenges faced by college-age Americans, but also the unique assets their generation might bring to politics and the world.

"We've completely screwed you guys," Hersh told a room of more thanone thousand. "You're going to have to do so much better than we did."

But Hersh deviated from a relentless attack on American foreign policyto give his observations on current college students and add a bit of hope.

"Young people today are less seduced by the mercantile, Wall Streetsociety of 20 years ago," Hersh said. "There is more concern for theThird World."

Attendees agreed that problems well beyond the plush academy move students the most. "It is the issues farthest away from us that get the most attention," said Bobby Smith, a sophomore at Ithaca College. One example is how students are fighting to force attention and an end to the genocide in Darfur.

Like Hersh, Ellison, who became the first Muslim elected toCongress in November, spoke of the Iraq war's immorality and its consequences for both the troops and America's credibility. But he devoted much of his talk to issues that hit closer to home, such as student loans and credit card debt. Ellison adroitly tied the need for a single-payer health care system to the fact that many in the audience will be without coverage--and in debt--upon graduation

"We need you to continue to talk about affordability for college,"Ellison told the audience. In 2006 the over two-thirds of college seniors who took out loans graduated an average of $19,200 in debt, according to the Project on Student Debt.

Ellison also stressed that making politicians pay attention meansgetting young people to the ballot box.

"Don't forget to turn out votes, not just at your campus, but two-yearcommunity colleges and vocational colleges," Ellison said. He added that in his race for Congress, "We blew up the vote at the Aveda Institute of Hair and Cosmetology."

The conference closed with a panel of young Iraq war veterans, who spoke movingly about their time in combat and the hardships upon returning home. They are the lucky ones. Every week soldiers so often still in their teens are shipped back in body bags.

Young people, said Abdul Henderson, a vet from Los Angeles who spoke out in the film Fahrenheit 9/11, have the power to change things if they so choose.

Another one of the panelists, Jon Soltz, is a testament to that possibility. Upon finishing his tour in Iraq, "confused and disillusioned," Soltz began to speak out after being threatened with arrest for trying to attend a Veterans Affairs press conference in his hometown of Pittsburgh. "I don't know why I'm good enough to go to war but not good enough to ask the tough questions of our leadership," Soltz recalled. He soon founded an advocacy group called Vote Vets, which ran some of the hardest-hitting and most effective TV ads of the last election cycle, exposing how pro-war politicians had betrayed the troops.

Soltz found an audience, both with veterans throughout the country and attendees at the conference, who after two days of speaker after speaker, still listened intently to every word. "This is the only time where I've been in a room with young people in the last three-and-a-half years," Soltz said, "when I felt like people cared."

--With Reporting by Matthew Blake

Feingold on Cheney: “I Think He’s Confused.”

Along with venerable West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold enjoys the relatively lonely distinction in the current Congress of having demonstrated something more than a passing familiarity with the Constitution that members swear an oath to support and defend.

So it is good, indeed, that the Wisconsin Democrat chairs the Constitution subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The fact that Feingold has actually read the nation's essential document prepares him to resolve questions such as the one raised in recent days by Dick Cheney about where the Office of the Vice President can be found in the three branches of the federal government.

Cheney claims he is a member of the legislative branch, at least for purposes of accountability.

Does Feingold think there is any argument whatsoever for Cheney's interpretation?

"Not really," says the Senate's chief overseer of all things Constitutional, stifling something akin to grin of a Cheshine Cat.

If Cheney's attempt to classify the vice president as a legislator – in order to avoid requirements that his office comply with requirements the National Archives' charting of the classification and declassification of important documents -- were to be accepted, Feingold says, "I would have to go back and reconsider some of my answers on the quizzes when I was in elementary school. I would worry about my third-grade test results if I somehow got it wrong when I expressed this bizarre notion that the vice president was a member of the executive branch."

But Feingold has no such worries. The senator earned honors at the University of Wisconsin for his commentaries on the history of the Constitution and then, after completing a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford, he burrowed deeper into Constitutional studies at Harvard Law School, from which he graduated with even more honors.

Cheney flunked out of Yale, never got near a law school and has, throughout his long career of public self-service displayed a disregard for the Constitution unequaled in American politics.

Choosing his words carefully, Feingold says of the vice president's pronouncements regarding the place of his office in the federal heirarchy: "I think he's confused."

To alleviate the confusion, the senator adds, "We may have to give him a little guidance on that."

Does that mean that Feingold might use the Subcommittee on the Constitution to clarify the specific question – and to address broader and more serious concerns raised by a vice president who seeks to confuse and undermine the system of checks and balances that maintains the smooth functioning of the Republic?

"Oh, yes!" he replies, so long as Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, does not decide schedule a session of the full committee to help the vice president figure things out. (On Wednesday, Leahy issued subpoenas to Cheney's office and the White House as part of the committee's probe into collaboration with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to thwart the law with regard to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.)

Either way, says Feingold, "What you do, just like we did on this issue of whether you can cut off funding for the war, is you hold a hearing and you bring in the experts. On the war, we had (former Assistant Attorney General and White House counsel) Walter Dellinger to say, ‘Of course, you can cut off the funding.' You do the same thing on this. You bring in the Constitutional scholars. (Pennsylvania Senator Arlen) Specter even did one on the censure issue. That's a good way to lay the foundation for a discussion of some of the issues that are raised by the vice president. The only problem I can imagine is that it might be difficult to find a serious constitutional scholar who would agree with Cheney."


John Nichols's book The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press) is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney." The London Review of Books says The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney "makes a persuasive case…that the vice-presidency is the real locus of power in the current administration: Cheney runs the show."

A Just Security

It's been clear for some time that when it comes to approaches to security and foreign policy, the people are way aheadof the Inside-the-Beltway politicians and pundits in believing there's a need for real change.

Now, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and its Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) network of progressive experts have released a new report –Just Security – that offers an alternative framework that is more sane and effective than the stunted vision and failed policies supported by so-called moderates in both parties.

One important departure from bipartisan conventional wisdom in the report is the call for a reduction of $213 billion in US military spending, which amounts to about one-third of the total defense budget. Even with this cut the US would retain the largest military in the world and spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries.

"This new foreign policy approach is more in line with public opinion than the US Congress, which recently backed additional money for the Iraq War," said John Feffer, co-director of FPIF. "Leading presidential candidates and the foreign policy establishment are being overly cautious. There's virtually no debate about freezing, let alone reducing, military spending, which has soared to unprecedented levels."

Other areas addressed by the report include: climate policy, nuclear disarmament, overall health and economic wellbeing, conflicts in the Middle East and Africa and counterterrorism, as well as security spending. This kind of bold and comprehensive approach is exactly what is needed in these times, as Feffer recently wrote: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt transformed US foreign policy with his big picture Good Neighbor policy of the 1930s. When they dramatically reoriented the US approach to the world, neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush… approached the matter piecemeal. They offered a large-scale, comprehensive foreign policy vision (Peace Through Strength, Global War on Terror). Those who oppose the current administration's foreign policy should take this lesson to heart. We should be thinking not just about Iraq or about cutting one or two old Cold War weapons systems. Judicious retrenchment, judging from the elections and the polls, is not what Americans want. We should be aiming high. We should be aiming for a Just Security program."

This report is an important contribution to articulating and demanding an alternative to the Bush Doctrine and the Global War on Terror. You can download the full report here.