Jonathan P. Baird

I was never previously able to post this piece I wrote for the Concord Monitor. It appeared on September 16, 2012. Jon

The subject of poverty is not part of our national conversation in 2012. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates barely ever talk about it. Nor do the Senate or congressional candidates. That is remarkable, since poverty has increased significantly over the past 12 years.

When was the last time any major politician directly proposed to end or lessen poverty? We probably have to go back to President Lyndon Johnson. While President Obama’s stimulus did many positive things for poor people, he chose not to publicize that. It is almost as if poverty is taboo.

In New Hampshire, poor people are close to being an invisible constituency, even as they increase in number. I lived in Alaska for 15 months in 2010 and 2011, reading the Monitor online and watching from afar. I was astounded at the hostility directed against New Hampshire’s poor by our Legislature.

If there was a word I would use to describe our Legislature’s actions, it would be “mean-spirited.” The Legislature became a bludgeoning Mean Machine. Across the board, it savaged programs for the blind and disabled, youth, seniors, and the poor with an almost cavalier disregard for the damage inflicted.

There was no appreciation of the concept of the safety net. While the right-wing extremists in the Legislature appeared to care little, it must be pointed out that historically the safety net has been a bi-partisan, uniquely American achievement. It has taken 80 years to create the protections we have, although that was not appreciated by the legislative majority.

Surprising as it was to admit, later in 2011 when i returned east, Alaska, a politically conservative state, looked positively moderate next to New Hampshire. Our Legislature acted with the social vision of a Mississippi or Alabama.

How could the Legislature be so mean-spirited? I think part of the answer lies in a right-wing ideology that blames the poor for poverty and especially hates welfare. The stereotype that somewhere moochers, scammers, and lazy bums are getting something for nothing resonates with them and others. How else to explain the plethora of bills last session directed at limiting welfare or investigating it like it was a crime? Let’s see: There was the welfare time-limit bill, the no benefit increase if you have a baby on welfare bill, the drug-testing if you are on food stamps bill, the counting SSI if you are on welfare bill and the computer match welfare fraud bill. They set an agenda and I am not naming all of them.

The irony is that welfare in the form of cash-assistance programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families has drastically declined. Since the 1960’s, a much smaller percentage of poor families with children actually get these benefits. That is true in every state in the nation.

I do not think that debates about poverty have kept up with actual societal changes. Conservatives and liberals are stuck in old patterns of replaying the same unenlightening fights they have had for 20 years. Here are some points about how poverty is different now:

• The Great Recession has created many more poor people.

Many formerly middle-income people have dropped into the ranks of the poor. Due to layoffs and job outsourcing, millions more Americans find themselves jobless and in need. While New Hampshire’s poverty rate remains below the national rate, the stimulus in the form of extended unemployment benefits played a critical role in preventing more poverty. Of particular note, an increasing number of the poor are in extreme poverty, living below half the poverty level. I am talking about people earning less than $9,000 a year for a family of three. In 2010, more than 20 million Americans lived in extreme poverty. That figure is up 8 million over 10 years. For many of these people, their only benefit or help is typically food stamps. We remain in a state of denial about the existence of this population, with no public policy response.

• Good-paying, low-skill jobs have disappeared.

Job loss in the recession has been the most severe of any recession since World War II. Over the past 40 years, where jobs have been created, the big story is the increase in low-wage jobs. Instead of jobs that pay a living wage and provide benefits, half the jobs in America now pay less than $34,000 a year and almost a quarter pay below the poverty line for a family of four ($22,000 per year). The trend applies in New Hampshire as in other states. Earning that kind of money makes our era a period of limited upward mobility. Simple financial survival is more the agenda than getting ahead.

• The super-rich have become astronomically richer.

The other side of the poor getting poorer is the rich getting richer. We live in a second Gilded Age, with a new set of robber barons. Rich has a new meaning now. I do not think there is public awareness of how wealthy the 1 per cent are.

Between 1979 and 2007, the income of the top 1 per-cent went up 275%, while the income of the top 0.1 per-cent increased 390%. And those statistics do not include the past five years, where the trends I mention have accelerated. It is not class warfare to bring this up – it is simply factual.

• The social safety net has been weakened

By any objective measure, we have withdrawn support from the social programs that comprise the safety net. There is less help at a time with more human need. The best example I can think of is what the New Hampshire Legislature did to New Hampshire Legal Assistance. Without any justification, the Legislature inflicted a devastating blow against Legal Assistance, cutting critically needed funding by $1 million. The funding cut meant closure of legal aid offices in Nashua and Littleton as well as many layoffs. A program that had 53 employees in 2008 was downsized to under 30 in 2012. The result was thousands fewer vulnerable citizens getting legal services. In the interest of full disclosure, I want to note that I used to be a legal aid lawyer. I know better than most the meaning of these cuts: more hunger, more homelessness, more human misery for the poor.

Nationally, proposals to block grant Medicaid, voucherize Medicare, and further cut all poor people’s programs wait in the wings. The major program still reaching masses of people is food stamps. You really need a black sense of humor to appreciate what has happened to welfare. Public debate focuses on a phony issue about work requirements while the overriding salient fact is how few people get these benefits. Nobody talks about that.

When people last talked about poverty as a public policy issue back in the 60’s, it was in the context of “the war on poverty”. I think that is a bad metaphor. It is not like there have been epic battles where two sides fought it out with one side victorious. The war on poverty typically involves incremental gains or losses in individual lives. A hungry mother and child get food stamps so they can eat; a family gets help from a legal aid lawyer so they can avoid eviction; a laid-off worker wins her unemployment appeal. These are the type of small stories that comprise the so-called war on poverty.

President Ronald Reagan once famously said, “We fought a war on poverty and poverty won.” Reagan got it dead wrong. Contrary to the mythology that government did not help. efforts to tackle poverty have made an enormous difference.

I like the way Georgetown Law professor Peter Edelman responded to President Reagan’s line in his new book “So Rich, So Poor”. Edelman wrote:

“To suggest dismissively – as many conservatives do – that “we fought a war on poverty and poverty won” simply because there is still poverty is like saying the Clean Air and Clean Water Act failed because there is still pollution.”

Gains made by anti-poverty activists may be temporary and they do not guarantee a permanent result, but they are often a critical ingredient in averting potential disaster. Efforts to dismantle or gut the safety net deserve strict scrutiny, especially given the level of need out there. There is an extensive body of experience showing that the free market, left to its own devices, fails to address poverty.

A great country should have worthy, inspirational goals. Ending or lessening poverty would be a noble goal. We certainly have the wealth to accomplish it. I think it is bad for America that we do not talk about ending poverty. I think that idea should be put back on our collective agenda.

I wrote this piece back in 2009. When I moved my blog site, I was not able to post it so I wanted to put it up now. Jon

When President Obama recently signed a memorandum designed to restore scientific integrity to federal government decision-making, I felt both pride and relief. Obama resurrected a fundamental American value: respect for science and intellectual integrity.

The Bush presidency featured an infamous war on science in which partisan policy goals played a key role in determining scientific results. Whether the issue was evolution, abstinence, embryonic stem cell research or global climate change, the value of deference to religious conservatives and Big Business allies trumped scientific integrity.

What has not been appreciated about the war on science is how antithetical it is to American tradition. Passion for science was part of the world view of the founding fathers. Some founders even were scientists.

Historically, the Bush presidency was an extreme aberration. While earlier presidents like Ronald Reagan had an anti-scientific bent, that science abuse did not rival George W. Bush’s.

Over the past eight years, the methods of science abuse included magnifying uncertainty of proven theories, creating contrary science, and presenting fundamentally religious beliefs as science.

The best example is evolution. There has been a continuing effort by creationists to thwart the teaching of evolution in public schools. As recently as last week, this fight was happening in Texas.

This is 84 years after the Scopes monkey trial, when a high school teacher was tried for teaching that humans evolved from a lower order of animals. Yet the Religious Right keeps coming back. They have been building biblical creation science museums to popularize intelligent design, the latest version of creationism.

Bush favored teaching intelligent design alongside evolution. In this, he was no different than many of his colleagues, including House Speaker John Boehner, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

The creationists have framed the evolution argument as a free speech fight. There are two competing theories, evolution and creationism. Both can be taught in public school, and students can decide what to believe. They only want to teach the controversy.

What the creationists do not say is that among scientists, there is no controversy. Evolution is widely accepted as a fact. In 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a resolution stating that intelligent design proponents failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their theory.

How do you test the theory that an unknown intelligent designer somehow did something somewhere to create life on earth?

In his new book “Why Evolution is True”, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne lays out the main lines of evidence for evolution. He explains how life evolved gradually, beginning with one primitive species that lived 3.5 billion years ago. He explores how species branched out, throwing off many new and diverse variations. He demonstrates that the mechanism for most evolutionary change has been natural selection.

Yet, despite the evidence, polls consistently show Americans are suspicious about evolution. In a 2006 poll, when asked to respond to the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” only 40% of Americans judged that statement true. More than 80% of French, Scandinavians, and Icelanders accepted the statement as true.

It is particularly ironic that antievolutionists have established such strong support here. As Enlightenment thinkers, the founding fathers would have been appalled by this development. There is much evidence that they believed science to be a supreme expression of human reason.

Among the founders, Benjamin Franklin was recognized as one of the foremost scientists of his day. While he was best known for his experiments with electricity, he had wide-ranging scientific interests including meteorology and oceanography.

Thomas Jefferson was also a man of science, an inventor, an architect, and a passionate botanist. When Jefferson was inaugurated as vice president in 1797, he brought with him a collection of fossils to illustrate a lecture on paleontology he was to give to a scientific society. Through his presidency, he maintained this interest, filling the East Room with a huge fossil collection.

It was no accident that our Constitution explicitly references science. There is a provision setting forth the power of Congress “to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts.”

Good public policy depends on rationality and clear thinking. Basing public policy on religious imperatives or covert subordination to business interests is a return to the Dark Ages. I suspect the founding fathers would have agreed.

We are all so inundated by the constant flow of allegedly shocking news that maybe we have become immune to what is genuinely shocking. “A Lexicon of Terror” is genuinely shocking – and so much more. It tells the story of Argentina’s Dirty War, an episode from 1976 to 1983 when, in the aftermath of a military coup, the military junta and their hired killers disappeared at least 10,000 people. Some estimates put the number at 30,000.

It is shocking we in the United States are so unaware of the Dirty War. It was grossly under-reported here. It was also rationalized by apologists in the U.S.. Considering the depravity, that is hard to understand. The author describes an utterly surreal society where in the name of the fight against subversion, the Argentine military kidnapped, tortured, and executed thousands. As Feitlowitz says,

“The Dirty War regime eviscerated the best-educated generation in the history of Argentina…intellectual professions became categories of guilt.” (p.11)

Students, artists, intellectuals, leftists, labor activists, Jews, and young people generally were singled out as enemies of the regime. Anyone considered suspicious could be put on a list and taken away. No proof of anything was required. This only happened 36 years ago.

I was interested in how Argentine lawyers and judges responded to the Dirty War. I think the truth is that the society was so terrorized it made it impossible for a legal system to function. Fear overwhelmed daily life. Unmarked Ford Falcons cruised the streets and squads of goons would jump out and corner targeted people and take them away from their homes to be tortured, murdered and disappeared. Bystanders and observers would typically not make a peep. The Argentine military had a long list.

It was a rational and self-interested calculation for Argentine lawyers and judges to lie low during the Dirty War. The risk of going out on any limb was very great. Anyone thought critical of the process could be placed on a hit list. The rule of law was not strong enough to protect practically anyone from being disappeared.

While beyond the scope of this book review, cases addressing crimes committed by the Argentine military are only now being prosecuted. There has been a long, torturous road just to get to the point where crimes could possibly be prosecuted. The history of the pursuit of justice for Dirty War victims is a worthy topic for another day.

The horror was extreme. Feitlowitz describes the many death flights where members of the Argentine military would drug captives, load them onto helicopters, strip them, and toss them out of the helicopters far out in the ocean. Argentine naval officers rotated death flight duty. We know this because of public confessions made in 1995 by Naval Captain Adolfo Scilingo. Following Scilingo, a half dozen other naval officers also confessed.

To give a sense of the mindset, Scilingo said that officers considered the flights “a form of communion”, “a supreme act we did for the country”. Scilingo himself shoved 30 individuals to their deaths on two flights. His victims included a 65 year old man, a 16 year old boy and 2 pregnant women in their early 20’s.

Feitlowitz performs a very valuable service by telling many untold stories of those tortured and disappeared. These lost stories need to be told. Witnessing and telling the stories is a first step toward accountability.

During the Dirty War, secret concentration camps dotted the country. Part of the surrealism described by Feitlowitz was the co-existence of torture very close to the domain of normal life. To give an example: the Argentine military ran torture cells in the basement of the renovated mall, Galerias Pacifico, which was located in the heart of Buenos Aires. Acoustics blotted out sound apparently. They had shopping next to torture.

A major focus of the book is the bizarre use of language by the junta (which explains the title). The junta twisted language to create a world of self-justification. Every torture, murder, and disappearance could be legitimated since it was part of the war on subversion. It was beyond Orwellian. Vile acts could be clothed in the regime’s language of honor and duty to the nation.

In their secret concentration camps, the torturers talked compulsively to their victims:

” “You don’t exist..You’re no one..We are God.” How can one torture a person who doesn’t exist? Be God in a realm of no ones? How can a human being not exist? Be no one in a realm of gods? Through language. Through the reality created by and reflected in words. In the clandestine camps there developed an extensive argot in which benign domestic nouns, medical terms, saints, and fairy-tale characters were appropriated as terms pertaining to physical torture. Comforting past associations were translated into pain, degradation and sometimes death.” (p.57)

Language enabled behavior that was otherwise way out of bounds. Also, the junta’s language had only the remotest relationship to factual accuracy. They would report “subversives died in a firefight” when the truth was more like the capture of unarmed civilians by regime thugs who were armed to the teeth. The “subversives” were then “disappeared”.

The concept of people being disappeared goes back to the Nazis as part of their doctrine of Night and Fog. Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel , who had been Chief of the German High Command and who was hanged at Nuremberg for war crimes described Hitler’s doctrine this way: “The prisoners will disappear without a trace. It will be impossible to glean any information as to where they are or what will be their fate.” (p.59)

The Nazi influence was very much a part of this story. Pictures of Hitler hung in torture chambers and the torturers sometimes played Hitler speeches while torturing. While Argentina had the largest concentration of Jews in Latin America, Argentine society , particularly the Church and the military, were bastions of anti-semitism. After World War II, Argentina accepted Nazi refugees including Martin Bormann, Josef Mengele and Adolf Eichmann. Former Nazis integrated into the Argentine security service.

In this connection, I do want to mention another important book, Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number, by Jacobo Timerman. Timerman, who was Jewish and who had been the publisher of a leading Argentine newspaper, La Opinion, was disappeared, tortured, and as almost never happened, was released. The junta stripped Timerman of citizenship and expelled him from the country. Timerman wrote about the weird anti-semitism in Argentina and he analyzes it too. The book is also very much worth a read.

A sad aspect of this sordid story is the response of mainstream Jewish organizations to the Dirty War. With some notable exceptions (Rabbi Marshall Meyer and Rabbi Morton Rosenthal) the Delegation of Argentine Jewish Associations (DAIA), the major Jewish community organization, was largely silent and acquiescent. Considering the number of Jews swept up by the regime, the performance was abysmal.

There are many tangential themes that deserve more attention. The role of the U.S., the baby trafficking, the brave role of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, to name a few.

Not too many books deserve the word heroic. This is a book that does.The Dirty War was a worst case scenario of what can happen when civil liberties are sacrificed in the name of security, combating subversion etc. Feitlowitz deserves credit for unearthing so many stories and for trying to get to the bottom of this atrocity. One is left wondering how a literate, relatively well-educated people could have gone down such a self-destructive, cruel road.

IT WAS a day of joy. November 29, 2012. *

* *

*Joy for the Palestinian people.*

* *

*Joy for all those who hope for peace between Israel and the Arab world.*

* *

*And, in a modest way, for me personally.*

* *

*The General Assembly of the United Nations, the highest world forum, has voted overwhelmingly for the recognition of the State of Palestine, though in a limited way.*

* *

*The resolution adopted by the same forum 65 years ago to the day, to partition historical Palestine between a Jewish and an Arab state, has at long last been reaffirmed.*

* *

* *

*I HOPE I may be excused a few moments of personal celebration.*

* *

*During the war of 1948, which followed the first resolution, I came to the conclusion that there exists a Palestinian people and that the establishment of a Palestinian state, next to the new State of Israel, is the prerequisite for peace.*

* *

*As a simple soldier, I fought in dozens of engagements against the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. I saw how dozens of Arab towns and villages were destroyed and left deserted. Long before I saw the first Egyptian soldier, I saw the people of Palestine (who had started the war) fight for what was their homeland. *

* *

*Before the war, I hoped that the unity of the country, so dear to both peoples, could be preserved. The war convinced me that reality had smashed this dream forever.*

* *

*I was still in uniform when, in early 1949, I tried to set up an initiative for what is now called the Two-State Solution. I met with two young Arabs in Haifa for this purpose. One was a Muslim Arab, the other a Druze sheik. (Both became members of the Knesset before me.)*

* *

*At the time, it looked like mission impossible. “Palestine” had been wiped off the map. 78% of the country had become Israel, the other 22% divided between Jordan and Egypt. The very existence of a Palestinian people was vehemently denied by the Israeli establishment, indeed, the denial became an article of faith. Much later, Golda Meir famously declared that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people”. Respected charlatans wrote popular books “proving” that the Arabs in Palestine were pretenders who had only recently arrived. The Israeli leadership was convinced that the “Palestinian problem” had disappeared, once and forever.*

* *

*In 1949, there were not a hundred persons in the entire world who believed in this solution. Not a single country supported it. The Arab countries still believed that Israel would just disappear. Britain supported its client state, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The US had its own local strongmen. Stalin’s Soviet Union supported Israel.*

* *

*Mine was a lonely fight. For the next 40 years, as the editor of a news magazine, I brought the subject up almost every week. When I was elected to the Knesset, I did the same there. *

* *

*In 1968 I went to Washington DC, in order to propagate the idea there. I was politely received by the relevant officials in the State Department (Joseph Sisco), the White House (Harold Saunders), the US mission to the UN (Charles Yost), leading Senators and Congressmen, as well as the British father of Resolution 242 (Lord Caradon). The uniform answer from all of them, without exception: a Palestinian state was out of question.*

* *

*When I published a book devoted to this solution, the PLO in Beirut attacked me in 1970 in a book entitled “Uri Avnery and Neo-Zionism”.*

* *

*Today, there is a world consensus that a solution of the conflict without a Palestinian state is quite out of the question.*

* *

*So why not celebrate now?*

* *

* *

*WHY NOW? WHY didn’t it happen before or later?*

* *

*Because of the Pillar of Cloud, the historic masterpiece from Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Avigdor Lieberman.*

* *

*The Bible tells us about Samson the hero, who rent a lion with his bare hands. When he returned to the scene, a swarm of bees had made the carcase of the lion its home and produced honey. So Samson posed a riddle to the Philistines: “Out of the strong came forth sweetness”. This is now a Hebrew proverb.*

* *

*Well, out of the “strong” Israeli operation against Gaza, sweetness has indeed come forth. It is another confirmation of the rule that when you start a war or a revolution, you never know what will come out of it.*

* *

*One of the results of the operation was that the prestige and popularity of Hamas shot sky-high, while the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas sank to new depths. That was a result the West could not possibly tolerate. A defeat of the “moderates” and a victory for the Islamic “extremists” were a disaster for President Barack Obama and the entire Western camp. Something had to found – with all urgency – to provide Abbas with a resounding achievement.*

* *

*Fortunately, Abbas was already on the way to obtain UN approval for the recognition of Palestine as a “state” (though not yet as a full member of the world organization). For Abbas, it was a move of despair. Suddenly, it became a beacon of victory. *

* *

*THE COMPETITION between the Hamas and Fatah movements is viewed as a disaster for the Palestinian cause. But there is also another way to look at it.*

* *

*Let’s go back to our own history. During the 30s and 40s, our Struggle for Liberation (as we called it) split between two camps, who hated each other with growing intensity.*

* *

*On the one side was the “official” leadership, led by David Ben-Gurion, represented by the “Jewish Agency” which cooperated with the British administration. Its military arm was the Haganah, a very large, semi-official militia, mostly tolerated by the British. *

* *

*On the other side was the Irgun (“National Military Organization”), the far more radical armed wing of the nationalist “revisionist” party of Vladimir Jabotinsky. It split and yet another, even more radical, organization was born. The British called it “the Stern Gang”, after its leader, Avraham Stern”.*

* *

*The enmity between these organizations was intense. For a time, Haganah members kidnapped Irgun fighters and turned them over to the British police, who tortured them and sent them to camps in Africa. A bloody fratricidal war was avoided only because the Irgun leader, Menachem Begin, forbade all actions of revenge. By contrast, the Stern people bluntly told the Haganah that they would shoot anyone trying to attack their members.*

* *

*In retrospect, the two sides can be seen as acting as the two arms of the same body. The “terrorism” of the Irgun and Stern complemented the diplomacy of the Zionist leadership. The diplomats exploited the achievements of the fighters. In order to counterbalance the growing popularity of the “terrorists”, the British made concessions to Ben-Gurion. A friend of mine called the Irgun “the shooting agency of the Jewish Agency”. *

* *

*In a way, this is now the situation in the Palestinian camp.*

* *

*FOR YEARS, the Israeli government has threatened Abbas with the most dire consequences if he dared to go to the UN. Abolishing the Oslo agreement and destroying the Palestinian authority was the bare minimum. Lieberman called the move “diplomatic terrorism”. *

* *

*And now? Nothing. Not a bang and barely a whimper. Even Netanyahu understands that the Pillar of Cloud has created a situation where world support for Abbas has become inevitable.*

* *

*What to do? Nothing! Pretend the whole thing is a joke. Who cares? What is this UNO anyway? What difference does it make?*

* *

*Netanyahu is more concerned about another thing that happened to him this week. In the Likud primary elections, all the “moderates” in his party were unceremoniously kicked out. No liberal, democratic alibi was left. The Likud-Beitenu faction in the next Knesset will be composed entirely of right-wing extremists, among them several outright fascists, people who want to destroy the independence of the Supreme Court, cover the West Bank densely with settlements and prevent peace and a Palestinian state by all possible means.*

* *

*While Netanyahu is sure to win the coming elections and continue to serve as Prime Minister, he is too clever not to realize where he is now: a hostage to extremists, liable to be thrown out by his own Knesset faction if he so much as mentions peace, to be displaced at any time by Lieberman or worse.*

* *

* *

*ON FIRST sight, nothing much has changed. But only on first sight.*

* *

*What has happened is that the foundation of the State of Palestine has now been officially acknowledged as the aim of the world community. The “Two-State solution” is now the only solution on the table. The “One-State solution”, if it ever lived, is as dead as the dodo.*

* *

*Of course, the apartheid one-state is reality. If nothing changes on the ground, it will become deeper and stronger. Almost every day brings news of it becoming more and more entrenched. (The bus monopoly has just announced that from now on there will be separate buses for West Bank Palestinians in Israel.)*

* *

*But the quest for peace based on the co-existence between Israel and Palestine has taken a big step forwards. Unity between the Palestinians should be the next. US support for the actual creation of the State of Palestine should come soon after. *

* *

*The strong must lead to the sweet. *

****************

Rabbi Lerner’s book Embracing Israel/Palestine is a perfect Chanukah or Christmas gift and deals with these issues in a balanced way that supports the peace voices in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities. Order it now from www.tikkun.org/EIP or call 510 644 1200 between 9 a.m. and noon M-F, Pacific Standard Time to pay with a credit card. Or gift it as a gift to yourself!

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/525/unsubscribe.jsp?Email=jonathanbaird1@gmail.com&email_blast_KEY=1262357&organization_KEY=525

After almost six months being down, my blog is up and running again. The blog had to be moved off its previous site to a new location. I want to thank my son Josh for all his help with the blog and its changes. Josh has been my webmaster since the start. He originally designed the site and he has helped me in innumerable ways. He has provided many good ideas, suggestions, and has been a great technical resource. He also helped majorly in the move of this site.

I also would like to thank my friend and Wilmot neighbor Elly Philllips who helped this weekend with some issues around transferring previous content to the new site. Elly was very generous with her help.

There are still some articles I have not yet posted as well as some updating of the blog I will get to shortly. I was a little worried that subscribers might be bombarded with multiple posts from me since we transferred many articles to the new site. I hope that did not happen! If it did , sorry.

I do expect to be writing and blogging more regularly now. Upcoming: a book review of “A Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture” by Marguerite Feitlowitz, an article about budget cutting justice in New Hampshire and a piece on the poet Kenneth Patchen.

I would reiterate that this blog solely reflects my views and perspectives. It does not reflect the views of my employer, the Social Security Administration.

Happy Holidays everyone!   Jon

 

Among the questions I have about the Nazi era are the questions: how and why the German people let the Nazis come to power. Also the question why the international community, including America, failed to see the danger. Erik Larson’s book “In the Garden of Beasts” suggests some answers. It tells the story of the early Nazi Germany years.

The subtitle of the book is “Love, Terror and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin”. Larson centers the narrative around the experience of the first American ambassador to Germany during the Nazi years, William E. Dodd. FDR appointed Dodd to his post in 1933. Dodd brought his wife, son, and daughter along with him to Germany. The book reads more like a memoir than history.

Larson focuses particularly on Dodd’s daughter, Martha. A free spirit, Martha was 21 when she arrived in Germany. She had a wide social circle that included a number of lovers of very different political persuasions. Initially Martha was smitten with the Nazis. She saw Germany as in the midst of a historic rebirth.

It would appear that cheery view was widely shared inside and outside Germany. In the early 1930’s, many visitors to Germany succumbed to that view. Larson shows how the Nazis were sensitive to public relations and tried to hide their violence. They arrested tens of thousands of people on no specific charges. These people, mostly Social Democrats, Communists, and Jews were held in so-called “protective custody”. According to Larson, in the very early Nazi period, an estimated 500-700 prisoners died in custody after enduring mock drownings and hangings. There was no German ACLU-equivalent nor was there a free press to publicize any of it. Nobody wrote about it on Twitter.

While there was international concern by 1933 about Nazi violence, many political observers did not think the Nazis would survive politically. That perception led to inaction. People like Dodd’s daughter, Martha, thought Nazi opponents were hysterical. They saw a Berlin that looked relatively normal.

I was struck by the acceptance of anti-semitism on all sides. Jews only comprised a tiny percentage of the German population, about 1%, which made them an easier group to scapegoat. As of 1933, Hitler and the Nazis did not lay all their anti-semitic cards out on the table. It got more vicious over time. In the United States, there was disbelief about the reports of Nazi brutality. The Nazis benefited from the mistaken perception that no civilized country would act as the Nazis were accused of acting. Many thought Nazi opponents exaggerated.

Early on the Nazis were organizing boycotts of all Jewish businesses in Germany; they did book burnings, suppressed a free press and caused Jews to be fired from their occupations. Ambassador Dodd was not taken in. He had a visceral dislike of the Nazis. Unlike much of the U.S. diplomatic elite which was like a preppie club, Dodd was a not wealthy academic. Still he too shared in the anti-semitism. Larson quotes Dodd. While Dodd did not approve of the Nazi ruthlessness, he wrote:

“When I have occasion to speak unofficially to eminent Germans I have said very frankly that they had a very serious problem but that they did not seem to know how to solve it. The Jews had held a great many more of the key positions in Germany than their numbers or their talents entitled them to.” (p.39 “In the Garden of Beasts”)

From the perspective of 2012, Dodd’s views are reprehensible but his views were not out of the mainstream then. Larson cites American public opinion polls from the 1930’s. In one poll, 41% of Americans polled believed Jews had too much power in the U.S.. Another found 20% wanted to drive Jews out of the U.S. The Jewish community in the U.S. was divided about how to respond to the Nazis. Rabbi Stephen Wise, among other Jewish leaders, pushed FDR to speak out. Other leaders aligned with the American Jewish Committee counselled a quieter response. Both factions were afraid to push for an increase in Jewish immigration to America. FDR was afraid of the political cost of condemning the Nazis. He worried how allowing an influx of Jewish refugees would play. America remained in economic depression.

Larson shows the deep division within the Roosevelt Administration. While the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins (by the way, the first woman in American history to hold a cabinet position), favored helping the Jews so more could emigrate, the State Department decidedly did not favor that position.Larson quotes two State Department officials to give a flavor of the the anti-semitic attitudes common in that department. William Phillips, undersecretary of state, loved visiting Atlantic City. He wrote in his diary:

“The place is infested with Jews. In fact, the whole beach scene on Saturday afternoon and Sunday was an extraordinary sight – very little sand to be seen, the whole beach covered by slightly clothed Jews and Jewesses.” (p. 30 “In the Garden of Beasts”)

He also quotes Wilbur Carr, an assistant secretary of state who had overall charge of the consular service. Carr called Jews “kikes”. In a memorandum, he wrote about Jews as follows:

“They are filthy, unAmerican and often dangerous in their habits. After a trip to Detroit, he described the city as being full of “dust, smoke, dirt, Jews” ” (p. 30 “In the Garden of Beasts”)

Early on Dodd wanted to believe the Nazis would evolve toward moderation. He recognized there was internal struggle inside the Nazi Party. Dodd met with Germany’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Konstantin Freiherr von Neurath, whom he perceived as a moderate. Neurath believed he could train the Nazis and turn them into moderate nationalists. Larson quoted Dodd as finding Neurath “most agreeable”. Dodd continued to hold false hopes the Nazis would moderate, another unfortunate delusion. Rather than people like Neurath moderating the beasts, the beasts outfoxed him and people like him.

At the same time, Dodd was dealing with cases of Americans being attacked on German streets by storm troopers who were always marching around. The continuing flow of these cases which typically featured gratuitous violence by the Nazis, weighed on Dodd. The Nazis would stomp people who they perceived as looking Jewish or for failing to give Nazi salutes. Dodd also had to deal with the press case of Edgar Mowrer, the Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News. The Nazis wanted Mowrer gone because of his critical reporting. The last thing they wanted was a free press. The Nazis threatened Mowrer. Dodd played a secondary role in persuading Mowrer to leave Germany.

Larson emphasizes the role of a government campaign called Gleichschaltung in bringing more Germans into line with the Nazis. Gleichschaltung means “coordination”. It is very reminiscent of the Eugene Ionesco play “Rhinoceros” and also the movie “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. To quote Larson:

” “Coordination” occurred with astonishing speed, even in sectors of life not directly targeted by specific laws, as Germans willingly placed themselves under the sway of Nazi rule, a phenomenon that became known as Selbsgleichschaltung or “self-coordination”. Change came to Germany so quickly and across such a wide front that German citizens who left the country for business or travel returned to find everything around them altered, as if they were characters in a horror movie who come back to find that people who once were their friends, clients, patients and customers have become different in ways hard to discern.” (p. 56-57 “In the Garden of Beasts”)

By the spring of 1934, Martha Dodd’s sympathy toward the regime had turned into revulsion. She saw Hitler leading what she perceived as docile and kindly masses into another war. Ambassador Dodd also became increasingly horrified. Later in 1934 both the Ambassador and Martha lived through Hitler’s purge known as “The Night of the Long Knives”. The book presents an up close and personal view of how Hitler orchestrated a purge of Rohm and other storm troopers. Larson says 284 Nazis and others were executed by Hitler.

There was little public reaction to the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler claimed, without evidence, that he had suppressed an imminent rebellion. The controlled German press praised Hitler for this mass murder. Instead of protest, there was silence. Hitler’s popularity skyrocketed. It was a prelude of what was to come.

Dodd noted the irony that the German people remained fanatically committed to love of animals, especially horses and dogs. German law forbade cruelty to animals. Violators could get jail time. Dodd wrote:

“At a time when hundreds of men have been put to death without trial or any sort of evidence of guilt, and when the population literally trembles with fear, animals have rights guaranteed them which men and women cannot think of expecting. He added, “One might easily wish he were a horse.” ” (p. 336 “In the Garden of Beasts”)

“In the Garden of Beasts” is a good read. It conveys the feel of life in Berlin in the early 30’s,  first-rate sketches of prominent Nazis, and a fascinating story that is hard to put down. I do think the book offers up some lessons for all who do not want to be a part of any Gleichschaltung. Here is what I gleaned:

1. The road to fascism and authoritarianism is a road of multiple incremental steps. The worst did not arrive full-blown. Each incremental step prepared the way for the next.

2. The Nazis were concerned about public opinion and preferred to reinforce existing prejudice rather than change anyone’s mind. They wanted the masses to internalize their anti-semitism and they worked to build hate gradually.. It is what one historian called “cumulative radicalization”.

3. As sick as it sounds, the German people were led to see themselves as participating in a noble rebirth of their country. The Nazis sold the myth that they were restoring a sense of national pride and many people bought in.

4. Anti-semitism was rife on all sides. Both Germans and Americans shared the prejudice. While the Nazis were the perpetrators, too often many Americans held similar underlying views. They certainly failed to respond to the increase in anti-semitism and never offered any safe harbor for those being persecuted in Europe.

5. Americans were slow to recognize the evil of Nazism. Division about how to respond to fascism, delusions about the Nazis, pro-Nazi isolationists, and American anti-semitism led to inaction and a delayed response to a genuine threat.

i will end with a quote from Toivi Blatt, who survived the death camps. He had been forced by the Nazis to work in Sobibor. He risked his life to escape:

“People asked me, “What did you learn?” and I think I’m only sure of one thing – nobody knows themselves. The nice person on the street, you ask him, Where is North Street?” and he goes with you half a block and shows you, and is nice and kind. The same person in a different situation could be the worst sadist. Nobody knows themselves. All of us could be good people or bad people in these (different) situations. Sometimes when somebody is really nice to me I find myself thinking, “How will he be in Sobibor?” ”  (from Auschwitz by Lawrence Rees p. xx )

May 4 marked the third anniversary of my dad’s death. Last weekend was my mom’s unveiling in Philadelphia. Along with family and friends, I went out to Roosevelt Memorial Park where both my parents are buried along with my sister Lise, my brother Rich, and other family members. It was sobering to see the line-up of graves.

I wanted particularly to remember my dad in some small way. I found a Wendell Berry poem that I wanted to share that evokes my dad. My dad loved horses. Earlier in his life, he owned some horses and both my parents, Lise and I all rode. I think Lise was the most accomplished rider among us, a skill she had honed at Camp Red Wing.

Dad’s horses were kept in a stable in Fairmount Park. We used to ride on trails through the park that sometimes overlooked the Expressway in Philadelphia. We would ride on Saturday. I remember the trails as quiet early in the morning when we rode. I have no idea if there are still people riding those trails or if they even exist anymore. Philadelphia has developed so much since those days. I know that old stable where we kept horses is long gone. My dad had a horse named Sugar that he rode western. When I started riding he had bought me a pony named Shoe-Shoe. I graduated to bigger horses and we had some great times riding together.

My dad used to subscribe to Appaloosa Magazine. I loved the horse pictures. I used to read that along with my beloved Sports Illustrated. Dad used to keep this incredibly fancy western saddle in our house that had belonged to my Uncle Joe. The saddle had not been used for many years and was mostly a display piece in our old house at 284 Melrose Road. If I recall correctly, Dad gave the saddle back to Hank Cohen before Hank died.

I think of my dad as a horse person. Dad, this poem is for you.

Come Forth       by Wendell Berry

I dreamed of my father when he was old.
We went to see some horses in a field;
They were sorrels, as red almost as blood,
the light gold on their shoulders and haunches.
Though they came to us, all a-tremble
with curiosity and snorty with caution,
they had never known bridle or harness.
My father walked among them, admiring,
for he was a knower of horses, and these were fine.

He leaned on a cane and dragged his feet
along the ground in hurried little steps
so that I called to him to take care, take care,
as the horses stamped and frolicked around him.
But while I warned, he seized the mane
of the nearest one. “It’ll be all right,”
he said, and then from his broken stance
he leapt astride, and sat lithe and straight
and strong in the sun’s unshadowed excellence.

Over 25 years ago psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton wrote an excellent book entitled “The Nazi Doctors”. The book looked at the role of doctors in the Third Reich. It tells the almost unbelievable story of how a noble profession dedicated to healing could become an agent of medical mass murder and horrendous, unspeakable experiments.

Being Jewish, a lawyer, and a judge, I have been curious how German lawyers and judges adapted to the ascendancy of fascism. I was not aware of any book like Lifton’s that has looked at how lawyers and judges behaved. I have  wondered: did they fight Nazism, collaborate, accommodate or simply lie low.

While I figured there would probably be a shameful story of cowardice and accommodation, I thought it would be interesting to investigate. The concept of the rule of law is in contradiction to Nazism yet I had never heard that lawyers and judges, as collective entities, actively or prominently opposed the Nazi drive to power.

From my past reading, it was my understanding that the Left, particularly the Social Democrats and the Communists, formed the main opposition to the Nazis. I know the Nazis had incarcerated thousands of leftists. I never heard about lawyers and judges.

I should say at the outset that I am not a historian. I am limited in source material. I have relied on Raul Hilberg’s work and two histories, “The Third Reich” by Michael Burleigh and “The Social History of the Third Reich 1933-1945” by Pierre Aycoberry. I did become aware of a good book by Ingo Muller, a German lawyer, entitled “Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich” which I have not had a chance to read. Still, I want to offer some observations.

Neither German lawyers nor judges ever mounted any effective opposition to the Nazis. The legal profession largely accommodated and collaborated with the Nazis. History shows a series of increasing restrictions and decrees focused against Jews by which the Nazis advanced their agenda. Professionals, including lawyers and judges, were all too willing to go along. Individual opponents were weeded out, threatened, purged and removed but the legal profession largely acquiesced. Hilberg stated:

“…a lawyer necessarily had to face at every turn the critical question of harmonizing peremptory measures against Jews with law. In fact this alignment was his principal task in the anti-Jewish work. Yet, in the end, lawyers, no less than physicians, mastered these mental somersaults.” (“Perpetrators, Bystanders and Victims” by Raul Hilberg p. 65-66)

Hilberg shows that from the first days of the Nazi regime, the legal profession was preoccupied with the ouster of Jewish lawyers. As early as 1933, many Jewish lawyers were getting disbarred solely on the basis they were Jewish.
The Nazis promulgated an April 7, 1933 Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which applied their blood and master race theories. If you were not Aryan, the Nazis eliminated you from practicing law. In Prussia, they dismissed 128 Jewish judges and state prosecutors that way.

The 1933 law did not eliminate all Jewish lawyers. Jewish lawyers who were disabled World War I veterans remained in practice. However, the legal profession, following the Nazis, aggressively demanded the removal of all Jewish lawyers. With the fevered pitch of anti-semitism rising, practice for Jewish lawyers and judges was made more difficult and ultimately impossible. By 1938, the legal profession restricted Jewish lawyers so they could only represent Jewish clients. Also, the legal profession took the title of lawyer away. Jewish lawyers were downgraded and given the new title “consultant”.

This gradual process by which Jews lost their rights happened on a wide range of fronts. Since Jews were classified as a sub-human “enemy of the Reich” by definition, they were not entitled to rights such as where they want to live, who they want to marry or sleep with, who they want to contract with etc. Jews could be evicted from their apartments because a lease was an instrument for a community of tenants to which a Jew could not belong.

The German Bar and Judiciary  spent great amounts of time mulling over Nazi-inspired legislation and crafting anti-Jewish law. To quote Hilberg again:

“To be defined as Jews, they only had to have had Jewish parents and grandparents. Discriminatory laws and regulations dealt in great detail with such problems as partners in mixed marriages, individuals with mixed parentage, and enterprises with mixed ownership. With each successive step, the gulf became wider. The Jews were marked with a star, and their contacts with non-Jews were minimized, formalized, or prohibited. Segregated in houses, ghettos, or labor camps, they were spatially isolated and concentrated.”  (“Perpetrators, Bystanders, and Victims” by Raul Hilberg p. X, preface)

In addition to their “laws”, the Nazis relied on thuggery. Anti-Nazi judges faced threats of violence from street toughs. Nazi officials would let judges know they were withdrawing any guarantee of protection. Amazingly, there is only one documented case of a judge who resisted and he received early retirement. The behavior of legal academics was equally dismal – another story of capitulation.

The Nazi attitude toward the law was disdain. The idea of an independent judiciary was anathema to them. Burleigh explains it this way:

“The Nazis followed many authoritarian Weimar constitutional theorists in claiming that existing law was abstract, unGermanic and overconcerned with individual rights and material interests. A dessicated law had ceased to reflect ‘racial morality’ and pulsating popular instinct. Revolutionist contempt for bourgeois justice combined with righteous indignation about the Nazis own persecution during the time of the system.”  (“The Third Reich” by Michael Burleigh p. 158)

The Nazis were conscious of the need for legal justification but they did not see law as an absolute value in itself. For them, law was instrumental. Hilberg wrote:

“Lawyers were everywhere and their influence was pervasive. Again and again, there was a need for legal justification. When the number two Nazi, Herman Goring, suggested in the course of a discussion at the end of 1938 that German travelers could always kick Jewish passengers  out of a crowded compartment on a train, the Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, replied: “I would not say that. I do not believe in this. There has to be a law”.  (Perpetrators, Bystanders and Victims” by Raul Hilberg p. 71)

The Nazis were big on formulating and promulgating decrees. Agencies would draft decrees that would be published in legal gazettes. Nazi bureaucrats would coordinate the matter of jurisdiction. Decrees could be given wide and diffuse interpretation. If not so sinister, these decrees could be a form of black humor. They were farcical as a matter of law. They were a veneer that covered the mutilation of procedural due process.

Hilberg has a provocative discussion about legal interpretation by the Nazi era German judiciary. He discusses a series of court decisions construing what was called the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor. This was a law that prohibited entry into a marriage as well as extramarital relations between Jews and Germans. Hilberg stated:

“…the courts ruled that sexual intercourse did not have to be consummated to trigger the criminal provisions of the law: sexual gratification of one of the persons in the presence of the other was sufficient. Touching or even looking might be enough. The reasoning in these cases was that the law covered not only blood but also honor, and a German, specifically a German woman, was dishonored if a Jew made advances toward her or exploited her sexually in any way.”  (“Perpetrators, Bystanders, and Victims” by Raul Hilberg p. 72)

If a Jewish defendant argued that he was unaware of the German background of his partner and he therefore lacked intent to violate the law, the court held that any Jew about to have sex with a German woman had first to obtain satisfactory documentary proof of her status. He could not rely on her assurance that she was of Jewish background. Such crazy interpretations became the norm.

As the Nazis proceeded to move Jews and others into the concentration camps for the Final Solution. there was no cry of outrage from the lawyers and the judges. There were no court cases raising due process, equal protection or other substantive defenses. Nor were there any Bar Association declarations or judicial pronouncements of opposition. What could have been a contrarian profession failed to say “no”.

Recognizing this history, what universal lessons, if any, are specific to lawyers and judges? Why did the lawyers and judges prove to be so weak, pliable, and accommodating? I will not even get into the how this could have happened. There are so many related questions and inquiries.

Experience shows the necessity for the rule of law and an independent judiciary, regardless of social system. I would say that is true under capitalism, socialism or really any system. Without the rule of law and an independent judiciary, there is no ultimate protection for individuals who are different because of religion, race, sex, sexual preference or political perspective (and even that may not be enough). The history of fascism shows what happens when legal machinery is fastened to a totalitarian project. The law transforms into a form of justification for ludicrous ends. The often tenuous relationship between law and justice is sundered. Lawyers and judges become mouthpieces for monsters.

The roles of lawyer and judge are both subject to opportunism and careerism. The perception of personal advancement can dictate going along, not rocking any boat, and, as happened with Nazism, degenerating into moral bankruptcy. Why so many went along and so few resisted is sobering. Personal profit, fear, anti-semitism, and a sick pride in being part of the Volk may all be reasons. Some took advantage of Jewish misfortune and did personally profit.

The idea of universal human rights was apparently an abstraction with no payoffs. It doesn’t appear too many lawyers or judges calculated there was a problem when the anti-Jewish laws came along. Demonizing the other apparently resulted in a stronger feeling of identity for the remaining members of the profession. For those who may have harbored doubts, the cost/benefit ratio probably was cautionary. As the Nazis consolidated power, the risks in opposition heightened. Nevertheless, the lack of principled opposition to the Nazis is a permanent stain and a forever disgrace on the German legal profession.

While beyond the scope of this blog entry, the lack of accountability for Nazi era behavior by the German Bar and Judiciary after the war is another story deserving of more attention.  The broad community of lawyers and judges escaped any day of reckoning. But that is a subject for another day…

Almost two years ago I wrote a blog entry about Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon. Garzon had famously pursued the former Chilean dictator, General Augusto Pinochet under the doctrine of universal jusrisdiction. Judge Garzon is probably one of the best known judges in the world but he is little known in the United States. Besides issuing a warrant that resulted in the arrest and detention of Pinochet in London, Garzon had indicted Osama Bin Laden and some Al Qaeda associates. He also had attempted to indict members of the Bush Administration for authorizing torture at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

I wanted to offer a further perspective on Judge Garzon because of recent developments. In February, Spain’s Supreme Court removed Garzon from his judicial post and suspended him from the judiciary for 11 years. Philippe Sands, an international law expert, had this to say:

“This is very troubling; targeting an independent judge or prosecutor through the criminal justice system anywhere raises very serious concerns. To sanction a possible breach of ethics or misconduct is up to professional organizations. To bring down the criminal justice system on an investigative judge for an alleged fault is to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is almost unique in Europe.”

The Garzon removal highlights the tension between an independent judiciary and regimes struggling to overcome a history of fascism or authoritarianism. Judges who are trying to do their jobs will be subject to the politics of the day. That could well mean interference, repression, prosecution, and removal.

I think the issues presented are almost universal. Lawyers and judges have generally not had a distinguished record either in opposing developing authoritarianism or in combating its aftermath. Possibly this is because the role of lawyer and judge is typically conventional. Stepping out may be a career, not to mention personal economic security, blaster. While this is obviously a complicated and wide-ranging generalization, I would cite the leading negative example of lawyer/judge conduct in Nazi Germany. To quote Raul Hilberg:

“The machinery of destruction included representatives of every occupation and profession.” (p.65 “Perpetrators, Victims and Bystanders” by Raul Hilberg)

While this is a subject very worthy of a separate blog piece (and more), I would say that lawyers and judges greased the way for fascism by creating a legal veneer and justification for a long series of Nazi actions. Not only did lawyers and judges not protest, they acted as loyal functionaries in an ongoing criminal system that masquaraded as legal. How and why they collaborated interests me as well as how the process unfolded. I am aware of Robert Jay Lifton’s book about Nazi doctors. I am not aware of any comparable book that has looked at the role of lawyers and judges in the Third Reich.

Spain in 2012 is far different than Germany during the Nazi era but the connection between human rights and a traumatic fascist history steeped in atrocities is similar. Unlike Germany, Spain has never had the equivalent of a Nuremberg Tribunal.

Judge Garzon angered Spanish rightists because in 2008 he launched an investigation into Spanish Civil War atrocities. Garzon was looking into the deaths of 114,000 people who had been disappeared during the fascist years. For many years, children and grandchildren of General Francisco Franco’s victims have been trying to find out what happened to their family members. Spain is littered with mass graves from the fascist period.

Garzon’s actions threatened people on the Right who, for whatever reason, did not want an investigation into past crimes. They had previously felt protected from such an investigation by a 1977 general amnesty law. That law was part of a compromise that allowed Spain to transition from fascism to democracy. Under the amnesty law, perpetrators of war crimes could not be prosecuted.

Even before the events of this year, Garzon had argued that the amnesty law could not cover mass human rights abuses. Universal jurisdiction would allow for prosecution of extraordinarily grave crimes against humanity such as torture and mass extermination. This was the basis the Israelis used, under international law, to try Adolf Eichmann.

However, in 2010, Spain’s Judicial Council suspended Garzon. The Council accused him of breaking the amnesty law of 1977. Previously the law had been interpreted to prevent any investigation into crimes committed before 1976.

It is an embarrassment and an international humiliation to arrest a judge for investigating tortures and disappearances. To quote Reed Brody, a lawyer from Human Rights Watch:

“…the spectacle of a judge as a criminal defendant, having to justify his investigation into torture, killing and disappearances was itself an affront to human rights and judicial independence.”

It must be pointed out that there is no statute of limitations under international law for prosecuting crimes against humanity. Franco’s victims have been trying to repeal the amnesty for years. The cases against Garzon are a form of reprisal for his attempt to unearth the past. Taking down Garzon protects against disclosure and possible future prosecutions.

There have been three cases brought against Garzon. The case that resulted in his removal from the judiciary had to do with supposed illegal wiretapping he authorized in a routine criminal corruption case. Garzon has vehemently denied the charges. While it is possible Garzon committed misconduct, my theory is that the cases collectively were meant to sideline and silence Garzon by putting him on the defensive. He cannot investigate when he has to spend huge resources defending himself. The tactic is hardly unusual as a way to stop a political foe although the use of the criminal justice system to shut up Garzon is a disturbing precedent.

Garzon has publicly stated that he will fight his judicial removal in Spain’s Constitutional Court or in the European Court of Human Rights. He is being prosecuted in Spain for trying to promote the principles he has successfully promoted internationally.

“This is the paradox and the irony of a situation in which Spain has been a pioneer in the application of universal jurisdiction. Yet, when it actually comes to investigating the case and the facts of the case in Spain, the country denies access to the facts and puts the judge himself on trial. It is the obligation of a judge to investigate the cases and to search for truth, justice and reparations for the victims of these crimes.” (Garzon interview by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, May 12, 2011)

It will be interesting to see if Garzon can reverse the verdict imposed against him. His “disappearance” from the judiciary is a loss to the cause of human rights.