Ivory Tower

This song is dedicated to accused terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: “Free Me,” by Roger Daltry.

***

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, could soon be a free man. What form that freedom remains to be seen.

President Barack Obama recently proclaimed that Mohammed most certainly will be convicted, and executed, of planning the attacks that killed thousands of Americans and others. That would thus free him from his earthly shackles and send him on his way to meet Allah.

Of course, Obama should never have gone and done such a thing. Mohammed has been brought stateside from his pen at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was being held as a military combatant (but without the guaranteed rights the Geneva Conventions provide for war prisoners). He will face a civilian trial in a New York federal court, Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced. That means a civilian jury will be chosen to hear the evidence and pass judgment.

While many people express concern about such a trial, and insist that the attacks were an act of war, the decision is the right one. Radical Muslims might consider this part of a holy war, and it was, essentially, the provocation that led us to launch military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it remains an act by individuals acting without the sanction of any government (to the best of our knowledge), and the largest targets were buildings filled with innocent civilians, although the Pentagon houses our nation’s military brain trust. If this deserves to be tried in military court, then Timothy McVeigh should also have faced military trial for his attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

In civilian trials, defense attorneys always look for, and prosecutors try their darnedest to guard against, anything that might prejudice the jury and deny the accused a fair, impartial trial. That could lead to a mistrial and another kind of freedom for Mohammed — he just might walk out of the courtroom a free man.

And it’s hard to think of anything more prejudicial than to have your conviction promised by the president of the United States, before any evidence has been offered.

Prosecutors face other problems securing a guilty verdict against the alleged terrorist, not the least of which is the reported torture of Mohammed and others. He reportedly confessed to the crime, but how valid is that confession if it was obtained through waterboarding or other “enhanced coercive interrogation techniques,” as the Cheney — er, Bush — administration calls the mistreatment wrought on several Guantanamo inmates?

Even if the confession is allowed to stand, we can’t assume it will stick. I’m no expert on the radical, violent fundamental arm of Islam that brings God’s wrath down on his children, including fellow Muslims, but from what I’ve seen, we can’t discount the possibility that Mohammed would be only too happy to take the fall for this act — which he probably doesn’t see as a crime — even if he’s not the real brains behind the deed. What if the evidence reveals that he isn’t?

Think about it: why wouldn’t a good fundamental warrior want to admit to this act and face the executioner’s needle? He’d become a hero and a martyr in the minds of his fellow jihadists; in his mind, he’d get to leave this earthly existence that much sooner and move on to the afterlife, where he’d get to deflower all those waiting virgins. And, he’d enable the real mastermind to continue escaping scrutiny, leaving him free to continue planning and, perhaps, financing other acts of holy terror.

Certainly, a lot of people won’t care. He’s radical enough, and many people want to see somebody — anybody — fry for what happened. And as time passes and evidence and memories become murkier, crystal clear proof that Mohammed, or anybody else, is directly responsible for the attacks becomes harder to get.

We need to remember, however, that vengeance is not justice. Executing the wrong guy and closing the books isn’t just a miscarriage of justice, but it also enables the real killer to escape the justice he deserves.

So this trial could prove problematic. But that’s precisely why this case is best tried in a civilian court, under our rules of thorough discovery and evidence.

At least our president is confident of the outcome. Unfortunately, his own expression of that confidence might well have put the outcome in doubt.

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor of The Brownsville Herald. His e-mail address is crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.

***

Marriage is one of the most sacred, significant and personal things most people will face in their lives. That’s precisely why the government has no business even being in the marriage business.

States throughout the country have been debating the issue of gay marriage for years. Like the majority, Texas enacted a “defense of marriage” act, decreeing that valid marriages can only involve a man and a woman. Some states, however, allow homosexual marriages.

This raises interesting matters involving the Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. …”

It recently became an issue when a couple of guys who were married in Massachusetts sought to get a divorce in Texas. If this state didn’t consider their marriage valid, how could it validate their divorce?

A Dallas judge determined that Texas’ definition of marriage is unconstitutional. State Attorney General Greg Abbott has appealed the ruling, and Gov. Rick Perry has condemned it.

We can expect the debate to be repeated in other states, since gay couples are no more immune to breakups than their heterosexual counterparts. In addition, advocacy groups have been challenging state laws that presume to define, and restrict, marriage.

Gay unions aren’t the only marital controversy to arise lately. A Louisiana justice of the peace recently refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, citing concerns about the welfare of any children the couple might have.

Until now people generally have had no problem with allowing government to regulate marriage, through the issuance of licenses and laws ostensibly intended to protect the parties involved.

But is there even a need for government involvement in the institution of marriage?

Certainly, people are used to the government’s sanction of weddings, and the legal rights that grow out of them. The marriage license is a valuable document when those rights need to be asserted. As we’ve seen regarding gay unions, insurance coverage, inheritances and other matters are affected when two people say, “I do.”

But couldn’t those matters be handled just as easily through our well-established system of common contract law?

There’s no need to go to the extremes that are taken in Mexico, where the separation of church and state, at least with respect to marriage, is so absolute that people who wish to be married in the church, which could be a majority of Mexican couples, must go through two ceremonies — one religious and one civil. U.S. religious officials, as well as judges, mayors, ship captains and other officials, can be licensed to perform the marriage ceremony, as they are now.

Licenses shouldn’t even be necessary for something so personal. However, the document can be valuable in the event of any unfortunate acrimonious breakup. The license essentially guarantees the existence of a legal, binding document that can be invoked to secure the estranged individuals’ rights, and it probably is cheaper than any similar document that might be drawn up by a lawyer.

Besides, the aforementioned officials would never give up the lucrative side business they now enjoy of performing weddings for loving couples.

The fact that so many people in Mexico choose to endure two weddings, and a good many Americans likely would do the same if they had to, indicates quite clearly that for many if not most people, marriage transcends the simple legal aspect of promising to love, honor and cherish.

Regulation of marriage — especially to the point of defining who can and cannot get married — increasingly is a problem for public officials, who can expect more headaches as people challenge those regulations. They’d be better off letting individual churches and officials decide whom they will and won’t unite in holy matrimony, and let couples search for somebody who’s willing to do the honors. Holiness, after all, is best defined in our churches, and in the hearts of God’s people; it will never be found in the halls of government.

Besides, grown, rational and consenting people shouldn’t have to ask for the government’s permission to marry the people they love.

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor for The Brownsville Herald. His e-mail address is crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com

We dedicate this song to all Americans who feel that their elected officials don’t reflect their personal views: “Stuck in the Middle With You,” by Stealers Wheel.

***

Our nation’s political battles are becoming more contentious. Last week’s outburst by U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., during President Obama’s speech on socialized health care last week is only the most recent and most visible volley in an increasingly bitter battle between two widely divergent political parties.

Democrats try to show a united front in hopes that they’ll remain in power. However, a power struggle is going on behind the scenes between staunch liberals and “blue dog,” or more fiscally conservative, members.

Across the fence, former Vice President Dick Cheney and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh earlier this year launched attacks on former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who complained that the Republican Party alienates legions of people who agree in principle with the party’s core values; many of them are people of color.

Limbaugh essentially said that people who aren’t hard-core right-wingers should simply leave the party.

Should they? Should they fight a tough battle to wrest control of the party from entrenched neocons, or should they look for, or form, another group that is fiscally conservative but socially liberal?

The problem is, most Americans seem to be caught in the middle of the two parties.

Many Americans — a majority, it seems — believe they are taxed so much that their standard of living is compromised. They question many of the programs, and the cost, of programs promoted by the Democratic Party. Many are horrified to think that their tax dollars are being used to fund things they consider morally wrong, such as abortion. They might not like union-friendly legislation that impedes workers’ ability to make independent agreements with employers.

While they might want fiscal restraint, however, many Americans have a real problem with institutionalized xenophobia, edicts that mandate the promotion of a specific religion to the detriment of others, or restrictions on media, behavior and expression the Republican Party espouses.

The obvious question, then, is, why do Americans, who ostensibly decide who gets elected and what party gains power, allow these political aberrations to run the country? Why don’t we have a strong political party that reflects the majority view? After all, other parties do exist; they just don’t have the strength of the two biggies.

You can pick your answer: Maybe the assumption is wrong, and people really are gathered at either ends of the spectrum. Maybe people prefer a two-party system that precludes the formation of coalitions that would lead to compromise legislation rather than the all-or-nothing battles we have today. Or maybe the incumbent parties have stacked the deck in their favor, and a vote for a minority party might as well be thrown away. People don’t think they have a choice.

Actually, they do. Several other political parties exist, although most of them are single-issue groups like the Green Party, America First Party and the U.S. Marijuana Party.

Some, however, do offer comprehensive philosophies that can be applied to all aspects of life and government.

The largest of these is the Libertarian Party. Traditionally most in line with our country’s Jeffersonian founders, it combines the small-government views that conservatives espouse, while defending the social freedoms that many modern political liberals tout.

Members of the Libertarian Party’s state and local organizations will be in Brownsville on Sunday to discuss their political philosophy, and to see if anyone who agrees with their positions might want to run for state or congressional office in upcoming elections.

They will meet at 2 p.m. Sunday at the Denny’s restaurant at 6131 Paredes Line Rd. Anyone who wants to look beyond the limited options offered by our two major parties is welcome to stop by and listen to the Libertarians’ message.

They might or might not convince newcomers to support their political efforts. What’s important, however, is that people recognize that they are not limited to the two big parties. If enough people decide to vote their conscience, rather than for political expediency, we could well get members of our legislative bodies who better reflect the views of most Americans.

At the very least, active and informed voters would force the current majorities to respect the opinions of the people who put them in power in the first place.

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor of The Brownsville Herald. His e-mail address is crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday that the recession that’s plagued the country for the past year “is very likely over at this point.”

We’ll see.

Many positive signs could support the Fed chief’s announcement; economic indicators are still sluggish, but their rate of decline has slowed. At least the stock market has started to improve, but it’s still; a bit spastic. Many of the sales could be speculators scooping up securities with depressed prices. Secured debt is still selling short.

In addition, unemployment hasn’t begun to rebound, and that means that many of the core element of any economy — consumers with disposable income — still hasn’t begun to grow. Indeed, many workers with jobs have taken pay cuts and endured unpaid furloughs, so even they have less money to spend.

It’s worth noting that this is at least the third time Bernanke has announced an official end to the recession. Makes one wonder if he’s trying to pull a Greenspan.

Former fed chief Alan Greenspan was so influential that if he sneezed, the markets tanked over fears that he might be coming down with something. If he announced the recession was over, Wall Street probably would have rallied to the point of actually pulling the economy out of the doldrums.

Bernanke doesn’t have that power, however. Unfortunately for him, it wasn’t the position that was so influential, it was Greenspan himself. Bernanke doesn’t inspire that kind of confidence among the nation’s financial movers and shakers.

So the previous two ploys, if they were ploys, didn’t work. And if they were ploys, they exposed Bernanke as a manipulative wonk who tried to force the issue, and failed. It’s worse if they weren’t ploys, since that would expose our nation’s top economic official as someone who misreads the indicators and doesn’t know when a recession actually ends.

Either way, it was a bad display of Keynsianism.

Because of this, Bernanke’s latest announcement might well backfire, if its seen as yet another cynical effort to make the economy rebound by force, rather than by just letting it heal on its own.

Chances are the investors will simply ignore his latest proclamation, and the economy will start to once again grow when it’s good and ready — that is, when it has rebuilt a solid base and can maintain its growth.

We dedicate this song to everybody involved in the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation circus: “Everyday People,” by Sly and the Family Stone.

***

Sotomayor’s Senate approval to the nation’s highest court was inevitable, since the Democrats had enough votes to make it so. In the days leading up the final vote last week, most talk was about the politics involved in the vote: were conservatives more afraid of offending the gun lobby that had come out against her, or Hispanic voters who would likely remember on Election Day?

It shouldn’t have been this way, but it was. In a way it had to be. Sotomayor has been a federal judge for 17 years, and in that time she’s made hundreds of decisions on which she could, and can, be judged.

However, during Judicial Committee hearings and leading up to final confirmation, Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” statement, made at a 2001 symposium at the University of California at Berkeley got most of the attention. Conservatives were shocked — shocked! — that she would suggest that a “wise Latina” — emphasis on “Latina” — would make a better decision than a white guy.

The senators and other naysayers knew better. Many of them are the same people who voted for her when President George H.W. Bush nominated her to a federal district court and again when President Clinton tagged her for a federal appeals court.

The opponents conveniently ignored the fact that the judge’s emphasis in her speech was on “wise,” and that she was speaking at a symposium specifically dealing with the presence of Latinos in the judiciary. She was addressing the famous statement attributed to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same conclusion. Sotomayor said she hoped a wise Latina, with her knowledge and experience, would reach a better conclusion than a not-so-wise white guy.

Her point was that equally wise people with diverse backgrounds and experiences could better evaluate issues and reach better collective judgments because of their diversity, “whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences.”

In the same discussion, Sotomayor noted that nine white males had proven their wisdom in 1954 when, comprising the Supreme Court of the day, they unanimously ruled against school segregation in the landmark Brown v. the Topeka, Kansas, Board of Education.

“I … believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable,” she said in her speech. “… (N)ine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues, including Brown.”

The fact that race is still such a major issue in these kinds of decisions shows just how important it is to create that kind of diversity. Every time a opening occurs on such a major panel, whether it’s the Supreme Court or other high-profile office, minorities of all types clamor for one of their own to be chosen, and they cry discrimination if they don’t get their wish. Likewise, Anglos cry reverse discrimination whenever a minority is chosen.

It’s worth noting that most of the landmark decisions advancing equal treatment of all have only come about in the past generation.

The good news is that we see signs that those efforts to promote equality are paying off. The fact that pretty much every minority group can provide a healthy list of qualified candidates, whether it be for firefighter or Supreme Court justice, is significant.

That wasn’t so easy just 30 years ago, and it shows that the opportunities are growing. It might seem incongruous, but the very fact that it’s becoming easier to find qualified applicants or nominees from various demographic groups suggests that it’s becoming less crucial to focus on demographics when considering candidates. As long as the decisions are objective, the best candidate should win out.

However, these battles that place ethnicity over qualifications show that too many people still don’t see equality with regard to race, creed, color, gender or any other factor over which we have no control. Of course, some people never will.

And until those people are in the minority, we will still have a ways to go.

I swear I can’t get a break. Everybody’s got their shorts in a bundle just because I didn’t show up for the voluntary conditioning sessions for my new team, the Buffalo Bills, this week. They were voluntary, weren’t they? Am I the only one who wasn’t there?

Since when do I need special conditioning sessions? Everybody knows, or should know, that I’m the last person they have to worry about when it comes to conditioning. I always stay in shape and I have my own personal trainer. He does what’s best for me, and only me.

I’ve never gone to any voluntary workouts. Never had to. Why do I have to start now after all these years? Nobody knows what’s best for me better than me.

By now everybody knows that I always come to training camp in top condition and ready to play. When the mandatory camps start and I have to be there I’ll be there, and nobody will work harder than I will. I’ll learn the routes and I’ll still know how to get open. It’s always been that way.

Some people say I should have showed up just to meet my new teammates, to play nice with the Buffalo fans and show them that I’m with them; a team player. These folks still don’t get it.

It’s not about team. It’s about me.

I tried that team stuff with the Cowboys. I tried to say the right things for the first year and a half. I even cried for my quarterback. See where it got me — Siberia. I’ll be dodging caribou on my way to the goal line up here. I don’t even know what frozen popcorn tastes like.

I don’t know why people still don’t get it. It’s simple. I’m the best. I make the plays. When I touch the ball good things happen. I have the stats to prove it. So it only stands to reason that if we want more good things to happen, I have to touch the ball more often.

It really is that simple. People shouldn’t make things more complicated than they need to be.

Besides, everybody should know that once I’m here I’ll do all the right things and say the right things. I’ll be a model citizen.

When have I ever gotten in trouble with the law? When have I ever shot myself in the leg? Some people might say I’ve shot myself in the foot a few times, but they’re just haters. They choose not to mention all the good things I do. I’ll bet they didn’t even notice the Young Champions Award I just picked up for all the work I do to help Alzheimer’s patients. At the nation’s capital, no less. You think a voluntary practice session is more important than that? I didn’t think so.

And I’m a man of my word. Like I told the Alzheimer’s Association when I accepted the Young Champions Award, all you have to say is, “Hey T.O.,” and if it’s humanly possible I’ll be there. It’s the same with my team — as long as it counts. Voluntary workouts don’t count. But don’t worry, I’m getting my workouts in.

And I promise you one thing: once I’m here, I’m going to hit this town like a hurricane. I’m going to sell tickets, put people in the seats, give them a reason to freeze their buns off in the Buffalo winters.

Heck, the buzz has already started. The league scheduled us on Monday Night Football on the very first week, against New England. Me versus Randy Moss — that’s how they’re already promoting it.

You think the Bills would make prime time the very first week if it weren’t for me? You don’t even have to think about the answer. I think people around Buffalo are already starting to see why my middle name is Eldorado: I’m pure gold.

So get your popsicles ready. I will be there. And when I am, you’ll all be glad I’m there. Just make sure Trent Edwards and the coaches know that I can’t be effective if I’m not getting the ball. I can’t make good things happen when my hands are empty.

We can have a great year, if we’re all on the same page. At the very top of that page they should see a picture of me. Because if the end result they’re looking for is success, then it all has to start with me.

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor for The Brownsville Herald. Contact him at (956) 982-6681, or by e-mail at crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.