As soon as I heard that Al Gore had won a Nobel Peace Prize, I could not help recalling the prize he had won but which was denied him: the American presidency. We should not forget how much America lost in that election. Every fact in this brief account can be verified in detail. We can’t put the past behind us because we are living with its awful consequences.
Vice President Al Gore had a more than half-million vote plurality over Texas Governor George W. Bush, but victory depended on which candidate won Florida’s electoral votes. In the early Florida vote count after Election Day in 2000, the official difference between them was less than three-hundredths of one percent (0.0299) of the total, and the Florida Election Code required an automatic recount in every one of the state’s 67 counties if the margin of victory is less than one-half of one percent. It never took place. Two weeks after the election, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously ruled that hand counts must be included in the vote totals. Every possible obstacle was placed in the path of conducting such a count. Texas, the state of which Bush was governor, required that all punch-card ballots should be counted where a chad (the piece punched out by the voter) is not completely detached, with the overriding concern being the “clearly ascertainable intent of the voter.” But that was not the intent of those who acted on behalf of candidate Bush.
The strategy of the Bush camp was to prevent a full recount before December 12, after which date Florida could avoid a challenge by another slate of electors, should the complete vote reveal that Gore had in fact won. The tactics employed were to stall, delay, object, and terminate the vote counts that had been undertaken in order to prevent a full recount before that date. When Secretary of State Harris declared Bush the victor without a recount, the Florida Supreme Court extended the vote count deadline. The Republican-controlled Florida legislature was called into special session to appoint electors pledged to Bush.
On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court ordered an immediate manual recount of all ballots on which no vote had been machine-recorded. On the next day, shortly after the Miami-Dade County manual count resumed, the Supreme Court halted the hand count. It heard arguments the following day (December 10), waited a weekend, and on December 12 announced it was now too late to conclude the count. As much as the 5-4 Supreme Court majority wanted to shoot down Gore’s candidacy, they wanted someone else to fire the shot. Whether motivated by propriety or cowardice or political calculation, they wrote an opinion returning the case to the Florida Supreme Court, but the Florida court was not allowed to formulate a rule for continuing and concluding the hand count, or to do anything except declare that Gore’s candidacy was dead. The following day, Gore conceded defeat. This shameless stealing of the election after the votes were cast was exceeded only by the tactics employed to manipulate the voting itself.
Voters were denied the opportunity to cast their votes. Evidence demonstrates that the names of black voters were removed from registration rolls, voting sites were moved without notification, ballot boxes were uncollected, polling places were understaffed, language assistance was denied, and voting machines were unreliable. Secretary of State Harris, without competitive bidding, hired a private company to compile lists of convicted felons who should be barred from the polls. Many on the lists were innocent people who had names that sounded like those of convicted felons (no effort was made to check the names against Social Security numbers), many had been convicted only of lesser crimes (a misdemeanor conviction does not involve losing the right to vote), and thousands had been convicted and served time in the thirty-seven states that restore citizenship rights. Jeb Bush and Harris both testified under oath that the verification of the felon lists was neither their responsibility nor that of the company that compiled the lists. A University of Minnesota study estimated that if 80 percent of those unfairly barred from voting had voted, this would have resulted in more than 35,000 more votes for Gore and 4000 for Bush.
Voters who were not helped when they should have been. Although Florida law allows disabled voters to have another person assist them, ballots were disallowed from elderly or disabled voters whose signatures did not match the old originals.
Illegal voters and others were helped who should not have been. The Seminole County elections supervisor allowed the Republicans two weeks to make corrections and resubmissions on thousands of absentee ballots. In Martin County, Republicans were allowed to add identification numbers to application forms for absentee ballots and to remove applications from the elections supervisor’s office. In addition, The Miami Herald found that ineligible voters were allowed to sign in at polls where they were not registered.
Voters were unconstitutionally misled. As required by law, the local newspaper in Duval County printed a sample ballot. It stated that voters should vote on every page, but the names of the presidential candidates were printed on two pages. Voters who followed that instruction cast voided ballots. Thirty percent of the undercounted ballots in Duval County were cast in heavily black precincts that voted ten-to-one for Gore. As a consequence of this two-page presidential ballot and the improper instructions that accompanied it, Duval County discarded more than three times as many ballots in 2000 (26,909) as it had in 1996 (7762).
In Palm Beach County, the so-called butterfly ballot listed candidates’ names on facing left-hand and right-hand pages. The major party candidates were listed on the left-hand page, with Bush first and Gore second. Patrick Buchanan was listed first among the minor party candidates on the right-hand page. Voters had to punch a hole in a middle column that combined the lists, alternating names of candidates from the left and right. This meant that Bush, first on the left was first in the center, while Buchanan was listed next, and Gore, who was second on the left in the list of candidates, was third in the center column where voters made their choice. A voter could reasonably assume that the candidate listed second would appear second in the order in which they voted. In that way thousands of Palm Beach County voters who intended to vote for Gore mistakenly voted for Buchanan.
This ballot format violated Florida law that clearly specifies that votes must be cast to the right of the candidate’s name. It also violated common sense in requiring that a vote for the second candidate on the ballot (Gore) meant punching the third hole, and a vote for a candidate much lower on the ballot (Buchanan) meant punching the second hole. Because many voters recognized their error, they punched two holes, invalidating their ballots.
Buchanan received one-fifth (19.6 percent) of the Palm Beach vote, compared with one-twentieth (5.4 percent) in 1996, when the butterfly ballot was not used. It takes a leap of faithlessness to believe that Buchanan received his greatest support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who until that election had despised Buchanan. To his credit, Buchanan publicly stated his belief that these voters had not intended to vote for him. Analyses indicate that he received between 2000 and 3000 votes that had been intended for Gore, vastly more than Bush’s official victory margin of 537 votes.
The votes of many voters were not recorded through no fault of their own. One-third of all Florida voters lived in punch-card counties with a high proportion of low-income, minority, and first-time voters, in which it was nearly three times as likely that their ballots would be rejected as would the ballots of voters in counties using optical systems. (An inventor of the punch-card machine testified as to its unreliability.) Dimpled ballots, that is, punch-card ballots in which an indentation has been made but there is no visible hole, were counted in Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts and other states, but not in Florida. It is not surprising that Palm Beach County with its butterfly ballot and Duval County with its improper instructions to voters, and both with all the problems associated with punch-card voting, had thirty-one percent of the uncounted ballots, even though they cast only twelve percent of the statewide vote.
There were voters whose intentions were clear but whose votes were never counted. Thousands of voters indicated their preference of a candidate in the normal fashion and then wrote in the name of the same candidate in the place reserved for write-in votes. (This could not occur when voting on optical scanners.) Whether due to oversight or ignorance, these voters had not followed instructions, but their intentions were unmistakable. Whatever form the voting procedure takes, it is not designed to be an intelligence test or anything but an expression of the voter’s intention. Voters who emphasize and underline their choice of candidate by both punching a ballot and writing in the same candidate’s name have made the most unmistakable demonstration of their intention. Had the overvotes been counted, Gore would have received many times more votes than were necessary to overcome Bush’s official lead.
In retrospect, it is evident that the media exit polls on Election Day that called Florida for Gore were correct, because they reported the intentions of the voters who went to the polls and who believed that they had cast valid ballots. The National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago was hired by a consortium consisting of The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other newspapers to undertake a first count of approximately 120,000 overvotes (where voters appeared to have made two choices, even if both were for the same candidate) and 60,000 undervotes (where the machine count had not revealed the voter’s choice).
The consortium calculated eight ways of counting disputed punch-card votes – correctly marked paper ballots, full punches, poorly marked paper ballots, chads detached at three corners, chads detached at two corners, chads detached at only one corner, dimpled ballots with sunlight, or only dimples -– and concluded that Gore would have won the Florida vote by every one of the eight methods. Of course, no examination after the fact could take into account the thousands of voters who had mistakenly voted for Buchanan instead of Gore, the thousands who compounded their mistake by voting for both Buchanan and Gore, and the would-be voters who had been turned away from the polls or were discouraged from voting because of intimidation or the improper appearance of their names on lists of felons barred from voting.
Judicial involvement and determination of the result represented an unconstitutional intervention in the political process, because it violated the Electoral Count Act. That Act, adopted to prevent a repetition of the misguided judicial involvement in the election of 1876, states that Congress is the primary body to resolve any lingering contention after the states have tried to settle electoral disputes. It is an authority that was never given to the courts.
Who were the Justices who so egregiously made it impossible to ascertain the true will of Florida voter, acted contrary to their long-proclaimed deference to states’ rights, and awarded the election to the candidate who had lost the vote? During the 1986 hearings on William Rehnquist’s nomination as Chief Justice, five witnesses testified that Rehnquist had harassed black and Latino voters at Arizona polling places in 1962, demanding to know if they were “qualified to vote.” Justice Antonin Scalia’s son was a member of the law firm of Theodore Olson, who argued the Bush case before the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife was employed by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation to vet prospective office-holders in a future Bush administration. When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor heard Dan Rather call Florida for Gore on CBS, she exclaimed, “This is terrible.” Her husband explained to other guests at the election night party they were attending that his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant that they would have to wait at least another four years. These facts demonstrate not illegal conduct, but indifference to avoiding the appearance of impropriety, which would have led them to remove themselves from consideration of the case.
Gore would have won Florida and the election had there been an immediate recount in every one of Florida’s 67 counties or just a revote in Palm Beach County. An unprecedented political juggernaut was rolled out to ensure that this would not happen. It employed the political power and resources of Governor Jeb Bush, the presidential candidate’s brother, who recruited his own political operatives and volunteers to move into disputed counties; James Baker, the Bush family’s consigliere, who masterminded the teams of lawyers and political operatives who engaged in “spontaneous demonstrations,” including a window-pounding protest that succeeded in halting the Miami-Dade County recount (many participants were rewarded with appointments in the Bush administration); Secretary of State Katherine Harris, co-chair of George W. Bush’s Florida campaign, who was prepared to change the rules and interpret the results as proved necessary in order to insure Bush’s election; the Florida House of Representatives, which voted on party lines to appoint electors pledged to George W. Bush, irrespective of how the recounts turned out, and the Florida Senate, which was prepared to cast a similar vote if the U.S. Supreme Court had not resolved the election in Bush’s favor, and finally the five predictable members of that Court.
The most fundamental elements of an American presidential election include the right of all qualified citizens to cast a vote, an accurate count of all discernible votes, and the awarding of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate whose slate of electors received the most votes. None of those conditions were met in Florida in 2000. The great pleasure that most Americans feel upon Gore’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize must be tempered by our awareness that a corrupt coalition denied him the presidency after winning the election. There are banana republics that conduct more honest elections than the United States did in 2000. It was the first time that Al Gore taught us an inconvenient truth.
If you wish to subscribe to Thinking Out Loud, e-mail
thinkingoutloud@stanleyfeingold.com, and write "subscribe."
The price of your subscription is occasionally thinking out loud by responding. Comments, criticisms and corrections are
welcome. This comment is an exception to my rule to keep the essays under 1500 words. To unsubscribe, write "cancel."
Stanley Feingold
Monday, October 15, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
MUST AMERICA EMPLOY WAR PROFITEERS AND MERCENARIES IN IRAQ?
The United States is engaged in an undeclared war (the longest in American history) against an unnamed enemy (terrorism neither identifies whom we are fighting nor the meaning of victory), by means that do not affect most Americans, but will produce great profits for private contractors and great indebtedness for future generations.
This indictment demands demonstration. The war in Iraq is an undeclared war: American entry into World War II was based on the last congressional declaration of war, although the Constitution requires it. It is the longest war: It is now four-and-a-half years, and there is no end in sight. The enemy is unnamed: Al Qaeda was not even in Iraq when America invaded that country in March 2003, and the enemy now consists mostly of unnamed nationalists, insurgents and terrorists, whose ranks are subject to augmentation or diminution at any time, and with none of whom America can sign a treaty ending the war.
It once would have seemed unimaginable that a war of this magnitude, of such great cost to the United States, and involving such great loss of life to combatants and innocent civilians, could be waged without having an impact on the lives of most Americans, but it is clear that apart from the high cost of gasoline (insofar as it is related to the war), the overwhelming majority of Americans are personally untouched, neither knowing anyone in the armed forces nor being asked to make any sacrifice for the cost and conduct of the war.
The real cost now exceeds one trillion dollars. No one can guess how much greater it will be by the time the United States leaves Iran. To whom is that money going? The answer is that never in American history have private corporations profited so greatly or corruptly from the performance of tasks that until now were considered the responsibilities of the armed forces. Most non-combat roles, and the use of armed security forces, have been outsourced to 630 private companies work for the United States in Iraq, employing approximately as many persons as are there in the American military.
Of necessity, some of these are Iraqi firms, employing non-American personnel, because they have knowledge and linguistic skills which the American armed forces do not possess. However, the vast majority of contracts, dollars spent, and personnel employed are American civilian contractors who are subject to virtually no oversight or accountability for how and how much they spend or how much they profit.
The most famous or infamous of American contractors (but far from the largest) is Blackwater U.S.A., which provides security forces for the U.S. State Department, and is not subject to supervision or control by the U.S. Department of Defense. Blackwater, a company that contributes heavily to the Republican Party, was hired (as have other contractors) without competitive bidding. The notoriety of Blackwater derives from documented instances (described by American and Iraqi eyewitnesses) in which Blackwater employees have opened fire and killed unarmed Iraqis without provocation. As of this writing, Blackwater security guards and other personnel have been involved in 195 shooting incidents since 2005. In at least two cases, Blackwater, with the approval of it employer, the State Department, made cash payments to family members of its victims who complained, and it has sought to cover up other cases.
Last year on Christmas eve, a Blackwater employee, while drunk, killed a bodyguard for one of Iraq’s two vice presidents. Blackwater, with the help of the State Department, spirited the assailant out of Iraq within 36 hours. More than nine months have passed, and no charges have yet been brought against the assailant. Many other charges against these guards have been made by Iraqi and American military officers. Until now, they have been immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts and protected by agencies of the American government from effective prosecution in the United States.
Given the cost in human lives, it might be callous to consider the economic cost, but for the fact that the war has been a source of great wealth for those to whom the United States has outsourced much of the cost. A single example, typical of arrangements with other companies, will indicate how wasteful it has been for the United States and how very profitable it has been for the companies and individuals who have received these contracts.
Blackwater pays an individual security guard $600 a day (that comes to $180,000 a year), which is four or five times the income the security guard received when he was a member of the American military. (He also benefits from having armored cars that are safer than Army vehicles.) To the security guard’s salary, Blackwater adds a 36% markup (for a total of $815 a day) plus overhead and costs in Iraq, including insurance, room and board, travel, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, office space, and equipment. This bill goes to Regency Hotel, a Kuwaiti company, that tacks on the cost of its buying vehicles and weapons, plus a profit for itself, and sends an invoice to ESS, a German food services company that cooks meals for the troops. Regency has billed ESS a price of $1500 per man per day, but it has told Blackwater it was charging $1200, giving it a substantial secret profit. ESS adds on its costs and profit, and sends its bill to Halliburton, which also adds overhead and profit, and presents its bill to the Pentagon. The United States has no contract with ESS, which will not provide any information to the government or the relevant congressional committees.
Halliburton’s contract is an open-ended “cost-plus” contract to supply the U.S. armed forces with food, laundry, and other necessities. Cost-plus means the United States pays Halliburton all of its expenses (that is everything it spends and everything it pays to its subcontractors) plus 2% profit on top. The more it spends, the greater the profit it makes. Henry Bunting, a former Halliburton purchasing officer, has stated, “There is no incentive for KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary) or their subs to try to reduce costs. No matter what it costs, KRB gets one hundred percent back, plus overhead, plus their profit.” Up to this point, the Army has committed $7.2 billion on a single contract with Halliburton. The Defense Contract Audit Agency recently stated that Halliburton could not document 42% of a $4 billion invoice in March 2007. Among other charges, it stated that Halliburton billed the government for up to three times as many meals as it served.
Halliburton has failed to respond to repeated requests for detailed information regarding its costs and profits.
Employers and former employers are discouraged from becoming whistleblowers. Blackwater does as other American contractors in Iraq do. It makes individual contractors sign confidentiality agreements that compel them to pay Blackwater $250,000 in instant damages if they violate their contract by publicly discussing the details of their agreements or work.
What then is the real cost of a security guard? A sergeant (the former rank of many private security guards) would receive around $38,000 a year in base pay and housing and subsistence allowances. This does not reflect additional costs for health and retirement benefits. When a private security guard is killed, even though he may be an American citizen, the U.S. government is not responsible for his burial, death benefits, or payment to his survivors. We save money, but it is doubtful if, even in the long run, it constitutes a saving for the United States.
The advantage to outsourcing personnel is entirely political. The United States can pretend that it is conducting war with fewer soldiers, not needing to call up more regular troops, National Guard and reserves. Of course, General Shinseki and other military leaders were correct, before and after we invaded Iraq, when they insisted that the U.S. needed at least twice as many uniformed soldiers than we had sent to Iraq.
We have euphemisms to describe them, but there can be no mistake that the individuals who take high-risk, high-paying jobs are mercenaries, and their employers, who are not held unaccountable for their greed, crimes and cover-ups, are war profiteers. Any veneer of idealism or unselfish motive has been stripped away. We should answer a single question regarding how America conducts war: Are we willing to continue to outsource both the supplying of necessary resources and the actual waging of war by armed persons not wearing military uniforms, or should we create a military force fully capable of defending itself? The name of the alternative to what we are now doing strikes panic in the hearts of those who want to continue to prosecute this war, those who want to start a new war against Iran, those who want America to be prepared for a future war, and most voters contemplating the next election. That name is: conscription.
This indictment demands demonstration. The war in Iraq is an undeclared war: American entry into World War II was based on the last congressional declaration of war, although the Constitution requires it. It is the longest war: It is now four-and-a-half years, and there is no end in sight. The enemy is unnamed: Al Qaeda was not even in Iraq when America invaded that country in March 2003, and the enemy now consists mostly of unnamed nationalists, insurgents and terrorists, whose ranks are subject to augmentation or diminution at any time, and with none of whom America can sign a treaty ending the war.
It once would have seemed unimaginable that a war of this magnitude, of such great cost to the United States, and involving such great loss of life to combatants and innocent civilians, could be waged without having an impact on the lives of most Americans, but it is clear that apart from the high cost of gasoline (insofar as it is related to the war), the overwhelming majority of Americans are personally untouched, neither knowing anyone in the armed forces nor being asked to make any sacrifice for the cost and conduct of the war.
The real cost now exceeds one trillion dollars. No one can guess how much greater it will be by the time the United States leaves Iran. To whom is that money going? The answer is that never in American history have private corporations profited so greatly or corruptly from the performance of tasks that until now were considered the responsibilities of the armed forces. Most non-combat roles, and the use of armed security forces, have been outsourced to 630 private companies work for the United States in Iraq, employing approximately as many persons as are there in the American military.
Of necessity, some of these are Iraqi firms, employing non-American personnel, because they have knowledge and linguistic skills which the American armed forces do not possess. However, the vast majority of contracts, dollars spent, and personnel employed are American civilian contractors who are subject to virtually no oversight or accountability for how and how much they spend or how much they profit.
The most famous or infamous of American contractors (but far from the largest) is Blackwater U.S.A., which provides security forces for the U.S. State Department, and is not subject to supervision or control by the U.S. Department of Defense. Blackwater, a company that contributes heavily to the Republican Party, was hired (as have other contractors) without competitive bidding. The notoriety of Blackwater derives from documented instances (described by American and Iraqi eyewitnesses) in which Blackwater employees have opened fire and killed unarmed Iraqis without provocation. As of this writing, Blackwater security guards and other personnel have been involved in 195 shooting incidents since 2005. In at least two cases, Blackwater, with the approval of it employer, the State Department, made cash payments to family members of its victims who complained, and it has sought to cover up other cases.
Last year on Christmas eve, a Blackwater employee, while drunk, killed a bodyguard for one of Iraq’s two vice presidents. Blackwater, with the help of the State Department, spirited the assailant out of Iraq within 36 hours. More than nine months have passed, and no charges have yet been brought against the assailant. Many other charges against these guards have been made by Iraqi and American military officers. Until now, they have been immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts and protected by agencies of the American government from effective prosecution in the United States.
Given the cost in human lives, it might be callous to consider the economic cost, but for the fact that the war has been a source of great wealth for those to whom the United States has outsourced much of the cost. A single example, typical of arrangements with other companies, will indicate how wasteful it has been for the United States and how very profitable it has been for the companies and individuals who have received these contracts.
Blackwater pays an individual security guard $600 a day (that comes to $180,000 a year), which is four or five times the income the security guard received when he was a member of the American military. (He also benefits from having armored cars that are safer than Army vehicles.) To the security guard’s salary, Blackwater adds a 36% markup (for a total of $815 a day) plus overhead and costs in Iraq, including insurance, room and board, travel, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, office space, and equipment. This bill goes to Regency Hotel, a Kuwaiti company, that tacks on the cost of its buying vehicles and weapons, plus a profit for itself, and sends an invoice to ESS, a German food services company that cooks meals for the troops. Regency has billed ESS a price of $1500 per man per day, but it has told Blackwater it was charging $1200, giving it a substantial secret profit. ESS adds on its costs and profit, and sends its bill to Halliburton, which also adds overhead and profit, and presents its bill to the Pentagon. The United States has no contract with ESS, which will not provide any information to the government or the relevant congressional committees.
Halliburton’s contract is an open-ended “cost-plus” contract to supply the U.S. armed forces with food, laundry, and other necessities. Cost-plus means the United States pays Halliburton all of its expenses (that is everything it spends and everything it pays to its subcontractors) plus 2% profit on top. The more it spends, the greater the profit it makes. Henry Bunting, a former Halliburton purchasing officer, has stated, “There is no incentive for KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary) or their subs to try to reduce costs. No matter what it costs, KRB gets one hundred percent back, plus overhead, plus their profit.” Up to this point, the Army has committed $7.2 billion on a single contract with Halliburton. The Defense Contract Audit Agency recently stated that Halliburton could not document 42% of a $4 billion invoice in March 2007. Among other charges, it stated that Halliburton billed the government for up to three times as many meals as it served.
Halliburton has failed to respond to repeated requests for detailed information regarding its costs and profits.
Employers and former employers are discouraged from becoming whistleblowers. Blackwater does as other American contractors in Iraq do. It makes individual contractors sign confidentiality agreements that compel them to pay Blackwater $250,000 in instant damages if they violate their contract by publicly discussing the details of their agreements or work.
What then is the real cost of a security guard? A sergeant (the former rank of many private security guards) would receive around $38,000 a year in base pay and housing and subsistence allowances. This does not reflect additional costs for health and retirement benefits. When a private security guard is killed, even though he may be an American citizen, the U.S. government is not responsible for his burial, death benefits, or payment to his survivors. We save money, but it is doubtful if, even in the long run, it constitutes a saving for the United States.
The advantage to outsourcing personnel is entirely political. The United States can pretend that it is conducting war with fewer soldiers, not needing to call up more regular troops, National Guard and reserves. Of course, General Shinseki and other military leaders were correct, before and after we invaded Iraq, when they insisted that the U.S. needed at least twice as many uniformed soldiers than we had sent to Iraq.
We have euphemisms to describe them, but there can be no mistake that the individuals who take high-risk, high-paying jobs are mercenaries, and their employers, who are not held unaccountable for their greed, crimes and cover-ups, are war profiteers. Any veneer of idealism or unselfish motive has been stripped away. We should answer a single question regarding how America conducts war: Are we willing to continue to outsource both the supplying of necessary resources and the actual waging of war by armed persons not wearing military uniforms, or should we create a military force fully capable of defending itself? The name of the alternative to what we are now doing strikes panic in the hearts of those who want to continue to prosecute this war, those who want to start a new war against Iran, those who want America to be prepared for a future war, and most voters contemplating the next election. That name is: conscription.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)