SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Should Americans caught up in the justice system be stripped of their right to vote?
Senator Bernie Sanders catapulted the issue into the spotlight when he declared his unequivocal support for the voting rights of prison inmates at a recent town hall.
"I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy," he said. "Once you start chipping away and you say, that person committed a terrible crime, not gonna let him vote... you're running down a slippery slope."
Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren were more cautious, but didn't explicitly disagree. Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke said he was in favor of allowing "non-violent" offenders to vote while incarcerated.
South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg, alone among Democrats, was a hard no on any inmate voting.
Republicans, by contrast, have raised the idea of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev or white supremacist murderer Dylan Roof voting as a way of shooting down the entire discussion.
Of course, Tsarnaev and Roof are but two of the over 2.3 million prisoners locked up in "the land of the free." Using one or two examples to justify condemning over 2 million people is always unsound. But it's especially repulsive in this instance.
In all, 14 states and D.C. bar prisoners from voting. Twenty-two other states, to varying degrees, restrict voting during parole or probation.
Twelve more ban people with felonies from voting for a time even after their release -- and in Kentucky and Iowa, permanently. (Virginia bans them permanently too, but the state's governor has been automatically restoring voting rights to people who complete their sentences).
The impact of all this on our democracy is striking.
One in 10 Kentuckians can never vote again due to a felony conviction. For black Kentuckians, the rate of permanent felony disenfranchisement is even greater, at one in four.
It's not hard to understand why Republicans want to keep it this way. Thanks to a racially biased justice system, black and Hispanic adults are much more likely to be convicted of felonies. They're also much more likely to vote for Democrats.
Republicans know this. Just last November, a super-majority of Floridians voted to re-enfranchise 1.5 million folks with prior felony convictions -- including 1 out of 5 black Floridians. Yet before the ink could even dry, Florida's GOP-led House passed legislation restricting the measure and applying a poll tax on returning voters.
The gamesmanship gets even more perverse when you consider the Census, which counts prisoners as residents of the areas where they're confined.
That inflates the populations of Republican-leaning small towns and rural areas where most state prisons are located. That means more federal money and more legislative seats, even though the inmates can't vote for who holds them. Are you seeing the hypocrisy yet?
Forbidding inmate voting, disenfranchising them after release, and counting them as residents where they're imprisoned are all components of a terrible practice known as prison gerrymandering.
It looks and smells a lot like the 3/5 compromise -- an old constitutional practice allowing Southern states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population when apportioning House seats, Electoral College votes, and federal funding.
For too long, inmates have been an easy punching bag for politicians. Voting should be an inalienable right -- even for inmates, and especially for those who've served their time. No amount of single-case scare tactics should ruin it for the lot.
Mass incarceration is now a bipartisan concern. Its effects on our democracy should be too. And if that's a problem because it could swing a few elections, the problem isn't prisoners -- it's the system that locks up an entire voting bloc.
Anger over U.S. military operations abroad was the most commonly cited factor in motivating "homegrown terrorists," according to a secret FBI study reviewed by The Intercept on Tuesday.
The study, conducted in 2012 and titled Homegrown Violent Extremists: Survey Confirms Key Assessments, Reveals New Insights About Radicalization, also found that there was no clear path to "radicalization" and that predicting future attacks remained effectively impossible.
A unit in the FBI's counter-terrorism department interviewed agents and analysts responsible for almost 200 cases throughout the U.S. involving "homegrown violent extremists," finding that they "frequently believe the U.S. military is committing atrocities in Muslim countries, thereby justifying their violent aspirations."
The Intercept's Murtaza Hussain and Cora Currier write:
Online relationships and exposure to English-language militant propaganda and "ideologues" like Anwar al-Awlaki are also cited as "key factors" driving extremism. But grievances over U.S. military action ranked far above any other factor, turning up in 18 percent of all cases, with additional cases citing a "perceived war against Islam," "perceived discrimination," or other more specific incidents. The report notes that between 2009 and 2012, 10 out of 16 attempted or successful terrorist attacks in the United States targeted military facilities or personnel.
The results also confirm that the path to extremism is largely based on the person.
"Numerous individuals, activities, or experiences can contribute to an extremist's radicalization," the report states. "It can be difficult, if not impossible, to predict for any given individual what factor or combination of factors will prompt that individual's radicalization or mobilization to violence."
Notably, certain factors that did not "significantly contribute" to radicalization included prison time, military service, or international travel, Hussain and Currier write.
As John Mueller, a senior research scientist at Ohio State University, explained, "Insofar as there is an identifiable motivation in most of these cases it has to do with outrage over what is happening overseas."
"People read news reports about atrocities and become angry," he said. "It doesn't have to be information from a jihadist website that angers someone, it could be a New York Times report about a drone strike that kills a bunch of civilians in Afghanistan."
That aligns with some of the communications recovered from recent extremists like Ahmad Rahami, the suspect in last month's bombings in New York and New Jersey, as well as Omar Mateen, the shooter who killed 49 people in an Orlando LGBTQ nightclub in June.
Rahami cited the wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as motivation for his attack, while Mateen told a 9-1-1 operator that he had acted in retaliation for an airstrike on an Islamic State (ISIS) fighter.
Similarly, Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told investigators in 2013 that the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had motivated him and his brother Tamerlan to plant the explosives that ultimately killed three people and wounded more than 250 others.
The results contradict the preferred political and media narrative that focuses more on religion, The Intercept continues, and raises doubts that the U.S. government's recent "Countering Violent Extremism" (CVE) efforts will work. Critics have said that CVE programs, which aim to encourage communities to build "local prevention efforts," are discriminatory and stigmatize Muslim communities.
As former CIA officer Marc Sageman told The Intercept, "Politicians try very hard not to talk about foreign policy or military action being a major contributor to homegrown terrorism. [...] Continued U.S. military action will inevitably drive terrorist activities in this country, because some local people here will identify themselves with the victims of those actions abroad."
One man's justice is another man's injustice.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays, First Series
December 14, 2015, was a good day for John McCain. It was a less good day for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, General Robert Abrams, and the military justice system. It was a middling sort of day for the U.S. Constitution, although it hadn't been directly involved except insofar as Mr. McCain showed once again that the kind of due process the Constitution contemplates can prevent desired outcomes in some criminal proceedings.
One man's justice is another man's injustice.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays, First Series
December 14, 2015, was a good day for John McCain. It was a less good day for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, General Robert Abrams, and the military justice system. It was a middling sort of day for the U.S. Constitution, although it hadn't been directly involved except insofar as Mr. McCain showed once again that the kind of due process the Constitution contemplates can prevent desired outcomes in some criminal proceedings.
John McCain's problem with the Constitution did not start with Bowe Bergdahl. It first came to light when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon Bombers, was apprehended. On April 23, 2013, eight days after the Boston bombing took place and within a few hours after Tsarnaev was captured, Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham issued a statement that appeared on Mr. Graham's face book page in which they said, in part: "It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city. The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans. Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent. It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. . . . The least of our worries is a criminal trial that will likely be held years from now. Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel."
Mr. McCain's next encounter with the criminal justice system occurred when Sergeant Bergdahl was returned to the United States in a prisoner exchange in which five Guantanamo prisoners were transferred to Qatar. Upon Sergeant Bergdahl's return to this country, he was charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Since he was a sergeant in the U.S. Army, he was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Those rules are designed to comport with the Constitutional rights given every citizen and set out the procedures to be followed by the military. First, the accused is subject to an Article 32 proceeding that is in the nature of a preliminary hearing. At its conclusion, the officer presiding over the Article 32 proceedings makes a recommendation to the officer responsible for convening a court martial as to the type of court martial the presiding officer believes appropriate. That officer then decides whether it is to be a General Court Martial with the possibility of a life sentence or a Special Court Martial with the maximum possible sentence of one year in prison.
Following the filing of the charges against Sergeant Bergdahl, Lt. Col. Mark Visger was appointed to conduct the Article 32 hearing. At the hearing, Major General Kenneth Dahl, the investigating officer, testified, among other things, that jail time for Sergeant Bergdahl would be inappropriate. At the end of the proceedings, Col. Visger recommended to General Robert Abrams, the officer responsible for deciding what kind of a court martial to convene, that a special court martial take place.
When news of Col. Visger's recommendation was made public, Senator McCain, who had heard none of the evidence, let it be known that military justice did not matter to him. He said that if there were no punishment for Sergeant Bergdahl, the Senate Armed Services Committee of which Senator McCain is chair, would hold its own hearing. As he explained, without waiting to find out what facts might emerge at a trial: "I am not prejudging, OK, but it is well-known that in the searches for Bergdahl, after-we know now-he deserted, there are allegations that some American soldiers were killed or wounded, or at the very least put their lives in danger, searching for what is clearly a deserter. We need to have a hearing on that." The fact that no soldiers had been killed or wounded while searching for Sergeant Bergdahl did not faze Senator McCain.
Senator McCain's committee cannot increase whatever punishment the duly constituted court believes appropriate. But it decides on promotions and assignments for high-ranking military officers like General Robert Abrams. General Abrams is the general responsible for deciding whether to follow the recommendations of Col. Visger. John McCain and the armed services committee are the ones that can affect General Abrams' future in the military. On December 14th General Abrams announced his decision. Sergeant Bergdahl will face a general court-martial and the possibility of life in prison. That was good news for everyone except Sergeant Bergdahl and, perhaps, General Abrams. It was good news for the Armed Services Committee since it will not have to hold a hearing. It was sort of good news for General Abrams since he will not incur the wrath of Senator McCain. On the other hand, General Abrams will have to live with the fact that some people will say he decided to convene a General Court Martial because of the pressure applied by Senator McCain even though his decision may, in fact, have not been influenced by the senator's threats. It is clearly bad news for (a) Sergeant Bergdahl who may end up spending his life in prison and (b) for the military justice system that may have been compromised because of pressure applied by a senator.