While Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher made repeated assurances that he takes the problem of detainee abuse “very seriously” during an interview with the OC Voice recently, he apparently lacked familiarity with a number of issues associated with the system – including the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to detainees, and a number of widely documented incidents of abuse.

Critics chastised the congressman earlier this month for dismissing mistreatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay – specifically, an incident in which a pair of women’s underwear was placed on a prisoner’s head – as an act of “humiliation” and “frat boy pranks,” not torture. Rohrabacher made the remarks June 6 as a member of the Human Rights subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

While both the humiliation and torturing of prisoners is expressly forbade in the Geneva Conventions, Rohrabacher nevertheless stressed the importance of the distinction.

“The whole point is: what is the definition of torture?” he said. “We’ve had people define torture [so broadly] that it has become meaningless – if you tickle someone with a feather, is that torture? That’s certainly a physical tactic, and by the definitions some people have used for ‘torture,’ it would include tickling someone with a feather.”

While maintaining he “spend[s] a lot of time and effort reading…reports” on the issue, the Congressman still expressed disbelief that over 108 detainees had died in US custody, and that over 25 of the incidents are considered acts of homicide by the Pentagon, according to government data obtained by the Associated Press and recent testimony by Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture.

A Feb. 2006 report by Human Rights First claimed that over 100 detainees had died in custody since 2002, including 34 cases that were suspected or confirmed murders and 8 cases where the victims had been tortured to death, but that only 12 of those deaths had resulted in disciplinary action. The extensive report was based on government documents and is online at www.humanrightsfirst.org.

Rohrabacher also expressed incredulity at other documented acts of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse against detainees, but noted he thought there was a “big difference between an American soldier who doesn’t intentionally target civilians,” and non-uniformed terrorists under the Geneva Conventions.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, extended the protections of the Geneva Convention to “enemy combatants” in a 2006 decision. Detainees in the “war on terror” have been held without due process of law, but the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled last month that they have the right to challenge their detention and seek release in court.

“Listen – I’m not someone who reads the Geneva Convention or says I am an expert in it,” he explained. “…some people have told me that [the Convention] does not apply to those not in uniform.”

The Congressman added he was “of course” concerned that these abuses may be endured by those falsely imprisoned by U.S. forces, though he has previously characterized such detentions as the “price we pay in the real world,” for security, noting he’d rather falsely detain ten innocent people then let 90 terrorists “walk the street.”

“When we found possible examples of [false imprisonment], I have been very supportive of trying to free them and get them compensation and an apology,” he said. “No matter what are you trying to accomplish…there are going to be people who are accidentally caught up in a bad situation who are not guilty, and are unintentionally hurt.”

A little over half of the initial 775 prisoners detained in Guantanamo Bay have been released from the prison without charge since 2002, according to Amnesty International. A 2004 report from the International Red Cross quotes intelligence officials who estimate as many as 90 percent of detainees in Iraq are arrested by mistake or in mass detention, and have no connection with terrorism.

Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook, the Democratic challenger for Rohrabacher’s seat in the 46^th district, said Rohrabacher’s ignorance was “rather shocking.”

“I’ve followed the situation at Guantanamo Bay, but it would be really difficult to miss this sort of information [if you read the news],” she said. “I just can’t believe he wasn’t familiar with these issues.”

“It’s the unfortunate result of gerrymandered districts – when you no longer have to compete for your seat, you become very complacent in your ability to hold onto it,” she added. “So you lose your competitive edge; really, you almost lose interest in governance.”

But in an interview with the OC Voice earlier this year Cook proclaimed ignorance of her own about the related issue of holding government officials, including President George W. Bush, accountable for conducting a war based on false evidence. “I’m not going to sit as judge and jury over something I don’t know about,” she said, adding, “I’ve been focused here on local issues. I don’t spend my time 24/7 studying what Bush did or didn’t do.”

Efforts to contact Green Party candidate Tom Lash for comment were unsuccessful.

Dan Kalmick of Seal Beach is the other Democratic Party Primary candidate seeking to unseat Republican Dana Rohrabacher and represent the 46^th Congressional District in the House of Representatives. Kalmick is a technology consultant for small and medium size businesses in Orange County and a member of the Orange County Fire Authority. At 25-years-old, he is relatively young for politics, and with little funding or name recognition outside of his home town he seems an unlikely victor. But he sees himself as the more moderate candidate who appeals to voters across the political spectrum by offering real solutions to the problems they care most about. He was interviewed in downtown Huntington Beach recently by the OC Voice. The following questions and answers are excerpts from that interview. For more information about Dan Kalmick go to his web site: www.kalmick2008.com.

The other two Democratic Primary candidates withdrew and supported you and you all said that Debbie Cook would be too liberal and to divisive [to win].

Right.

How are you less divisive than her?

Debbie Cook has a history of environmental activism. I don’t think Republicans and moderate decline-to-states are going to vote for her. She has a history of [putting] the environment over people. And in this district, 20,000 Republicans have to step across and vote for a Democrat [to win].

How are you different from Cook on the environment?

She was quoted in 2006 as saying that she thinks that low gas prices are bad. She’s saying that [with] high gas prices of $5 a gallon the people in the United States are going to converge and say ‘OK, we need to change our bad ways.’ I just don’t think that’s going to happen.

She’s saying that lower prices aren’t going to happen, anyway.

I disagree with that.

How are you going to keep those prices down short of nationalizing the oil companies, like in Venezuela?

I’m a big person for incentives. Basically, what they have now is that they are selling oil at the worldwide market price…If you’re going to pump oil domestically, you’re going to need to be able to sell it at a price that is not set by a cartel of people..

What’s wrong with higher prices if the profit from that, instead of going to the oil companies, goes to making alternative energy and it discourages people from creating more global warming?

I understand your point. If you look at Europe, if you take out all the taxes it’s roughly what we pay for oil. They have a $3 tax on every gallon of gas. It goes to public transportation infrastructure and goes for other things… Public transportation infrastructure in Southern California-it doesn’t work.

We don’t fund it properly.

Exactly. If you bring gas to $6 a gallon it’s not going to hurt anyone in this district. It’s only going to hurt a very small number. They will be able to absorb the costs [and still drive]. Gas has gotten to almost $4 a gallon and people are still driving big trucks in this district….It affects poor people. That’s the whole concept that I am trying to get across, that $5 a gallon isn’t going to affect the average person in Huntington Beach or the average person in Newport. It’s going to affect the person in Middle America.

Why not take the tax out of that $6 and apply it for public transportation that the poor can use?

Right, but that’s a 20-year-plan. You can’t just say we want public transportation now. But you’re going to have to look at it as a longer stretch. We need to do something in order to bring gas prices back down, but at the same time work at it at the national level and start working on alternative fuel.

Do you think that gas is going to get cheap again?

There’s ways to do it….

How cheap do you think it will get?

We’re going to need someone in the federal government to stand up and say ‘We’ve got something wrong going on here’ in order for gas to get cheap again. I can’t predict how chap it will get, but–

But that’s hype…for the most part. It’s not the solution.

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that housing prices and energy prices are starting to go up and there’s a direct multiplier on our food and our other supplies that have nothing to do with gasoline because they have to be shipped locally…We need federal incentives for companies to really start investing in alternative fuels and alternative energy.

Global warming aside, what makes you think that the environment isn’t an important issue for people in Huntington Beach across the political spectrum?

I think that it is, but I don’t think that it is the number one issue. I think a lot of the people in this district are concerned about the economy and immigration. A lot of my clients are Republicans and small business owners. They care about the environment. A lot of them are in Westminster, Costa Mesa, Long Beach, Seal Beach…Fountain Valley and Westminster-I mean, she talks a lot about coastal issues…So, Westminster, that’s not talking to them. They want to hear, ‘How am I going to get more money back from my profit, how is business going to succeed and what is going on with immigration?’ That’s where I really haven’t seen any solutions to any issues that she’s [Cook's] got up.

You said that you wanted to answer some of the questions that she didn’t answer in her interview with the Voice. So, what are those questions and what are your answers?

You asked her about impeachment and about Haliburton and she didn’t know about that. If you are running for federal office, you should absolutely know what the Bush administration and Haliburton are doing..Publicly traded corporations in this country are broken…Look at Wal-Mart, low prices and low morals. They strategically set it up so that they get as many tax breaks as possible and in the long run they are hurting their employees. They have been successfully sued by their employees for poor labor practices. And they’re screwing up the environment too…

So you think you have a more pro-labor stance than Cook?

Absolutely.

Would you vote for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act?

(Long silence) Are you going to give me a little more information on the Taft-Hartley Act?

If you’re pro-labor you ought to know that. The Taft-Hartley Act is the cornerstone of the decline of the American labor movement. It passed in around 1950 and cut union strength by putting forth regulations about who can be in a union and a lot of other amendments to it. Ralph Nader says that he would vote to end Taft-Hartley. No Democrat when he’s been in the presidency, even when the Democrats controlled the House, has ever tried to repeal Taft-Hartley. So, how can a candidate be pro-union if–

Absolutely. I would absolutely evaluate repealing Taft-Hartley.

What about impeachment (of Bush and Cheney)?

I absolutely support impeachment. I supported Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment that he introduced.

Immigration reform?

We are looking at this completely wrong. The war on drugs ties into a lot of why people are coming to this country from Mexico. Because we’re propping up these governments that are corrupt and they’re not monitoring property rights. Peoples’ homes are taken by larger groups by eminent domain down there. And the drug running is making it unsafe. You can’t start a business down there because you have to pay drug protection money. Look what happened in Tijuana a month ago…So if you have a country that is stable and can perform its own jobs, they’re not going to come here to look for jobs. It’s an economic issue too. People are not going to here to do work if there are no jobs.

What about the effect of NAFTA on immigration?

NAFTA stopped working when China jumped into the mix. NAFTA completely lost all its effectiveness. It worked for the first couple of years when we were building factories down there. Andthen China came along and said we will make it for 10 percent of what Mexico is going to do it for and all the jobs went over to China. And the problem is that we have no leverage in China because they own all of our debt.

What about the theory that our corporate imperialism in Mexico has caused the immigration flow in the United States? And that is has increased with NAFTA?

I agree…we got all the people to move up to the boarder. They started working in these manufacturing jobs we were creating and then we bail out. There are empty factories all along the border on the south side. We need to work with Mexico so that they can get their economy stabilized, not just throw $1.4 billion dollars at them like we did last month in the war on drugs, because that goes to the corrupt politicians down there and the drug runners pay them off too. So they’re just getting richer and the people there are suffering. We don’t need to alienate these people. We don’t need to spend a fortune building a wall down there. The terrorists came in through Canada.

Do you see any need to change our absolute support for whatever the state of Israel does in the occupied territories?

The state of Israel is one of the few democracies [in the region]. Israel is working very hard with Palestine to stop the terrorism there, to form a separate country for them. When they formed Israel they didn’t kick everyone out. It’s a 2,000 year old struggle going on that George Bush thinks he can solve in the last year.

But by giving our absolute support to Israel aren’t we contributing to the problem? It is an apartheid state there, with the wall. People are starving. Eighty-three percent have to get aide from the United Nations or they starve. Israel keeps taking more territory and violating treaties.

Our big issue, I think, is in Saudi Arabia. The whole anti-Zionist idea, I think, is ploy in some sense…I think it’s really about the oil and our idea about Mecca and Medina. I absolutely support Israel and what they’re trying to accomplish.

What about the rights of the Palestinians, who because of that wall are starving, the land that they’ve lost and treaty after treaty that’s been violated by Israel?

The United States needs to work with Israel and pressure it to come to a reasonable solution.

How would you pressure Israel? Doing so is the death nail of most Democratic Party candidates.

It’s a very complex issue. It’s been going on for 2,000 years, so we need to get the parties talking again…And we need to get the balance….Israel really needs to focus-they’ve decided that they’re going to do a two state–

But how are you going to get Israel to do that? Would you say to it what we say to other countries, that we’re going to cut off aide?

I don’t think it works. Because the whole idea of cutting off aide is to have the people rise up and overthrow the government that’s oppressing them and I think that–

Let’s say some aide.

I don’t think that’s the way to do it. If people are starving that makes them more–

The Israelis aren’t starving. The Palestinians are. So how do we pressure the Israelis to live up to their treaties?

We have to talk to them and say look it’s better for everyone. They understand this, but they’re getting attacked and bombed at the same time…We need to get the president to really start pressuring Israel, but at the same time we’ve got far greater issues of national security. Israel I don’t think Israel is the cause of a lot of those national security issues. I think that the cause is in the Gulf and allying ourselves with certain powers that fundamentalist Jihadists are disagreeing with and are saying ‘that’s why we don’t like you.’ It would behoove us to start listening to why we do we need more bases in Saudi Arabia.

How are you going to run this campaign? Cook says she’s going to raise $1 million for the race. What’s your game plan?

Our game plan is extremely grass roots. We’re going door to door.

Cook has the support of the Party hierarchy, Loretta Sanchez. Funding will come to her.

That’s still in the air.

If she gets the nomination, right, but she’s got the support.

She’s got the support of about 50 people in the Democratic Party [hierarchy] in Orange County.

I’m sure she’s assuming the primary will be a wash.

We don’t think that she’s going to be able to beat Dana Rohrabacher in November because we don’t think she can pull enough voters. We’re really going after the Independents and the Democrats who don’t know who she is, because the district is so long and large that-their claim is that the Democratic Party likes her because she is an elected official and that she has some name recognition. I disagree with the name recognition.

She’s a lot better known than you are anywhere in the district.

Absolutely.

I never heard of you until this election.

I have strong recognition in Seal Beach which makes up 33,000 residents of the district. I’m saying I’m not an environmental activist. I haven’t said that low oil prices would be a bad thing. We support small business heavily because I started several small business as start ups, I worked with small business throughout all Orange County and I see that they’re really hurting. And we’re talking small business owners a lot of who are Republicans and we’re discussing, even with the Independents. With the Democrats I’m a fresh face in the Party. I’m not beholden to anyone. I don’t have 8 years with people who I have to do favors for, the people who supported me.

You can’t get elected without being beholden, can you?

We’ll be beholden to people who support issues that I support. I’m fine with that because I’m not beholden to them because I already agree with them…We have solutions to problems that Republicans like, we have solutions to problems that Independents like, we have solutions to problems that the Democrats like. And I haven’t seen solutions from Debbie Cook, explicit ideas and ways to solve issues in health care. She’s for single-payer, but how are you going to do that?

Are you against single-payer health care?

I’m absolutely for single-payer, but I’ve looked into it and I’ve figured out how we can actually do that.

How about State Sen. Sheila Kuel’s bill?

I really model our plan on France’s. Are you talking about SB840? I like it…but I really support the way France runs their system.

Why have you chosen congress instead of city council? It seems like you would be a good candidate for Seal Beach City Council as a first step, and then on from there.

My background is in technology. I grew up with it. I’m educated in it. I started my first technology business when I was 11-years-old, and a lot of those technology issues are handled on a national level…

Did any of Cook’s supporters call you and ask you to drop out?

No one has asked me to drop out…The reasons I stayed in the race as well is that I don’t think anyone should ever run unopposed. I really want to raise issues.

If you don’t win, what are your future plans for politics?

We’ll cross that bridge in June when we come to it. We’re optimistic.

By John Earl
OC Voice Editor

“Yes! Yes! Yes! Congratulations, you guys down there,” Bakersfield City Councilmember, Jacquie Sullivan, said over the phone when reached by the OC Voice.

She must have been smiling from ear to ear, just like Jan Crouch on Trinity Broadcasting Network, when she rejoiced, in her bouncy Bakersfield country-style voice, “I just heard about it, that’s very exciting news.”

Sullivan is the founder of In God We Trust – America Inc., a non profit 503c3 organization formed in 2002 “To promote patriotism by encouraging elected city officials to display our national motto ‘In God We Trust’ in every city hall in America.”

She was talking about the April 7 vote by the Huntington Beach City Council to make “In God We Trust” the city’s new motto to be hung in the council chambers.

The council debate preceding the vote was a sectarian skirmish, ill-timed for Mayor Debbie Cook, a democrat, who wants to replace republican incumbent Dana Rohrabacher next November to represent the 46^th Congressional District,* where God and country are a normal part of political discourse and decision making.

In 2002, during her first one-year term as mayor (councilmembers rotate yearly to fill the position), Cook respected God and Country by keeping the two separate, as many believe that America’s most authoritative guide to law and order-the U.S. Constitution-requires elected officials to do-by not holding city sanctioned invocations.

Since starting her current term as mayor, however, Cook has followed tradition and the invocation is part of the city council’s official routine.

Cook, who told the Voice in a March interview that “I don’t talk about religion,” bristled when asked then if her change of heart had anything to do with her campaign for congress. “No! The Constitution has a prohibition against religious tests…So what was the next question you’re asking me,” she snapped.

But when questioning your opponent’s Christian and patriotic credentials might be a better way of defeating her in the election than filing frivolous lawsuits against her (for calling herself the mayor on the election ballot, as Rohrabacher’s friend, Mike Schroeder, did) or talking about your own record of service to your constituents, the God questions tend not to go away.

Just ask Rohrabacher, who knows how easily God and Country can keep you in office in the 46^th if you use it to justify an illegal war, torturing prisoners and eliminating habeas corpus, all while evoking the “rule of law” to deport “illegal” immigrants and demanding amnesty for vigilante border patrol agents convicted and jailed for wrongfully shooting them.

Conflict of Interest
Besides penalizing vigilantes, the rule of law also prohibits non-profit groups like In God We Trust from mixing charitable and political goals. Curiously, however, the group’s web site cautions donors to follow rules based on language that closely follows federal campaign financing law.

“To comply with Federal law, we must use best efforts to obtain, maintain, and submit the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in an election cycle,” the web site cautions.

That looks suspicious to H.B. resident Mark Bixby, the citizen watchdog who discovered the peculiarity. “[I]t’s clear to me that this organization also has a political agenda,” Bixby wrote in a mass e-mail, “Which also raises questions about their 501(c)(3) status.”

When asked why a charitable organization would cite federal election law, Sullivan said that she would “have to look at that,” adding that the group’s web site in continually being updated and improved.

Even more curious is the presence of Mark Abernathy on the In God We Trust executive board as its secretary. Abernathy happens to be the founder and president of Western Pacific Research Inc. (WPR), another Bakersfield based organization, which is “dedicated to electing Republicans to Federal, State and local areas of government,” according to one WPR web site, and “is involved with multiple organizations effectively promoting the beliefs of the Republican Party.”

WPR boasts of its involvement in all aspects of campaign organization, including campaign strategy, marketing and fundraising. “We identify opponent strengths and weaknesses, and create profiles of voter groups and undecided voters who can be targeted with specific messages,” it states on the group’s other web site.

WPR claims it played a pivotal role in the political success of many Republicans, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that it advises Sullivan and manages In God We Trust.

Abernathy did not respond to a Voice inquiry, but Sullivan, after acknowledging that “We’re kind of political, I guess, but we’re…just patriotic Americans,” denied that Abernathy was active with In God We Trust or that his involvement in it created any conflict of interest with the group’s non-profit status.

“Absolutely not at all…Mark happens to be one of the ones who helped me originally get the organization going. But… he’s not actively involved,” Sullivan insisted, adding that her group’s mission is solely to “promote patriotism by training elected officials to display the motto, In God We Trust.”

That goal has been realized in 31 California cities so far, including three now in Orange County. Starting March 8, Sullivan says, “Over a two week period I e-mailed our information to every city in Orange County,” for distribution to city councilmembers.

That information also cites court rulings that say the motto has become nothing more than “ceremonial deism” over time and does not violate the concept of separation of church and state embedded in the First Amendment.

American History
Sullivan’s view is that “In both war and peace, these words have been a profound source of strength and guidance to many generations of Americans,” and that there’s nothing religious about the motto.

But the full history of America’s official motto goes back to 1776 when Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were appointed by the Continental Congress to a committee charged with designing the Great Seal of the United States. Franklin’s suggested motto for the seal, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,” was rejected for “e pluribus unum,” Latin for “”One from many parts,” referring to the melding of the colonies into a single nation.

From that point on, any attempt to use God as a national motto had clear religious and political motivations. In 1864, In God We Trust appeared on coins intended to show that God was on the Union’s side in the Civil War.

In 1956 during the Cold War between “Atheistic Communism” and the “Christian Capitalism,” President Eisenhower signed a bill that officially adopted the words “In God We Trust” as the national motto. The action was part of a nationwide movement, previously featuring the political witch hunts of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, to stifle leftists and liberals by labeling them as subversives.

But fellow republicans and Rohrabacher allies Cathy Green and Joe Carchio, who put the motto proposal on the city council agenda at Sullivan’s behest, claim child-like ignorance of McCarthyism-”I was too little,” Green told the Voice-or of how the word God could possibly have anything to do with religion, or be used as a political ploy to damage Cook’s campaign.

“I don’t know why all the sudden this has become political,” Green told her council colleagues, “When invocation was removed, I didn’t attribute it to politics. When I brought it back (during her term as mayor), I didn’t attribute it to politics.”

Carchio, who is a Catholic but “not a real religious person,” told the Voice that, “It has nothing to do with religion.” As for using religion to hurt Cook’s campaign, “I never thought of it that way,” he said.

Patriotic Memories
“It’s all about remembering,” Carchio said, awkwardly reading a prepared speech from the city council dais. “We have stop signs, street signs, speed signs. What does that remind us of?..It reminds me of the freedoms we have as Americans.”

For Councilmember Jill Hardy, who considers herself “very faithful,” it is impossible to equate the motto with patriotism or believe that God has nothing to do with religion. “I don’t think of America when I hear the words In God We Trust…If we want to be patriotic, why don’t we post ‘Proud to be American’ in our council chambers?”

The motto is either religious and not suited for a public building or political, she said. “And if it’s a political motivation, to me it’s taking the Lord’s name in vain and I absolutely oppose that.”

Mayor Pro-tem Keith Bohr objected to the divisiveness of the proposal. Most of the people who spoke during public comments and who wrote to the city council were opposed to it, although occasional rounds of applause from the audience seemed to favor the motto-helping to prove Bohr’s point.

Cook slammed the proposal. A motivating factor for the “first Americans to come over here,” she recalled from American history, was their rejection of the divine right of kings. “I think that Americans also reject the divine right of governments,” she said.

Why not unite people by citing the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address, Emancipation Proclamation or the Federalist Papers, Cook asked. “There are so many wonderful words that our early Americans put on paper and any of those would be much more patriotic than this.”

The motto was constitutional, she agreed, “but that doesn’t make it a wise idea. It’s a cheapening of religious faith,” and “absolutely being done for political reasons.”

Councilmember Gil Coerper reasoned that the motto would bring people together because he saw it in the Supreme Court. “Now, is that political,” he asked. “I think not,” he said, answering himself.

Then Coerper argued for more than 5 minutes in favor of a non-existent proposal to put the matter to an ad hoc committee, in the same way that Councilmembers Hansen and Green recently guided through a proposal for unlimited campaign contribution limits for city council candidates.

Cook made a substitute motion to turn the question over to the city’s Human Relations Task Force “in order to weigh exactly which patriotic message they would like to present to the people of Huntington Beach.”

Still confused, Coerper then tried to make his own substitute motion, but it was out of order because he mistakenly thought that Green’s original motion to adopt the motto had been defeated and that Cook’s motion was now the original.

Cook kindly explained that she had made her substitute motion so the matter is “not subject to political whims.”

Suddenly refocused, Coerper quickly assumed the mayor’s role that he once held prior to Cook’s current turn, saying, “Please vote,” to his colleagues.

After they did, Cook’s motion failed 4-3 and Green’s original motion passed 4-2-1 with Bohr abstaining.

*The 46^th includes all of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Avalon, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and parts of Long Beach, Westminster, Santa Ana and San Pedro.