“Phoenix is in the eye of the storm.”

That is how Phoenix Police Chief Andy Anderson describes the metropolitan area’s struggle to combat the wave of drug cartel violence spilling over the Arizona-Mexico border, in a February 11 interview with the ABC news program Nightline.

According to that broadcast, the Arizona capital ranks 2nd worldwide in kidnappings, beat only by Mexico City. Last year alone, there were a stunning 370 kidnappings here, all believed to be tied to the ongoing drug war raging in Mexico’s Nogales and other border cities. .

As a resident of the Phoenix metro area for most of my 26 years, I’m accustomed to living in a more violent and criminal city than most. In separate incidences when I was eight years old, our home was broken into and our kitchen window was shot out. In a third unrelated incident, in our new subdivision, my grandmother’s vehicle was set on fire while it was parked in our driveway.

The city long held the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of vehicular theft in the nation, and gang violence was commonplace in the news. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, eco-terrorists launched an arson assault on upscale communities; in the mid-2000s, the metro area was paralyzed by a serial killer. Losing two governors to impeachment by the time I was in high school, it seemed there was no variety of crime that could not be committed in Phoenix.

In such a place, it can hardly be surprising that citizens ardently defend their Constitutional right to carry firearms, or that they consistently vote for “America’s Toughest Sheriff” Joe Arpaio - a man criticized by Amnesty International, among others, for his overzealous and inhumane approach. Their disapproval only reinforces his local popularity - and by reinstituting chain gangs, setting up a web “Jail Cam”, forcing maximum-security prisoners to wear pink underwear and eat green bologna, and establishing a permanent “Tent City” (read: outside jail where temperatures on upper bunks are recorded above 150 degrees Fahrenheit, or over 65 degrees Celsius), Arpaio has made himself into a larger-than-life, celebrity crime-fighting folk hero.

There are many people such as myself that roll their eyes in disgust and vote against Sheriff Joe. Particularly for his virulent and blatant racial profiling as well as his belief that he constitutes a law unto himself, I consider him not only to be a danger to the rights of all citizens but also an embarrassment to our state.

And yet, I know that his popularity will only be augmented by the kidnapping statistics. Fed up with a remote and aloof federal government and feeling increasingly under attack by a shadowy parallel society of drug smugglers and coyotes (people smugglers), anxious citizens turn to the one person who appears to not only care, but ACTS. For his fans, he is the lone voice in the wilderness, the only elected leader brave enough to cast political correctness aside and fight the deluge of crime tied to that lawless zone south of the border known as Mexico.

His assertions about the percentage of crime tied to Mexico and illegal immigration are likely overblown- given his proclivity for bombastic proclamations to rile up the angry voter base – and yet there is no denying the increasing presence that illegal immigration occupies in the daily lives of many Phoenicians.

Today, simply driving between home and work, it is not uncommon to find ourselves behind an unmarked delivery van with (illegally) tinted windows -through which we can just make out the shapes of twenty or more heads. Typically, the van is going a good ten miles below the speed limit; they cannot risk getting pulled over for fear of deportation. Yet, being unfamiliar with our urban grid and presumably full of anxiety, the vans are repeatedly caught in high-speed chases and spectacular crashes – in which, sadly, many of the passengers are flung to their deaths. Those who survive are often caught on news footage as they flee on foot across highways and into neighboring communities, climbing over backyard walls in a desperate attempt to escape “La Migra,” the immigration police. (You can see videos of such crashes here: and here.

We witnessed one such accident south of Tucson over the weekend – a generic white van was tipped over in the median between the north and southbound freeways, surrounded by scattered possessions. Traffic was halted in both directions as nearly twenty squad cars and at least five ambulances cordoned off the scene. Our suspicions were confirmed: lined up by the highway patrol was a group of under-nourished, twenty-something, Latino males.

Just minutes before, we had passed through an impromptu border patrol checkpoint, about thirty miles north of the border. While we immediately understood the logic: roving border patrols along the various highways in order to catch those who entered through the open desert or the American sister city of Nogales, it is very disconcerting as a citizen to have to declare your citizenship when you have not even left the country.

Horrific, fatal traffic accidents involving unlicensed and often intoxicated illegal immigrants continually make headlines – including several instances in which local police officers were killed in their attempt to pull over an offending car because the driver panicked.

The day that I was called to jury duty several years ago, one of the cases in the docket involved an illegal immigrant charged with multiple counts of manslaughter. He was driving a stolen vehicle at the time, had a repeated history of driving infractions, DUI and auto theft, and had no license. I did not serve on that jury, but the mood in the courtroom was palpable. Even if he was acquitted, it confirmed what many angry Arizonans already believed: the man embodied everything they hated about illegal immigration and everything that was wrong with “the system”. Undoubtedly, Sheriff Joe found a few more converts to his personal campaign that day among the scores of citizens who were forced to miss a day of work in order to decide his fate.

The emotional ante has been considerably augmented with the uptick in human trafficking. At regular intervals, local news stations beam in helicopter footage of SWAT teams bursting into “drop houses” in neighborhoods both destitute and upscale. These empty homes, abandoned in the foreclosure crisis and now being rented out or simply squatted by “coyotes” (human smugglers), serve as weigh-stations for illegal immigrants before they are trafficked to destinations across the country. (You can see news footage at here.

In a city whose rich (read: safe) and poor (read: gang and drug haven) areas are well-established, the presence of drop houses in wealthy Scottsdale resort neighborhoods has struck a knife of panic into the upper-class. For many, it is the final straw in a long line of intolerable injustices: not only must they spend their non-existent health care funds paying for illegal immigrants who arrive in our cities needing emergency care (where by federal law it must be provided regardless of ability to pay), not only are they forced to change their school curriculum to meet the needs of the children of illegal immigrants who do not speak English, not only are they forced to learn Spanish for their own job security in some fields, not only are they up against a crime and drug wave ignored by the federal government, but now their own private gated oasis has been violated.

In their eyes, law abiding citizens are held hostage to an impotent legal system that is incapable of dealing with the onslaught. While so far only those tied to the drug trade have been kidnapped, it doesn’t take an enormous leap of the imagination to project that innocent bystanders could easily be caught up in the gang war soon. After all, in Mexico, the warfare is brazenly no-holds-barred – resulting in an appallingly high civilian casualty rate.

And yet, at the moment, most people are angry on a matter of civic principle: their frustration centers around the continual siphoning of limited state and municipal resources to combat what many believe should be a national concern. In Arizonan eyes, one of the poorest states is left to defend the nation against an unstoppable tide.

Along with California Attorney General Jerry Brown, Chief Anderson expresses his concern that this wave of violence is overlooked by a Washington preoccupied with tracking down Al Qaida. “If it doesn’t stop here – if we aren’t able to fix it here and get it turned around, it will go across the nation.”

My concern is more finite and more immediate. Washington’s failure to act could spark off vigilantism by citizens who feel there is no other option. It will push the dialogue even farther to the militant right and encourage ever-more radical responses by the Sheriff and his followers, especially in light of the current fiscal crisis. It will turn this fight from a primarily economic one into an openly racial one, polarizing the state to the point where it is torn apart. Our former Governor Janet Napolitano was selected as the Secretary of Homeland Security. We await her leadership and influence in resolving this escalating crisis.

This weekend is the closing weekend of San Francisco’s IndieFest. If you’re in the Bay Area, I highly recommend that you find time to see a great independent film! Screenings are at San Francisco’s Roxie Cinemas or Victoria Theater, or Berkeley’s Shattuck Cinemas.

A few weeks ago I attended a screening of Trouble the Water, which I reviewed in my most recent article for The WIP, at San Francisco’s Sundance Kabuki Cinemas. I'd never been to the theater before, and was very impressed! The 11 a.m. screening I attended was sold-out, so I recommend arriving early (it makes me so happy when 11 a.m. screenings of documentaries are sold-out!). The theater has a bar and restaurant, so I’m planning an upcoming dinner and movie night.

In today's online edition of the New York Times, writer Cara Buckley examines the plight of uninsured young adults falling into the chasm between college and salaried positions with health insurance.

A particularly striking story is that of a young receptionist who was billed almost $18,000 for less than 48 hours in the hospital. US Census stats from 1999 – the most recent available – report that per capita income was less than $22,000. In 2004, the median household income was less than $45,000. Aside from the upper one or two percent of our wealthiest citizens, what person could hope to ever pay that bill – nearly a year’s income - without declaring bankruptcy?

This is just the latest in a sea of articles focusing on the near impossibility of securing health insurance and access to medical care in the US today. The oft-quoted ball-park figure of 46 million uninsured – a whopping 18 % of the population- is only growing with the recent rounds of lay-offs. Losing one’s job is the death knoll for access to health care, as the National Coalition for Health Care reports that only approximately 7% of the population can afford to pay COBRA fees - regularly topping $700 per month. (For international readers: federal law mandates that former employees be granted temporary access to their former employer’s health insurance program as a sort of bridge-coverage until they find their next place of employment. This program is known by its acronym COBRA).

The situation is even worse than those statistics indicate. NCHC further reports that the "number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000" and that "nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65- spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage".

Even those who manage to hang on to their jobs in this recession find little comfort - for an estimated 37 million of those 46 million uninsured are working and either have the misfortune of working for the 1/3 of firms that do not have employer-offered health benefits or simply cannot afford the premiums - which increased over 120% between 2000 and 2006.

Increasingly, even upper-middle class families cannot afford these payments - NCHC states that 40% of the uninsured live in households making over $50,000.

The solution for many is to avoid going to the hospital or the doctor until it is an emergency, when by federal law they cannot be turned away for lack of funds. NCHC reports that “about 20 percent of the uninsured (vs. three percent of those with coverage) say their usual source of care is the emergency room.” This is hardly a solution- by the time a patient arrives in the hospital, the once low-level ailment is now much more expensive to treat (in addition to the obvious fact that the patient’s life may have been endangered in the interim).

Several young adults interviewed by Buckley also reported using their friends' expired medication to treat ailments such as the flu - a trend medical experts believe only adds to the already growing crisis of antibiotic-resistant infections. Since diseases are blind to our income and health insurance lines, the desperate struggle of an increasing percentage of our population to make medical ends meet could very well bring about a health crisis for us all in the form of virulent strains of TB, MRSA (Staph) and pneumonia. Without antibiotic treatment, we could catapult our entire society back to the medical dark ages.

Universal health insurance as a basic right and service is long overdue. Historically treated like a commodity, its prices have soared far beyond any standard of reasonableness or comprehension, and far beyond the capacity of any ordinary citizen to pay. Tying health benefits to employment is outdated and illogical – for an individual’s need to see a doctor (or the risk they pose to public health) is in no way related to their current job title. (By the current rational, it would seem that we believe only wealthy, salaried citizens ever get sick).

Disturbingly, many Americans cling to a paranoid fear of government controlled health care – as if this is just a precursor to a Communist incursion. And yet, we are willing to turn over our personal records and the ultimate power to approve or deny a necessary service to private companies that exist for the express purpose of making a profit. In a government-run system, everyone is guaranteed the same basic rights – and since we operate under a democracy, we would have the right to make demands about the way the system would function – and we would all be in the same boat. As it is now, we are atomized and forced to fight our own individual health insurance battles on our own because there is no common ground – everyone is subject to their own employer’s revolving array of health care options.

For those who fear the long lines oft-reported here about the British system, take heart: even in that country, individuals have the right to purchase expensive health insurance and skip the lines. If you want to continue paying upwards of $400 a month, you’d still be entitled to do that. The rest of us, instead of being medically disenfranchised, would just earn our human right to see a doctor.

When we currently spend more than any industrialized nation on health care with such depressing results, it's time for more than a change. It's time for a health care revolution.

(More stats can be found here.)

I have just read Jessica Mosby's review Over the hills and far away: a family treks across Mongolia to help their autistic son, which is a part of this month's focus on disability issues. It is about a documentary showing "journalist father and professor mother take their young autistic son on a summer vacation to Mongolia... all in an attempt to help cure their son after Western medicine has failed". It prompted me to write this post, going as public with personal issues as I have never done before.

My elder son, after initial 18 months of typical development, lost his first words and became withdrawn and obsessed with symbols. Some experts said he had autism; I read what I could find about the condition, and it was all doom and gloom. As my child after regressing reached a plateau and spent a year without acquiring any visible skill, I was depressed and even considered trying gluten-free-casein-free diet, which other autism parents swear has done wonders with their children.

Happily, one day, as I was searching the Web on autism issues, I found an essay by an autistic man titled "Autism, genius and greatness". Unfortunately, the author has since removed his site, but some of his works survive on other sites, so you can read the essay here. He was arguing that autistic people can make unique and important contribution to society, so it is in the interest of society to stop harassing them and let them be who they are. I read all published works by the author and realized that he considered his autism part of his personality and despite the tremendous difficulties resulting from his condition wouldn't want to be cured even if this was possible, because the cured person would no longer be him. This was a view on autism totally different from everything I had met before. In fact, to my shame, I hadn't specifically looked for opinions by autistic people but only for experts' opinions about autism. I realized that parents, coming across autism (or, in a broader sense, disability) in their child, shouldn't think first and foremost about "cure"; this is in most cases nonexistent and only sends the child a message that he is not acceptable to society and even to his family as he is (and besides, obsession with curing disability serves as excellent excuse for those in power to deny much needed accommodations, implying that the problem is in the disability itself and not in the arrogant discrimination by the non-disabled majority).

I contacted autistic adults and parents of autistic children who were more concerned with helping their children than with curing them. This was of much help to me and brought me out of the depression, which was good for everybody. To other people in this position, I would recommend the blogs of the Autism Hub and also the Yahoo! group AutAdvo (the latter requires registration for access because personal matters are discussed).

Meanwhile, my son after his 3rd birthday slowly started to reconnect to the world and resume speech. I brought him to another expert, an old experienced pediatrician. He said, "Autism is a fashionable diagnosis now. 30 years ago, children like your son were not diagnosed, now they often are. So what if we call autism what your son has? First, it is incurable; second, it is a part of his personality, of who he is. I advise you not to label him at age 3 and not to start "therapies". The problem with most experts is that they have an idea of what is normal. Confronting a marked, unusual personality like your son's, they'll attempt to mold him after their perception of the norm, with the most likely result of crushing him. Be patient and understanding and prepared that your son will always be excentric and not teachers' favorite. Engage areas where he is strong and give him time to catch up in areas where he is weak. After he is interested in letters and numbers, surround him with them. Don't insist on reading tales to him after he isn't interested." Professional experience had made this doctor come to the same ideas as autistic people, although he didn't seem to be on the spectrum himself.

From what I know now, I think my son has hyperlexia - a condition characterized by late talking, early reading, early signs of autism (often with regression) and more typical later development, though the people affected remain "different" inside for life, as I am in fact myself.

My son is now 5, attends a typical kindergarten with an art club which I think is a good substitute of occupational therapy. Sometimes I bring him to a speech therapist.

Though looking after him (and his younger brother) and my work leave me little time and forces for anything else, I am trying to advocate for other autistic and disabled people, for those whose development will never come close to the so-called "norm" and will need accommodations and services for life. With some remorse, I remember a classmate to whom we and the teachers were mean and who (as I think now) must have had attention deficit - hyperactivity disorder.

My advice to other parents of autistic children:

First, don't succumb to depression. This will only make things worse. Many experts and other people will paint things black and try to crush your spirit so that to show their power over you. Run away from such people.

Evaluate your child's sensory issues as precisely as possible. Sometimes, children with hearing and even vision problems are misdiagnosed as autistic.

Don't be obsessed with cure and even treatments. The development of a child depends most on his genetic/biological hardware. Accept him for who he is.

Don't try on your child any alternative treatments. Whatever other parents may say, such treatments are useless at best, harmful and dangerous at worst. They have literally costed the lives of some autistic children. Be careful also with mainstream treatments if they are aimed just at forcing normality down your child's throat. Speech, occupational and physical therapy are good, but if your child resists them, immediately change the therapist.

Build your child's self-esteem. Do not try to dissuade him from his "precocious" or "unusual" special interests. Help him to develop them into possible means of occupation. Unfortunately, society often accepts those who are different only if they are exceptionally good at something useful.

If your child is still non-verbal at age 3 - 3.5, consider teaching him an alternative method of communication, such as spelling, sign language or picture-exchange communication (depending on the child's inclinatons). Never try to neglect his generic communication (pointing, screaming etc.) with the hope that this will "make him speak".

Be very understanding. Your child has tantrums because he cannot communicate his desires to you or because he is in a sensory overload. He has difficulties in self-care skills and toilet training because sensory issues make it difficult for him to perceive his own body. Your anger (though sometimes inevitable) is not expected to help.

Care for the financial status of your family. Try to keep your job, if possible. Run away from every "expert" promising to rescue your child from the abyss of autism by separating you from your money. Even decent therapies sometimes aren't as good as toys and vacations that can be bought with the same money.

Contact other parents in your situation, autistic adults, other disabled people. While your child's interests are of course your first priority, try to be engaged with the rights of all disabled people and all others who are victims of discrimination.

If you like, you may contact me at mayamarkov at gmail dot com.

It was Friday morning, March 14 2008. At nine o’clock a thirteen-year-old was standing by the kitchen window when she saw a paddy wagon pull into the yard. She shouted,” Mum! Mum! They are coming to get me again!” Soon afterwards another one arrived, followed by an ambulance and other police vehicles. Out came some 20 people.

“They cut the lock and broke into. As I opened the door to the hall, in came the so-called “executor”, followed by criminologists, police and other people. They pushed me in the corner. My daughter was clinging to me crying, “Mum! Mum! I’m not going anywhere!” They surrounded us both and tore us apart. I was pushed to the fireplace when my sister entered. My daughter ran towards her, embraced her begging,” Auntie, don’t let them take me! I’m not going anywhere!”

The police separated the aunt and niece, grabbed the girl by the wrists, and carried her out of the house on a stretcher by force. The “taming of the shrew” was done in the presence of the father, who held her down, a doctor and the police. The brutal scenes were film-like; 15 policemen and criminologists assisted the medical staff in escorting the girl into the ambulance. She resisted ferociously but was subdued. From a fair distance the whole incident was being watched by the Social Service Centre solicitor Liljana Ovsenjak from Murska Sobota and a social worker and the whole neighbourhood who could not understand why a 13-year-old ninth grade straight A student from Murska Sobota primary school was being treated like a criminal.

The mother said, “In the meantime I was held down with my head to the floor. After the things had simmered down, the “executor “approached and handed me a document on “confiscation” to sign. When I told him about breaking the law by holding the girl against her will, he gave me a piercing look and left.

“Once my daughter was in the ambulance, they sent for me to accompany her. She was still in her pyjamas. One of her trousers got ripped during the struggle. She cried all the way in the car. On the way into the unknown the doctor made several calls to the Maribor and Ljubljana pediatric clinic but both refused to admit her. On arrival in Ljubljana, the doctor disappeared for a while and when she returned we were allowed to leave the car, which my daughter resisted. One of the nurses held her hand encouraging her, “Come along now! You’ll be all right!” She wouldn’t let go of me. We walked across the yard, accompanied by the police, my daughter only in her socks and pyjamas. “ (Miha Šoštarič, Dnevnik Večer)

The horrifying scenes of the execution are not from 60 years ago when Nazis tore Slovenian children from their mothers. This is Slovenia now and today.

Seven years ago Sekolovnik family from Satahovci near Murska Sobota (Northeast Slovenia) made it to the news because there was a serious dispute between the parents over the custody of the children. Just over half a year ago Slovenian public was shocked and outraged once again by the very same story and over a month ago the story nearly got its epilogue, but not quite.

After the parents’ divorce in 2001, mother Lidija was awarded the custody of both children twice, but due to the father’s appeals the court order was reversed by the High Court in Maribor and by the Slovenian Supreme Court of Justice. After the case had been tried again by the very same judge in August 2007, the custody was awarded to father Jože without any kind of explanation on what grounds. By the court order, the mother should have handed over the girl to the father at the end of 2007, but didn’t because the daughter threatened to kill herself if forced to live with the father. After the interview with one of the psychologists from the Maribor hospital psychiatric ward it was decided on 14 February 2008 that the girl be kept there, so she stayed for 3 weeks until March 7 when she was allowed to return to her mother. Only a week later, on 14 March, the family was paid another visit by the police. Nothing better illustrates the bizarre pointlessness of the police persecution than the sight of dozens of police marching a 14-year-old to the ambulance. After a spectacular intervention, she was whizzed to the Psychology Department of the Pediatrics in Ljubljana where she remained until 12 July 2008 despite her pleas to let her return home. The court and the medical staff justified their decision by referring to her vulnerability and distress.

In the meantime there were letters addressed to the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs and to the government from several political parties, urging them to solve the case in favour of the girl. The leader of LIPA Parliamentary Party Barbara Žgajner Tavš severely reprimanded the Ombudsman. In her open letter to the Ministry and the Government she criticized the courts and social services centre for letting the parents juggle with the thirteen-year-old. She said, “As one of the signees of the International Convention on Children’s Rights, we are constantly forgetting about the children’s rights to express their wish about who they want to live with, a fact ignored by the courts. I must urge the human rights Ombudsman to immediately act in the interest of a child who is being held prisoner at the psychiatric ward just because her parents will not agree on the custody and the courts are cooperating with their hostility.“ (www.slovenskalipa.si)

At the same time the press and the public put a lot of pressure on the pediatrics in Ljubljana. All these activities finally bore fruit and on 12 July 2008 the girl was transferred to the Centre for Child Diseases in Šentvid near Stična, a more appropriate place to stay.

Sadly, none of the religious institutions lifted a finger to help. They refrained from giving any kind of opinion, but I guess they had much nobler causes to fight for such as exercising their religious and political power, fighting for their property and against the erection of the mosque in Ljubljana.

There are a great many questions nobody has yet bothered to address. We all have problems grasping the work of the court, judges and medical staff. Who is responsible? Why is the girl fighting her father tooth and nail, refusing to be in his custody? There had been allegations made by her about the father being a child molester, which nobody bothered to examine, including the Ombudsman, the story namely corroborated by her brother of age, who told the media, “My father is a very possessive and vindictive man. I had to go through the same ordeal, but on a much smaller scale. I fear that because he is an employee at the Court of Justice in Murska Sobota he can use his influence, which will only bring more grief to my sister and the consequences will be irremediable.”

If the courts are really tossing the girl back and forth just because they are siding with one of the parents, this is a disgrace for the whole legal system.

The Slovenian human rights Ombudsman claims that all the allegations coming from both children hold no water since they are the work of the manipulative mother who would not stop to do aynthing just to vex her husband, who for the time being has resorted to silence to protect the girl. Yet when asked to elaborate, she says she cannot account for the father’s silence nor can she release any kind of information on the girl’s state in order to protect her from media exposure. While it is true that both the Ombudsman and the father tried to convince the public of their good deeds, nothing they did or said can make us believe they acted in the interest of the child especially since we know that her name has been dragged through the papers for the past two years.

Finally, after the mother’s solicitor Franci Matoz had made appeal once again, both parties met in court in December 2008. This time a different judge Marija Stojko Tretnjak awarded the custody to the mother and ordered the father to pay monthly child maintenance in the sum of €280. At the same time the court issued a restraining order against the father, but the mother’s motion for the daughter’s return home was denied. The girl is to remain in Stična until the decision is effective. With the help of the solicitor the girl came home for Christmas, but returned to Stična after the holidays where she is now awaiting the court decision to be finalized. In the meantime Mr Matoz is going to file a lawsuit against the medical institutions demanding € 50,000 from them for mishandling the case and keeping the 14-year-old away from her mother against her will, depriving her of happy childhood and causing her intolerable grief.

In any other democratic country this kind of incident would bring down the Justice Minister, Minister for Home Affairs, Health Minister and many other civil servants in high positions, but not in Slovenia. So, this is an appeal to all the Slovenian people, a plea to muster enough courage and do whatever it takes, even if that meant turning the courts of justice, social services and medical institutions upside down to set the fourteen-year-old free and once and for good return her to the safety of her home, the one she chooses to go to.

by Cesar Chelala and Alejandro Garro

Eric H. Holder Jr., the new U.S. Attorney General, has unambiguously stated his intention to end one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. legal history: “I can assure the American people that Guantánamo will be closed,” he announced at his confirmation hearings in Washington. Effective closure, however, calls for reflection as to the lessons to be drawn from this sad chapter in our constitutional history.

In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA), in effect approving the military tribunals established by President George W. Bush and denying the writ of habeas corpus to the Guantánamo detainees. Diverting the prosecution of terrorists to ad hoc martial courts was and remains a sad mistake. The constitutionality of these military commissions, despite congressional authorization, remains unclear. Indeed, bypassing the regularly constituted federal courts has not resulted in security gains with respect to terrorism. In a clear break with the Bush administration’s policies, Mr. Holder has declared that the system of military commissions does not guarantee the rights of due process for detainees. Lesson #1: the Military Commissions Act is far from indispensable and has no place in trials of civilians.

In June 2008, in a closely divided decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, despite congressional authorization, even prisoners unilaterally labeled as “enemy combatants” by the executive branch are entitled to challenge their detention through habeas corpus, a decision yet to be applied for hundreds of Guantánamo detainees. While stressing that the country is still in a state of war, Mr. Holder warned against the “false choice” between upholding civil liberties and protecting national security. Lesson #2: the United States has every right to detain those who pose a threat to its citizens and soldiers but those detained must have the right to challenge the legality of their detention before a federal court.

In November 2008, in the course of the military commission case against Afghan national Mohammed Jawad, army judge Col. Stephen Henley threw out a confession extracted under torture, confirming what legal experts have long maintained: coerced confessions are inherently unreliable and, even when reliable, taint the judicial process which must be exemplary in every respect. During his confirmation hearings, the new U.S. Attorney General left no doubt that water boarding used by U.S. operatives against Guantánamo detainees, constitutes torture. Lesson #3: the government has every right to search for valuable intelligence concerning the intentions and tactics of suspected terrorists, but torture must never be condoned as a valid method of extracting information, not even under the guise of self-protection or for the sake of lives.

The rationale behind the “enemy combatant policy” is to incapacitate suspected terrorists by holding them indefinitely, incommunicado and without charge, for the duration of the so-called “war on terror”. The act of circumventing the most basic guarantees against arbitrary detention affects not only the suspects but everyone else, hurting innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire and ultimately undermining the morale of those fighting terrorism. The detention of dangerous enemies is lawful and makes us safer, but not if the cost is the loss of democratic principles and human dignity. Lesson #4: whatever the challenges posed by the terrorist threat, unilaterally labeling individuals as enemy combatants and detaining them indefinitely and incommunicado by executive order is unacceptable practice.

The abuses prisoners have been subjected to at Guantánamo underscore the need to balance executive discretion with access to legal counsel and meaningful judicial review by federal courts. With Eric H. Holder’s confirmation as U.S. Attorney General, we may look forward to significant improvement in accommodating the “war on terror” with the rule of law, which the executive branch has a primary duty to uphold.

Cesar Chelala is a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award for an article on human rights. Alejandro M. Garro is Professor of Comparative Law at Columbia University, New York.