On September 25th Common Cause President Bob Edgar, Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., CC advisor Joseph Montville and I attended a dinner hosted by the United Nations Office of the World Council of Churches and other religions groups that featured Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Our involvement was a part of our upcoming public diplomacy visit to Iran to take place later this fall.  The theme of the event was, "Has not one God created us?," and the guest list included representatives from more than 20 world religions as well as other prominent figures such as UN General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockman and former Norwegian Prime Minister, Rev. Kjell Bondevik.

The event was held at the Grand Hyatt in Manhattan and was not without the controversy one might expect from a visit from the current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Fewer than 100 protestors outside the Hyatt railed against Ahmadinejad and tried to antagonize those of us who were interested in having a dialogue with him (although some press reports suggested the turnout was much higher it wasn't a very big crowd).  The protests were sponsored by the Zionist Organization of America, Concerned Women for America, Arabs for Israel, American Maronite Union among others.  The groups were angry for what they believed was a feting of Ahmadinejad instead of the dialogue that it was.

By: Michael Rohrs

On June 16th 2008, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) embarked on a Needs Assessment Mission (NAM) to determine if they would undertake an election monitoring effort for the upcoming Presidential Elections in the United States.    On June 18th the OSCE/ODIHR's "core team of election experts" met with Common Cause's own team of electoral experts, including: Director of International Programs, Lauren Coletta, Vice President of Research, Tova Wang, and Director of the National Campaign for Election Reform, Susannah Goodman.  Based on their preliminary inquiries with Common Cause and other agencies and groups, the OSCE recently made the decision to undertake a limited election observation mission, you can read the full report of their inquiry by clicking here.

The election monitoring team will embark on a month-long travel schedule and span the United States. The effort will include 100 long term observers from OSCE participating states. The report specifically mentions voter registration, voting equipment, provisional ballots, voter identification, absentee voting, vote by mail, unopposed candidacies, allegations of voter suppression, ex-felon voting rights, campaign finance spending, and increased voter turnout as issues that "merit further attention."

The entire election-monitoring practice stems directly from adherence to the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document.  Mentioned several times in the OSCE report, the Copenhagen Document commissions the OSCE member States to uphold the principles of free, fair, and regular democratic elections. 

In keeping with its commitments as an OSCE participating State, the US has regularly invited the OSCE to observe elections for federal office.

Following is a report from Common Cause Intern Tristan Schulhof:

John Shattuck, a member of Common Cause's National Governing Board and CEO of JFK Library Foundation, recently wrote an Op-Ed in The Boston Globe concerning the creation of a U.S. Human Rights Commission. He discusses America's poor human rights record and the damage it has created to our global prestige. But, Shattuck also suggests ways in which our credibility can be restored. Firstly, "the United States was founded on the rule of law" and therefore we must abide by it. Secondly, we must practice what we preach and not criticize others for human rights abuses. After we have done the above, we must create a truth commission in order to "...get the truth about recent abuses of human rights and the rule of law by the U.S. government." Lastly, Shattuck believes that there should be a U.S. Human Rights commission that would use its oversight and authority to require the executive "...to provide regular reports to the commission on how it is complying with international human rights treaties..."

Similarly, Common Cause (CC) and the Partnership for a Secure America (PSA) are gathering resources to conduct a national campaign to educate the public and policy makers about the importance of convening a bipartisan high level Human Rights Commission.   The creation of such a commission is a concrete way to demonstrate that the U.S. rejects recent violations in this area and is committed to ensuring such actions are not repeated. The grassroots strength and outreach capabilities of CC and PSA will be effective in promoting the issue and educating the public.

In the post 9/11 world of global terrorism and the Iraq War, America's poor human rights record has discredited our government. As General Wesley K. Clark so effectively put it, "For shame, America, that we aren't brave enough and strong enough to live our values." Let's put an end to Guantanamo Bay and other incidents of torture and restore the respect for civil liberties that America once symbolized.

Special thanks to Common Cause intern Grace Campion for attending an important event at the New America Foundation for me this morning on the release of an interesting book by Jane Mayer.  Grace is a rising senior at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA.  Here is her take on the event and the book below.

 "Zealots, Fools and Monogrammed Towels: News on The Dark Side" 

With The Dark Side, Jane Mayer adds to the growing number of independent investigative reports into the shadowy seven years of the Bush-Cheney Administration.  She focused her reporting on the oft overlooked figure of David Addington, legal counsel to the Office of the Vice President.  Back in July of 2006 Mayer wrote an article for the New Yorker entitled "The Hidden Power: The Legal Mind Behind the White House's War on Terror" which consequently led her, with this book, to delve deeper into the White House chain of command and flesh out the role that Addington played.  She found that Addington meticulously maintained a low profile while becoming "one of the most powerful unelected officials in the government - `Cheney's Cheney.'"  Addington is the new face of unelected American politics and a soon-to-be-household name. 
Moderator Steve Clemons, from The New America Foundation, began the morning's discussion by reading the final sentence of Mayer's book.  Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission and former Counselor of the US State Department, responds to Mayer's question regarding the historical legacy of the United States' new stance on torture.  He likens it to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and sums up the past seven years with one sentence, "Fear and anxiety were exploited by zealots and fools." 

Much of my week has been spent making a case against the current resolution regarding Iran gaining momentum in Congress (H. Con. Res. 362). Common Cause partnered with a Council for a Livable World in working with a group of retired military and security experts to weigh in on controversial language within the resolution regarding a potential military blockade against Iran. Admiral Shanahan, General Gard, and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Larry Korb were unanimous in their statement that, "Without a Security Council Resolution, implementation of these measures could be construed as an act of war. Read the full letter here.

In addition to playing a role in putting together the letter from the military experts, Common Cause sent a letter to the Hill that outlined some additional concerns of our own. We are urging Members of Congress not to support the Resolution because we believe sections of the resolution are ambiguous, potentially destructive and do not further a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue that almost everyone says we want. Common Cause is also concerned that Congress is too hastily passing a resolution that gives the President overly broad authorities and sends a mixed and unrealistic messages to the Iranians and the rest of the world. Our position is that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to declare war, and while this resolution is nonbinding and specifically denies that war is the intention, the bellicose and ambiguous nature of language in the resolution calls into question their true intentions. In addition, while the resolution calls for an increase in diplomatic efforts, those clauses are drowned out by a call for a prohibition of the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in the negotiation of the suspension of Iran's nuclear program

Tensions are extremely high between the United States and Iran at the moment and we believe Congress has the responsibility to act thoughtfully and productively. The current resolution falls far short in communicating a clear message about our intentions to Iran and the world community and we urged Congress to abandon it. In its present form it will no doubt be construed as provocative and further contribute to the increasingly hostile rhetoric between the two countries, bringing us closer to a potential confrontation. We'll be sending our members an e-mail next week on the issue when Congress gets closer to taking the issue up. Stay tuned.

The popular NPR program On Point (with Tom Ashbrook) ran a lengthy segment yesterday on the War Powers Act and the bipartisan commission's (led by former Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and James Baker III) recommendations for changing it.  Parts of it made me very angry.

I got through the first half; what was striking was that historian Doris Kearns Goodwin essentially endorsed Baker/Christopher et al's points about Congress "consulting with the President" as a viable and useful 'fix' to the Act.  She also supported their suggestion that, paraphrased, "if they pass a resolution of approval, the President can go forward; if it doesn't pass, then they can try to pass a resolution of disapproval to stop him, but he could veto it."  She goes on to even ACKNOWLEDGE that this means they might need a veto-proof majority to override a President intent on going to war and then vaguely concludes that this is GOOD because "having broad bipartisan consensus" (paraphrased) on war is a good thing.

As Lou Fisher said in his guest blog post here:

This is a big problem.  Big name pundits who are seen as "reasonable" and "moderate" like Doris Kearns Goodwin are getting this wrong and endorsing mechanisms that ignore the Constitution and make it easier for a President to send the country into war without congressional approval.

This is why we need to Recapture the Flag and make sure that we're actually upholding the Constitution and that Congress doesn't willfully give away its rightful powers.  A couple more useful points from Fisher to remember, in his response to Baker/Christopher:

We've been watching closely as a concurrent resolution on American policy on Iran moves its way swiftly through the House and Senate (hcon.res.362 and sres580).  You can read the full bill and check out if your member is a cosponsor here.  Some parts of the resolution are harmless, some are pandering, all of it political in an election year, but section 3 in the House version is down right dumb.  It reads: