BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 May 04 - 12:06 PM

GUEST, while I would like you to climb down off the soapbox, it was not my intent for you then to assume a position on the cross. The martyr complex is treatable, you might want to check with a mental health professional. I don't have a desire for your blood, I don't even know you. But I do know what you post, and the tactics you use. When you make statements, use tactics, and take a position on a public forum, and when I find them wanting, it is my right to respond. So, ... take a breath, go to the symphony, do a volunteer project, ... whatever.

And thanks for a great thread. You ought to do this more often.

Carter for President.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST, whose posts are rarely excellent
Date: 16 May 04 - 12:07 AM

Yes come in.

The water is warm.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 04 - 12:06 AM

Guest, see the posts about your Guest anonymity in your American Secularist Tradition thread.

Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Frankham
Date: 15 May 04 - 08:25 PM

One thing that might be considered about Carter. He is reputed to have one of the highest (if not the) IQ's of all the American presidents.

He may have been too idealistic for the job which requires a certain brutality at times. At least that's what the evidence shows.

I would say that Bush represents a pseudo-religiosity bordering on insanity. Much more a "parson" than Carter could possibly be.



Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 04 - 11:26 AM

I do actually. At least I have enough of a sense of humor to be able to laugh at myself, unlike many others here.

I also can admit the error of my ways, and attempt to correct them, as I did in my posts above, and in the new thread on secularism.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: RichM
Date: 15 May 04 - 11:15 AM

The thread is titled clearly by the one who started it.
And then it gets hijacked by the very same person, and becomes a controversy about religion.

Anyone else think this is hilarious?

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 04 - 11:04 AM

I clarified my position in my 15 May 04 - 07:46 AM post, my 15 May 04 - 08:00 AM post, and my 15 May 04 - 09:27 AM post in which I said:

"Sorry, I'm not debating religion in this thread, because it isn't a thread about religion. It is a thread about the destruction of the US human rights agenda by the Bush administration."

I also attempted to move the discussion of the importance of secularism to a new thread, in order to get this thread back on the discussion of human rights in this one:

American Secularist Tradition

But considering the fact that I'm the Radical Secularist guest who started the thread Big Mick, that sorta makes this thread my soapbox, just like anyone else who starts a thread about the subject they want to rant about. Again, there was no need for you to single me out, but your thirst for my blood just can't keep you from attacking me, can it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: John P
Date: 15 May 04 - 11:02 AM

Hmm, it's pretty funny. A guest gets pissed off because a few people mention religion, bellyaches about the thread be taken over by religion conversation, and then proceeds to make the thread be about religion.

Guest, thank you for the article. We all enjoyed it and seem to all agree with it. It's pretty hard to discuss Jimmy Carter without discussing his extremely public religious beliefs. Get over it. Nobody's preaching, and nobody's changing the course of the thread but you. Deal with it.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Big Mick
Date: 15 May 04 - 10:29 AM

That's the real point, not the obfuscated, selfishly driven attempt to turn this into a debate on religion/secularism that our GUEST seeks to make it. Bobert's contention, as I took it, was that this is a man who lives by his convictions. In this case those convictions are grounded in the values of his faith. I have known any number of secular humanists, atheists, and agnostics, (Rick Fielding being one of them) who were among the most moral folks I have ever known. Theirs was simply grounded in trying to live a decent life and do good. Fair enough. The point isn't where your sense of right and wrong comes from, rather that Carter lives a moral life and speaks from right and wrong. IMO he lost the Presidency because he was a decent man who spoke the truth. Contrast this with Bush. The examples of his values based hypocrisy abound.

The comments are about values and hypocrisy, not what they are based in. The Christian comments are simply comments from another Christian demonstrating the hypocrisy from a believer's perspective.

So .... GUEST .... please climb down from the soapbox and continue with what is a very good discussion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 04 - 10:24 AM

I don't know that I can agree with all the damning and praising of Jimmy Carter. I don't agree with a lot of his politics, especially his support for nuclear power. But he is the only ex-president with a strong human rights agenda that he actively works to support. For that, I believe he deserves our support.

The US human rights agenda is under attack by right wing secularists and fundamentalist Christians. We too often equate right wing political extremism of the Cheney sort, with the right wing religious fundamentalism of the Dubya sort. It is easy enough to do because of their making common cause with one another under the umbrella of the Republican party. But we need to also remember that there are still Republican moderates (though only a handful still in political life) who oppose the ways the current incarnation of the Republican party has combined religion with politics to promote a greedy capitalist agenda disguised as an extreme fascist politico-religious ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: DonMeixner
Date: 15 May 04 - 10:10 AM

Funny, Jimmy Carter, as Presidents go, was a great State Govenor. But he is the only President who has claimed to be a Christian who has behaved in a truly Christian manner. ( Yikes I agree with Bobert, or did I miss read?) And I think he is the only ex president alive today who has ever behaved Presidential in retirement.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Secularist too (very)
Date: 15 May 04 - 10:04 AM

I'm sorry, that was not my intention.

I too do not like the way our own Human and Civil rights are in the process of being whittled away.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Radical Secularist
Date: 15 May 04 - 09:27 AM

Sorry, I'm not debating religion in this thread, because it isn't a thread about religion. It is a thread about the destruction of the US human rights agenda by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Secularist too (very)
Date: 15 May 04 - 09:01 AM

I'm not trying to be 'cranky'. I'm just debating on 'which comes first' (chicken and egg style). Your definition of religion in 1 (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance... and in 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices (noting here the words 'personal' and 'institutionalized'.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Radical Secularist
Date: 15 May 04 - 08:51 AM

I don't get your point, Secularist too (very). To claim that Christianity isn't a religion is just being cranky. You direct our attention to the definition of faith at 2b(1), I would direct your attention to the definition of faith at 2a(2). You are splitting hairs, which is your right. But it is also my right to believe you are simply doing it to be contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Secularist too (very)
Date: 15 May 04 - 08:43 AM

.... note the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" bit...

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Secularist too (very)
Date: 15 May 04 - 08:42 AM

From Merriam-Webster.com

Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Radical Secularist
Date: 15 May 04 - 08:34 AM

Guest 15 May 04 - 08:21 AM, you seem to think we should all accept your definition of religion and faith, and the way you make distinctions between the two. Thanks, but I'd rather use dictionary definition, as it contributes to clarity in the conversation, rather than to obfuscation. I'll stand by the definition of Christianity as a whole as a religion, and Catholicism and the many sects of Protestantism, as religious denominations.

From Merriam-Webster.com:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 04 - 08:21 AM

Christianity is a FAITH (which includes gems like 'Love your neighbor as yourself).
Catholicism is a RELIGION. So is Presbyterianism, Methodism, Evangelicism, Anglicism, etc.
And they all have different interpretations. Same God, alright.... they just argue about the right way to get to sit by his right-hand side.
That was my point in the above post.

And as far as the Bush Administration is concerned, if they get to set too many benchmarks (like The Patriot Act, for example), an ever growing section of the American people will be judged according to it.

And if they are let get away with too many re-definitions of what Un-Americanism is, then you never can be certain in which future vista, they will 'come to take you away'.
Like maybe striking for the right to higher wages, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 04 - 08:00 AM

And let me set the record straight on this point as well: I am not anti-Christian. I am anti-organized religion. There is a world of difference between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 04 - 07:46 AM

I'm a freethinking secularist, who believes the most important aspect of the US constitution is the separation of church and state. My complaint is that in this Christian religious fundamentalist era of US history, where religion is safe, cozy, and secure from the state, the state is not safe and secure from religion.

The mixing of religion and politics leads to governments like Iran. The religious wars of Europe. Inquisitions and Crusades.

I find it incomprehensible that in a nation where the founding fathers and mothers were so adamnant about the separation of church and state, that in 2004, this dicussion of ethics was immediately reduced to a former president's standing as a Christian by one of the forum evangelizers, and no one challenges it.

That to me suggests the conventional wisdom of the majority here only embrace those who profess a belief in conventional religion, and that only they have a right to the high moral ground.

We are living in an era of unprecedented hostility towards secularism, and in a democracy with the separation of church and state as one of it's main tenets, that isn't a good thing.

I'm sorry Bobert, I like you and we usually agree on most things. But not on the religion thing. Like I said in my initial response to you, the editorial had nothing to do with religion, and I still resent your bringing religion into the conversation.

We need to respect, uphold, and defend human rights and the rule of law, not because we are a Christian nation, or the only people who can be elected president are Christians, and not because one must be a religious believer to be moral and ethical. We need to respect, uphold and defend human rights and the rule of law because it is the right thing to do as human beings, for our own safety and security, as well as for the safety and security of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Mudlark
Date: 15 May 04 - 02:17 AM

Guest:

"Why must EVERY conversation by Americans about the outlaw Bush administration be constantly couched in
these fundamentalist/anti-fundamentalist Christian religion/patriotism/nationalism/militarism terms?"

1) Every conversation is NOT couched in this fashion, including this one; 2)those of us that find the whole fundamentalist/patriot vibe to be repugnant simply avoid discussions, unlike this one, that are couched in these terms.

My own opinion of Jimmy Carter is that while he's no saint he IS too moral, kind and balanced to ever be President in this climate.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Padre
Date: 15 May 04 - 12:06 AM

I have been far more impressed by Mr. Carter since his presidency: I really admire his work with Habitat for Humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 May 04 - 10:23 PM

"its secular ethics that won't be tolerated here. Only Our God's Religion is ethical and, of course, morally superior."

nup, thats not what i said, nor anyone else i think.

freda

a sectarian ethnologist

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,#3
Date: 14 May 04 - 10:20 PM

Everyone here has praised the article and Jimmy Carter-so what are you so pissed off about?

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 04 - 10:16 PM

Think you missed yer meds, GUEST...

Lighten the heck up... "EVERY conversation by Americans about Bush administration be constantly couched in these fundamentalist Christian religion/ect.ect." seems to be something that you want to read into them. In reality, if one were going to take it one post at a time and check off *religious* or *non-religious* then one might find that on the whole religion ain't a speck on the radar screen...

I can't undersatnd yer focus on this issue...

And, no, don't take this one thread as yer "example thread" because it doesn't represent a cross section of political threads and that is because I've done a little more preachin' in it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 04 - 10:05 PM

Thank you all, you have made it abundantly clear that it is secular ethics that won't be tolerated here. Only Our God's Religion (tm) is ethical and, of course, morally superior.

Now tell me, if Jimmy Carter didn't find it necessary to bring his religion into the discussion, why is it so important for religion to be the topic here instead of the content of the article or the need for the committee to share their findings.

Why must EVERY conversation by Americans about the outlaw Bush administration be constantly couched in these fundamentalist/anti-fundamentalist Christian religion/patriotism/nationalism/militarism terms?

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 04 - 09:46 PM

An' the crux of what Jimmy Carter had to say, preachin' aside, is that Bush's policies are hindering fledging democracies all over the world with his pulling back of personal freedoms... Things aren't getting better in these countries but getting worse by the day...

Yeah, the US needs to take the moral ground on human rights ande isn't. Quite the contrary under the current administration... If one were to think how best to set back human rights around the world, they couldn't have a better blueprint than the one that Bush and his friends have etched...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: dianavan
Date: 14 May 04 - 09:36 PM

freda - "Australia has been following down Bush's road, bringing in the same limitations on freedom which are leading to the same human rights abuses."

...and some of the provinces in Canada are not far behind.

This is happening in many so-called democracies. Its about a new world order where multinational corporations call the shots.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 04 - 09:01 PM

Amen, Mick, amen... Ghandi and Carter both posess on central quality and that is their FAITH... Yeah, the term gets thrown around so much that in this chaotic world folks just can't focus on what FAITH is and why FAITH is important. It is what binds us as God's children and while fundamentalists would say that I'm wrong, it is important that we respect those who have different stories but yet worship God... Hey, God knows the good folks from the bad. Yeah, I'm a Christian but there are parts of the Christian *church* and *teachings* that don't jive with the essence of ths teachings of Jesus... In Mattew where Jesus says that only thru him you will know the Father? Hey, I'm not too sure that got translated correctly from Jesus's teachings. And this is important because it allows fundamentalist to take the high ground.... And they don't deserve the high ground. God loves us all...

End of sermon, but when we're talkin' about J.C. (you pick which one) I can get to preachin'...

Rev. Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:11 PM

Bobert, I took your meaning immediately. But then, I am not looking for excuses to say foul words and show the chip on my shoulder.

Carter is a man of conviction. His comes from the moral values of his faith. Others, such as Gandhi, took theirs from their faith. Some twist their faith, such as the KKK. And then there are those who are so angry at what they think that God didn't give them that they attack at every whim. I would take a Jimmy Carter Christian over the fundamentalist hypocrites any day.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:08 PM

just re read that thread, my "well said" was to Jimmy Carter's comments, not Guest's anti Christian comments. I respect Jimmy Carter and his honesty and agree with Bobert's comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:02 PM

its a very perceptive article - I'm copying it & sending it to friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 04 - 06:59 PM

Well, GUEST, I didn't say this was about "religion". My point was about how a real Christain, as opposed to these intolerant fundamentalists, could make such tolerant observations. I wasn't doing any Bible thumpin'...

I think since so many folks are trying to *frame* the US foriegn policy as a struggle between Christianity and Islam, it is indeed refreshing to here from a man who better exemplifies the teachings of Jesus, Jimmy Carter, who, IMO, has a world view that allows for differences of beliefs... That's what we need more of..

Very refreshing article. I read it twice in the Post.

And there's nothing wrong with being a Christian just so long that one strives to live out its principles of love, forgiveness and tolerance...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 04 - 05:35 PM

Couldn't we let these various nameless GUESTS talk to each other, and tiptoe away softly?

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Justa Picker
Date: 14 May 04 - 05:30 PM

As G. Gordon Liddy once said "Jimmy Carter would get my vote --- as parson."

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 04 - 04:54 PM

From Merriam-Webster.com:

Main Entry: Chris·tian·i·ty
Pronunciation: "kris-chE-'a-n&-tE, "krish-, -'cha-n&-, "kris-tE-'a-
Function: noun
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2 : conformity to the Christian religion
3 : CHRISTENDOM 2   

My reference was to the Iraq government of Saddam Hussein, the scapegoat for the US government's failed foreign policy follies known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Since we failed to find WMD, failed to be seen as "liberators", GWB has reasoned our purpose for pre-emptively invading a sovereign nation which posed no national security threat to us was: he was in violation of UN resolutions.

Just like the Bush administration is, and using Saddam's torture chambers to carry on Saddam's good work to boot.

Ho fucking ho ho ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 14 May 04 - 12:13 PM

I'd vote for him in a hot second, SueB

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: SueB
Date: 14 May 04 - 11:29 AM

Thank you for posting this, Original Guest. I wish Carter would run again. Carter for President, 2004! Shall we start a write in campaign?

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 04 - 09:54 AM

Christianity isn't a religion, GUEST 14 May 04 - 08:44 AM

and in case you've forgotten, Iraq is without Government à c'est moment, so it would be fairly difficult to have them comply with any standards we require of other countries...., like our country for instance.

You'll be alright, Jack



















....... until they come to take you away





there'll be no 'ha ha, hee hee' about that, will there?

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:45 AM

well said. And Australia has been following down Bush's road, bringing in the same limitations on freedom which are leading to the same human rights abuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:44 AM

This has nothing to do with religion, Bobert, and I resent the implication that it does.

The Iraq prisoner abuse scandal is about the US violations of it's own military criminal code of justice and the Geneva Conventions. It has to do with the rule of US law and the international treaties to which it is a signatory. It has to do with the US government's abrogration of it's responsibilities and duties as the world's leading democracy and upholder of the rule of just laws, and the requirement that we hold ourselves to the same standards we demand of all other countries.

Like Iraq, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:43 AM

Remeber when Operation Blue Light ended in a fiery crash in the Iranian desert, and seven US servicemen died? President Carter publicly accepted full blame and responsibility, and went to their funerals. Any chance GW Bush would accept full blame and responsibility for ANYTHING...and how 'bout those funerals.

One man has honor and decency that the other lacks entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:37 AM

Yup, spoken like a *real* Christain... I love Jimmy Carter...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:32 AM

Sorry, I meant to include this part too:

In the interests of security and freedom, basic reforms are needed in the United States and elsewhere, including restrictions on governments' excessive surveillance powers; reassertion of the public's right to information; judicial and legislative review of detentions and other executive functions; and strict compliance with international standards of law and justice.

The United States must regain its status as the champion of freedom and human rights.

Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta. The center's current report on human rights defenders is available at www.cartercenter.org.
_________________________________________

Yesterday, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Peter Pace, were forced to admit that if the interrogation methods used by the US in Iraq were used on US soldiers being held by a foreign country, that they would be viewed by us as a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Those interrogation practices have been designated by the commanding general of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, as available for use on Iraqi detainees, and certified by the Pentagon as legal under the Geneva Conventions. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, they have been systematically applied to prisoners across that country. And earlier this week, the bosses of both Mr. Pace and Mr. Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, defended the techniques as appropriate.

So the question now becomes, when, if ever, will our the legislative and judicial branches hold the outlaws of the Bush administration to account?

Subject: BS: Jimmy Carter editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 04 - 08:22 AM

Excerpts from this morning's paper:

By Jimmy Carter
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A25


To ensure that additional human rights embarrassments will not befall the United States, we must examine well-known, high-level and broad-based U.S. policies that have lowered our nation's commitment to basic human rights.

Immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, many traumatized and fearful U.S. citizens accepted Washington's new approach with confidence that our leaders would continue to honor international agreements and human rights standards.

But in many nations, defenders of human rights were the first to feel the consequences of these changes, and international humanitarian organizations began expressing deep concern to each other and to high-level U.S. military and government officials about the adverse impact of the new American policies, and to promulgate reports of actual abuses.

Some of their recommendations were quite specific, calling for vigilant independent monitoring of U.S. detention facilities and strict enforcement of Geneva Convention guidelines. Others were more general, describing the impact of these policies on defenders of freedom and human rights around the world. These expressions of concern have been mostly ignored until recently, when photographs of prisoner abuse let Americans finally see some of the consequences of our government's policies in graphic, human terms.

These American decisions had an immediate global impact. In response to urgent requests from human rights defenders from many countries, the late Sergio Vieira de Mello, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and I agreed that it would be helpful to hear directly from a representative group. After the high commissioner's tragic death in Iraq last August, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed Bertrand Ramcharan to serve as my co-chair, and in November 2003 the Carter Center brought together leaders of human rights and democracy movements from 41 nations.

We learned from these nonviolent activists that U.S. policies are giving license to abusive governments and even established democracies to stamp out legitimate dissent and reverse decades of progress toward freedom, with many leaders retreating from previous human rights commitments. Lawyers, professors, doctors and journalists told of being labeled as terrorists, often for merely criticizing a government policy or carrying out their daily work. Equally disturbing are reports that in some countries the U.S. government has pushed regressive counterterrorism laws, based on the USA Patriot Act, that undermine democratic principles and the rule of law. Some American policies are being challenged by Congress and the federal courts, but the reversal of such troubling policies is unlikely in countries where legislative and judicial checks and balances are not well developed.

We decided to share the disturbing findings with the media and public officials. In addition to a one-hour roundtable discussion on CNN, participants from Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights), the Carter Center, and defenders from Egypt, Kenya and Liberia went to Washington and met with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz; the undersecretary of state for global affairs, Paula Dobriansky; and legislative leaders. The group also participated in a forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and met with editors of the New York Times and The Post.

In each case, the adverse impact of new U.S. policies on the protection of freedom and human rights was described with specific proof and human experiences. These officials listened attentively and promised to consider ways to alleviate the problem. As subsequent events have revealed, there were no significant reforms at the highest levels of our government.