As a relative newcomer to urban agronomy but a very experienced practitioner of cynicism, crypto-radicalism, and anti-everythingism, I knew already that the current corporate approach to commercial seed-and-plant selling was doomed and damned. It's a fact that many commercial seeds and plants are bred for appearance and not function, and that many of them are genetically designed to be infertile.
However, there is another practice in which I am highly experienced : that of doing things at the last minute. So, when I realized that planting season was upon me and that there was very little bee activity in my food-production area, I zoomed out and hastily bought a lot of started flowers in an attempt to bring th' bees over to where I wanted them. I spent about $75 (that's my strychnine money for a whole week) on snapdragons from Home Depot and marigolds and petunias from Whitfill's Nursery. I planted the suckers in my two containers and in sunken beds that I'd freshly dug, interspersed appropriately with my early food crops' seeds and transplants. I figured that since they'd been locally grown (all were marked with Arizona grow sites) that they'd be 'native' enough to be appropriate for my application. [dun dun duuum!]
Now, there is a big mass of weedy flowering plants on the other side of my yard that is always full of bees, so I figured that a few smart bees were likely to venture over to the new beds and find their tasty flower snax. [Why didn't I just plant my food crops closer to the existing flowers, you ask? It's because there's not enough shade / light filtration in that area for the crops I'm growing.]
I planted the things, and kept them well-watered with a buried soaker hose, and was ready for a bee essplosion!
So imagine my surprise when I watched bee after sleepy bee buzz around and sniff these new flowers, only to turn up their noses at them and pass by without landing! I was like WHAAAT
Meanwhile, the weedy flowering plants on the other side were budding more flowers and attracting more bees than ever. What the snake was wrong?
Here's what's wrong. Instead of planning ahead and planting native wildflowers earlier, I decided to cut corners and buy commerical garbage varieties of subspecies from other states that have nothing to do with my climate and also are unfamiliar to the local insect population (and being sold as ornamentals, may even be engineered to repel insects). See, bees and other benefical critters know to look for plants that grow normally in their area. And when they see and smell a native plant, they know it's good eatin'. But when they see a non-native blooms, they're like "well what is that" and sometimes they don't even recognize it as a potential nectar source. Even if they do recognize it as a flower, its alien smell will not likely entice the little beastie to munch. It's like if you put a big dish of palak paneer in front of a Wyoming cowboy. They'll just be like "now whut in tarnation is that racket" and move on.
So, I then spent all night doing what I should have done way earlier : I dug up some new sunken beds and sowed them with all-native desert wildflower seeds from http://NativeSeeds.org .
There are two lessons here. 1) Don't be lazy and then try to do everything in a quick-fix panic state. 2) Buy only native plant and flower varieties because your local beneficial insect population will know what to do with them.
Get your urban ag cranking in 2010 -- it's not too late. (12,576)
So, how do you feel about trading goods and services in-kind? How do you feel about hand puppets? How do you feel about rap?
This video will help you answer all these questions. My presentation from Ignite Phoenix 5 : "Use What You Got To Get What You Want."
Rap text :
When I say "Sales Tax" you say "Auuugh!" Sales tax! [Auuugh!] Sales tax! [Auuugh!] When I say "Community," you say "Exchange!" Community! [Exchange!] Community! [Exchange!] Now clap with me... one, two, three, hit it!
Sales tax as a tax is regressive That means to the poor, it's oppressive Money has problems, that's what we say For local commerce, there's a better way! What is it that we propose to do? Let's trade things of real value!
Don't you know we're trading Hard hats for driveway surfaces Web pages for legal services Copywriting for photography Food for books, aiyyo, it's better than money!
Aiyyo I got some carrots! Yo I got some plums! Let's trade together So we both can have some!
Awwww yeah, that's the way that we do Trading goods and services in kind is not for fools! Hahahar! We got it made -- While I got a chance now, let me make this trade!
We're trading in kind, we hope you don't mind now Skills plus goods -- more value than money, hey all right! We get to better know each other When we trade in-kind with one another
Informal or organized, this trade is fly! Don't forget to file your 1099! Community exchange, it rocks the spot Use what you got to get what you want!
Many sites are landscaped with rock and pavement. This creates what is known as the "heat island problem" -- that is, the rocks and paved elements absorb and hold solar heat, raising the temperature of the site, permitting little vegetation or evaporation. Another common landscape approach, xeriscaping, attempts to simulate a natural desert environment by using no deep-rooted plants, but only things like cactus and succulents. The problem with this approach is that it leads to erosion and a soil that is heavily leached and will not retain water; this is not conducive to growing food.
In contrast, permaculture-style landscaping that features a variety of rooted plants and water-managing features raises the water table and, though it requires more water input, may actually conserve water in the long run by cooling the site and creating more in-site moisture recycling (whereas xeriscaping creates a hotter, more arid environment by retaining little water). Plants cool a site, while rocks heat it up. So what's a person with rock on their site to do?
Don't remove the rock -- it's expensive and laborious to do so, and recall that 'using what's on hand' is a guiding permaculture principle. So, instead of removing the rock, redistribute it. Rock's heat-retaining characteristic is directly proportional to its surface area. Therefore, we want to arrange the rock in a way that minimizes the surface area and yet is useful.
The best way to do this is to use the rock on hand to create narrow, deep pathways around your planting areas such that the planting area will be sunken relative to to paths. This will help conserve your precious water -- the water will drain over and through the rock paths and be collected in the sunken beds. Sunken-bed agriculture has long been favored in desert Africa and other arid climates as a key water-management strategy. Repeat : sunken beds and raised paths are the best approach for growing food, especially in hot and arid climates. Raised beds will fry the roots of your crops when the sun beats on them.
Sidebar : the horror of Bermuda grass
Bermuda grass is a 'marginal' or 'fringe' plant -- it exists when land has begun to fail due to erosion and desiccation. It's an especially hardy species that is highly invasive, and is very difficult to control in an edibles-growing setup.
The 'conventional' approach to removing Bermuda grass is to use an herbicide, but smart people know that herbicides are poison and don't use them near their food crops. Instead, use the 'brute force' method : obtain a sod-cutter, "bobcat," or strong shovel (for the Calvinist) and remove the offending grass before planting. Attempt to scrape it off the top of your site. Due to its omnipresence and hardiness, it will continually stage comebacks, but this step will give you a head-start on it. If you're serious about keeping this hardy grass out of your planting beds, don't include removed Bermuda in your regular compost, as some of its seeds may survive the 140-degree temperature and come back to haunt your garden.
One tactic that has proved successful for keeping Bermuda grass at bay is the introduction of red clover, another 'marginal' species that is likewise invasive but has two advantages over Bermuda grass : 1) it attracts bees, which are vital for pollination of your crops, and 2) it smells better than Bermuda grass.
The 'Pre-Landscaped' problem
Many sites will already be landscaped with trees, shrubs, etc, before you arrive. This can be seen as an obstacle to your planting design, but the smart urban agronomist will incorporate existing green features into their plan. Rather than remove existing trees, remember that bees like trees and you need bees. Therefore, introduce gourds, grapes, and other hardy vines to grow up on and around the pre-existing features (including rocks of all sizes). This will create a photosynthesizing, water-producing heat barrier that requires little watering (because these thrive in dry conditions) is excellent at counteracting the effects of the urban "heat island."
Achieving microbial balance
Healthy plants are abetted by numerous symbiotic worms, insects, microbes and fungi living in the soil. Each type of helper organism lives in a certain "trophic level" -- that is, stratum -- of the soil. Microorganisms often move through fungal networks around plant roots to enhance crops' nutrient uptake. Helpful organisms come in several classes : - Bacteria - Fungi - Nematodes - Protozoa - Arthropods - Annileds - Birds and animals are also in symbiosis wit your crop, but we'll treat them elsewhere in this series.
Soil trophic levels are an important consideration in urban agriculture. It's important to work with the organisms in each level, rather than against them, to maximize yield and minimize the amount of work you have to do. The first rule of working with these trophic-level-dwellers is : 'don't upend, displace, and massacre them with a rototiller.'
To dig or not to dig?
Tilling displaces the organisms in each tropic level, disturbing them and causing them to die quickly. A few inches means a lot to microbes and tiny animals. The "no-till revolution" currently under way in urban agriculture allows the trophic levels to remain healthy and undisturbed by specifying that rather than digging and tilling. it's better to layer mulch and compost on top of existing levels to allow the natural action of symbiotic-critter level adjustment as these new mulch and compost layers are watered in and self-percolate.
The "traditional" method of bed preparation, "double-digging," is wherein soil is dug up from one end of the bed and moved to another end. This is disastrous for microbe and fungal colonies and, even worse, is very hard work.
The new method : "Lasagna gardening"
I wish that "Lasagna gardening" was a way to grow lasagnas, but alas, it's only a slang term for building up soil in a layered fashion and avoiding disturbance of the native soil's trophic levels. Here's how to do it :
1) Spray / soak the site liberally with compost tea or "effective microorganisms" to bacterially control pre-existing environmental toxiins 2)Put a layer of black-and-white (only) newspaper over the selected bed site. This is nontoxic and will discourage pre-existing weeds from erupting in your planting beds. (note : stay at least 3 inches away from trees ) 3) Layer equal thicknesses of mulch and compost on top of each other. Ideally, you want an ultimate planting depth that is equal to your root size; this is roughly the same as the height of the above-ground plant greens (hence the old saying "as above, as below"). This may seem daunting and silly, but after the first couple of seasons, the new material will be integrated with the original soil and the landscape will even out. 4) add new layers of mulch and compost after each harvest to continue enriching the site soil.
Kelp meal is a phosphorous-containing soil amendment that many have found to be beneficial to this process. However, those who live in landlocked areas may object to adding sea-based additives to their soil.
Coming soon : Part III
This information principally drawn from the lecture series "Designing a Vegetable Garden" as presented by Heather Welch in late 2008 courtesy of the Phoenix Permaculture Guild. (43,444)
Water management is key for success, especially in desert environments. One of the determining factors in water management is the overall slope of your site space. Observe where water flows and pools when it rains. The areas where water pools are ideal planting locations for root crops (carrots, beets, etc).
You can influence the flow of water by constructing "swales" along the elevation contour lines. "Swales" are geographical features that are constructed by digging along contour lines and mounding the removed soil on the lower-elevation side of the ditch, creating a depression and berm that guides water runoff. This method can be effective for minimizing water loss and guiding flow to where you need it - your planting beds with water-hungry crops.
Rainwater and 'greywater' harvesting are good ways to maximize the self-reliance of your urban agriculture project. Rainwater harvesting requires a well-designed gutter / catchment system and collection barrel. When deciding how to apply your harvested rainwater, be aware that if your house has asphalt / tar / composition shingles, the roof runoff will contain toxic residues from the shingles. Therefore, you don't want water that runs of an asphalt roof to be used on your vegetables; it's probably OK to use on trees and anything you don't eat (though there's some argument about whether you should use it on trees that bear edibles -- see note on toxin concentrations in fruit). Water that runs off tile, tin, concrete, ceramic, wood shingle, or other non-volatile roofing materials is kosher for all plant uses.
'Greywater' is relatively uncontaminated water that's been used once in your home - for example, to wash clothing or the dishes. By using biodegradeable, nontoxic detergents, the urban agronomist can collect that water -- which is quite a lot - and re-use it directly on trees or and non-edible plants. You'll need to plan how best to get the greywater from its source (e.g., the clotheswasher) to the destination (e.g, your orange tree). For example, a hose can be run directly from the clothes washer to the orchard or collection barrel; catchments and barrels can be used to store greywater before use. Note that since greywater can harbor bacteria, it should not be stored for more than 24 hours before use (unless cured by UV rays). For collecting greywater from the kitchen and bathroom sinks, the simplest way is to simply collect the water in bowls and decant it into a bucket to take outside; you can also do minor plumbing alterations to make it easier. There are numerous books and commercially-available systems on the market with more detail about how to install greywater systems in the home; be sure to consult local laws governing greywater before starting on the project.
Some municipalities offer irrigation as a city service. This provides very cheap and plentiful water, sufficient to grow even the thirstiest crops. The downside to this convenience is that irrigation always brings with it numerous seeds (such as Bermuda grass) and insects. Take care to be on the lookout for invasive species when using municipal irrigation. Avoid placing plants directly in front of the irrigation channel to avoid damage from water movement.
When using forced city water -- that is, tap water -- there are several concerns to bear in mind. The most crucial is that tap water is chlorinated and fluoridated; left untreated, it'll kill vital garden bacteria and fungal microrhizome 'residents.' If you have no bacteria, you'll have no worms, and no worms spells doom for vegetable gardens. Without symbiotic fungi, your plant roots won't be able to take in vital nutrients from the soil. Therefore, if you use tap water, install a filter system that's designed to eliminate chlorine and fluoride contamination. If a commercial filtration system is beyond reach, these harmful elements will also evaporate if you leave the water in an open barrel or bucket for 24 hours or more. It's been hypothesized that toxins in water are concentrated in plant tissue to a factor of ten, so prenez garde!
Sun and shade
As important as water management is the practice of solar planning. It's essential to plan your plantings with a mind to the patterns of the sun on your site and the needs / tolerances of your crops. Plants can be sunburned just like animals can.
Pay special attention to summer sun patterns. In arid climates especially, avoid planting vegetables in places where they'll receive direct solar radiation (cactus and desert succulents are OK in direct summer sun). This is one of the reasons why it's desirable to create a multi-tiered "canopy" with trees or trellised sun-tolerant vines providing shade for edibles below. Creating such a canopy system improves not only the soil and plant health, but also site air quality.
You'll note that the sun pattern in your space will vary considerably between summer (the sun will be directly overhead) and winter (sun will come in at more of an angle).
The best spots for planting on your site are those that are in partial shade in the winter sun pattern. Determine your sun patterns by carefully observing the shade patterns as they shift throughout a day. You can approximate the patterns of whatever season it isn't by drawing a bird's-eye-view map of the site, putting objects on it to represent shading structures (for example, a tissue box for the house and saltshakers for trees) and moving a bright flashlight over the model, imitating the sun's sweep, to see how the shade patterns move.
The ideal type of shade is "filtered shade" -- that is, shade that doesn't completely obscure the sun. For this, trees with smaller leaves such as mesquite, palo verde, and palo brea are ideal. These types of trees are also "nitrogen-fixing" plants -- that is, they take elemental nitrogen from the atmosphere and convert it into nitrogen compounds in soil that can be used by other nearby plants. Note : if you have a dead tree on the site, don't root it out - introduce a trellising vine like grapes to grow up it and provide shade. Using what you've got on hand -- like pre-existing structures -- is a key permaculture principle.
Understanding microclimates
Microclimates are local variations within a regional climate. For example, the Phoenix area has an overall climate that is hot and arid. However, variations in elevation and airflow patterns make the North East section of the valley significantly cooler and more verdant than the southwest section. The urban center is hotter than the surrounding areas due to to high concentration of heat-retaining structures and pavement. Likewise, there are microclimates within individual sites. It's a good idea to walk around the site in he middle of the night, making notes as differences in temperature, humidity, and wind movement are perceived. These microclimates will influence the planting layout.
Soil : analysis and composition :
Soil is composed of sand, silt, clay, organic matter, air, and water. It's what plants grow in, and is ultimately the source of all food. It's important to think about and analyze the soil on any planting site.
Typical Arizona soil is heavy with caliche -- a mixture of clay with mica and montmorillonite particles. The clay and mica particles lay flat against each other, making for poor permeability and drainage. It's hard to break up and very challenging to grow in. The type of soil that's ideal for planting is called "loam" -- an equal balance of all particle types and sizes with plenty of organic matter. This soil type is very "friable" -- that is, easy to plant in -- and is nutritious for nearly all plant types. Any soil type can be made to take on the characteristics of loam with the addition of time and natural soil amendments -- compost and mulch. Never use gypsum to break up clay deposits, as it will make soil terribly alkaline.
The site soil should be tested for pH before the project is started. A pH between 6.8 and 7.5 is considered to be neutral and good for most plants; desert soils tend to be alkaline (~8.5 pH); some soils are acidic with a lower pH. The correct way to manage soil pH that's too high or too low is to add plenty of compost, which will help neutralize the overall pH. Any nursery can test the site soil for pH.
If you believe that your site may be heavily contaminated with industrial toxins, motor oil, pesticides, or other hideous stuff, many major universities (such as U of A) will test your soil for poisons (for a significant fee). If you find that your soil is contaminated, but still want to plant, you can attempt to "bioremediate" it using liberal amounts of compost tea and / or so-called "Effective Microorganisms."
Note : never use raw manure or fecal material directly on your soil, no matter what you hear-- it will introduce pathogens and can potentially cause 'nitrogen burn' in crops. Compost all manure before applying to your soil.
How to determine your soil's composition : This is easy. Just fill a lidded jar halfway with the soil to be tested (it's recommended to test multiple parts of your site), fill rest of jar with water, shake it up well, and leave it to settle for 48 hours. The sample will then separate into layers and reveal its composition. The bottom layer is sand, the middle layer is silt, the next and lightest-colored layer is clay, and floating on top is organic matter. The composition of your soil samples will tell you what amendments should be added to optimize the soil's friability.
If clay is present in excess, coarse compost or mulch can be added to help make the soil more permeable over time. Clay does have redeeming characteristics -- for example, it's rich in plant nutrients, as is silt. If your soil is sandy, that's not necessarily a bad thing -- sand is vital for good drainage. Just add plenty of finished compost to amplify the nutrient value. If your soil is weak in organic material, add mulch and compost (the more, the better).
Getting started
A good plan for starting your urban agronomy adventure is to pick the best-shaded, well-watered spot on the site and create a 4 by 8 foot bed (planting your favorite native food crops using the companion-planting strategy -- more on that later). This functional size is manageable for the neophyte and is modular, so that your planting beds can be easily added together or rearranged. Once you have success in the 4x8 bed, create more. A key permaculture principle to apply here is "start small, get big."
Basic tools
The basic tools you'll want to embark on your planting experiment are : - Gloves - Shovel - Rake - Hoe - Wheelbarrow - Rebar stakes are useful for many things including water and air management - Compost and compost sifter - Velcro for plant ties
The bulk of this information was drawn from the lecture series "Designing a Vegetable Garden" as presented by Heather Welch, November 2008. Part 2 to follow (42,993)
Here's Nicholas DiBiase from Hepnova (@Hepnova) laying down th' rap on urban agronomy and food security at Ignite Phoenix 4 :
Transcript :
Food security : what does it mean?
Food security is regular, reliable, daily access to sufficient quantities of nutritious food.
It affects everybody, and it has to do with income, access, and information.
Let me tell you a story about access. In the late 90s when I was at ASU and they shut down Stabler's Market, suddenly I was left without a grocery store within a mile of where I lived. So, I started eating a lot of ramen and fast food -- how many students hear that?
Now, at the grocery store, you can get produce, but a lot of the stuff we find there is grown with chemicals that we don't necessarily want to put in our body.
Now, we can look for food that's labeled by the USDA as "Organic." But there are a couple of problems there, too : 1) it's hella expensive, right? And 2) there are over 2 dozen chemical approved by the USDA for use in foods labeled as organic.
On top of that, most of this stuff comes from far away, other states or other countries, so it spends a lot of time on container ships, in planes, and in trucks, using up a lot of energy and fuel just to get to our supermarket and losing nutritional value every day it's on the road.
The solution is urban agronomy : the scientific approach to gardening in the urban environment. It's efficient,
because we get a lot for what we put in, there's little waste, and we save on all those transportation costs. It's edible : we get the food at the peak of its perfection and the peak of its nutritive value.
It's all about community -- this is what makes it work. This is a grassroots movement that's growing every day. Here's Ryan and Ericka Cero Wood showing 70 interested people around their house and garden.
As much as this is about nutrition and supply security, it's also about taste. Fresh food tastes amazing! I never liked squash until I had one that was raised here in Phoenix. It was like I was eating wax before. It's a revolutionary experience to taste food as it's really meant to taste.
We can do this stuff without changing our lifestyle tat much -- we can keep our urban identity. This is a simple approach that yields real results.
For the apartment dweller and those living in small spaces, we use containers to grow delicious leafy greens, and other good stuff.
Those who have some yardspace can design sunken planting beds with raised paths that conserve our precious water and conserve resources. Vital to success is the use of native plants. We live in the desert, we exist in the desert, and so we eat in the desert. Foods that we eat in the desert should grow naturally in the desert. Native foods like corn, beans, and squash are designed by nature to thrive and be easy to grow in the desert -- and I don't know about you, but I don't like to work any harder than I have to -- especially when it comes to food!
You can enhance your system by using biodegradeable soaps and recapturing the water you use for washing at home -- this is called greywater, and it can be as simple as a bucket!
You can also add chickens to the setup, I love these guys! They're cute as all-get-out, they're great at controlling pests, they eat scorpions - that's true --, and they give us eggs at a fraction of the cost of organic eggs from the store!
The most important thing here is to share your surplus! This is what makes this work at a scale that's a the community level. When you produce more than you can eat fresh during the season, share it with someone who has something you want! Or better yet, share it with someone who may not have anything.
Food insecurity is disturbingly prevalent in America and in our community. If we use some of our extra space and resources to grow some food for these folks, everybody will benefit.
The inspiration and the information that brought me here here came from the Phoenix Permaculture Guild. These folks are full of energy, have a wealth of knowledge and are eager to help anyone interested in exploring this stuff.
We can shred up a guitar neck; we can rev an engine -- I wanna grow up this landscape, take back our food supply, and have a rockin' fun time doing it!
Anthony Romero, et al, key points from "Freedom under Fire" :
-Jingoistic nationalism is the norm in attitudes; dissent draws oppression -Lawmakers largely silent on issue -War on terror is a war of ideas; if 'democracy' is a value that we strive for, then we must promote free speech and civil liberties -Attempted suppression of dissent only increases dissent -Cites historical precedents such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's habeas suspension, Wilson's Espionage Act, Red Scare -Law enforcement using tactics ranging from pepper spray to denial of protest permits to asset seizure to squelch dissent -Some tactics are subtler : long waiting periods stifle timely protests, investigations on campus; 'designated protest zones' during Prez appearances
Andrew McCarthy (real name!) key points from "Free Speech for Terrorists":
-In the hands of 'Islamofascism," speech is itself a weapon -Moral relativism and the 'marketplace of ideas' cannot disguise the fact that advocacy of mass murder is wrong -- when murder advocates lose in the 'marketplace,' they simply kill more persons -Speech that materially threatens national security (such as incitements to mass murder a la jihadi fatwas) can not be rationally considered as protected free speech -In comparison to Sedition Act, Lincoln, Wilson, Red Scare, even the heaviest strictures currently proposed represent significant progression in speech rights
Richard Posner key points from "The Right of Free Speech with a Comment on Profling" :
-Terrorism is political, rather than commercial or personal in nature [ed. note : no ish, Sherlock] -Terror advocacy raises three constitutional questions : Is terror advocacy acceptable as the basis for surveillance? Is it punishable? What level and methods of concealing sensitive information, including 'disatasteful elements' of our 'response,' is acceptable? -Secrecy is essential for effectiveness of some aspects of the anti-terror effort; not all censorship is unconstitutional (CIA nondisclosure agreements) -Lack of laws preventing the publication of leaked national security secrets shows USA's 'culture of nosiness' and 'distrust of government bordering on paranoia.' -Injunction against (censorship of) disclosure of national security secrets can be justified -- it's arguably less onerous than jailing publishers after the fact, and the protective benefits of stopping such disclosure outweigh the drawback 'chilling effect' on free speech -Government should be permitted to prevent publication of classified material, provided that it was classified according to valid criteria. -What about publishing research that could provide instruction to terrorists, e.g., biological research on how to make supervirii? -Bottom line : the press should not enjoy blanket immunity from sensible measures designed to protect national security -It is reasonable and legal to surveil radical imams, but does this infringe on the First Amendment due to the chilling effect, even though speech itself is not being forcibly curtailed? This is the border between curtailment and infringement -Civil libertarian's aversion to 'viewpoint discrimination' is 'too squeamish' -Dennis 'imminent lawless action' test doesn't work for those preaching holy war -Free speech laws that allow the preaching of violent holy war against America but prohibit false advertising of products are 'excessively lacking in nuance' -On the other hand, especially considering the relative lack of radical imams in the USA, laws limiting the speech thereof may be 'needlessly provocative' -Speaking of provocation, our doctrine should be 'flexible' enough to curtail hate speech against Muslims that may itself incite terrorism (cf. Muhammad cartoons) 0- legit Muslim community must not be alienated -Lastly, just because something (i.e. forbidding terror advocacy) is unsound policy does not make it unconstitutional. (19,263)
Oren Gross main points from "Prohibition on Torture and the Limits of Law" :
-"Pragmatic absolutism" and "Official Disobedience" characterize Gross' view -The torture debate is often viewed in absolutist terms; that torture is immoral (due to the debasement of the tortured and the depraving of the torturer; or else due to the corrupting effects on society) and therefore inexcusable regardless of the consequences of not torturing -Arguments for the permissibility of torture are generally from a 'consequentialist' viewpoint, which is a cost/benefit perspective - "ticking bomb" logic, etc, supports a 'conditional prohibition -Variations include "orders of magnitude' approach, which considers only threats of massive scale to outweigh long-term bad effects of torture -Absolute prohibition is morally untenable when viewed in cases of imminent catastrophe -- suggests an absolute legal ban on torture that actors may circumvent by extralegal actions for which they'll be called to account ex post -Crucial to distinguish between 'truly catastrophic' cases and 'artificial cases'; general policy vs. special cases -Crucial to uphold the symbolism of the inviolability of human dignity and the human body -- cries of national security, etc, do not trump fundamental rights -Absolute legal ban 'resists the less-inevitable but more-dangerous' - that is, it cannot prevent the extralegal use of torture in catastrophic cases, but checks against the spread of torture to less-catastrophic cases, etc -Absolute legal ban rejects cost/benefit and avoids slippery slopes -Torture will be used ("official disobedience") in extreme ticking-bomb cases, legal or not, so the question becomes what legal and other consequences result from its use -In a constitutional society, extralegal acts will be done wit trepidation and will have to be accounted for (justified or condemned) ex post ('ex post ratification') -- these factors are powerfully limiting -- responsibility to 'moral judgments of history,' also international legal consequences for actor and state -Extralegal actions, unlike bent laws, are unlikely to create dangerous legal or even moral precedents -Also, the extralegal actor is an 'autonomous moral agent,' not an an agent of an institution -- this curbs institutional violence
Alan Dershowitz key points from "Tortured Reasoning" :
-Torture is currently in widespread use with no accountability -- this is not acceptable; use will expand without accountability -- 'pervasive torture with deniability' -it is better to legalize torture in certain warranted cases than to de facto permit it in all by avoiding the issue -- as in current 'don't ask, don't tell' situation -'necessity' arguments result in too much elasticity -- Abu Ghraib proves this -The risk of ex post ratification or condemnation should rest with a judge called upon to issue a 'torture warrant,' not with the interrogator -Since the courts' function is to finely balance liberty and security, it's appropriate that they do so in the case of catastrophic situations as regards torture -If a democratic nation is to undertake any action, then that action must be subject to the rule of law. -The core debate isn't about whether torture can be justified, it's about accountability in the case that it is used in fact -Requiring warrants adds an unfortunate degree of legitimation, but provides accountability -Cool judicial heads > hot interrogator heads -We want torture to be used if it'll save millions of lives, and we should never want our agents to do anything we deem wrong or illegal -'Tragic decisions should be made at the top whenever feasible,' not by individual operators 00 cf decision on whether or not to shoot down passenger jets -Judicial review / warrants would prevent another Abu Ghraib by eliminating deniability and 'necessity' arguments
Elaine Scarry key points from "Five Errors in the Reasoning of Alan Dershowitz" :
-The argument that those who argue for an absolute ban on torture are morally impaired or hypocritical is false -Just because an act is necessary does not mean that it is no longer wrong and punishable; a 'savior of the city' is unlikely to be deterred by the spectre of possible legal culpability -The act of torturing requires no courage if warranted, but much courage if possible consequences must be borne by torturer -- soldiers regularly give their lives to save others, so it's unclear why legal impunity is needed for the torturer (who might have to give up his liberty to save others) -Warrants eliminate the 'how certain am I that this subject has the knowledge I need which would justify torture?" test -Vast number of current detainees make it seem unlikely that, in the event of a 'ticking bomb,' we'd have only one person to interrogate - it'd be more like 5,000; it's ludicrous to suggest after our myriad intelligence failures that we can recognize the ticking bomb accomplice -These assumptions -- lack of courage, that test is not necessary, intelligence omniscience -- make ticking bomb 'threshold' the inappropriate one through which to enter the torture debate -The assumption that the judicial or executive officer confronted with a ticking-bomb warrant request will be able to effectively distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate scenarios is false -Example : FISA has only declined one warrant request out of 25,000 -Warrants may actually limit legal review, as is the case with search warrants -- once the warrant is obtained, the requestor is free from further review -Dershowitz repudiates, then employs, concepts that he admits are monstrous ('torture lite,' necessity') by giving them different names later ('nonlethal torture,' 'exceptional circumstance warrants') and making them into formal legal procedure (22,242)
*** This is Cole's rebuttal to Ackerman's revised 'Emergency Constitution' proposal ***
- the terror problem is fundamentally one of technological progress
- it'll never be known if or when Al-Qaeda is defeated, and other loose-knit groups may spring up as well
-Terror awareness is 'the new normal' (cf Cheney)
-Ackerman proposes a change in const system to address present inadequacy to address the "political emergency" caused by terror attacks (neither war not crimes)
-Ackerman's proposal has three basic flaws : 1) There is no reason to believe that suspicionless preventive detention will make us safer 2) This provision would "not forestall the abuse of civil liberties" 3) Inappropriate preference of legislative over judicial checks
-Preventive detention, as shown by Palmer, Korematsu, Ashcroft incidents, has not been shown to work. -The "terribly thin hope" that such detention may one day be effective is inadequate to justify such an 'awesome' extension of power
-Ackerman's revised plan adds "reasonable suspicion" to the preventive detention, but since the detainees have no legal recourse while held and are not entitled to any additional compensation when released if their jailers did not use the 'reasonable suspicion' test, the addition of that test has zero effect or meaning.
-Ackerman's idea that his solution will prevent civil rights abuse is 'mere wishful thinking' and is contrary to the lessons of history -Bush's declaration of emergency after 9/11 allowed him to arbitrarily freeze assets, etc, but the provision of these powers did not stop the government from 'radically infringing' civil liberties with other acts (wiretapping, torture, etc) under the aegis of war
-Emergency and war are not mutually exclusive, and neither are their powers-- 9/11 'gave rise to an emergency and was followed by a war'
-Ackerman himself says that terror is a permanent condition, so it's unclear why a temporary solution makes sense whatsoever
-Ackerman acknowledges that constitutional amendments are virtually impossible to pass, but his proposal would only work as such -- any other implementation would be insufficiently binding
-Ackerman's proposal betrays a 'fashionable' distrust of the courts -Calls Ack's criticism of Hamdi 'overblown'
-The reliance on the legislature is clearly an invitation for panic and overemphasis on security to carry the day -- again, see history
-Bottom line : there are already ample measures both legal and appropriate that are available in times of emergency : tightening security in airports and chemical plants, co-ordinating intelligence efforts, etc -These available measures have real preventive value without undermining Constitutional principles (19,568)
Bruce Ackerman, David Cole, and the amusingly-named Mark Tushnet are highfalutin constitutional law scholars whose free time is spent counting balogna slices dusted with gold and knitting gun socks.
What follows are the key points from Ackerman's "The Emergency Constitution," Cole's rebuttal "The Priority of Morality," and Tushnet's "Emergencies and the Idea of Constitutionalism." These articles deal expressly with the concept of government power during times of emergency. Questions addressed in here are like "How much power can the government have during times of crisis? How long should those powers last? And how do we locate those powers in the law?"
I'm one of those people that can be talked into nearly anything -- you know, someone will be like "yeah see this and this and this" and I'll be like "oh yeah that makes sense." I was acutely aware of this as I typed up these notes; every other line I was like "hey that's a good point..." even if the paragraph is totally objectionable on final consideration.
The one-word synopsis of these is "BEWARE"
So here it is :
Ackerman main points :
-Terror attacks will occur in the future
-Therefore, new constitutional measures are required to check against politicians, who are wont to introduce repressive measures after attacks in order to promote security
-Civil libertarian arguments are tempting, but not pragmatic -- in the event of crisis, politicians will be applauded for brushing libertarian objections aside as 'quixotic' and instituting repressive measures. Therefore, the absolutist civil libertarian view is not workable
-Therefore, those who wish to defend liberty must work to codify short-term emergency measures that can't be extended in permanence - this is the way to prevent the 'panic-driven' cycle of increasing repression
-Existing Western legal frameworks of war and crime are inadequate for dealing with terrorism
-Re : war : This is because when the very existence of the State is threatened, the executive must be granted temporary and extraordinary powers; however, 9/11-type attacks don't literally pose this threat. The true threat is seated in the public panic caused by such attacks. Judges cannot be relied upon to make the correct snap decisions in the face of panics; they are no less immune to panic than the rest of us. The emergency constitution
-Contsructs of war law do not fit the so-called 'war on terror' -- war is in fact between sovereigns. Conceiving of the terror conflict as war leads to abuses such as the designation of suspected terrorists as 'enemy combatants.' Also, war ends, whereas the terror threat is without end; this leads to a situation where all people are potentially subject to detention without end. If the executive is also allowed to punish, this results in a de facto alternative criminal justice system, with all the questions that entails.
-Re: Crime : Al-Qaeda is a dangerous conspiracy just like the Mafia. Likewise, the accused participants in the very real Communist conspiracy, who were supported by a hostile sovereign and could well have precipitated a classic war, were never stripped of fundamental Constitutional due process.
-However, terrorists have political objectives, whereas criminal conspirators generally do not
-Also, the scale of the individual terrorist attack threat differs from the Commie threat in a couple of important ways : 1) The terror attack might wipe out a city, but not the entire civilization a la Soviet rocket attack; b) we have seen the devastation from a terror attack, whereas we never did see nuclear holocaust on our shores. The state will survive a terror attack, and must act to assure the public that it remains, is not demoralized, and is moving effectively to contain the threat
-Therefore, neither of these legal rubrics is adequate for dealing with the terror threat; a new emergency powers framework must be put in place so that the government can effectively reassure the populace after a tragedy
-The classic debate deals with emergencies that threaten the very existence of the state, which the terror attack does not. However, the reaction of the government to an attack is likely to do permanent harm to civil liberties
-Present 'when public safety may require it' language relies on judicial imagination for interpretation and also dealing with consequences; this is unacceptably ambiguous 'law fog'
-so why not allow a real emergency powers law take care of this?
-Without formal emergency powers, how do we prevent korematsu from rearing its head again?
-Suggestions to make emergency a case for extralegal action does prevent dangerous legal precedent from being established, but also poses the danger of the lawless conditions persisting
-Subjecting the declared state of emergency to vote every two months, requiring a larger majority for ratification each time -- the 'supermajoritarian escalator' -- is the way to ensure that states of emergency, and the abuses they necessarily entail, do not persist beyond their necesssity
-There should be a provision in emergency constitution to ensure that executive and majority party share information with minority legislators in advance of a vote
-S.A. already has a supermajoritarian escalator in their const, albeit only 2-step
-It would be necessary to explicitly differentiate between different types of emergencies (natural disasters, war, civil unrest) and prescribe for each -- Canada does this
-Innocents caught up in emergency dragnets would be entitled to 'just compensation' that takes into account the true cost to the individual of imprisonment, and this amount must be paid by the acting administration out of its own budget -- this is a good check against willy-nilly excess and also provides some measure of justice to those wronged
-Emergency powers would also be constrained by 'decency' -- e.g. , no terrible racism, personal animus, etc
-So : supermajoritarianism, compensation, decency are characteristics that make this plan not only actionable, but more just than other proposals
Cole main points :
-Stated goal of DoJ (Ashcroft) is to use any and every available law to collar 'suspected terrorists,' just as JFK would arrest a mobster for 'spitting on the sidewalk.'
-Preventive detention has taken place along undeniably racial grounds, with those of Middle Eastern descent being targeted on that basis alone
-Historical preventive detention cases (Palmer raids, Japanese internment)show poor targeting and rights abuses
-'suspicionless preventive detention' lacks 'legitimate purpose;' and emergency constitution would expand, rather than limit, it
-Ackerman's article is deficient in scope -- powers must be precisely enumerated
-If, for example, detention of innocents is wrong, why make it explicitly legal? The compensation scheme is muddled -- why dispose of the need for suspicion before detention in the first place?
-The idea that the costs of mass preventive detention are mitigated by the 'reassurance' of the public in time of 'panic' is flawed -- who is being reassured? Surely not those who share characteristics with the detainees
-There is no substitute for an 'appropriate normative balance between liberty and security -- call it the priority of morality' -- is it truly ever justified to incarcerate innocent people without suspicion? If detention without basis is legal, how are the courts to determine who is 'wrogly' imprisoned ex post?
-Ackerman underestimates courts and overestimates legislatures
-"Preventive detention without suspicion and without judicial review is not justified in the name of making the public feel better"
-Ackerman's dim view of judicial response in crisis is shortsighted; though Lincoln, Korematsu, et al are negative examples, in the macro view, the judiciary has shown itself able to check executive overreaching
-Good constitutional legal doctrine does provide positive prevention of some things and a good yardstick for the vetting of new proposals
-Political safeguards (legislative) make poor substitutes for judicial ones; history shows that legislatures are more likely to be caught up in the enthusiasm of the executive and 'spur it on' than to strongly check it in times of panic; the behavior of Congress in the Patriot Act era is evidence o this
-"The tendency of the collective to avoid hard choices is at its zenith in times of crisis"
-Legislatures and executives will take a bigger constitutional 'hit' if another terror attack occurs on their watch than if they violate civil liberties, particularly if those violations are concentrated on 'others' like foreign nationals and those of Arab descent
-Congress has never enforced War Powers Resolution, intended to check unilateral wars of the executive
-Congress has never convened on the National Emergencies Act to consider and vote on states of emergency
-If courts are a weak check on executive excess, the legislature is weaker still
-Detainees are unlikely to have political influence or public sympathy -- or else they would not be detained in the first place. This is another reason that their fate should not be trusted to the politically-responsive legislative branch - "the writ of habeus corpus is guaranteed for a reason"
-Ackerman's failure to distinguish not only between types of emergency powers, but the real reason the Palmer raids and other historical detentions were odious (not because the detentions were extended, but because they were based on no objective suspicion but on aspects of the victims' identity) shows the shallowness of his vision
-Problems of trade-offs between liberty and security can't be solved or 'sidestepped' by supermajoritarian escalators; this goes far beyond preventive detention
-Supermajoritarian escalator is not only insufficient to deal with many threats to civil liberties (such as FBI meddling in civil rights groups in the 60s), but irrelevant, simply because many responses to the threat of terrorism are not susceptible to time limits
-For example, the material support law requires a 'long-term systemic solution' to determine what constitutes material support (coloring books vs bombs) and whether the decisions of the government are reviewable -- again, supermajoritarian escalator / states of emergency have zero relevance here
-The detention of enemy combatants in an indefinite war likewise cannot be answered by a supermajoritarian escalator
- in short, different emergency powers should have different shelf lives
-on the other hand, the assumption that a state of emergency might not persist even though a 21% minority oppose it after a length of time fails to account for the fact that denial may be as likely a response as panic
-Al Qaeda as persisted for years despite the best efforts of the whole government; to suppose that no state of emergency could last more than a few months is unrealistic
-Palmer and Ashcroft roundups show that preventive detention can be effected without the declaration of a state of emergency; therefore there would be no incentive to declare one (and set its supermajoritarian works in motion) fo this purpose
-Because the 'compensation' angle rests not on the whether or not there was in fac treasonable suspicion, but rather ultimate innocence, a detainee who was subject to preventive incarceration but was later convicted of hiring an illegal worker would be denied compensation; likewise, someone for whom probable cause could have been shown but was ultimately innocent would be considered as 'lawfully' detained, and again denied compensation
-Ackerman's 'morality' specs (no personal animus or identity discrimination) are largely unenforceable
-Compensation unlikely to provide the correct amount of deterrence and would never truly compensate the innocent for loss of liberty
-The final normative reality is that a palliating 'reassurance' of the population can not be avalid reason for detaining individuals without cause and without judicial review
-
Tushnet main points :
-There are three basic approaches to emergency powers as relates to costitutionalism :
1) The constitution's general principles should apply to emergency situations, with the 'rational application' of concepts such as race-based classification differing between constitutionality in peacetime and constitutionality in wartime
2) The constitution is 'bifurcated' into peacetime and wartime standards, with different applications unique to each
3) That war presents a reasonable opportunity for the wholesale suspension of legality, to avoid legal justifications and precedents that may be dangerous in peacetime
-^^The first view holds that constitutional law need not be displaced, only properly interpreted, to deal with crisis
-What is violation of free speech in peacetime may not be so in wartime
- -'Judges no less than public officials are subject to the pressures of events'
-The right categorical judgment may be swept aside in the heat of crisis
-Civil liberty violations may be difficult to consider as such in wartime, either because judges view the war interpretation as sufficient justification for the infraction (as they balance constitutional rights) or because they formulate categorical rules that permit the act in question as part of a chain of triggering mechanisms.
-These interpretations, if later shown to be based on incorrect assessment of emergency, may be negated as precedent in hindsight or, more dangerously, be seized upon all the more strongly when some larger crisis is perceived
-The disturbing part here is the treatment of the consequences of the decision as lawful
-This is especially of concern in situations like that of the terror threat, wherein the threat may be of indefinite duration
-Suspending legality for the duration of a finite war like WWII is one thing, doing so in a permanent condition is 'the end of the rule of law itself'
-The nature of the struggle against terror as a condition rather than a traditional war points to the idea that a more or less permanent, not emergency, balance between liberty and security should be struck
-^^The suspension-of-legality view (expounded by carl Schmitt) holds that such suspension is inevitable because the law cannot anticipate all future crises that will prompt government to spontaneously expand its powers, and to attempt to codify these in law undermines in fact the rule of law itself
-If we accept that executives will exercise extra-constitutional powers in the face of unanticipated varieties of emergency, we can deal with the consequences of extralegal actions ex post
-Forcing executives to publicly acknowledge extralegal action in real time is impractical -- such acknowledgement may invalidate whatever was being attempted
-"One cannot use law to determine when legality may be suspended"
-Governments operating under emergency powers = 'regimes of exception' ; these will arise; the question is 'how to locate them with respect to the constitution'
-The rule of law cannot be considered, in reality, to limit response to unknown emergencies; the public's recourse lies in the future rather than in short-term restrictions
-In contrast, legalized emergency powers provide executives with a 'fig leaf of legality to cover the expansive use of sheer power'
-As Jackson said in his Korematsu dissent, we can't confine military expedients within the constitution, and neither should the constitution be distorted to accommodate al military expedients
-It is better to have extraordinary power exercised in a way that is clear to all is extraordinary -- that is, in an extralegal understanding -- than to attempt to twist the law so as to allow for the exercise of extraordinary power
-The validity of extra-constutional acts is ratified or condemned not most crucially by the courts, but by the public acting 'out of doors'
-the cries of civil liberties alarmists are important for this function of check
-Crisis situations where the law requires X but individuals' morality requires Y are likely to bring about extralegal action
-Most importantly, admitted extralegal acts do not pose a threat to the ideal of the rule of law
-Bottom line : neither ordinary constitutional law nor 'emergency' constitutional law is well-suited to the address of true emergency (17,639)
The first freeway in the country to have photo radar was a stretch of the Loop 101 in Scottsdale, Arizona. Since then, it's brought in so much money they've decided to put the cameras all over the greater Phoenix area. Coincidentally, one of the new government cash machines is setup on my stretch of the Loop 101, a half hour away from the first freeway photo radar. As a self-appointed expert (AKA "dick") on this and legal matters relating to this, I decided to write up some thoughts on the subject.
Q: Do they make the roads safer?
A: There are no valid statistics to prove their efficacy at increasing safety.
The city did some studies on the areas where they'd setup radar, and found that fatal accidents fell dramatically in the time period following the installation (40% in some areas). I looked at the stats, and as a person whose job depends on being able to call bullshit on stats, I noticed a few things lacking.
For one, we all know there are fewer drivers on the road. Gas consumption is down dramatically compared to 2007. Since the cameras aren't setup to count the number of cars that pass them, we don't have any proof that the accident per unit traffic is down. Also, people could be avoiding the cameras in favor of other routes without cameras.
Oh, one other small thing: What's the most important thing in any experiment? A control. These stats were conveniently lacking in accident information on streets and highways without the cameras in the same time period. Without a control, these stats are meaningless.
-------------------
Q: Is it a case of "big brother"?
A: In my opinion, no.
I really hate when people use this term this way. You have no right to privacy on a public road, and speed laws are there for a reason: to keep our streets safe. Speed laws are just and abiding by them is the condition of having a license. Therefore, if the taxpayers didn't mind this kind of enforcement, there's nothing legally or morally wrong with doing things this way.
-------------------
Q: Isn't it just another way to get revenue?
A: Yes, but that's a stupid argument to get rid of them.
Of course revenue is the primary reason these things got thrown up now and not years ago when our state budget was fine. However, that argument is not really a good one if indeed these actually do increase public safety. You have to weigh the cost of this safety Vs the loss we have as partial stakeholders of the road (oh yeah, you own that road, remember?)
-------------------
Q: Even if they do decrease accidents in some small way, are they a good idea?
A: In my opinion, it's not worth it.
Most of the time, speeding is not actually unsafe. Therefore, most police officers make the decision to ignore, give a warning, and only in extreme cases do they give tickets.
Say you're going 85 in an 80MPH highway at 1AM traveling across south Texas trying to get to Arizona. There's not a car or a tail light in sight. For that matter, you haven't even seen another car for a hundred miles. It's 80 degrees outside, conditions are perfect, and you can't see anything but the lines on the road for probably a mile in front of your car. Suddenly, a cop pulls out of the bushes by the side of the road, turns on his rollers, pulls you over, and gives you a $180 ticket for 5 over. That cop is the epitome of "asshole." When people joke about cops being "revenue agents," this is what they mean. [Side note: this actually happened to my ex girlfriend driving home from Army bootcamp in San Antonio.]
Why is that cop an asshole? Because he was hurting other people who were not doing anything wrong. They were not endangering anyone by breaking the law, and nobody in their right mind would think that they were.
Everyone has one of these stories, but these are the exception to the rule. Most cops would take into account other factors when writing a ticket, such as asking the ever-important question "Does this person need to slow down to save lives?" Photo radar does not make this judgment. Photo radar is basically like a cop who is constantly stuck in "asshole" mode.
A person weaving in and out of rush-hour traffic going 70 in a 65, when most others are going 50 could be pulled over by a cop for reckless driving. He might not be ticketed, but he would cease his dangerous behavior. A radar camera would not identify this, nor would I trust it to.
Like I said, these are our roads. Our gas taxes paid for them. We own them. So the question is, what are we willing to give up in order to gain a little more safety? Is it really worth it to shackle down our lives and eliminate risk to the point where life is some uptight struggle to stay 'within the lines' ?
There are other safety measures we could take: No cell phone use while driving, no cars with governors over 80MPH, zero tolerance alcohol, all cars must have the same bumper level (especially those stupid looking SUVs on blocks), etc.
These are our roads, we can be as assholish as we like in order to keep them safe. All the things I mentioned would probably save some lives, but is it worth it?
-----
Over the last few days, all the photo radars in Pinal county, AZ have been ordered to be removed. Phoenix may very well be next, if legislators vote that way in the following few days (a bill was just introduced today to have them removed from freeways statewide). (21,270)
Share
