ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

The Legal Arguments

Geov Parrish has hit the ethical bullseye as usual with "Guantanamo Bay: Word Abuse" (ETS!, 1/30/02), but errs in referring to "the disingenuous creation of a legal term that did not exist last month ("unlawful combatants")."

In Ex parte Quirin, 317 US 1 (1942), a case upholding the convictions of eight German saboteurs during World War II, the Supreme Court wrote that "the law of war draws a distinction ... between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful." The Bush Administration has cited this case in defending its own tribunals, apparently believing that simply categorizing someone as an unlawful combatant makes military tribunals (secret, no less) a legitimate option.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 defined "prisoner of war" very precisely, and it is at least arguable that our guests at Camp X-Ray don't qualify. What seems less defensible, however, is the Administration's because-I-said-so approach. Determining that a detainee is an unlawful combatant requires a formal legal procedure, as Aryeh Neier, former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, has recently pointed out: "Though the convention's purpose is only to protect prisoners of war, it makes the question of whether someone in a doubtful case is entitled to such status subject to determination 'by a competent tribunal'....[t]hat is, a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist captured in combat in Afghanistan must be treated as a prisoner of war until a court says he is not entitled to such status" (New York Review of Books, 2/14/02, pp. 11-12). But our leaders are, to say the least, reluctant to play by these rules.

Erik Schwab, Seattle

Locke's Budget

Good story on the state budget. Thank you. My understanding is that the state transportation budget that Gary Locke is finally putting out does include state contracting out and "adjustments" to the prevailing wage laws (though I don't know yet what those adjustments are). This was in the Jan. 29 P-I, and the ideas are part of the recommendations from Locke's so-called blue ribbon commission on transportation. If so it doesn't sound like the Democrats are standing up much to the Republicans and Tim Eyman.

On another subject, I am sending you a copy of a letter that a group of transit operators, including myself, wrote in response to the Seattle Weekly's bus-bashing series. Quite a few of us are very upset about the coverage because a lot of the information Barnett printed is quite false. We sent our letter to the Weekly, and so far have gotten the brush-off.

Thanks again for the good reporting on the state legislature.

--Linda Averill, Seattle

We've re-printed your letter below.

Bus Drivers Sound Off

We object to the Seattle Weekly's biased and one-sided series that portrays Metro as "inhospitable" and transit workers as "careless" and "abusive." In the latest article, "Bus Battles," (1/3/02), Erica Barnett pits the public against bus drivers when what is needed is mutual support.

Missing from her story is a balanced picture of a system that transports thousands of people every day while helping to reduce pollution and cars from our traffic-choked roads. Metro could improve greatly, but rather than scapegoating drivers, Barnett should explore the problems of underfunding, and lack of problem-solving by management, as well as city and county officials--issues that she completely ignores.

One false assertion she makes is about the complaint system. Her statement that drivers have "five freebies" to act any way they want without fear of discipline is laughable. In reality, when a passenger or motorist complains to Metro, a base chief talks to the driver involved. These days, many complaints are the direct product of anti-transit sentiment whipped up by politicians like Tim Eyman, who would like to see public bus service reduced and privatized. Many of these complaints are bogus or grossly exaggerated. Many of the other complaints are the result of stressful, demoralizing working conditions--especially grueling schedules that are completely outdated and unrealistic, coupled with the knowledge that city and county officials are doing nothing to fix gridlock. When a complaint is phoned in the driver gets an opportunity to explain his or her side, but it still goes into the computer and onto the record. This system exists in addition to surveillance by supervisors.

Another wrong assertion Barnett makes is that "drivers can count on quick resolution to their complaints." Response times to calls for assistance by drivers is still inconsistent and we are still pushing for safety improvements three years after the murder of Metro driver Mark McLaughlin.

Barnett's articles were filled with other fallacies too numerous to address in one letter. But drivers will pay for her scapegoating in increased hostility, and verbal and physical assaults. This is why we urge the media to play a constructive, rather than a destructive role. Public education about Metro policies and reporting that puts transit in the context of our overall traffic woes will do a lot more to improve transit than stories that simply berate drivers and passengers.

Passengers can help by talking to drivers if they see problems. Differentiate between unprofessional conduct and problems that stem from the system, such as habitually late or overcrowded busses. If it is the latter, call Metro and the County Executive to demand change. Passengers in Los Angeles and Vancouver, BC have formed bus rider unions. And because these groups recognize that drivers and passengers share common cause they work in alliance with transit unions to organize for quality, affordable, mass public transit. It is time for Seattle to join the ranks.

Sincerely, the following transit operators,

Linda Averill, Nancy Clark, Tom Allaire, Nathanael Chappelle, Craig L. Manley Sr., Ruth Wilson, Allan Davis, Michael Minor, Rick Gleason, Kathy Grainger, John Moore, Daniel Kramer, Ileen Weber, and Chris Casper