RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Deepening Shame of Guantanamo Print
Friday, 17 May 2013 14:18

McGovern writes: "There have been nine congressional hearings on the Benghazi controversy - with more to come - but almost no one in Congress dares put the spotlight on the unfolding scandal surrounding the Guantanamo Bay prison."

The U.S. flag behind barbed wire at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (photo: unknown)
The U.S. flag behind barbed wire at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (photo: unknown)


The Deepening Shame of Guantanamo

By Ray McGovern, Open Mike Blog

17 May 13

 

here have been nine congressional hearings on the Benghazi controversy - with more to come - but almost no one in Congress dares put the spotlight on the unfolding scandal surrounding the Guantanamo Bay prison where most of the remaining 166 inmates have opted to "escape" from indefinite detention via the only way open to them - starving themselves to death.

One exception to the congressional cowardice is Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, who sponsored a highly instructive panel discussion on the prison at Guantanamo last Friday. Why simply a "briefing," rather than a formal House hearing? Simple. Not one of the majority Republicans who currently chair committees in the House and have the power to call hearings wants Americans to hear the details of this blight on the nation's conscience.

To be completely fair, the reigning reluctance seems, actually, to be a bipartisan affair. Moran is one of the few Democrats possessed of a conscience and enough moral courage to let the American people know what is being done in their name. For other lawmakers, it is a mite too risky.

Folksy folks like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, a member of the Armed Services Committee which is supposed to exercise oversight of the lethal operations carried out by the Joint Special Operations Command, make no bones about the dilemma they prefer to duck when it comes to letting detainees die at Guantanamo or letting the president blow up suspected terrorists via drone strikes.

Here's Graham quoted in Esquire magazine last summer on why Congress has engaged in so little oversight of the lethal drone program: "Who wants to be the congressman or senator holding the hearing as to whether the president should be aggressively going after terrorists? Nobody. And that's why Congress has been AWOL in this whole area." The same thinking applies to showing any mercy for the people held at Guantanamo.

It seems to me that Guantanamo is a three-fold scandal: (1) the abomination of the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment given those prisoners; (2) the reality that most of those remaining were cleared for release more than three years ago; and (3) the fact that Moran's was the very first congressionally sponsored public "briefing" of its kind - more than 11 years late.

While there has been endless attention paid to how the Benghazi talking points were drafted for use on Sunday talk shows last September, the American people have been spared high-profile testimony about how 86 of the remaining 166 prisoners at Guantanamo were cleared for release more than three years ago following a year-long investigation of their cases by an interagency task force of officials at the Departments of Justice, Defense, State, and Homeland Security.

How might Americans feel if they knew that most of these 86 are now on a prolonged hunger strike and that many are being force-fed against their will, a notoriously painful, degrading and even illegal practice. Two weeks ago, 40 additional military medical personnel were sent to Guantanamo to assist with the force-feedings.

The American Medical Association has condemned such force-feedings as a violation of "core ethical values of the medical profession." The United Nations has condemned the practice as torture and a breach of international law.

Concerned Citizens

Friday's unusual "briefing" sprang from an initiative by a group of concerned citizens mostly from Moran's district in northern Virginia. On April 30, Kristine Huskey led a small group of us to meet with Moran, one of the very few members of Congress to speak out against the obscenity called Guantanamo. We put our shoulders to the wheel (and enlisted the willing shoulders of many other pro-justice people) and brought about the briefing in nine days.

C-Span filmed the entire hour and a half. You will not be at all bored if you tune in. And that goes in spades if the disinterest by the corporate media has left you wondering how it came about that America is fast losing its soul. You can find the video under the title, "Panel Holds Discussion on Guantanamo Detainees," May 10, 10:00-11:30 in Rayburn B-354. Participants included:

Pardiss Kebriaei, Esq. (Center for Constitutional Rights; attorney for several Guantanamo prisoners)

David Irvine, Esq. (Brig. Gen., USA - ret., & Member, Constitution Project Task Force on Detainee Treatment)

Larry Wilkerson (Col., USA - ret., & former State Department Chief of Staff)

Dr. George Hunsinger, (Professor, Princeton Theological Seminary, & founder, National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT);

Moderator Kristine Huskey, Esq., counsel on Rasul v Bush (2004) and Boumediene v Bush (2008): Adjunct Professor, Georgetown U. Law Center.

Toward the end of the Q & A (at 1:29:50), I asked why Bush administration lawyers such as Alberto Gonzales and David Addington have not been held accountable by the legal profession. Official documents released by the Bush administration show them to have been responsible for advising President George W. Bush to disregard international law, including the key Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

It occurred to me that three of the four panelists, plus Rep. Moran, moderator Huskey and former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, Col. Morris Davis, USAF (ret.), who joined the panel when Moran had to leave after the first hour, are lawyers. The response I got was: "I'm not sure there's an answer to that."

In fairness, I need to point out that the panel had been under way for almost an hour and a half, and my question had already been described as "the last one." Still, I was left wondering: can it be true that there is no answer to that?

I thought of the many lawyers in my immediate family - and especially of my father, Joseph W. McGovern, a long-time professor of law at Fordham University who loved the law as if the law itself were a member of our family. Dad also served for 14 years on the New York State Board of Regents including six years as Chancellor (1968-75), whose broad mandate included holding accountable professionals licensed to practice in the State of New York. I could sense him rolling over in his grave at the proposition that there is no answer to the question of holding the likes of Gonzales and Addington accountable.

Dad took particular pride in the principled way in which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson prosecuted Nazi leaders after World War II at the Nuremberg Tribunals. Jackson said this about the purpose of Nuremberg: "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."

The intent was to establish a precedent against aggressive war - like, say, Iraq, just 57 years later. Jackson said: "Let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. …

"We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbors."

Including Lawyers?

On April 24, 1946, Nazi defendant Wilhelm Frick, for example, told the Tribunal, "I wanted things done legally. After all, I am a lawyer." Of course, not all laws are good things.

Frick drafted, signed and administered laws that suppressed trade unions and persecuted Jews (including the infamous Nuremberg Laws). He insisted he had drafted the Nuremberg Laws for "scientific reasons," to protect the purity of German blood. Frick also knew that the insane, aged and disabled ("useless eaters") were being systematically killed, but did nothing to stop it.

Frick was one of 11 defendants sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal. He was hanged on Oct. 16, 1946.

Lest I be misunderstood, I do not advocate capital punishment - even for the likes of Gonzales and Addington. I simply want them held accountable, as their faux-lawyer Nazi counterparts were. Otherwise, we have made a liar out of Justice Jackson and made a mockery of the Nuremberg principles, which will be revealed as just another case of "victor's justice" despite Jackson's promises to the contrary.

I haven't a clue as to how the legal profession tries to hold lawyers accountable. But here I was among a group of fine lawyers: Pardiss Kebriaei, David Irvine, Kristine Huskey, Moe Davis and Jim Moran. Had they no idea either? Or were we just out of time.

Indeed, we as Americans may be running out of time in a moral sense - and running out of time to spare innocent Guantanamo detainees from death. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. warned many years ago, "There is such a thing as too late."

Ringing in my ears was George W. Bush's response to a question by NBC's Matt Lauer on Nov. 8, 2010:

Lauer: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?

Bush: Because the lawyer said it was legal. He said it did not fall within the anti-torture act. I'm not a lawyer. But you gotta trust the judgment of the people around you, and I do.

Are American lawyers going to let that kind of thing stand?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Isn't the New Orleans Mother's Day Parade Shooting a 'National Tragedy'? Print
Friday, 17 May 2013 14:14

Dennis writes: "On 3 September 2005 - less than a week after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast - I began to understand that America cared little about what was happening in New Orleans."

At least a dozen people were injured after shots were fired at a Mother's Day parade in New Orleans. (photo: Monica Hernandez)
At least a dozen people were injured after shots were fired at a Mother's Day parade in New Orleans. (photo: Monica Hernandez)


Why Isn't the New Orleans Mother's Day Parade Shooting a 'National Tragedy'?

By David Dennis, Guardian UK

17 May 13

 

The media seems to forget about New Orleans and any place that the middle class can't easily relate to

n 3 September 2005 - less than a week after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast - I began to understand that America cared little about what was happening in New Orleans.

I was an undergraduate at Davidson College in North Carolina at the time, worried out of my mind because my family in Mississippi was still without electricity and friends and family in New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast were still missing. The images of families stranded on rooftops were trickling in via news outlets, but it was obvious that the response from the government would be slow.

But it really hit me on 3 September. I was driving around and noticed all the American flags at half-mast. Because Supreme court chief justice William Rehnquist died.

At the time, the Gulf Coast death toll was rumored to be in the thousands with nobody knowing for sure. But flags stayed at full mast until a chief justice died. To me, this was a slap in the face to what was going on in New Orleans and a sign that the city just didn't matter to the overall fabric of the country.

Year after year, I watched the anniversary for Katrina pass while people gathered around flagpoles two weeks later to mourn the deaths from 9/11. Both were horrible tragedies, but only one seemed to stay in the nation's consciousness.

Years after Katrina, I lived in Evanston, Illinois and learned about the warm weather massacres in Chicago that happen every spring break or beginning of summer where dozens of high school kids get shot within matters of hours. And how nobody seemed to care. Living in New Orleans and near Chicago has left me jaded to what America prioritizes or chooses to ignore.

So I shouldn't be surprised that the Mother's Day Parade shooting has largely been forgotten. On Sunday, shots were fired into a crowd during a parade in the New Orleans 7th ward. Police said they saw three suspects running from the scene.

This is the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters were still at large after the crime was committed. Think about that for a minute. From Columbine to Virginia Tech to Fort Hill to Aurora, all the shooters were either killed or apprehended on site. But the person or people responsible for shooting 19 Americans are still free.

So why am I allowed to go outside? Where's the city quarantine or FBI and Homeland Security presence for this act of "terrorism"?

Because this is an act of domestic terrorism right? Just because the alleged shooter was wearing a white tee and jeans does that suddenly make the shooting a gang-related affair? And we all know how irrelevant gang-related shootings are in America. The Mother's Day shooting is so irrelevant that politicians haven't even bothered to mention it to further their anti-gun agendas. If the shootings aren't even important enough for politicians to spin, then it's truly reached a black hole of irrelevance.

Did I mention the shooter is still on the loose? I have? Just checking. Police have released photos and video of one of the suspects, but he is still at large.

Now take a moment and imagine a Mother's Day Parade in the suburbs of Denver, a neighborhood in Edina or a plaza in Austin where bullets rain down on civilians and even hit children. I can't help but imagine the around-the-clock news coverage. And I can't help but think it's because most of America can identify with the fear of being bombarded with gunfire while just enjoying a parade in the middle of town. But America can't identify with being at a parade in the "inner city" where "gang violence" erupts. The "oh my God, that could happen to me" factor isn't present with a story about New Orleans or the Chicago southside.

But no matter where the incident occurred, the victims are still there. Victims like 10-year-old Ka'Nard Allen whose father was stabbed to death in October. Whose five-year-old cousin was shot to death at Ka'Nard's birthday party last May (Ka'Nard was also shot in the neck that day). He was also grazed with a bullet in his cheek at the Mother's Day parade. No matter what part of the country Ka'Nard is from, his story should linger in your heart.

But it hasn't because you haven't heard of him, and you've barely heard anything about what should be considered a national tragedy.

Unforunately, though, I've learned to redefine what constitutes an American tragedy. American tragedies occur where middle America frequents every day: airplanes, business offices, marathons. Where there persists a tangible fear that this could happen to any of us. And rightfully so. Deaths and mayhem anywhere are tragic. That should always be the case. The story here is where American tragedies don't occur.

American tragedies don't occur on the southside of Chicago or the New Orleans 9th Ward. They don't occur where inner city high school kids shoot into school buses or someone shoots at a 10-year old's birthday party in New Orleans. Or Gary, Indiana. Or Compton. Or Newport News. These are where the forgotten tragedies happen and the cities are left to persevere on their own.

So, once again, New Orleans will survive. And move on. Because, really, we've been here before.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Pyromaniacs on the Potomac Print
Friday, 17 May 2013 12:52

Reich writes: "Six months into a second term and the Obama White House is on the defensive and floundering."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


Pyromaniacs on the Potomac

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

17 May 13

 

ix months into a second term and the Obama White House is on the defensive and floundering: Benghazi, the IRS's investigations of right-wing groups, the Justice Department's snooping into journalists' phone records, Obamacare behind schedule, the Administration's push for gun control ending in failure.

Should the blame fall mainly on congressional Republicans and their allies in the right-wing media, whose vitriolic attacks on Obama are unceasing?

After all, the only thing the GOP stands for – the sole mission that unites its warring factions - is an unwaivering determination to block anything the Administration seeks while distracting public attention from any larger issue.

But surely some of the seeming disarray is due to the President, whose insularity and aloofness make him an easy target, and whose eagerness to compromise and lack of focus continuously blurs his core message.

Is the central goal of his second term to achieve a grand bargain on the budget deficit? Or progress on gun control? Or restore jobs? Or reform the immigration laws? It is difficult to tell.

Vulnerabilities come with any Administration's second term - when officials are exhausted, public support has worn thin, "A" teams have departed, the media are disenchanted, and all of the low-hanging fruit in a president's agenda has already been picked.

I painfully recall Bill Clinton's second term (I left before Monica). George W. Bush's second term was marred by Iraq and a colossal failure on Social Security. Ronald Reagan's, by the Iran-Contra scandal. Even FDR got mired in a so-called "court-packing" scheme that lost him public and congressional support.

Which is why it's so important for a second-term White House to define itself - to give the public a clear sense of what it stands for, and how it intends to tackle the largest challenges facing the nation. And then to work hard on this core agenda without becoming overly distracted by the inevitable fires that have to be extinguished along the way.

Even if a president fails to achieve this larger objective, he will at least have established a predicate for the future, and given the public a larger goal around which to mobilize and organize.

Barack Obama is allowing the fires to dominate because he has not defined his core agenda. During the 2012 campaign it appeared to be restoring jobs, rebuilding the middle class, and reversing the scourge of widening inequality. Since then, though, the core has evaporated – leaving him and his administration vulnerable to every pyromaniac on the Potomac.



Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Everything Is Rigged, Continued: Oil Companies Raided Print
Friday, 17 May 2013 11:33

Taibbi writes: "The European Commission regulators yesterday raided the offices of oil companies in London, the Netherlands and Norway as part of an investigation into possible price-rigging in the oil markets."

Matt Taibbi. (photo: Current TV)
Matt Taibbi. (photo: Current TV)


Everything Is Rigged, Continued: Oil Companies Raided

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

17 May 13

 

e're going to get into this more at a later date, but there was some interesting late-breaking news yesterday.

According to numerous reports, the European Commission regulators yesterday raided the offices of oil companies in London, the Netherlands and Norway as part of an investigation into possible price-rigging in the oil markets. The targeted companies include BP, Shell and the Norweigan company Statoil. The Guardian explains that officials believe that oil companies colluded to manipulate pricing data:

The commission said the alleged price collusion, which may have been going on since 2002, could have had a "huge impact" on the price of petrol at the pumps "potentially harming final consumers".

Lord Oakeshott, former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said the alleged rigging of oil prices was "as serious as rigging Libor" - which led to banks being fined hundreds of millions of pounds.

The inquiry also involves Platts, the world's largest oil price reporting agency. The concept here is very similar to both the LIBOR scandal, which involved banks manipulating the benchmark rates for interest rates, and to the possible rigging of interest rate swap prices through the manipulation of ISDAfix, the benchmark rate for those instruments, which is also the subject of a regulatory probe.

We wrote about both of those scandals in last month's Rolling Stone article, "Everything is Rigged." In that piece, finance professionals talked about the potential for manipulation in other markets that involve voluntary price reporting:

What other markets out there carry the same potential for manipulation? The answer to that question is far from reassuring, because the potential is almost everywhere. From gold to gas to swaps to interest rates, prices all over the world are dependent upon little private cabals of cigar-chomping insiders we're forced to trust.

"In all the over-the-counter markets, you don't really have pricing except by a bunch of guys getting together," Masters notes glumly.

That includes the markets for gold (where prices are set by five banks in a Libor-ish teleconferencing process that, ironically, was created in part by N M Rothschild & Sons) and silver (whose price is set by just three banks), as well as benchmark rates in numerous other commodities - jet fuel, diesel, electric power, coal, you name it.

One analyst I spoke to for that piece talked specifically about Platts (and another, similar price assessment company), noting that they "do benchmarks for the entire oil market, the entire refined products market" and "you name it" - any of these benchmarks that rely on voluntary reporting could be manipulated.

Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Financial Scandal Yet

It's not clear yet exactly what is alleged to have occurred, but Europeans have long complained that retail gas prices have not seemed to match wholesale prices. In fact, complaints that wholesale prices at gas stations were noticeably slow to fall when wholesale prices fell prompted the U.K.-based Office of Fair Trading last year to conduct a cursory inquiry into possible anti-competitive behavior in the fuel markets. Early this year, they announced that they hadn't found enough evidence to warrant a full-blown investigation. But complaints persisted.

The story is obviously hugely significant in its own right, just as the LIBOR story was. But both are even more unpleasant in conjunction with each other, and the other price-fixing scandals that have cropped up in the financial markets in the last year or two. We've had other price-fixing scandals involving gas in the U.K. and here in the U.S., just a few weeks ago, it came out that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) concluded that JPMorgan Chase used "manipulative schemes" to tinker with energy prices in Michigan and California.

FERC last year also recommended a massive $470 million fine against Barclays for similar activity. (Barclays has vowed to fight the penalty.) Deutsche Bank, meanwhile, settled with FERC for $1.7 million after the commission alleged that the German bank was involved with manipulation in the California energy markets for several months during 2010.

More on all this later . . .

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I Am an Undocumented Immigrant at Stanford Print
Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:50

Excerpt: "Without immigration reform I will be left jobless and exposed after I graduate. This isn't just a political issue to me."

Immigrants arrive at the border city of Nuevo Laredo after a nine hour trip from Monterrey, Mexico, 05/05/06. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)
Immigrants arrive at the border city of Nuevo Laredo after a nine hour trip from Monterrey, Mexico, 05/05/06. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)


I Am an Undocumented Immigrant at Stanford

By Undocumented in the US, Guardian UK

14 May 13

 

Without immigration reform I will be left jobless and exposed after I graduate. This isn't just a political issue to me.

he United States Senate is currently debating a proposal for immigration reform, an issue that affects me personally. Now that I have the chance, it's time for me to speak up and add my story to the mix of perspectives.

I am an undocumented student at Stanford University. I was born in Mexico, but moved to the United States at the age of three after a Mexican construction firm sponsored an E2 investor visa for my father. I began elementary school at age four; by kindergarten, I had started calling Texas home, and by first grade I was fluent in English. My family adjusted well to life in southern Texas, where waves of immigration had made the region predominantly Hispanic, very much like Mexico, and the ideal place to, of all things, build lots of houses. My father's job and the promise of opportunity were secure for the time.

But in 2001, as I was entering second grade, my family's circumstances changed dramatically. My father was suddenly fired from his job as construction manager, after a disagreement over the independent construction projects he was carrying out to supplant his low wage. My father turned in panic to lawyers, but all he learned was that we had to leave the country immediately.

I do not know what eventually pushed my parents to stay. Perhaps it had something to do with the upheaval that turning back our hard-earned progress would cause. How could they take me away from the gifted and talented program I had just been accepted to, or tell my sister that she wasn't going to finish elementary school with her friends? From then on, my family and I became visa "overstays".

I did not understand what it means to be undocumented until I began high school. It was then that I discovered the limits of my circumstances, missing marching band competitions, track meets and summer camps. With further exposure, I began to see what it means to lack health insurance and not have a driver's license like my peers. But I had reason to hope. I was doing well academically and convinced my parents to allow me to change schools after my sophomore year. I entered a public International Baccalaureate school, which would let me take a greater number of rigorous courses.

My idealism and ambition expanded so rapidly that I soon hit the limits of my undocumented status. My senior year of high school, I was arrested at an airport for trying to go visit Texas' largest public university, which I knew accepted undocumented students like me. Twelve hours in an underground Customs and Border Patrol detention facility showed me too clearly the limits of my idealism. With my release, however, everything changed.

The release document that summoned me to see an immigration judge also granted me the ability to travel within the US mainland. All of a sudden, I was able to actually travel to and perhaps even attend the universities I had only dreamed of applying to until then. That small concession renewed my spirit at a time when I was ready to give up.

I graduated from high school a few months later as the class salutatorian, breaking my city's record for International Baccalaureate scores while also achieving the honor of AP scholar with distinction. In what was for me a validation of my hard work, I was accepted to some great schools and decided to attend Stanford University.

Thankfully, now that I have been granted Deferred Action status, I have fewer reasons to fear deportation. Under Deferred Action, I am also able to work, and even obtain a driver's license. But this two-year measure will likely end after one renewal with President Obama's presidency, as it represents only a temporary exercise of discretionary executive power.

Already the same barriers are confronting me. I am again missing out on summer opportunities, missing out on many research and internship opportunities available only to US citizens. Although I am part of Stanford's solar car team, I will not be going to Australia this upcoming fall, because I still cannot travel outside the country.

Without immigration reform I will be left jobless and exposed after I graduate, unless I can receive financial aid to pursue a graduate degree somewhere. And what do I do after that? The reality of my legal circumstances continues to haunt me, and mocks the dreams that Stanford is helping inspire.

I'm a mechanical engineering major, a field the US wants to grow and promote more students to study. I want to first work as an engineer on green advancements in energy and transportation, and later in my career use this knowledge to advise policy. I sometimes also dream of running for public office in southern Texas to help the public education system that helped me. I'm passionate about what I do at Stanford, and driven to effect change with what I have learned and hope to achieve. But my wings are cut right now.

I have seen the many sides of immigration, from the numerous visa denials my father experienced before finally receiving an E2 visa, to the often-sad reality of undocumented workers and families in southern Texas. I have seen deportations and raids occur in my neighborhoods, and have myself been detained. Now at Stanford, I can see the immigration debate raging in Congress, and just down the street from me at the many Silicon Valley firms that have suddenly become supporters of reform.

I may be without wings because of my undocumented status, but I still have a voice that I hope will be heard in the midst of all the arguments.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 Next > End >>

Page 3115 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN