RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN: There Can Be No Sentencing Reform Without Compassionate Release Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:13

Kiriakou writes: "Just before New Year's Day, President Donald Trump signed a sentencing reform bill into law. The First Step Act was just that - a first step. It did away with a handful of mandatory minimum sentences, it clarified how good-behavior time is calculated, and it encouraged the appropriation of funds for job training and education. The problem, though, is that it didn't correct any of the mistakes of past efforts to 'reform' the criminal justice system."

John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)
John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)


There Can Be No Sentencing Reform Without Compassionate Release

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

27 January 19

 

ust before New Year’s Day, President Donald Trump signed a sentencing reform bill into law. The First Step Act was just that — a first step. It did away with a handful of mandatory minimum sentences, it clarified how good-behavior time is calculated, and it encouraged the appropriation of funds for job training and education. The problem, though, is that it didn’t correct any of the mistakes of past efforts to “reform” the criminal justice system. It did nothing about sentencing enhancements or federal life without parole for nonviolent crimes, nor did it even pretend to reintroduce federal parole, which was banned in the 1980s. More importantly, it did not reform the little-used “compassionate release” rule.

Over the past three decades, judges and juries have filled America’s prisons with nonviolent offenders. Many are serving draconian sentences for first-time offenses. Indeed, while only about 5 percent of the world’s people live in the United States, our country is locking up nearly 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

Barack Obama tried to address this issue by creating the Clemency Project, which connects prisoners with pro bono lawyers who could argue for them to have their sentences reduced. Inmates were eligible if their sentences would have been shorter at the end of the Obama administration than when they received them — as long as they’d already served at least half their time with a minimum of ten years.

That didn’t help prisoners who hadn’t yet served half of their sentences. And there was an especially glaring gap for prisoners who were elderly and gravely ill. Where was their relief?

Obama created — and Trump renewed — a practice called compassionate release, which allowed a small handful of prisoners to go free. To qualify, an incarcerated person must be at least 65 years old and suffering from a deteriorating medical condition that diminishes their ability to function in a correctional facility. And they have to have served 10 years or three-fourths of their sentences — whichever was longer. The compassionate release rule also has been interpreted to mean that the prisoner must be suffering from a terminal illness and be within six months of death. That’s not in the law. That’s just how it’s been interpreted.

Last year, the federal government released 110 prisoners under the compassionate release program. While this was a record high, it was also statistically insignificant because there are more than 2.24 million people behind bars. Donald Trump’s protestations notwithstanding, that’s not “reform.”

To make matters worse, although the regulations for eligibility are clear, the entire program is “clouded in secrecy and bureaucracy,” according to the Clemency Report. In the end, there’s no rhyme or reason for who gets compassionate release and who doesn’t.

I watched the failure of this program unfold in real time when I was incarcerated for blowing the whistle on the CIA’s torture program. I was friendly with a prisoner I’ll call Bill. Bill was 68 years old and doing 30 years for a nonviolent organized crime conviction. He’d served more than three-quarters of his sentence.

I saw Bill in the hall one day, doubled over in pain. He told me that he’d never before experienced back pain like this. I suggested that he go to sick call in the morning and ask for Tylenol, the go-to painkiller in U.S. prisons. He did, but he got no relief.

A couple of weeks later, Bill was walking with a cane and was in obvious distress. He told me again that his back pain was excruciating. He’d asked the medical unit for an x-ray, and he’d been denied. The physician’s assistant had just given him more Tylenol.

Two weeks later, Bill was in a wheelchair. I went to the chaplain, for whom I worked as a janitor, and said that Bill was being denied medical care. He agreed to intervene.

Bill was finally sent to an outside hospital for an MRI, which found stage 4 cancer of the spine. Bill applied for compassionate release so he could die at home, surrounded by his family. The warden went to see him in his cell. Would Bill sign a paper agreeing not to hold the prison responsible for failing to diagnose and treat his cancer? He refused.

Two weeks later, Bill died in his bunk in prison, alone.

This shouldn’t have happened. Compassionate release was created exactly for prisoners like Bill. Dying prisoners who pose no threat to society whatsoever should be sent home to be with their families. It’s the only moral thing to do.

Donald Trump, like Barack Obama before him, should stop crowing about his success in sentencing reform. There was no success. America’s prisoners are just as forgotten and abused as they’ve ever been.

Email This Page


John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Time to Break the Silence on Palestine Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23981"><span class="small">Michelle Alexander, The New York Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:12

Alexander writes: "Until very recently, the entire Congress has remained mostly silent on the human rights nightmare that has unfolded in the occupied territories."

Michelle Alexander. (photo: MichelleAlexander.com)
Michelle Alexander. (photo: MichelleAlexander.com)


Time to Break the Silence on Palestine

By Michelle Alexander, The New York Times

27 January 19


Martin Luther King Jr. courageously spoke out about the Vietnam War. We must do the same when it comes to this grave injustice of our time.

n April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stepped up to the lectern at the Riverside Church in Manhattan. The United States had been in active combat in Vietnam for two years and tens of thousands of people had been killed, including some 10,000 American troops. The political establishment — from left to right — backed the war, and more than 400,000 American service members were in Vietnam, their lives on the line.

Many of King’s strongest allies urged him to remain silent about the war or at least to soft-pedal any criticism. They knew that if he told the whole truth about the unjust and disastrous war he would be falsely labeled a Communist, suffer retaliation and severe backlash, alienate supporters and threaten the fragile progress of the civil rights movement.

King rejected all the well-meaning advice and said, “I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice.” Quoting a statement by the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, he said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal” and added, “that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.”

READ MORE

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Facebook and Google Need to Start Paying Journalists What They Owe Us Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43149"><span class="small">Ben Mathis-Lilley, Slate</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:07

Mathis-Lilley writes: "A wave of layoffs crashed on the news industry this week. Verizon is cutting 800 employees from its media properties, which include HuffPost and Yahoo. BuzzFeed will cut 15 percent of its staff, which is more than 200 people."

We're going after Facebook because that's where the money is. (photo: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images)
We're going after Facebook because that's where the money is. (photo: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images)


Facebook and Google Need to Start Paying Journalists What They Owe Us

By Ben Mathis-Lilley, Slate

27 January 19

 

wave of layoffs crashed on the news industry this week. Verizon is cutting 800 employees from its media properties, which include HuffPost and Yahoo. BuzzFeed will cut 15 percent of its staff, which is more than 200 people. It is, in general, a difficult time for journalism and “content” companies new and old—Vox Media, Gizmodo (i.e. Gawker), and countless newspapers across the country are among those that have also recently cut headcount through layoffs and buyouts.

You might imagine that the root of this problem is that in an era in which one’s options for passing time include texting, social media, and on-demand TV/movie/YouTube streaming, people aren’t as interested in reading journalism (or journalism-adjacent lifestyle-humor content) as they used to be. But that does not seem to be correct. Instead, there’s a greater appetite for news than there used to be: Many news outlets, in fact, have recently achieved record readership numbers, with monthly online audiences in the tens of millions. (Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency have probably helped.) The problem is not audience. Instead, the problem seems to be that it’s gotten harder and harder for news outlets to make money off of the readers they have because such a huge share of advertising spending is sucked up by Facebook and Google, with what’s left increasingly going to Amazon.

It makes sense for advertisers to move their business. If you want to, say, sell shoes to 25-year-old men who are interested in both basketball and high fashion, Google and Facebook can target that exact audience for you using information they’ve kept about their users and their interests. That’s a lot more efficient than individually purchasing ads on a bunch of different sites and publications whose readers might include your target demo, but also might include other people. Moreover, many people now use the two tech giants’ sites/apps as their “front page” for finding news—all told, for example, Google and Facebook users click links to Slate about 18 million times every month. And the tech giants get to show users ads next to those links, ads that relate to the stories’ subject matter. News sites don’t get a cut of that either, and they can’t bargain for it by threatening to make their sites inaccessible from Google and Facebook because doing so would instantly cut their audiences in half if not more.

There are different ways media companies are trying to get around this—by offering custom in-house ad-making services, making product recommendations and taking a cut of the sales, setting up subscription/premium/paywall services, etc. None have become a sustainable alternative to advertising yet, hence the layoffs. Those layoffs, in turn, have provoked a number of journalists and commentators to begin asking whether it’s really fair that journalists don’t get any of the money that hugely prosperous tech monopolies make from advertisers, particularly because these tech monopolies attract their users in part by indexing and promoting journalists’ work. These critics are also starting to wonder whether there’s something to be done about it.

Granted, one of the people asking the question is me, but others of actual importance are starting to as well. Like the Open Markets Institute’s Matt Stoller, who suggests simply making it illegal for Google and Facebook (and Amazon) to run ads if they also want to be communications/commerce platforms that pretty much everyone uses:

If advertising on these common platforms were prohibited, advertisers would have to go back to buying space on news sites themselves. (As Stoller explained to me via direct message, his proposed law would be akin to regulations that prevent phone companies from making you listen to an ad before you place a call or send a text.) It’s an ambitious plan, and would mean the end of Facebook and Google as we’ve come to know them. Perhaps more practical is BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti’s suggestion of mergers that would allow media companies to negotiate on equal footing with the tech/ad giants. Here’s how he explained it to the New York Times:

“You have Vice and Vox Media and Group Nine and Refinery,” Mr. Peretti said in an interview. “There’s tons of them that are doing interesting work.”
He extolled the logic of combining forces: A larger entity could lobby for a higher percentage of the ad dollars Facebook and Google share with publishers whenever their content, videos in particular, runs on the platforms. In turn, publishers can supply them with content that is safe for users and friendlier for advertisers.

A variation on Peretti’s idea has previously been suggested by the News Media Alliance, a newspaper trade group, which has proposed giving alliances of media companies exceptions from antitrust rules in order to allow them to collectively bargain with the ad giants. Emily Bell at the Columbia Journalism Review, meanwhile, has raised the idea that Facebook and Google might be essentially shamed into creating a massive endowment to fund non-profit public-minded journalism institutions that would resemble the BBC. And former Gawker editor Alex Pareene notes that telecom data carriers and internet service providers are also making a lot of money by giving their subscribers access to news content that they (the providers) don’t have to pay for, which means we should be sure to consider them as targets as we try to get some money back into the hands of the journalists doing the honorable, demanding work of putting together the important works of public-minded reporting that people log on to Google and Facebook to find.

Which is to say, there are a lot of options on the table, and now would seem to be the right time to start pursuing them, especially given the frequent correspondence between the decline of a country’s free press and the decline of its democracy. To the barricades, comrades.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Noam Chomsky, Greg Grandin and 70 Other Experts Sound an Alarm on Venezuela Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50030"><span class="small">Venezuela Analysis</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 January 2019 12:50

Excerpt: "The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela's internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country's government."

Rally against Donald Trump in Caracas, Venezuela. (photo: Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters)
Rally against Donald Trump in Caracas, Venezuela. (photo: Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters)


Noam Chomsky, Greg Grandin and 70 Other Experts Sound an Alarm on Venezuela

By Venezuela Analysis

27 January 19


Noam Chomsky, Alfred de Zayas, Sujatha Fernandes, Boots Riley, John Pilger, Vijay Prashad and many others oppose US interventionism in Venezuela. The statement is worth the read.

he United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government. Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.

Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years. This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.

Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened  by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ? as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions. These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ? solely ? for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.

Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice. By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ? something illegal under the OAS Charter ? the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides. The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.

The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.

Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ? in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ? but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.

In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections. There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.

Signed:

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona

Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy

Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University

Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College

Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney

Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives

Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years

Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician

John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker

Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University

Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies

Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College

Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University

Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University

Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK

Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies

Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University

Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University

James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle

Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University

Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom

Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK

Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University

Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK

Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington

Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University

Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College

Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University

Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis

Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University

John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, CUNY

Mark Healey, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Gabriel Hetland, Assistant Professor of Latin American, Caribbean and U.S. Latino Studies, University of Albany

Forrest Hylton, Associate Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Medellín

Daniel James, Bernardo Mendel Chair of Latin American History

Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice

Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh

Winnie Lem, Professor, International Development Studies, Trent University

Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas, Professor-Researcher, National University of Anthropology and History, Morelos, Mexico

Mary Ann Mahony, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Jorge Mancini, Vice President, Foundation for Latin American Integration (FILA)

Luís Martin-Cabrera, Associate Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego

Teresa A. Meade, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of History and Culture, Union College

Frederick Mills, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University

Stephen Morris, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Middle Tennessee State University

Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, York University

Paul Ortiz, Associate Professor of History, University of Florida

Christian Parenti, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY

Nicole Phillips, Law Professor at the Université de la Foundation Dr. Aristide Faculté des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques and  Adjunct Law Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law

Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Department of Literature, University of California San Diego

Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology

Vijay Prashad, Editor, The TriContinental

Eleanora Quijada Cervoni FHEA, Staff Education Facilitator & EFS Mentor, Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching at The Australian National University

Walter Riley, Attorney and Activist

William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara

Mary Roldan, Dorothy Epstein Professor of Latin American History, Hunter College/ CUNY Graduate Center

Karin Rosemblatt, Professor of History, University of Maryland

Emir Sader, Professor of Sociology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro

Rosaura Sanchez, Professor of Latin American Literature and Chicano Literature, University of California, San Diego

T.M. Scruggs Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa

Victor Silverman, Professor of History, Pomona College

Brad Simpson, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Jeb Sprague, Lecturer, University of Virginia

Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University

Sinclair S. Thomson, Associate Professor of History, New York University

Steven Topik, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine

Stephen Volk, Professor of History Emeritus, Oberlin College

Kirsten Weld, John. L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of History, Harvard University

Kevin Young, Assistant Professor of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Patricio Zamorano, Academic of Latin American Studies; Executive Director, InfoAmericas

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: What Does Putin Have on the President? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50029"><span class="small">Nancy Pelosi, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 January 2019 11:40

Pelosi writes: "The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. It is staggering that the President has chosen to surround himself with people who violated the integrity of our democracy and lied to the FBI and Congress about it."

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Getty Images)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Getty Images)


What Does Putin Have on the President?

By Nancy Pelosi, Reader Supported News

27 January 19

 

peaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement after Special Counsel Mueller released a seven-count indictment of top Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone, for lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction:

“The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. It is staggering that the President has chosen to surround himself with people who violated the integrity of our democracy and lied to the FBI and Congress about it.

“In the face of 37 indictments, the President’s continued actions to undermine the Special Counsel investigation raise the questions: what does Putin have on the President, politically, personally or financially? Why has the Trump Administration continued to discuss pulling the U.S. out of NATO, which would be a massive victory for Putin?

“Lying to Congress and witness tampering constitute grave crimes. All who commit these illegal acts should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. We cannot allow any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from appearing before Congress.

“The Special Counsel investigation is working, and the House will continue to exercise our constitutional oversight responsibility and ensure that the Special Counsel investigation can continue free from interference from the White House.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 Next > End >>

Page 995 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