RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
How Gerrymandering Silences the Environmental Vote Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58652"><span class="small">Jeremy Deaton, Nexus Media</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 March 2021 08:24

Excerpt: "This year, state legislatures will redraw the electoral map. The GOP controls most state legislatures, and they are expected to draw congressional districts to favor Republicans, which will make it easier for them to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, even if they fail to win the most votes overall."

First responders gather a water sample from the Dan River in Eden, NC after a 2014 coal ash spill. (photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
First responders gather a water sample from the Dan River in Eden, NC after a 2014 coal ash spill. (photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)


How Gerrymandering Silences the Environmental Vote

By Jeremy Deaton, Nexus Media

14 March 21

 

his year, state legislatures will redraw the electoral map. The GOP controls most state legislatures, and they are expected to draw congressional districts to favor Republicans, which will make it easier for them to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, even if they fail to win the most votes overall. This dynamic will influence policymaking on a number of issues, including the environment. Recent events in North Carolina give some idea of what to expect.

In North Carolina, coal-fired plants historically dealt with the leftover ash by mixing it with wastewater and dumping it into an open pit nearby. Because coal generators need a lot of water, power plants and coal ash ponds usually sit next to a lake or river.

This arrangement can have disastrous consequences. In 2014, a pipe under a coal ash pond owned by Duke Energy in Eden, North Carolina cracked open. The pipe carried wastewater from the nearby coal plant to the Dan River. When it broke, upwards of 30,000 tons of soggy, toxic coal ash seeped into the pipe and drained into the river.

In the aftermath, the Obama administration created the first-ever regulation on coal ash ponds, though it was remarkably weak. Michael Yaki, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, later said it was "practically toothless in its ability to protect the poorest and minority population of our country from things such as coal ash." Despite this, in 2015, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would water down the regulation even further in ways that could lead to a repeat of the Dan River spill or allow coal ash ponds to leak toxins into drinking water.

Every single Republican member of North Carolina's congressional delegation voted in favor of the bill — including Rep. Mark Walker, whose district included the site of the Dan River spill — even as North Carolina residents living near coal ash ponds were being told not to drink well water. Every Democrat voted against it. The bill ultimately died in the Democratically-controlled Senate.

To understand why North Carolina Republicans would vote for a doomed bill to slash coal ash protections, it helps to consider their political circumstances.

In the anti-Obama fervor of 2015, it wasn't hard to marshal Republicans against the spectre of regulatory overreach, particularly against the energy industry. While Duke Energy donated to every member of North Carolina's congressional delegation, it gave substantially more to Republicans than to Democrats. But perhaps more important than campaign contributions or the political milieu was the impact of gerrymandering.

In 2010, Republicans came to power in North Carolina, and when they redrew the congressional map, they carved up Democratic strongholds to dilute the power of Democratic voters — namely, Black voters — creating districts that wiggled and stretched across large expanses. This practice, known as gerrymandering, produced a map that heavily favored Republicans.

In 2014, the GOP won only 55 percent of the vote statewide, but they came away with 10 out of 13 seats, and not one of these races was particularly close. Every politician Republican was well insulated against swings in public opinion. A 2014 poll from the Sierra Club found that 70 percent of North Carolina voters would be more likely to support a politician who " favors strong regulations and enforcement… to prevent future spills," and yet every Republican fought such rules.

Because of the way the electoral map was drawn, 12 of the 14 coal ash pond sites in North Carolina were in districts represented by Republicans, meaning that almost no one living near a coal ash pond was represented by someone who favored stronger regulations. And most coal ash pond sites are in areas that are disproportionately low-income, according to data from Earthjustice.

"Any environmental issue will receive less attention in a district where voting power has been diluted and divided," said Jason Rhode, national coordinator for the Princeton Gerrymandering Project at Princeton University. "Without that voice, environmental injustice can run rampant."

In 2016, a federal court determined that North Carolina's congressional map had diminished the power of Black voters and ordered the legislature to redraw the map. The Republican majority produced a map that, on its face, looked more fair. But it still carved up Democratic strongholds, which typically meant Black communities, with the effect of diluting the Black vote. In the most egregious case, they drew a line through the middle of North Carolina A&T State University, the largest historically Black university in the country. The final map produced just as many Republican seats, and it left only one coal ash site in a district represented by a Democrat.

"The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. We're getting further and further away from that," said Rev. Gregory Hairston, senior pastor at Rising Star Baptist Church and a coal ash advocate.

By diluting the Black vote, he said, the Republican-controlled legislature undermined the ability of Black voters to influence policy on issues like coal ash, which disproportionately harm Black residents.

"We found that many of the issues that we faced — strokes, cancer, asthma and different neurological diseases — had developed around these centers," Hairston said. "There is still pollution that is being put into our rivers, our basins, our water supplies."

Gerrymandering also produces more extremes, as lawmakers in safe districts are more likely to fear a primary challenge than a general election loss. This can stymie environmental legislation, said former North Carolina state Representative Chuck McGrady, a moderate, pro-environment Republican who led the legislative response to the Dan River spill.

"The problem is that, because of gerrymandering, there is just not a lot of discussion and not a lot of ability to find compromise on a range of issues, including environmental protection," he said. "Gerrymandering has allowed both parties to play to their base and makes it more unacceptable for anyone to compromise on whatever the issue is. It really doesn't matter."

In 2019, a North Carolina state court delivered another blow to North Carolina's gerrymandered congressional map. Judges said that map was far too partisan and ordered the Republican-controlled legislature to redraw it once again. They did, and the result was a map that would send eight Republicans and five Democrats to Congress. While it was more representative than the previous map, and some districts were made more competitive, the new map still heavily tilted toward the GOP. Only three coal ash sites were in districts represented by Democrats.

Experts at Princeton said the more reliable way to produce a fair map is to assemble an independent citizen-redistricting commission, a bipartisan collection of citizens whose goal is to produce a fair map.

"If you have a very transparent process where the people making the decisions have the interests of the constituents at heart, that's going to make a good map," said Hannah Wheelen, project manager and data coordinator at the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. "Process and public involvement are what make good maps."

In 2019, McGrady put forward a bill to overhaul North Carolina's redistricting process. The bill calls for an independent commission to draw the map and for the legislature to vote on it. McGrady also introduced a constitutional amendment to enshrine this process. Both measures failed.

"We got so very close. I had really firm commitments in terms of the North Carolina legislature taking this up last year, and then this little pandemic arrived, and it's just not an issue you can resolve through Zoom calls," he said.

Now, any hopes of ending gerrymandering are likely dead, at least for a few more years. Every 10 years, states redraw the congressional map. In the 2020 election, Republicans retained their grip on the state legislature, and in 2021 they are likely to draw the map to favor the GOP. North Carolina's democratic governor, Roy Cooper, has no veto power over the maps.

"I will continue to have an interest in making sure that our representation in the U.S. Congress more closely resembles the purple nature of our state, but I would not be surprised if my friends across the aisle take a different vantage point," said Ben Clark, a Democrat in the North Carolina Senate.

In the last round of redistricting, Clark put forward a map that would have sent seven Republicans and six Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives, meaning it would have been roughly representative. It failed, but it showed what a fairer map might look like.

Clark's map preserved communities, including those affected by coal ash ponds. On his map, the Dan River coal ash pond would fall in a Democratic-leaning district that included Greensboro, which lies just 30 miles south. And the Sandhills region, a flat, sandy area on the southern side of the state would also be collected in one district.

"It just makes sense to do a Sandhills district," he said. "They have similar historical concerns, environmental concerns."

Among those environmental concerns is the Weatherspoon coal ash pond in Lumberton. Until the pond is finally closed, it poses a threat to people who live nearby, as heavy rains could flood the pond and carry coal ash into the nearby Lumber River. Lumberton is comprised mostly of people of color. Around a third of residents live below the poverty line.

"They're working for a living, but they don't have a whole lot," said Jefferson Currie II, Lumber Riverkeeper with the Winyah Rivers Alliance. "A lot of corporations over the years, they chose the path of least resistance. That meant [polluting] people who can't necessarily litigate and fight back."

Currently, this area is in the ninth district, which is represented by a Republican, Dan Bishop, the lead sponsor of bill requiring transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex at birth. In Clark's map, the ninth district would lean Democratic, reflecting the partisan makeup of the Sandhills region. The sixth district, which includes the site of the Dan River spill, would also be represented by a Democrat. In total, six of the state's 14 coal ash pond sites would be represented by Democrats. Clark's map would also be more competitive than the current map, meaning elected officials couldn't just play to their base.

"The best of all worlds is to have a sufficient number of districts that are truly competitive, in which the candidates have to compete on their ideas and values," Clark said. "I don't want a map that automatically elects all Democrats or automatically elects all Republicans."

While North Carolina's GOP-controlled legislature is unlikely to produce a competitive map on its own, there is some slim hope for reforming gerrymandering this year. Congress is currently considering a bill, H.R. 1, that would require states to use independent citizen-redistricting commissions to draw maps. The bill would also ban map drawers from engaging in partisan gerrymandering or breaking up relevant communities – in particular, communities of color, like North Carolina A&T State University.

Clark, however, is pessimistic about the chances of ending gerrymandering in 2021. Currie held a similarly dim view, but he said that people should rally nonetheless.

"We don't push strong enough or hard enough. We need to say, 'We want a nonpartisan commission or we're gonna vote y'all out of office,'" he said. Though, he added, "I'm not expecting them to draw the most geographically and politically representational map. And if they did, I might pass out."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Those of Us Unaccustomed to Seeing Progressives With Their Act Together Are Getting a Little Dizzy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 13 March 2021 13:31

Pierce writes: "This week, as momentum continued to build behind some strategy to get the filibuster out of the way of further improvements in the national condition, the AFL-CIO weighed in on the side of doing away with it entirely, and one of the stated reasons the AFL-CIO gave marked an important moment in plainspoken politics."

Organized labor is in a moment of renewed power. (photo: Erik Mcgregor/Getty Images)
Organized labor is in a moment of renewed power. (photo: Erik Mcgregor/Getty Images)


Those of Us Unaccustomed to Seeing Progressives With Their Act Together Are Getting a Little Dizzy

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

13 March 21


Organized labor has found renewed strength in Alabama and on Capitol Hill.

his week, as momentum continued to build behind some strategy to get the filibuster out of the way of further improvements in the national condition, the AFL-CIO weighed in on the side of doing away with it entirely, and one of the stated reasons the AFL-CIO gave marked an important moment in plainspoken politics.

The Workers First Agenda—investment, democracy and economic justice—is the agenda that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris ran on. It is the agenda that working people have fought for. And it is the agenda that our nation voted for. It is an agenda that cannot be delayed or denied. The very survival of our democratic republic is at stake.

And standing in its way is an archaic Senate procedure that allows the minority to block the majority—the filibuster. An artifact of Jim Crow. A creature of white supremacy. A procedure that was said to encourage robust debate but has turned into an instrument of government paralysis. A tool used by those seeking to preserve the social, economic and political status quo, that the AFL-CIO has long opposed, as a matter of principle as undemocratic and rooted in racism.

That the union felt comfortable stating this so baldly is a measure of the moment. In 2015, the AFL-CIO committed itself to confronting the bleaker racial episodes in its history. The fact that the filibuster as a tool of systemic racism is the union’s first rationale for killing it off can be seen as a product of that effort, especially since the precipitating factor for the statement itself is the PRO Act, recently passed in the House, a landmark piece of pro-labor legislation that does for organized labor what the American Rescue Act did for social-welfare law. From NPR:

Here are five provisions in the PRO Act:

1. So-called right-to-work laws in more than two dozen states allow workers in union-represented workplaces to opt out of the union, and not pay union dues. At the same time, such workers are still covered under the wage and benefits provisions of the union contract. The PRO Act would allow unions to override such laws and collect dues from those who opt out, in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining and administration of the contract.

2. Employe[r] interference and influence in union elections would be forbidden. Company-sponsored meetings — with mandatory attendance — are often used to lobby against a union organizing drive. Such meetings would be illegal. Additionally, employees would be able to cast a ballot in union organizing elections at a location away from company property.

3. Often, even successful union organizing drives fail to result in an agreement on a first contract between labor and management. The PRO Act would remedy that by allowing newly certified unions to seek arbitration and mediation to settle such impasses in negotiations.

4. The law would prevent an employer from using its employee's immigration status against them when determining the terms of their employment.

5. It would establish monetary penalties for companies and executives that violate workers' rights. Corporate directors and other officers of the company could also be held liable.

Of course, the filibuster stands in the way of passage in the Senate, just as it stands in the way of the For the People Act, which takes dead aim at voter-suppression laws, many of which are explicitly racist in their application and effect. In its demand for an end to the filibuster, the AFL-CIO’s statement ties these two measures together as twin weapons against intractable racial and economic inequality. And, for the first time in a long while, the President of the United States is staunchly, vocally pro-labor. He already has lined up with the striking Amazon workers in Alabama, the first serious field test of the renewed strength of organized labor. From The New York Times:

Nearly 30 years later, Mr. Richardson’s penchant for agitation has not faded. He’s one of the workers seeking to unionize an Amazon warehouse outside Birmingham, Ala., in a campaign that has targeted one of the world’s most profitable companies and its billionaire chief executive, and that has been invigorated by a wave of support from prominent politicians, including President Biden. “I couldn’t believe he said something,” Mr. Richardson said of Mr. Biden’s video message last week in which he affirmed workers’ rights and warned against corporate intimidation. “It matters. It eased minds that might be worried about losing their job.” Mike Foster, one of the lead organizers for the union, was less surprised. “We’ve been waiting on him,” he said.

That the president is, at the moment, the primary Democratic impediment to doing something about the filibuster has a lot of people waiting, too. Even Joe Manchin is allegedly open to making these guys hold the floor while engaging in this absurd ritual. Those of us unaccustomed to progressive politics having this much of its act together are getting a little dizzy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Not Targeted or Bloodless: Why We Need an International Convention on Drones Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58645"><span class="small">Conn M. Hallinan, Informed Comment</span></a>   
Saturday, 13 March 2021 13:28

Hallinan writes: "In the aftermath of the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, drone warfare is being touted as the latest breakthrough in military technology, a 'magic bullet' that makes armored vehicles obsolete, defeats sophisticated anti-aircraft systems, and routs entrenched infantry."

A predator drone. (photo: Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images)
A predator drone. (photo: Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images)


Not Targeted or Bloodless: Why We Need an International Convention on Drones

By Conn M. Hallinan, Informed Comment

13 March 21

 

n the aftermath of the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, drone warfare is being touted as the latest breakthrough in military technology, a “magic bullet” that makes armored vehicles obsolete, defeats sophisticated anti-aircraft systems, and routs entrenched infantry.

While there is some truth in the hype, one needs to be especially wary of military “game changers,” since there is always a seller at the end of the pitch.

In his examination of the two major books on drones — Christian Brose’s The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare, and Michael Boyle’s The Drone Age — analyst Andrew Cockburn points out that the victims of drones are mostly civilians, not soldiers.

While drones can take out military targets, they are more commonly used to assassinate people one doesn’t approve of. A case in point was former President Trump’s drone strike that killed Qasem Solemani, a top Iranian general, a country we are not at war with.

In just the first year of his administration, Trump killed more people — including 250 children — with drones in Yemen and Pakistan than President Barack Obama did in eight years. And Obama was no slouch in this department, increasing the use of drone attacks by a factor of 10 over the administration of George W. Bush.

Getting a handle on drone — their pluses and minuses and the moral issues such weapons of war raise — is essential if the world wants to hold off yet another round of massive military spending and the tensions and instabilities such a course will create.

There Are No Bloodless Wars

That drones have the power to alter a battlefield is a given, but they may not be all they are advertised. Azerbaijan’s drones — mostly Turkish Bayraktar TB2s and Israeli Harpys, Orbiter-1Ks, and Harops — did indeed make hash of Armenian tanks and armored vehicles and largely silenced anti-aircraft systems. They also helped Azeri artillery target Armenians positions. But the Azerbaijanis won the recent war by slugging it out on the ground, with heavy casualties on both sides.

As military historian and editor of the Small Wars Journal, Lt. Col Robert Bateman (ret.) points out, drones were effective because of the Armenians’ stunning incompetence in their use of armor, making no effort to spread their tanks out or camouflage them. Instead, they bunched them up in the open, making them sitting ducks for Turkish missile-firing drones and Israeli “suicide” drones. “While drones will be hailed as the straw that broke the camel’s back in this war,” he writes, “Azerbaijani success is also attributed to good ol’ fashioned mechanized infantry operations that took territory, one square kilometer at a time.”

Turkey has made widespread use of drones in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, and they again have played a role on the battlefield. But Turkish drones have mainly been used to assassinate Kurdish leaders in Iraq and Syria. Last April a Turkish drone killed two Iraqi generals in the Kurdish autonomous zone of northern Iraq.

In July 2020, Turkey deployed drones in Syria to block an offense by the Damascus government against Turkey’s allies in Idlib Province, but failed to stop President Bashar al-Assad’s forces from reclaiming large hunks of territory. In short, they are not always “game changers.”

The selling point for drones is that they are precise, cheap — or relatively so — and you don’t have a stream of body bags returning home. But drones are not all- seeing, unless they are flying at low altitudes, thus making it easier to shoot them down. The weather also needs to be clear, and the area smokeless.

Otherwise what drones see are vague images. In 2010 a U.S. drone took out what its operators thought was a caravan of Taliban trucks carrying weapons. But the trucks were filled with local peasants and the “weapons” were turkeys. The drones incinerated 23 civilians.

Nor do they always live up to their reputation for accuracy. In a 2012 test, the Air Force compared a photo of a base taken by the highly touted Gorgon Stare cameras mounted on a Predator drone and the one on Google Earth. The images were essentially identical, except Gorgon Stare cost half a trillion dollars and Google Earth was free. “In neither,” says Cockburn, “were humans distinguishable from bushes.”

Drones have killed insurgent leaders in Syria, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan — with virtually no effect on those wars. Indeed, in the case of Afghanistan, the assassination of first-tier Taliban leaders led to their replacement by far more radical elements. The widespread use of drones in the U.S. war on drugs has also been largely a failure. Drug cartels are bigger and more dangerous than ever, and there has been no reduction in the flow of drugs into the United States.

They do keep the body bag count down, but that raises an uncomfortable moral dilemma: If wars don’t produce casualties, except among the targeted, isn’t it more tempting to fight them?

Drone pilots in their air-conditioned trailers in southern Nevada will never go down with their aircraft, but the people on the receiving end will eventually figure out some way to strike back. As the attack on the World Trade towers and recent terrorist attacks in France demonstrate, that is not all that hard to do — and it is almost inevitable that the targets will be civilians.

Bloodless war is a dangerous illusion.

The Global Drones Arms Race

Drones certainly present problems for any military. For one thing, they are damned hard to spot. Most are composed of non-metallic substances, like Kevlar, and they have low heat signatures because their small motors run on batteries. Radar doesn’t pick them up and neither do infrared detectors. The Yemen-based Houthis drones that hit Saudi Arabian oil facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais in 2019 slipped right through the radar systems of three anti-aircraft networks: the U.S. Patriot system, the French-supplied Shashine surface-to-air-missile system, and the Swiss Oerlikon 35mm radar directed cannons.

Those drones were produced on a 3-D printer supplied to the Houthis by Iran.

Drones also raised havoc with Armenia’s far more capable Russian-made S-300 air defense system, plus several other short and medium range systems. Apparently the drones were not detected until they struck, essentially obilerating Armenia’s anti-aircraft system.

The Russians claim that they beat off drone attacks on their two bases in Syria, Khmeimim Air Base and the naval base at Tartus, with their Pantsir air defense system. But those drones were rather primitive. Some were even made of plywood. Pantsir systems were destroyed in Nagorno Karabakh, and Turkish drones apparently destroyed Pantsirs in Libya.

The problem is that even if you do detect them, a large number of drones — a so-called “swarming attack” similar to the one that struck the Saudis — will eventually exhaust your ammunition supply, leaving you vulnerable while reloading.

The U.S. is working on a way to counter drones with directed energy weapons, including the High Energy Laser Weapons System 2, and a microwave system. At a cost of $30 million, Raytheon is building prototypes of both. President Biden’s Defense Secretary, Gen. Lloyd Austin (ret.), formerly served on the company’s board of directors.

If drones rely on GPS systems to navigate, they can be jammed or hacked, as the Iranians successfully did to a large U.S. surveillance drone in 2010. Some drones rely on internal maps, like the one used in the U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile. It appears that the drones and cruises that hit Saudi Arabia were running on a guidance system similar to the Tomahawk.

Of course that makes your drone or cruise missile autonomous, something that raises its own moral dilemmas. The U.S. is currently working on weapons that use artificial intelligence and will essentially be able to “decide” on their own what to attack.

Maybe not “Terminator,” but headed in that direction.

We Need an International Convention

Drones are enormously useful for a range of tasks, from monitoring forest fires to finding lost hikers. They are cheap to run and commercial prices are coming down. Turning them into weapons, however, is not only destabilizing, it puts civilians at risk, raises serious moral issues about who bears the cost of war, and in the long run will be very expensive. Drones may be cheap, but anti-aircraft systems are not.

India and Pakistan are in the middle of a drone race. Germany is debating whether it should arm its drones. Mexican drug cartels are waging war against one another using drones.

An international convention on drone use should be on any future arms control agenda.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Lula's Return Could Save Brazilian Democracy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58644"><span class="small">Hugo Albuquerque and Nicolas Allen, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 13 March 2021 13:27

Excerpt: "With former Brazilian president Lula da Silva now eligible to run in next year's election, Jair Bolsonaro's grip on power is looking weaker than ever before."

Protesters rallying in support of Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photo: Andre Penner/AP)
Protesters rallying in support of Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photo: Andre Penner/AP)


Lula's Return Could Save Brazilian Democracy

By Hugo Albuquerque and Nicolas Allen, Jacobin

13 March 21


With former Brazilian president Lula da Silva now eligible to run in next year’s election, Jair Bolsonaro’s grip on power is looking weaker than ever before. Amid the tide of reaction, Lula’s return means there is finally some hope for democracy and social justice in Brazil.

n March 8, Brazil was greeted with the unexpected news that Supreme Federal Court justice Edson Fachin had annulled all convictions of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Prior to that decision, Lula was still facing indictment and minor offense convictions, making him ineligible for political office under Brazilian law. The court’s enormously significant decision makes Lula eligible to run in the 2022 presidential race, though it still remains for the indictments to be definitively withdrawn.

Despite the fact that Lula was released from prison in 2019 on the heels of the Vaza Jato (Car Wash) leaks, the decision that freed him was not based on The Intercept’s revelations of legal conspiracy. Instead, he was released after 580 days thanks to a Supreme Federal Court (STF) ruling that anyone in the process of a legal appeal should remain free during trial proceedings (a ruling that reversed the STF’s previous decision in the run-up to the 2018 elections, made under duress from the military and in violation of the Constitution).

The decision to release Lula resolved, as it were, two issues. On the one hand, it freed the Brazilian justice from the embarrassment of keeping Lula in prison, after it was revealed by the actions of a hacker that then-judge Sérgio Moro arranged the conviction with the accusers. On the other hand, it spared Moro, who at that time was Bolsonaro’s minister of justice, the biggest beneficiary of Lula’s arrest, since the judicial plot, although it served as a backdrop, was not the reason for Lula’s release.

While the most recent turn of events is certainly a victory for Lula, the decision represents yet another attempt by the STF to avoid further investigation into the abuses committed during Operation Car Wash. Its decision rested on the technical ruling that Lula could not be tried in the city of Curitiba — not on the fact that he was the victim of collusion between Moro and federal prosecutors. As if to prove that point, efforts led by Justice Gilmar Mendes to reach a decision on alleged collusion were blocked on March 9 by Justice Kassio Nunes Marques, Bolsonaro’s appointee to the Brazilian supreme court.

A Ruling for Freedom, and a Half-Truth

The rationale for Justice Edson Fachin’s decision is simple: Lula’s defense filed a habeas corpus and the justice — alone, as is allowed in such circumstances — decided that a Federal Court of Curitiba was not competent to judge the case. The decision is absolutely correct, but also ironic, since the famous 13th Court of the Federal Judiciary in Curitiba has presided over every type of indictment with only the remotest — and often dubious — connection to corruption in the state-owned Petrobras corporation. These corruption trials have been treated as one enormous, monolithic scheme — even though Petrobras itself is not based in Curitiba but in Rio de Janeiro.

On the other hand, the bribes that Lula allegedly received — in exchange for what, Sérgio Moro himself claims to have no knowledge — had nothing to do with Curitiba, and Lula has never lived nor done business in the capital city of Paraná. As jurist Lênio Streck reminds us, the Curitiba court, then under Moro’s control, was always incompetent to judge Lula.

Before even getting to the question of possible — some would say blatantly evident —abuses of legal conduct, the most absurd part of the Lava Jato proceedings has always been that the 13th Court in Curitiba has freely determined what it deems to be linked to the Petrobras case.

This goes against the constitutional guarantee of court jurisdiction, whereby Brazilian criminal procedural law establishes a determinate place where a certain indictment can be filed and accordingly judged.

Following Justice Fachin’s decision, any cases involving Lula’s alleged misfeasance —concerning the Guarujá apartment, the Atibaia ranch, or the Lula Institute — would have to be sent to the Federal Court in Brasília, where the cases would again be subject to review. That is, unless the attorney general of the republic decides to appeal and forces Fachin’s decision to be sent back for retrial by the other eleven STF justices.

But the central issue is still being avoided: then-judge Moro and the federal prosecutors were regularly comparing notes, combining investigations, planning convictions, and pressuring defendants and witnesses with the ultimate goal of arresting Lula.

An Inconclusive Leak

In 2019, Brazil’s top story was the “Vaza Jato.” In that report, leaks initially published on The Intercept Brasil’s website revealed how judges and prosecutors of the Car Wash investigation had held private conversations on Telegram, arranging convictions, settling plea bargains, and engaging in other conspiratorial activity.

It was clear that the driving obsession for the investigation had nothing to do with putting an end to bribes. Instead, their sole intent was to imprison Lula and bar him from competing in the 2018 elections (where he had been leading in the polls). Lula was ultimately convicted in appeals courts, imprisoned, declared ineligible for political office, and even banned from giving interviews. Jair Bolsonaro went on to win that race and appointed Moro, the main judge of the Car Wash operation, as his minister of justice.

Vaza Jato changed everything in Brazil. However, following the leaks, Brazilian politics became a laboratory for Orwellian exercises in misinformation (foreshadowing similar practices of disinformation during the pandemic). Throughout 2019, Moro, then acting as Bolsonaro’s minister and ally, regularly attacked The Intercept and cast doubt on the veracity of the leaked material while claiming himself to be the victim of hacking.

At the same time, journalist Glenn Greenwald, then editor-in-chief of The Intercept Brazil, became the victim of a widespread smear campaign. It was only through the intervention of the STF itself that Greenwald was not indicted for publishing the reports.

Walter Delgatti, the hacker responsible for leaking the material to the media, was also arrested. Delgatti’s illegal arrest was especially outrageous: while it was deemed a crime to divulge clandestinely held conversations in the midst of a public trial, the actual content of those conversations was conveniently overlooked. The scandal quickly escalated, making it virtually impossible to keep Lula in prison.

Bolsonaro and his networks protected Moro, launching attacks against Lava Jato whistleblowers. However, behind the scenes there was growing friction between the two figures: Moro had his own presidential ambitions and was jostling with Bolsonaro for leadership of the radical right. Moro conveniently parted ways with Boslonaro over his mismanagement of the pandemic, cutting the umbilical cord that had once linked the Car Wash investigations and the Bolsonaro-led far right.

The material discovered by Delgatti did, however, end up in the hands of the STF, which recently granted Lula’s lawyers access to all excerpts pertaining to his case; the principle of law holds that illegal evidence cannot serve for conviction, but it can absolve the accused.

It is also worth noting that the STF’s sudden about-face conceals other issues. According to recent interviews given by Delgatti, the Car Wash scandal was used to coerce STF justices, potentially even leading to their arrest. These embarrassing revelations led to a new threat of arrest for the hacker, who remains to this day under house arrest.

In truth, the scope of the leaks is even worse than what was revealed in the press in 2019: they contain proof of illegal collaboration between Brazilian prosecutors and foreign authorities, including the US State Department.

More recently, the STF has come under attack from Bolsonaro himself. Even so, the corporatist spirit of the Brazilian justice system — one of the most expensive and elitist in the world — has carried the day, and, as suggested by the mocking comments of conservative president of the House of Representatives Arthur Lira, it has ultimately served to protect Moro.

The Arc of Justice Is Long

The decision of Justice Fachin to annul Lula’s convictions is more than just a lesson in how the legal system operates. It is a symptom of the country’s political predicament. The STF is on the ropes and forced to take radical measures (see, for example, the decision to arrest a Bolsonaro-loyal congressman who issued public threats against STF justices). Bolsonaro, for his part, makes no effort to conceal his resentment of the Supreme Court justices who have managed to restrain his power.

The growing severity of COVID-19, the federal government’s disregard for the thousands of lives lost, delays in vaccinations, and the harbinger of economic collapse make Lula an increasingly attractive option for president. (Over the course of just three months in 2009, Lula managed to get eighty million people vaccinated — more than in any other country — against the H1N1 virus, and all through a public health system.)

It may be too early to tell, but the rapid advance of the Brazilian crisis could very well augur a new outlook among the country’s oligarchy. As the health crisis reaches a tipping point where even elite hospitals are collapsing, the ruling class may begin to revise the wisdom of its longstanding anything-but-the-Workers-Party stance. Public statements like that of former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso — who expressed regret for remaining neutral during the 2018 run-off elections — are part of this changing picture in Brazilian politics.

It should also be stressed that Lula’s 2019 release and his most recent victory are, at least in part, products of an intense international solidarity movement, as well as a broad Brazilian leftist movement. There is a growing consensus among progressives that the Brazilian justice system is unreliable and that the Car Wash scandal is akin to a McCarthyist campaign with international repercussions throughout South America, where similar legal tactics have been used against current and former progressive leaders.

It is still too soon to predict outcomes with any certainty, but it should be noted that the Brazilian crisis and Lula’s release have occurred while the broader region is seeing a new progressive wave, with left-wing electoral victories being registered across the continent. Lula will still have to face many new battles, and victory will ultimately depend on whether popular forces can be mobilized to put pressure on opaque and undemocratic institutions. But his struggle is a collective one and will be of central importance for the Brazilian working class — and the world — in the fight against new and even deadlier forms of far-right ascendency.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: This Fight Is Far From Over Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44519"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page</span></a>   
Saturday, 13 March 2021 12:50

Sanders writes: "The truth is that the crises we face in this nation are enormous, and we have got to think big, not small."

Bernie Sanders. (photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)


This Fight Is Far From Over

By Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page

13 March 21

 

he truth is that the crises we face in this nation are enormous, and we have got to think big, not small. What history has told us is that two years after President Clinton won in 1992, Republicans did phenomenally well. And the reason they did so well was because Democrats had the power, and they did not exercise that power to help working families. We cannot make that mistake again, which is why it is imperative that we come together around a bold, progressive agenda. We must join every other major country on earth and grant health care to all of our people as a basic human right. We must take on the incredible greed of the pharmaceutical industry and not force the American people to pay higher prescription drug prices than everyone else. We must raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour and guarantee equal pay for equal work. We must combat systemic racism and pass comprehensive immigration reform. We must make public colleges and universities tuition-free and forgive student debt. We must create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and confronting the climate crisis. This agenda is not some kind of wild, radical idea. It's what the American people want, and it's where the Democratic Party has got to go.

We have made tremendous progress in recent years in our efforts to transform this country, but it is a fight that is far from over.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 Next > End >>

Page 172 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