|
Naomi Klein: There Would Be No Bernie Movement Without #FightFor15, Keystone XL and #BlackLivesMatter |
 |
|
Monday, 27 June 2016 08:14 |
|
Excerpt: "At The People's Summit in Chicago, author and activist Naomi Klein looks at the link between the Sanders campaign and the growth of other people-powered movements in recent years, from #BlackLivesMatter to the immigrant rights movement."
Naomi Klein. (photo: Maclean's)
Naomi Klein: There Would Be No Bernie Movement Without #FightFor15, Keystone XL and #BlackLivesMatter
By Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now!
27 June 16
 t The People’s Summit in Chicago, author and activist Naomi Klein looks at the link between the Sanders campaign and the growth of other people-powered movements in recent years, from #BlackLivesMatter to the immigrant rights movement.
TRANSCRIPT
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Naomi, I wanted to ask you, because the international aspect of this, we are not in isolation, what is going on here, whether it’s Syriza or Podemos or—across the world, there is a people’s fightback going on. And this is only a reflection of that. I’m wondering your sense of that from your travels.
NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, I mean, there has been this migration from the streets to forming political parties. And it’s complicated, right? Because I completely agree that all of this work on the electoral front and the diversifying and the—on every level and brand-new Congress, it’s really, really important. But we also have to remember that movements produced this moment. Right? So I think that we have to—we have to do something really complicated, where we have to—we have to build out all of these electoral possibilities while understanding that these politicians will be nothing unless they are backed by social movements and accountable to those social movements. Right? I mean, there would be no Bernie moment without the Fight for 15, Keystone XL, the movement against fracking, Black Lives Matter, the immigrant rights movement—all of it, right? So, it’s not an either-or.
And I think that that’s what’s really beautiful about the way we’re moving forward, is understanding how do we complement each other, how do we make sure that we don’t—because I think with some of these movements—right?—they went too far in. Right? I mean, speaking to some friends in Spain who—you know, who went from the squares to Podemos, realizing that they—you know, it was—they lost that street power. Syriza, as well, right? And so, you know, everybody is in this process of learning. We’re all—you know, we’re all in communication with each other. I mean, I remember being in Zuccotti square and having people from Spain and Egypt there, and that cross-pollination that fed the movements at the grassroots level and are now giving each other ideas at the political level. And by the way, the Podemos leadership will be the first to tell you that they learned from left-wing movements in Latin America. You know, they went to Ecuador, they went to Bolivia, you know? So, we are in conversation.
And I’ll tell you a funny story. You know, I have dual citizenship. I’m Canadian. I only tell this among friends, that I’m a child of draft dodgers. We came during the Vietnam War. And—but—but—but my father works in healthcare, so we left the U.S. because of the war, but we stayed for the healthcare, for the universal, single-payer healthcare. It works, by the way.
Anyway, so we found ourselves in a—I want to back up a little bit to around—I just want to insert one point, and I feel my friend Bill McKibben on stage with me now, who is, you know, fighting in a sweaty Phoenix hotel room, trying to get the best—you know, best language in the Democratic Party platform possible, trying to make sure it has strong anti-fracking language and strong language saying we can’t be handing out any new fossil fuel leases on federal lands. You know, he’s in there. And if Bill were here—and he wishes he was here—you know what he would say? We’ve got a deadline, folks. You know? Yes, we’re winning, but we don’t have all the time in the world. And this is the thing about climate change, is, you know, we—whoever the next president is, they come to power with their backs up against the wall when it comes to climate change, which means there’s no honeymoon, baby. There’s no "give her a chance," you know? I mean, we have to be in there demanding no new fossil fuel infrastructure. We need to build the infrastructure of the future. No fossil fuel money. We’re going to shame them for every dollar they take from an oil and gas company, from a coal company, every meeting they take. Yeah, we’re going to make it toxic, right? So, you know, I’m a writer, as I mentioned, and I think deadlines help. You know, this is the thing about climate change, is it says we have to turn this around by the end of this decade. No joke. Our emissions have to be pointing in a different direction. The challenge we face is: How do we transform our energy system, recognizing that we live at a time of multiple overlapping crises? That, yes, climate change is an urgent crisis banging down our doors, but so is racial injustice, so is economic inequality, so are all of these other crises we face. So we’re not going to play my crisis is bigger than your crisis, first we’ll save the planet, then we’ll worry about jobs. No, we are going to figure out ways to lower emissions while healing the wounds that date back to the founding of our countries. And it is possible to do.
So, in Canada, we found ourselves in a situation not dissimilar to the one that, you know, you are finding yourselves in, where we had an election a year ago, and mostly, the energy of that election, on the progressive side, was the energy of no. This is before everybody got really excited about our hot new prime minister. It was just about getting rid of our right-wing government. And so, it was very much a no vote, it was very much a strategic vote. And none of the major progressive—so-called progressive or liberal alternatives were taking climate change seriously, were connecting economic injustice, racial injustice, injustice towards indigenous people, and the need to act swiftly and with boldness in the face of the climate crisis. And so, a group of us got together, 60 movement organizers and leaders, and we wrote our own people’s platform called The Leap Manifesto. And it—and we launched it, right in the middle of the election platform. This was our attempt to say our dreams don’t fit on your ballot. We are going to vote out the worst guy, but that does not represent the world we want. And we created space to dream. And what was interesting, just—it was that platform—The Leap Manifesto was just sort of endorsed by one of our major political parties, the New Democratic Party. And it was the young people. They resolved—they endorsed it in spirit and resolved to debate it at the riding level across the country. And it was the young people in the party that drove it. And I was watching this play out. I wasn’t at the convention. But the young people, several of them, were wearing Bernie T-shirts, as they were—as they were making their impassioned pleas that now is the time for boldness, that we—that small steps are not enough. So we are all feeding each other’s movements, and we’re all drawing strength from each other.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s author and activist Naomi Klein; before that, Rosario Dawson and Democracy Now!'s Juan González, at The People's Summit in Chicago. We’ll be back to talk about gun control in a minute.
 |
|
The Long-Hidden Saudi 9/11 Connection |
|
|
Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:56 |
|
Excerpt: "Almost 15 years ago, warnings of an Al Qaeda attack were flashing red amid evidence of Saudi complicity, but George W. Bush ignored the alarms and the 9/11 attacks changed history, a mystery that 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser continues to plumb."
Firefighter calling for 10 additional rescue workers to make their way into the rubble of the World Trade Center in New York City following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. (photo: J01 Preston Keres/U.S. Navy)
The Long-Hidden Saudi 9/11 Connection
By Kristen Breitweiser, Consortium News
26 June 16
Almost 15 years ago, warnings of an Al Qaeda attack were flashing red amid evidence of Saudi complicity, but George W. Bush ignored the alarms and the 9/11 attacks changed history, a mystery that 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser continues to plumb.
 ver the weekend, the New York Times published an article by Mark Mazzetti regarding Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attacks. The article describes some important facts and circumstances surrounding the support that two Saudis gave to two 9/11 hijackers (and recounts how Saudi consular official Fahad al-Thumairy stonewalled the 9/11 Commission by insisting that phone records and other evidence tying him to the hijackers must be wrong or fabricated).
However, there is more to the story. In addition to the reporting on Thumairy, there is also an FBI and CIA report that indicates that Khallad bin Attash (an Al Qaeda operative now imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay) was in Los Angeles in June 2000 — compliments of “diplomatic arrangements” provided by Thumairy.
To understand the relevance of this key piece of information, it is necessary to have some context. In 1997, Saudi intelligence arrested Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi as they attempted to bring weapons into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. From that point on, the Kingdom monitored the activities of these known Al Qaeda operatives.
In other words, these two men were not just random young Saudis who had a passing interest in jihad. They were “known” Al Qaeda operatives who planned and participated in Al Qaeda attacks — and, more importantly, they were being closely watched by Saudi intelligence.
Also around that time, U.S. intelligence (and quite possibly their good friends at Saudi intelligence) came across the Yemen Switchboard. The Yemen Switchboard was a calling station where Al Qaeda operatives around the world checked in and passed information back and forth to one another — especially to Osama Bin Laden who was up in the hills of Afghanistan.
Essentially, if you listened to the conversations going back and forth on the Switchboard, you had the Rosetta Stone of Al Qaeda’s movements, activities and plans for terrorist attacks around the globe. Admittedly, some information might have been spoken in code; but nonetheless, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency discovered the mother lode when they started listening to the conversations on the Yemen Switchboard.
By eavesdropping on the switchboard, intelligence agencies discovered information regarding: the African Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, the attempted bombing of the USS The Sullivans, and the 9/11 attacks. The problem, of course, with having the Rosetta Stone in their pocket, was not letting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden know that they had it.
Unfortunately, instances like this cause collateral damage. Much like in “The Imitation Game,” when the English cracked the German Code. In order for the Germans to not realize the English had cracked their Enigma code, the English had to allow some attacks to happen — innocent people had to be sacrificed for the greater cause.
For example, the German bombing of the quaint little town of Coventry that killed 600 innocent people, illustrates this harsh reality. So, too, do the possible 3,239 people killed and 10,539 people seriously injured as a result of the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks.
Terrorist Summit
It was via their monitoring of the Yemen Switchboard that U.S. intelligence learned about the now infamous meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, also known as the “terrorist summit,” held in January 2000. U.S. authorities tracked Mihdhar and Hazmi to this meeting when they traveled there with Al Qaeda operative Khallad bin Attash.
U.S. intelligence agencies monitored this meeting with help from certain foreign friends, Malaysian intelligence, among them. Whether our good friends and allies over at Saudi intelligence were also involved in the surveillance of this meeting remains unknown. Also attending the Malaysia meeting were Al Qaeda operatives: Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Ramzi bin al Shibh, and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri. At the meeting in Malaysia, the 9/11 attacks and the bombing of the USS Cole were discussed and planned in great detail.
After the meeting wrapped up, Mihdhar and Hazmi flew to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on Jan. 15, 2000 — and quite possibly, according to one FBI report, so did Attash. Recall that the period between December 1999 and January 2000 was a time of extreme high alert in Al Qaeda threat reporting and warnings because it was the Millennium period.
On Dec. 14, 1999, Al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ressam was arrested at a Seattle, Washington ferry crossing. Ressam was arrested with explosives found in his car, on his way to blow up LAX as part of al Qaeda’s Millennium attacks. Ressam — without the use of torture, I might add — immediately and completely cooperated with U.S. authorities, sharing vital information about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s attempts to attack the United States.
Indeed, several of the things detailed by Ressam were likely included in the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” as well as the top-secret documents that Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, scandalously stole from the National Archives.
These highly classified and apparently very damning documents were permanently destroyed by Berger — so, we’ll never know what was so secretive and problematic in that Millennium after-action report that Berger stuffed in his socks. Perhaps a Saudi role? Who’s to say? Berger is dead, and he certainly didn’t leave any clues behind.
We do know, however, that some of Ressam’s information was used in the indictments of several Al Qaeda operatives who carried out the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, and the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, Ressam knew a lot. And, he shared that abundance of information openly and willingly with U.S. intelligence agencies — starting in December 1999.
Al Qaeda’s Connections
More notably to me, of course, is that Ressam detailed his connections to known Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. This is relevant because after 9/11, by Zubaydah’s own admission (albeit through torture), Zubaydah acknowledged having direct connections to Osama bin Laden, Saudi intelligence and the Saudi Royal Family.
So, let’s review what we have so far: the 1997 arrest of al Mihdhar and al Hazmi by Saudi intelligence (our allies); Saudi monitoring of the two Al Qaeda operatives from that point onwards; monitoring and eavesdropping of the Yemen Switchboard by U.S. intelligence and quite possibly Saudi intelligence; the Meeting in Malaysia where the USS Cole and 9/11 attacks were further planned and discussed; the arrest of Ressam in December 1999; the cooperation of Ressam and his sharing of boatloads of Al Qaeda information with U.S. intelligence; and the eventual arrival of Mihdhar, Hazmi, and potentially Attash into LAX on Jan. 15, 2000.
So now, let’s get back to Mazzetti’s article. In addition to the material Mazzetti discusses in his article is the curious evolution of facts surrounding the arrival of these 9/11 hijackers on Jan. 15, 2000, and precisely how, when and why Saudi agent Omar Bayoumi met them.
Right after Sept. 11, 2001, the media, the Joint Inquiry, and several well-respected authors routinely and regularly reported that Bayoumi met the hijackers on the day of their arrival at LAX. Indeed, to this day, the FBI’s official timeline of the 9/11 attacks, has the hijackers being met by Bayoumi and living with Bayoumi for the first two weeks of their stay in the United States.
The fact that Bayoumi met the hijackers at the airport on Jan. 15, 2000, has been, not surprisingly, softened, glossed over, and morphed by the Saudis and their allies into the notion that Bayoumi merely crossed paths with the hijackers by coincidence at some random, Middle-Eastern restaurant some two weeks after their arrival into the U.S. It is perhaps not a surprise that given the millions the Saudis have dropped on lobbyists, PR campaigns and gifts that this narrative is still being pressed by those who want to obscure the Saudi role on 9/11.
Hoping to leave a fantasy saleable to the U.S. public, the Saudis want us to believe that Bayoumi was just being a good Muslim when he “coincidentally” met the two operatives.
By the way, the frequent excuse and invocation of “just being a good Muslim” employed by Saudi agents and officials when it comes to their connections to the 9/11 hijackers needs to be properly addressed. Muslim culture does not entail offering your home, phone, and/or money to complete strangers. Nor does it call for Muslim Saudi royalty to randomly and wantonly write $150,000 checks to unknown acquaintances.
Typically, Muslim tradition entails some sort of introduction or connection being made first by a trusted intermediary or third party. So who “vouched” for the 9/11 hijackers? Apparently, no U.S. investigator wants to know.
The Saudi Consulate
Nevertheless, Bayoumi met Mihdhar and Hazmi after reportedly being at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles. While at the Consulate, he met with a man who fits the description of Fahad al Thumairy.
Fahad al Thumairy was an accredited administrative officer and diplomat at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles. Bayoumi and Thumairy had known each other prior to the hijackers arrival. After 9/11, U.S. authorities learned that Fahad al Thumairy had extensive contacts with Al Qaeda. Evidence now points to Bayoumi being tasked as the advance man for Mihdhar and Hazmi. His job was to provide financial and logistical support for the two terrorists since neither of them spoke English, nor had they ever lived in the United States.
As such, immediately after his meeting with Thumairy at the Saudi Consulate on Jan. 15, 2000, Bayoumi picked up Mihdhar and Hazmi and drove them back to his home in San Diego where they lived with him for two weeks. Mihdhar and Hazmi stayed as guests in Bayoumi’s home until Bayoumi found them an apartment next door to his own. On Feb. 5, 2000, Bayoumi appears as co-signor and guarantor for Hazmi and Mihdhar on their rental application. They listed Bayoumi’s home as their prior address.
Bayoumi recommended Hazmi and Mihdhar to the property manager and was the co-signor and guarantor for Hazmi and Mihdhar because they did not have established credit. Upon entering the lease agreement, Bayoumi paid the 9/11 terrorists’ first two months’ rent and security deposit. In addition, according to the apartment manager, Bayoumi occasionally paid other monthly rents for Hazmi and Mihdhar. After securing them a place to live, Bayoumi then helped the two 9/11 terrorists open a bank account at Bank of America with a $9,900 cash deposit (conveniently just slightly below the $10,000 threshold for suspicious activity).
In addition, Bayoumi gave a welcoming party for the two 9/11 terrorists to introduce them to the San Diego Muslim Community. Members of that community included radical Imam Anwar Awlaki who was killed by a drone strike in 2011 and was connected to nearly 25 terrorist attacks. According to intelligence reports, Al Qaeda operative Anwar Awlaki met on many occasions with the two 9/11 hijackers and Omar Bayoumi.
During the month of February, Bayoumi apparently shared his phone with the two 9/11 terrorists. According to FBI reports, phone calls from both the hijackers’ and Bayoumi’s phones included operational calls to Anwar Awlaki, the “Yemen Switchboard,” the Saudi Embassy, Fahad al Thumairy, and the Saudi Cultural Mission in Washington D.C.
For example, between January 2000 and May 2000, someone using Omar Bayoumi’s phone made 32 calls to the Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C., 37 calls to the Saudi Cultural Mission in Washington D.C., and 24 calls to the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.
Frequent Travel
Bayoumi also traveled often to the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, to the Saudi Consulate in Washington D.C., and to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during this same time frame. Exactly whom Bayoumi met during these trips remains a mystery since apparently no investigator has ever bothered to ask about or look into these trips.
Because of this frequent travel, Bayoumi arranged for the hijackers to have a “handler” for the times that he was away from them. This handler’s job was to help the two terrorists obtain social security cards, driver’s licenses, purchase a new car, and arrange for their flying lessons so they would eventually be able to fly AA Flight 77 into the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11.
Also of significance is Bayoumi’s connection to a Saudi named Osama Basnan. During the time that the hijackers were living in San Diego, Omar Bayoumi was in constant contact with his close friend and Saudi associate Osama Basnan. Like Bayoumi, Basnan has been alleged by U.S. intelligence agencies to be a Saudi agent.
Basnan lived in the same apartment complex as Bayoumi and the two 9/11 hijackers. From the time that the two 9/11 hijackers arrived at the apartment complex until the attacks, Basnan signed over to Bayoumi’s wife, checks totaling some $150,000 for the alleged support of the two hijackers.
Basnan received this $150,000 from Princess Haifa al Faisal, daughter of Saudi King Faisal, and wife of Saudi Ambassador to Washington, Bandar bin Sultan. Princess Haifa says that she was merely being a good Muslim princess and sending money to Basnan to help defray the costs of Basnan’s wife’s alleged thyroid ailment.
No investigator has asked or answered whether Basnan’s wife’s ailment was legitimate. But, in this case, don’t blame the intrepid investigator — she was fired before she had a chance to investigate and answer those questions.
On May 31, 2000, Mihdhar and Hazmi moved out of Bayoumi’s apartment complex and moved into the home of an FBI informant. The FBI informant denies knowing anything about the 9/11 attacks. During the time frame that the hijackers had contact with the FBI informant, Bayoumi paid regular visits to the hijackers and the FBI informant had regular meetings with his FBI handler.
Unfortunately, the FBI did not capitalize upon these opportunities. Mihdhar lived with the FBI informant for 10 days until he flew back overseas on June 10, 2000. Hazmi lived with the FBI informant for nearly six months until he moved to Phoenix to live with Hani Hanjour, another 9/11 hijacker and the pilot of AA Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon.
Mini-Terrorist Summit
Another key piece of information is the “mini- terrorist summit” held on June 9, 2000, in Los Angeles. The mini-terrorist summit took place at a hotel near the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and was held on Mihdhar’s last night in the United States. The meeting was attended by Mihdhar, Hazmi, and Khallad bin Attash.
According to CIA and FBI reports, this mini-terrorist summit might have been facilitated by Saudi Consulate official, Fahad Thumairy. This information is particularly damning since Attash was, at the time, a very well known, very well identified lethal Al Qaeda operative. In addition, Attash, Mihdhar and Hazmi had just traveled together (and been monitored by several intelligence agencies) five months earlier, in January 2000, when they attended the larger terrorist summit in Malaysia.
Recall that the 9/11 attacks and the bombing of the USS Cole were planned at this larger terrorist summit in Malaysia — and, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the mastermind behind 9/11, and Ramzi Bin al Shibh, the bagman behind 9/11, were also at this meeting. So, the arrival of Attash into the United States should have set off HUGE alarm bells. It did not.
And, even more alarming, is the information “surmised” by the New York City FBI field office that Saudi Consulate official — likely Thumairy — escorted this known Al Qaeda operative into the United States to evade the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs procedures and protections.
According to the report, “certain diplomatic arrangements exist at various airports which allow diplomats to meet incoming foreign nationals at the baggage carousels — before entrance into Customs. New York FBI opined that it may have been possible that someone from the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles may have met Khallad at the airport and escorted him through customs.”
Clearly, this explains how a known Al Qaeda operative (and the alleged mastermind behind the bombing of the USS Cole), Khallad bin Attash was able to enter the U.S. without anyone knowing about it. It does not explain, however, why the bombing of the USS Cole was not interrupted and 17 innocent U.S. sailors were killed.
Incidentally, Mihdhar and Hazmi were also named as co-conspirators in the USS Cole attack. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Fahad Thumairy were not. What needs to be understood by anyone who looks at just these facts surrounding the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks and the USS Cole bombing is that the Saudis and their relationship to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have never been fully investigated — by anyone —either before or after 9/11.
The result of the failure to expose all these facts? Before 9/11, if there was behavior by Saudis that raised red flags or caused some concern, those questions and that investigation were shut down. Former Joint Terrorism Task Force Agent John O’Neill (who warned about the growing Al Qaeda threat and lost his life in the World Trade Center on 9/11) certainly knew how that felt.
And, on 9/11 and the days soon thereafter, what happened to questionable people, known associates, family members of Al Qaeda operatives and Osama bin Laden? They were quietly whisked out of the country, and warmly protected by the blanket of sovereign immunity — because the Saudis, though not perfect, are our “allies.”
And, in the 15 years since the 9/11 attacks? What has happened to the Saudis and their ties to the 9/11 attacks? Any real, unfettered investigation? Any genuine accountability? Any clear answers? Any truth? Not one bit.
So what’s left? The murder of more than 3,000 innocent people. Two wars. Thousands of U.S. military killed, and thousands more seriously injured. Countless innocent Afghans and Iraqis killed and injured. And, a burgeoning ISIS still hell-bent on killing Americans because of our values, our beliefs, and mostly our failed intelligence and foreign policies.
The bottom line is that it has been 15 long years and the 9/11 families, as well as the American public, are growing extremely tired of this endless battle to uncover the truth.
Kristen Breitweiser is a 9/11 widow and activist who – working with other 9/11 widows known collectively as the “Jersey Girls” – pressured the U.S. government to conduct a formal investigation into the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. 9/11 widows Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken also sign their names to this blog, which previously appeared at HuffingtonPost and is reposted with permission, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/redacted-all-the-kingdoms_b_10573074.html= Follow Kristen Breitweiser on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kdbreitweiser .
|
|
|
British Exit From EU Not Inevitable, Despite Referendum |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38775"><span class="small">Robert Mackey, The Intercept</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:55 |
|
"In the first hours after the British public voted to exit the European Union, amid all sorts of triumphal statements and recriminations, one declaration was notably absent: the formal notification to the EU that the United Kingdom intends to leave the organization, which is required to start the clock on negotiations for a departure."
Boris Johnson got stuck on a zip line in 2012 while waving Union Jacks to promote the London Olympics. (photo: Barcroft Media)
ALSO SEE: Scotland Would Do What It Takes to Stay in EU, Even Veto Brexit
ALSO SEE: Europe’s Most Powerful Leader Is Trying to Hit the Breaks on Brexit
British Exit From EU Not Inevitable, Despite Referendum
By Robert Mackey, The Intercept
26 June 16
 n the first hours after the British public voted to exit the European Union, amid all sorts of triumphal statements and recriminations, one declaration was notably absent: the formal notification to the EU that the United Kingdom intends to leave the organization, which is required to start the clock on negotiations for a departure.
Prime Minister David Cameron, who led the failed campaign to convince voters to stay in the EU, told the public that an exit would not happen soon, as he intended to resign in three months and leave it to his successor to decide “when to trigger Article 50? of the union’s basic agreement, the Lisbon Treaty, which says that a member state has two years after declaring its desire to leave to negotiate the terms of its exit.
Has Article 50 been invoked yet?https://t.co/1KDUmj2afq
— David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) June 24, 2016
Speaking to the press a short time later, the man considered most likely to be prime minister in October, Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London, also seemed in no hurry to get the process started.
“In voting to leave the EU, it is vital to stress that there is no need for haste,” Johnson said, “and indeed, as the prime minister has just said, nothing will change over the short term, except that work will have to begin on how to give effect to the will of the people and to extricate this country from the supranational system.”
Given that the popular mandate his side had just won was summed up in a single word on the backdrop behind him, “Leave,” it seemed odd that Johnson made no mention of the fastest way to get that process started, by pressing for an immediate Article 50 declaration.
Boris Johnson: "There is no need to invoke article 50."
— CNBC International (@CNBCi) June 24, 2016
That fact did not escape observers in other parts of Europe, like the former foreign minister of Sweden Carl Bildt.
Watching UK TV I find it striking how leading Brexit figures don't really want to trigger mechanism to leave the UK. Trying to delay.
— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) June 24, 2016
The reason could be that Johnson has something very different in mind: a negotiated compromise that would preserve most of the benefits of EU membership for British citizens and businesses but still satisfy the popular will to escape the attendant responsibilities and costs.
Boris Johnson says UK won't "pull up the drawbridge", starting the tricky task of telling people who voted for this that they can't have it.
— Robert Hutton (@RobDotHutton) June 24, 2016
"Boris Johnson said the result would not mean "pulling up the drawbridge"." He is assuming the hinge is on our side. #Brexit
— Farah Mendlesohn (@effjayem) June 24, 2016
In this context, it is important to keep two things in mind. First, it was Johnson himself who suggested, when he joined the Leave campaign in February, that a vote to depart could be used as a stick to negotiate not a full departure from the EU, but a better deal for the U.K. “There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says ‘No,’” Johnson wrote then. “It is time to seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elements.”
Second, as the legal blogger David Allen Green has explained clearly, the measure Britons just voted for “was an advisory not a mandatory referendum,” meaning that it is not legally binding on the government. No matter who the prime minister is, he or she is not required by the outcome to trigger Article 50. And, despite what senior figures in the EU and its other states might say, there is no way for them to force the U.K. to invoke Article 50.
First full business day after Brexit vote comes to an end.
No Article 50 notification.
Get used to this…
— David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) June 24, 2016/blockquote>
Brexit, Article 50, and the start of a political stalemate
New post by me, at @FT: https://t.co/FAfHuKZnej pic.twitter.com/0rlbVqwUct
— David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) June 24, 2016
Most significant political event today was something which did not happen.
No Article 50 notification.
And now less likely every day.
— David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) June 24, 2016
What all this means in practice is that, while it would be political suicide for any leader to try to avoid acting to satisfy the popular will expressed at the ballot box, there is some wiggle room for a new government to try to find a compromise arrangement that would satisfy a larger share of the population than just the slim majority of voters who demanded separation.
As he makes up his mind on whether to seek the premiership and considers how to appeal to the nearly half of the British population that wanted to stay in the EU, Johnson did not have to go far to get a sense of the seething outrage in parts of the country, like London, that voted overwhelmingly against leaving. Walking out of his home on Friday, Johnson was booed and jeered by some of his neighbors, who chanted, “scum” and “traitor.”
Boris leaves his house to crowds shouting 'scum' #EUref @LBC pic.twitter.com/V4hhXG18v3
— Charlotte Wright (@LBC_Charlotte) June 24, 2016
He might also have caught his father, Stanley Johnson, appearing on television on Friday to discuss the results, wearing a T-shirt with the word “Remain” on it, making it clear that even within the politician’s own family, pro-Europe sentiment was strong.
“He is going to, I hope, put his name forward as one of the possible candidates” says Stanley Johnson https://t.co/SnbIRIDDcU
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) June 24, 2016
Then there is also the fact that, as Matthew Parris notes in a column on the bizarre politics of what comes next in London’s Times, “About 160 of the 650 MPs elected last year want Britain to leave the EU. The overwhelming majority of Westminster MPs believes that leaving would be a mistake. Many believe it would be a very grave mistake. Not a few believe it would be calamitous.” Because of that, Parris observes, “Our experiment in direct democracy is hurtling towards our tradition of representative democracy like some giant asteroid towards a moon.”
Given that a two-thirds majority of the current Parliament opposes leaving the EU, Parris suggested, a new general election next year was almost inevitable, further delaying even the start of the process.
While it is hard to predict just what the mood in the country might be then, there were also signs on Friday of an ugly current of xenophobia inspired by the Leave campaign’s rhetoric against immigration that a new prime minister will have to reckon with.
Retired builder in Barnsley says he voted to "send them foreigners home." Tough time to be a migrant.
— Ciaran Jenkins (@C4Ciaran) June 24, 2016
Just arrived at a 78% Muslim school. White man stood making victory signs at families walking past. This is the racism we have legitimised.
— Dr Karen Bateson (@KarenJBateson) June 24, 2016
After the financial markets reacted to the vote for a British exit from the EU as predicted, with a sharp drop in the value of the British pound, some Leave voters instantly regretted their decisions.
Been hearing people like this all day, and they're making me just more angry pic.twitter.com/NW9sfH3XWd
— Sunny Hundal (@sunny_hundal) June 24, 2016
With leave voters in Manchester for BBCNews -most told us they woke up thinking "what have I done?" & didn't actually expect the uk to leave
— Louisa Compton (@louisa_compton) June 24, 2016
Meanwhile, other senior figures in the Leave campaign started to retreat from central elements of their platform — like the promise that money saved on EU membership dues would be used to shore up the National Health Service and there would be a halt in the flow of migrant workers from abroad.
WATCH: @Nigel_Farage tells @susannareid100 it was a 'mistake' for Leave to claim there'd be £350M a week for NHShttps://t.co/JNkl5k8IlK
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) June 24, 2016
.@evanHD isn't happy with this potential change of tone on freedom of movement…#brexit #newsnight https://t.co/VKnfMz70ke
— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) June 24, 2016
So, as the BBC explained concisely, at this stage it remains entirely possible that the deal eventually worked out could result in an association agreement that is not all that different from full membership in the EU.
On the other side of the negotiating table, though, will be European leaders eager to ensure that a deal with the British is not so favorable for the defectors that it might encourage separatists in other nations.
.@mrjamesob brilliantly comparing Gove & Johnson attitude to Europe to that bloke that dumps you but wants to continue shagging.
— Natasha Devon (@NatashaDevonMBE) June 24, 2016
|
|
The War on Weed Is Winding Down - but Will Monsanto Be the Winner? |
|
|
Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:54 |
|
Brown writes: "In April, Pennsylvania became the 24th state to legalize medical cannabis, a form of the plant popularly known as marijuana. That makes nearly half of US states. A major barrier to broader legalization has been the federal law under which all cannabis - even the very useful form known as industrial hemp - is classed as a Schedule I controlled substance that cannot legally be grown in the US. But that classification could change soon."
Marijuana. (photo: Getty Images)
The War on Weed Is Winding Down - but Will Monsanto Be the Winner?
By Ellen Brown, Ellen Brown's Website
26 June 16
The war on cannabis that began in the 1930s seems to be coming to an end. Research shows that this natural plant, rather than posing a deadly danger to health, has a wide range of therapeutic benefits. But skeptics question the sudden push for legalization, which is largely funded by wealthy investors linked to Big Ag and Big Pharma.
n April, Pennsylvania became the 24th state to legalize medical cannabis, a form of the plant popularly known as marijuana. That makes nearly half of US states. A major barrier to broader legalization has been the federal law under which all cannabis – even the very useful form known as industrial hemp – is classed as a Schedule I controlled substance that cannot legally be grown in the US. But that classification could change soon. In a letter sent to federal lawmakers in April, the US Drug Enforcement Administration said it plans to release a decision on rescheduling marijuana in the first half of 2016.
The presidential candidates are generally in favor of relaxing the law. In November 2015, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill that would repeal all federal penalties for possessing and growing the plant, allowing states to establish their own marijuana laws. Hillary Clinton would not go that far but would drop cannabis from a Schedule I drug (a deadly dangerous drug with no medical use and high potential for abuse) to Schedule II (a deadly dangerous drug with medical use and high potential for abuse). Republican candidate Donald Trump says we are losing badly in the war on drugs, and that to win that war all drugs need to be legalized.
But it is Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein who has been called “weed’s biggest fan.” Speaking from the perspective of a physician and public health advocate, Stein notes that hundreds of thousands of patients suffering from chronic pain and cancers are benefiting from the availability of medical marijuana under state laws. State economies are benefiting as well. She cites Colorado, where retail marijuana stores first opened in January 2014. Since then, Colorado’s crime rates and traffic fatalities have dropped; and tax revenue, economic output from retail marijuana sales, and jobs have increased.
Among other arguments for changing federal law is that the marijuana business currently lacks access to banking facilities. Most banks, fearful of FDIC sanctions, won’t work with the $6.7 billion marijuana industry, leaving 70% of cannabis companies without bank accounts. That means billions of dollars are sitting around in cash, encouraging tax evasion and inviting theft, to which an estimated 10% of profits are lost. But that problem too could be remedied soon. On June 16, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment to prevent the Treasury Department from punishing banks that open accounts for state-legal marijuana businesses.
Boosting trade in the new marijuana market is not a good reason for decriminalizing it, of course, if it actually poses a grave danger to health. But there have been no recorded deaths from cannabis overdose in the US. Not that the herb can’t have problematic effects, but the hazards pale compared to alcohol (30,000 deaths annually) and to patented pharmaceuticals, which are now the leading cause of death from drug overdose. Prescription drugs taken as directed are estimated to kill 100,000 Americans per year.
Behind the War on Weed: Taking Down the World’s Largest Agricultural Crop
The greatest threat to health posed by marijuana seems to come from its criminalization. Today over 50 percent of inmates in federal prison are there for drug offenses, and marijuana tops the list. Cannabis cannot legally be grown in the US even as hemp, a form with very low psychoactivity. Why not? The answer seems to have more to do with economic competition and racism than with health.
Cannabis is actually one of the oldest domesticated crops, having been grown for industrial and medicinal purposes for millennia. Until 1883, hemp was also one of the largest agricultural crops (some say the largest). It was the material from which most fabric, soap, fuel, paper and fiber were made. Before 1937, it was also a component of at least 2,000 medicines.
In early America, it was considered a farmer’s patriotic duty to grow hemp. Cannabis was legal tender in most of the Americas from 1631 until the early 1800s. Americans could even pay their taxes with it. Benjamin Franklin’s paper mill used cannabis. Hemp crops produce nearly four times as much raw fiber as equivalent tree plantations; and hemp paper is finer, stronger and lasts longer than wood-based paper. Hemp was also an essential resource for any country with a shipping industry, since it was the material from which sails and rope were made.
Today hemp is legally grown for industrial use in hundreds of countries outside the US. A 1938 article in Popular Mechanics claimed it was a billion-dollar crop (the equivalent of about $16 billion today), useful in 25,000 products ranging from dynamite to cellophane. New uses continue to be found. Claims include eliminating smog from fuels, creating a cleaner energy source that can replace nuclear power, removing radioactive water from the soil, eliminating deforestation, and providing a very nutritious food source for humans and animals.
To powerful competitors, the plant’s myriad uses seem to have been the problem. Cannabis competed with the lumber industry, the oil industry, the cotton industry, the petrochemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry. In the 1930s, the plant in all its forms came under attack.
Its demonization accompanied the demonization of Mexican immigrants, who were then flooding over the border and were widely perceived to be a threat. Pot smoking was part of their indigenous culture. Harry Anslinger, called “the father of the war on weed,” was the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a predecessor to the Drug Enforcement Administration. He fully embraced racism as a tool for demonizing marijuana. He made such comments as “marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others,” and “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” In 1937, sensational racist claims like these caused recreational marijuana to be banned; and industrial hemp was banned with it.
Classification as a Schedule I controlled substance came in the 1970s, with President Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs. The Shafer Commission, tasked with giving a final report, recommended against the classification; but Nixon ignored the commission.
According to an April 2016 article in Harper’s Magazine, the War on Drugs had political motives. Top Nixon aide John Ehrlichman is quoted as saying in a 1994 interview:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. . . . We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
Competitor or Attractive New Market for the Pharmaceutical Industry?
The documented medical use of cannabis goes back two thousand years, but the Schedule I ban has seriously hampered medical research. Despite that obstacle, cannabis has now been shown to have significant therapeutic value for a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, glaucoma, lung disease, anxiety, muscle spasms, hepatitis C, inflammatory bowel disease, and arthritis pain.
New research has also revealed the mechanism for these wide-ranging effects. It seems the active pharmacological components of the plant mimic chemicals produced naturally by the body called endocannabinoids. These chemicals are responsible for keeping critical biological functions in balance, including sleep, appetite, the immune system, and pain. When stress throws those functions off, the endocannabinoids move in to restore balance.
Inflammation is a common trigger of the disease process in a broad range of degenerative ailments. Stress triggers inflammation, and cannabis relieves both inflammation and stress. THC, the primary psychoactive component of the plant, has been found to have twenty times the anti-inflammatory power of aspirin and twice that of hydrocortisone.
CBD, the most-studied non-psychoactive component, also comes with an impressive list of therapeutic uses, including against cancer and as a super-antibiotic. CBD has been shown to kill “superbugs” that are resistant to currently available drugs. This is a major medical breakthrough, since for some serious diseases antibiotics have reached the end of their usefulness.
Behind the Push for Legalization
The pharmaceutical industry has both much to gain and much to lose from legalization of the cannabis plant in its various natural forms. Patented pharmaceuticals have succeeded in monopolizing the drug market globally. What that industry does not want is to be competing with a natural plant that anyone can grow in his backyard, which actually works better than very expensive pharmaceuticals without side effects.
Letitia Pepper, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, is a case in point. A vocal advocate for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use, she says she has saved her insurance company $600,000 in the last nine years, using medical marijuana in place of a wide variety of prescription drugs to treat her otherwise crippling disease. That is $600,000 the pharmaceutical industry has not made, on just one patient. There are 400,000 MS sufferers in the US, and 20 million people who have been diagnosed with cancer sometime in their lives. Cancer chemotherapy is the biggest of big business, which would be directly threatened by a cheap natural plant-based alternative.
The threat to big industry profits could explain why cannabis has been kept off the market for so long. More suspicious to Pepper and other observers is the sudden push to legalize it. They question whether Big Pharma would allow the competition, unless it had an ace up its sleeve. Although the movement for marijuana legalization is a decades-old grassroots effort, the big money behind the recent push has come from a few very wealthy individuals with links to Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company and producer of genetically modified seeds. In May of this year, Bayer AG, the giant German chemical and pharmaceutical company, made a bid to buy Monsanto. Both companies are said to be working on a cannabis-based extract.
Natural health writer Mike Adams warns:
[W]ith the cannabis industry predicted to generate over $13 billion by 2020, becoming one of the largest agricultural markets in the nation, there should be little doubt that companies like Monsanto are simply waiting for Uncle Sam to remove the herb from its current Schedule I classification before getting into the business.
. . . [O]ther major American commodities, like corn and soybeans, are on average between 88 and 91 percent genetically modified. Therefore, once the cannabis industry goes national, and that is most certainly primed to happen, there will be no stopping the inevitability of cannabis becoming a prostituted product of mad science and shady corporate monopoly tactics.
With the health benefits of cannabis now well established, the battlefield has shifted from its decriminalization to who can grow it, sell it, and prescribe it. Under existing California law, patients like Pepper are able to grow and use the plant essentially for free. New bills purporting to legalize marijuana for recreational use impose regulations that opponents say would squeeze home growers and small farmers out of the market, would heighten criminal sanctions for violations, and could wind up replacing the natural cannabis plant with patented, genetically modified (GMO) plants that must be purchased year after year. These new bills and the Monsanto/Bayer connection will be the subject of a follow-up article. Stay tuned.
|
|
ernie Sanders sometimes gets it right. Being human like the rest of us, he sometimes gets it wrong. But nowhere is he doing both more than on the one question that could swamp his entire wish list of domestic reforms. Should the United States continue to intervene militarily in Muslim countries from Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria, Yemen, and Libya?
