Free Leonard Peltier

By Reginald Johnson

  

  In his remaining days in office, President Obama has the opportunity to bring some measure of justice to wrongfully-imprisoned Native-American activist Leonard Peltier.

  Peltier has been languishing in prison for over 40 years, following his conviction for murdering two FBI agents during a shootout between law enforcement officers and Lakota Indians on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota in 1975.

   Peltier is a political prisoner --- one whose arrest, conviction and lengthy incarceration was determined not so much by the facts of the case but by Peltier’s activism in the American Indian Movement and the government’s desire to suppress a rebellion by Native Americans in the 1970s.

 The entire process by which Peltier was arrested and tried was fraught with problems.  Witness affidavits supporting Peltier’s extradition from Canada (where he fled after the shootout) prior to his arrest were gained through coercion; during the trial the government withheld key documents, such as ballistics information, that could have aided the defense; witnesses who testified for the prosecution later recanted and said the FBI had pressured them to implicate Peltier.

Leonard Peltier, the Native American activist who is asking for clemency from President Obama after 40 years in prison. (Photo courtesy of The Guardian)

   

   While Peltier was unsuccessful in an appeal of his conviction, the presiding judge in the appeals hearing, Gerald Heaney, harshly criticized the prosecution for the FBI’s “improper conduct” and “clear abuse of the investigative process,” according to a report by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

   It’s also noteworthy, that during the appeals hearing, the government admitted that they couldn’t prove who actually shot the agents. But the government still maintained that Peltier was linked to the murders and therefore was guilty.  

  The idea that someone could be convicted and sent to prison for so many years --- based on such a shaky prosecution case, rife with so many legal problems, is an outrage.

  It is not the kind of thing that is supposed to happen in a democratic republic, with a system that on paper at least provides “liberty and justice for all.”  The Peltier case is more befitting of what happens in a dictatorship.

  

    Obama has a chance to end this outrage by granting Peltier’s request for clemency.  The Native activist has gotten wide support for his plea --- from human rights groups like Amnesty International to Bishop Desmond Tutu to thousands of people signing petitions.  And just this week, Peltier got unexpected support from one of the prosecutors in the original case. Former U.S. Attorney James Reynolds told The Guardian newspaper that it was time for the government to “call it quits” and grant leniency to Peltier.

 

   In addition to the facts of the case and the wide support Peltier has received, Obama should also consider Peltier’s age and his declining health. Now 72, Peltier has suffered a stroke and battled diabetes and a heart condition.

 

  This is not the first time Peltier has sought clemency. In 2000, former President Bill Clinton weighed his request for leniency (just as Clinton was leaving office) but ultimately denied it after members of the FBI Agents Association mounted a furious opposition campaign and picketed the White House.

  The FBI group --- composed of former agents of the federal agency --- are again opposing Peltier’s petition.

  Hopefully President Obama --- who is ending his tenure in the White House on Jan. 20 --- will see the light in this case and not back down. A good sign is that Obama has recently been granting leniency for hundreds of other long-time prisoners --- offenders who were serving excessively long terms for drug convictions.

 President Obama needs to grant freedom to Leonard Peltier --- now.

(For more information on the Leonard Peltier case and to sign a petition calling for his release, go to www.amnestyusa.org. Additional information on Peltier and other political prisoners such as Puerto Rican activist Oscar Lopez Rivera and Army whistle-blower Chelsea Manning as well as NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who is being unfairly accused of espionage, can be found at www.lawanddisorder.org, Dec. 19, 2016 show)

 

Time Running Out

By Reginald Johnson

                Christiana Figueres, climate chief for the United Nations, said recently that time is running out for reaching an international agreement on dealing with global warming.

         Referring to the climate conference in Paris at the end of the year, she told the Associated Press, “We are at five minutes to 12 and Paris is the 12 o’clock strike of the clock.”

      Failure to reach a global, binding agreement on curbing carbon emissions --- the key driver of rising temperatures and climate change --- would mean “we are going to be playing with fire,” said the UN official.

     Figueres couldn’t be more correct in her assessment.  NASA testing shows that the average global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now 400 parts per million. That’s a full 50 points higher than the 350 ppm that is considered by scientists to be the maximum sustainable level of atmospheric carbon. Beyond that level, the viability of human life in the long term could be threatened by sharply rising temperatures and catastrophic climate impacts.

  Already temperatures have been rising. Last year, 2014, was the hottest year ever recorded.

  And dramatic climate impacts are taking place. We are getting more and more violent, killer storms, like Super Storm Sandy in 2012; more powerful tornadoes, wreaking incredible devastation; brutal droughts in the American west and in other parts of the world; and terrible forest fires, also in the western U.S., which are destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of woodland.

  Experts believe that the extreme weather is linked to changes in the atmosphere caused by greenhouse gases.

   It’s imperative that we move quickly to massively cut back on carbon emissions, as well as the emissions of other global warming gases, like methane.

   But have world leaders been moving to take decisive action to blunt climate change?

  So far, the answer to that question is, no.

  The United States obviously has a leading role to play in any international effort to fight climate change. For most of his presidency, President Barack Obama has not made climate change a major priority, despite his claims to the contrary. He has never once made a nationwide speech in prime time about the danger of climate change and the absolute necessity that we all work together to fight it. Former Vice President Al Gore called the fight against climate change a “planetary emergency.” He’s right. Obama could have said the same thing. He could have laid out all the awful scenarios that will befall us if we do nothing to control climate change, and really scared people. They need to be scared. This is an existential threat --- far more than anything posed by al-Qaeda, the Islamic State or other extremists.

  At the same time Obama could have urged people, particularly young people, to get involved in a national effort to educate everyone about the dangers of global warming and the imperative of moving away from carbon-producing fossil fuels. That national address could have been followed by a series of speeches around the country.

  A major campaign like that could have put the climate skeptics back on their heels and prompted a strong public demand that Congress pass laws that both control carbon, lessen the use of fossil fuels and put major funding into renewables.

 But no such public campaign was undertaken. Obama has not used his bully pulpit to get the nation moving on climate change.

 In general, Obama has given out conflicting messages about how serious he is about tackling the central problem of limiting carbon emissions. While his administration worked to get some things done, like improving auto fuel efficiency standards, the president gave the go-ahead for more Gulf oil drilling, even after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Recently, he gave the green light for Arctic oil drilling by Royal Dutch Shell, despite widespread protests.

  Everyone knows we have to move away from fossil fuels to control climate change. Why is Obama approving more oil drilling?

  Last week, six years into his presidency, Obama announced a new “Clean Power Plan” which plots an outline for tackling climate change. He laid out some steps for curbing carbon emissions from power plants --- which contribute the most CO2 to the atmosphere --- and moving to renewables like wind and solar power.

 That’s fine, as far as it goes. But it’s late. We’re now past 400 ppm of carbon in the air. Why didn’t he announce this plan five years ago?

  The administration behind the scenes has done some good work getting preliminary agreements from other major industrial nations like Brazil and China (two nations which previously had been reluctant to work out a deal on climate change) on the need to reduce carbon emissions and move to renewables. The recent talks set the stage for reaching some meaningful agreements at the Paris summit later this year.

   One possible idea that could be discussed in the Paris talks is setting up a system to impose a world-wide carbon tax. That would mean that the production, distribution and use of all carbon fuels --- coal, oil or natural gas --- would be hit with a special tax. As the price of carbon fuels rose, it would make the market move more rapidly to the development of non-carbon sources --- wind, solar and geo-thermal.

  Whatever specifics emerge for any carbon reduction plan, it’s clear that a strong, binding international agreement on slowing climate change is desperately needed --- now.

  It’s five minutes to midnight.

  

 

  

    

          

Himes Faulted for Stance on Fast Track

By Reginald Johnson

            As a vote in Congress on “Fast Track” legislation draws near,  Rep. Jim Himes’ decision to back the controversial trade bill is being criticized by union officials and progressive activists.

           After months of sitting on the fence about which way he would vote,  Himes, a Democrat representing much of Fairfield County, came out last week and said he will vote yes on a bill granting Trade Promotion Authority to President Obama. The bill, nicknamed Fast Track because it speeds up the process for approving trade treaties, empowers the president to force Congress to vote on a trade treaty within 60-90 days, limit debate and prohibit any amendments.

    If Fast Track passes --- and a vote could come as soon as Friday --- it will set the stage for approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement between the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim countries. The agreement is supported strongly by big corporations, most Republicans, and Obama.

   After meeting with supporters of TPP and critics, including labor and environmental groups, the Fourth District congressman said he came down on the side of supporting Fast Track in good part because of Connecticut’s export-driven economy.

   “TPP offers the potential for rich export opportunities, and many high-paying export-oriented jobs,” Himes said.

   “Make no mistake, Connecticut is an export economy, and growing global trade and markets will help strengthen our middle class,” he said. “In 2013, there were $16.4 billion in Connecticut exports. $11.9 billion, or 67.5% of that, came from the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk metro area. To say that trade is important to our district is an understatement.”

  Himes, who said he had read the whole TPP agreement, said that so far, it appears Obama is making sure that the trade agreement is addressing environmental, labor and consumer concerns.

   But opponents of the trade bills took the congressman to task on a number of counts.

  Lori Pelletier, executive secretary treasurer of the Connecticut State AFL-CIO said Himes has come down on the side of corporations and not workers.

  “Rep. Himes decision …to support Wall Street profits over Main Street jobs will live long in the memory of 4^th District working men and women,” she said.

   “If Rep. Himes is sincere about creating jobs and revitalizing manufacturing, he needs to use his leverage as a member of Congress to reshape the Trans-Pacific Partnership to help rather than hurt workers in his district. Unfortunately, by supporting Fast Track, Himes is surrendering his ability to offer any amendments to improve this trade agreement or any other future agreements up for six years,” Pelletier said.

   One of the leaders of a grassroots group fighting against Fast Track and TPP said she was skeptical about Himes’ claim that he had read and understood the full text of the TPP.

  Margaret Flowers, from the group Popular Resistance, said that “the text is filled with legalese that could not possibly be fully understood by going into a room and reading it without the ability to analyze its impacts. If Himes is so supportive after reading it, I would urge him to write out the specific areas that he agrees with and the areas of concern that he has. I doubt that he could.”

  Flowers emphasized what other critics have charged, that the whole process for negotiating the TPP has been secretive and behind closed doors, with members of Congress only being given limited access to reading the text. The public has been given no access, despite the huge impact the treaty will have on the U.S. economy and all levels of government here. But corporate lawyers --- hundreds of them --- have been involved in negotiations on the wording of the treaty.

   “If Himes thinks TPP is so great, why does he support a secret and undemocratic process of passing it? Why doesn’t he allow the public to have full review of what is in the text and a debate about how it will impact our economy and our communities,” she asked.

Opponents of Fast Track rally recently in Bridgeport.

   Himes said in a letter to constituents explaining his decision on Fast Track that he did not think the closed-door negotiations were a problem and pointed out that when the TPP agreement is finalized, the text will be accessible to the public.

   “Most sensitive negotiations --- collective bargaining by unions or the purchase of a home for example --- happen behind closed doors.  In the case of TPP, after negotiators reach agreement, the deal will be made fully public online for 60 days before the President can sign it, followed by several months of review and consideration before Congress votes on it,” he said.

  In general, critics claim that the TPP is a corporate giveaway, giving corporations both in the U.S. and overseas the legal ability to thwart national and state laws set up to protect consumers, workers and the environment.

  That raises the issue of sovereignty, and whether the TPP and other trade treaties that are planned, don’t undermine the role of nations in making their own laws, and in the process, transfer power to multi-national corporations.

  Instead of sovereign nations making their own laws, people will be under a form of “corporate governance.”

   A majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives are opposed to Fast Track. Most Republicans favor the bill as well as the TPP, but some GOP members are opposed, due to concerns over the threat to sovereignty.

  Most analysts see the House vote on Fast Track as too close to call. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. --- who publicly has not taken stand on which way she will vote --- is reportedly behind the scenes trying to line up “yes” votes for President Obama and Fast Track.

  

  

Pushing Congress on TPP

By Reginald Johnson

                  BRIDGEPORT ---- A coalition of activist groups is pressuring Congress to stop the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, which critics claim would allow corporations to thwart state and local regulations covering health, safety, the environment and labor rights.

     Recently-leaked documents from the TPP secretly negotiated by the Obama administration and 11 other nations on the Pacific Rim, disclosed that new power could be given to companies based in foreign countries to sue states like Connnecticut or cities like Bridgeport to block legal requirements they believed were cutting into their profits. The cases would be decided before special tribunals, and not the traditional court system.

   Not only could local laws be challenged, but companies could be awarded financial damages.

   The proposed rules, in the investment chapter of TPP, are being characterized as a threat to democracy.

   The treaty would have a “very chilling effect on democracy in action,” said Patrick Woodall, from the group Food and Water Watch, speaking recently on the Counterpoint Radio show on WPKN in Bridgeport. (http://www.btlonline.org/2015/seg/150410af-btl-woodall.html)  Woodall said regulations passed by local city councils or state legislatures dealing with say, hydraulic fracking or GMO labeling on foods, could be affected.

   “All these things are liable to be challenged by foreign companies for damages as barriers to trade,” Woodall said.

   The opponents are targeting both the TPP and companion legislation, called trade promotion authority, or “fast track.”  As the name implies, fast track would mandate that Congress vote on the trade treaty within 60-90 days.  Also, only limited debate could take place on the treaty as negotiated and no amendments would be allowed.

     A vote on fast track could come soon after Congress returns from their Easter recess on April 13.

     A number of Democrats in the House and some Republicans have come out against fast track. In Connecticut, where there are five members of the House --- all Democrats --- four of the five are opposing fast track. U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, of the 4^th congressional district, however, is still sitting on the fence.

   Groups like Moveon.org are lobbying Himes to join his House colleagues and oppose the trade promotion authority, as well as the TPP, especially in the light of the newly-revealed provisions dealing with the power of foreign companies.

   Mary Levine, of Danbury, a coordinator for Moveon.org in Fairfield County, showed up at Himes’ office in Bridgeport recently to speak with Himes’ staff to urge the congressman to oppose the legislation. She and others have been there before.

   “Whenever we’ve spoken to him, he’s very gracious, and said he’d look into it,” she said. “Everytime we come, we give them more documents.”

   Levine said she thinks many of Himes' constituents feel positive about his work, and that he represents their interests.

   "We expect he will come around on this," she said.

   Himes said in a statement that “as a rule” he doesn’t take positions on legislation that he hasn’t read yet, and the fast track bill has still not been submitted.  “If and when a new Trade Promotion Authority bill is introduced, I will review it and see whether the labor and environmental negotiating objectives are worthy of my support and what level of input congress is afforded in considering trade agreements.”

  “Regarding TPP, I have begun to review the text, and I have emphasized to the Administration the need to raise labor, environmental and IP standards in other countries,” Himes said. “I will review the final text and see whether the deal will benefit American workers by expanding access to key markets and eliminating barriers, supporting job creation, our values and our standard of living.”

   Critics have charged that TPP will cause job losses, similar to a previous trade treaty, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Officials of the AFL-CIO, the federation of labor unions, contend that the elimination of trade barriers for imports, specifically tariffs, caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S., when manufacturing plants decided to relocate to Mexico, where labor rates are much lower.

  But the administration argues that TPP will boost U.S. exports and lower tariffs for American goods in the fast growing Asia-Pacific region, where the U.S. is facing strong competition from China.

  “Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers,” President Obama said at a meeting of the Business Roundtable in December, according to a story in The Washington Post.

  Obama said people shouldn’t view the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the same way as NAFTA. The president said the TPP aims to boost workers’ rights and environmental standards in some Asian nations, the Post story said.

  “Don’t fight the last war,” Obama said.

   

Drifting Towards War?

                                            

 

 By Reginald Johnson

 

        As violence spreads in Ukraine, the danger grows of an eventual confrontation between the U.S. and Russia.

     Forces loyal to the pro-western regime that came to power in Kiev in a February coup have been waging a brutal military campaign against pro-Russian separatists in the east, who do not recognize the new authorities.

  Dozens of fighters on both sides, as well as civilians, have been killed. There have been some horrific incidents with pro-government neo-Nazi fighters setting fire to buildings where separatists have fled, and burning people alive. Rebel fighters also been accused of accused of atrocities.

    The separatists, many of whom are ethnic Russians, have taken over whole cities in eastern Ukraine and say they won’t take part in a national election set for this Sunday.

   There’s concern on the part of some observers that the on-going fighting could turn into a full-fledged civil war, prompting Russia --- which borders Ukraine --- to intervene. At some point NATO and the U.S. could get involved, too.

   Given that NATO countries like the U.S. are nuclear-armed, and Russia is nuclear-armed, this is a frightening scenario.

   Unfortunately, it’s not a possibility that is totally remote, says the widely respected expert on Russia, Prof. Stephen Cohen.

          “It is not inconceivable that we may be creeping, crawling, drifting towards war with Russia,” Cohen said on the Counterpoint radio show on WPKN hosted by Scott Harris.

    Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at New York University and Princeton said that in the chaos in Ukraine, “anything can happen….I think it’s the worst crisis since the Cuban missile crisis.”

          The Cuban Missile Crisis, for those not alive at the time or who don’t know, saw the U.S. and Russia (then the Soviet Union) almost start a nuclear war over American demands that Russian missiles be removed from Cuba. Fortumately, catastrophe was averted when Premier Nikita Krushchev of
Russia and President John F. Kennedy worked out a deal, whereby Russian missiles would be taken out of Cuba in return for American missiles being removed from Italy and Turkey, together with a pledge that the U.S. would not invade Cuba.

          Cohen said that to defuse the present crisis, there is an urgent need for dialogue between the Kiev regime and the east Ukrainian separatists. He said the group in east Ukraine is demanding a greater level of autonomy, possibly a form of independence in a federalized system. “This is negotiable,” said Cohen.

    At the urging of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, “roundtable” talks involving officials from Kiev, and political and business leaders in east Ukraine got started last week, but little was accomplished. More talks are planned. Separatist leaders did not attend, partly because they distrust the authorities in Kiev, and partly because the Kiev leaders said they would not talk with people “with blood on their hands,” which would exclude a number of separatists.

          It should be noted that these meetings were not suggested by the United States. The Obama administration said they didn’t object to the talks, but there was no public endorsement for the negotiations by either President Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry.

          In general, Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin has offered a number of steps to try to ease the crisis, while the United States has done nothing. Putin announced he was pulling his troops back from the Ukrainian border, although the west says he is lying; he asked the separatists not to hold independence referendums recently; and he’s now given support for the national election and will respect the results; and he advocated for a dialogue between the Kiev government and the eastern protesters.

     The only contributions coming from the U.S. have been a string of belligerent statements by Obama and Kerry, blaming Russia for arming and encouraging the rebel groups, and saying Russia would be hit with more economic sanctions for its alleged bad behavior.

 There’s been little apparent effort by the administration to make sure that verified neo-Nazis are not being used in the civil strife.  The fascist thugs, who spearheaded the fighting in the February coup, have now been incorporated into the National Guard, and have been reportedly carrying out atrocities in east Ukraine.

          It would be nice if President Obama would change course, tone down the rhetoric and start taking the steps to bring about a constructive dialogue between the factions in Ukraine, and settle the crisis.

          But I don’t think that is likely to happen, because the Ukraine crisis serves the United States. This is part of a long-range plan, developed probably by hawks in the Pentagon and neo-cons in the White House --- and you have to conclude now that Obama is one of them --- to undermine Russia, and ultimately force regime change.

          The noted author and war critic John Pilger wrote recently in The Guardian (“In Ukraine, the U.S. is dragging us to war with Russia”) if the civil strife continues and there’s more attacks on ethnic Russians, Putin may be provoked into coming to their aid. Then, Pilger writes, Putin’s  “pre-ordained ‘pariah’ role will justify a NATO-run guerilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger/

  A war that Russia has to fight next door, similar to the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, would be tremendously draining. That cost, together with the sanctions, could seriously undermine Russia in the long term, and might force regime/leadership change. The annoying Mr. Putin, who has aided two enemies of the U.S., Syria and Iran, would be out of the way. This may be the neo-cons’ dream scenario.

  But this dream plan is fraught with unbelievable risks. If Russia is backed into a corner fighting the Ukrainian regime aided by NATO weaponry, they might consider striking back with nuclear weapons. Someone’s dream scenario becomes a nightmare.

   Obviously, this is all speculation. I don’t know if such a neo-con plan is afoot. But I do know neo-cons and hawks seem to be holding sway in the White House, and Russia is certainly deemed to be a problem nation, given their alliances. So some sort of geopolitical power scheming is going on.

  We have no business in Ukraine. This is in Russia’s backyard, and their actions to date are understandable, if not always legal. They feel threatened by the eastward advance of NATO, and with Ukraine becoming a western ally (and possibly a NATO member later), Russia feels encircled.

  American policy to date in Ukraine is irrational and risks, possibly, a world war.

  People need to get involved in opposing this policy. They need to call and write their congress people and push them to take a stand against this. Congress so far has been asleep at the switch on Ukraine, with too many members unthinkingly going along with the administration. There should be hearings and a debate on Ukraine.

  As Prof. Cohen said, “I don’t remember in my lifetime there ever being a situation in America where war was on the horizon and there was no debate inside the beltway, the mainstream press, or in Congress.

          No debate at all! That’s not democracy. That’s a failure of democracy. Whether I’m right or wrong, everybody should agree we should have a debate about this.” 

    Get involved.

 

    

 

 

         

     

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  

 

  

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

.