Democrats silent on U.S. coup in Venezuela

                    

By Reginald Johnson

  Members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation --- all Democrats --- are remaining mostly silent as the Trump administration tries to oust Nicolas Maduro as president of Venezuela, threatening to use force if necessary.

  Claiming that Maduro is running an authoritarian regime which has mismanaged the Venezuelan economy, President Donald Trump and other officials are demanding that Maduro be replaced, and they have hinted at the possibility of a military intervention. Crippling economic sanctions have also been levied against Venezuela.

  On January 23, Trump said in response to a question about possible military action by the U.S., that “all options are on the table.” He reiterated the comment that  “all options” were being considered, at a press conference with Colombian President Ivan Duque Marquez last week.

   In threatening to use military force to overthrow a sovereign government, Trump is violating the UN charter, to which the United States is a signatory.

     Article 2, paragraph four of the UN charter unequivocally states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

  Yet all members of the Connecticut congressional delegation, with one exception, have said nothing about Trump’s strong-arm policy.

   A check of congressional websites shows none of the five members of the House of Representatives from Connecticut have taken a stand on Trump’s Venezuela policy.

   Phone calls were also made last week to the offices two congressmembers,  Rep. Jim Himes, D-4, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, seeking comment on Venezuela.  A staff person for Himes said the congressman had not taken a stand yet on the issue, but someone would call back if he chose to comment now. So far, there’s been no reply.

   A staff person at DeLauro’s office said she didn’t know if the congresswoman had a position on the administration’s Venezuela policy. “All her positions are on the website,” she said.

   A spokesman at the office of U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn, said “I don’t think he’s made a comment on that yet,” when questioned about Venezuela. But he promised that if the senator did take a stand, the office would inform me.

   U.S. Sen. Chris  Murphy, D-Conn  is the only one to comment on the Trump policy.  He wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Jan. 29 saying that while he agreed with the objective of replacing Maduro --- due to his “lack of democratic legitimacy” and economic mismanagement --- he cautioned against a military solution. He said “the administration must recognize the troubled history of US intervention in Latin America” and added that “public bluster about military options and private leaks about coup planning only serve to undercut the legitimacy of the democracy that we should support.”  

       Murphy said that “the United States should be working with international partners to support negotiations with all of Venezuela’s factions in pursuit of a transitional government that can hold new elections.”

    

President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela  (Getty Images)

    Henry Lowendorf, chairman of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, which is strongly opposed to the U.S. Venezuela policy, said “there seems to be a conspiracy of silence --- not just in the Connecticut delegation, but in general, among Democrats.”

     Lowendorf added, “Republicans are cheering Trump on.  Democrats for the most part, with a few exceptions, have been silent. Maybe a half dozen Democrats, including Tulsi Gabbard,  Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders have said we shouldn’t overthrow the government. That’s none of our business.”

   “I don’t want to let the Republicans off the hook,” Lowendorf said.  “Historically, over the last half-century or so, Republicans have been the war party. But Democrats now are the war party. The Republicans continue to push for war and more military but the Democrats are pushing it even more.”

  Lowendorf said over the last two years, whenever Trump has done something that is not militaristic, such as moving to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, or make a peace deal with North Korea, the Democrats have criticized him. Also he noted, very few Democrats have criticized the “U.S. role in the devastation of Yemen.”

   Despite the stand of the Democrats, peace activists in Connecticut and elsewhere are beginning to mobilize to protest U.S. policy on Venezuela and prevent what could be a catastrophic American military intervention.

   Next Saturday, February 23,  rallies are being held around the country and around the world to protest U.S. policy towards Venezuela.  Locally, the Greater New Haven Peace Council is sponsoring a rally in New Haven, on the New Haven Green at Elm and Church Streets from 12 noon to 1 PM.  There will also be a march to Congresswoman DeLauro’s office at 59 Elm Street.

  Another rally sponsored by the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition is taking place in Hartford outside the Federal Building on Main Street from 12 noon to 1 PM. In New York City, there will be another rally entitled “March on Wall Street to Defend Venezuela,” beginning at 1 PM at 40 Wall Street in Manhattan.
  "We must stop another war. We must end the sanctions. No to the coup," said Lowendorf.

       

   

 

  

   

 

   

Defending Julian Assange

By Reginald Johnson        

   

   An international campaign is underway to defend the rights of the great whistleblower Julian Assange and stop authorities in the UK and the United States from putting him in prison.

    Assange, the founder and editor of WikiLeaks --- which over the past 15 years has published secret files exposing US war crimes in the Middle East, US political corruption, frightening new cyber warfare systems used by US intelligence and the inner workings of the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison ---- has been holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for six years after being granted political asylum by Ecuador.

   Though isolated and cut off from the outside world,  Assange was protected from arrest by UK and US authorities who want him for various alleged crimes, most importantly the illegal release of classified information.  But Assange’s safety is now in doubt. The left-leaning government in Ecuador of Rafael Correa , which granted Assange asylum, has been replaced by a more conservative government led by Lenin Moreno,  which seeks closer relations with the United States. Officials of Moreno’s administration have indicated that Assange may be forced to leave the embassy in London.

    If Assange has to leave the embassy, he will be immediately picked up by UK officials who said that they will turn him over to the United States.  Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions said he considers arresting Assange “a priority,”  and his office has reportedly drawn up espionage charges.

   If he is tried and convicted, Assange could face life in prison or even the death penalty.

 

Julian Assange speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2014

 (AP Photo)

   
     Activists from around the world are holding rallies and protests to spotlight the danger that the WikiLeaks publisher now faces and are demanding that UK and US officials drop any plans for prosecuting Assange.  Demonstrations have taken place in Britain, Australia and Washington, D.C.  Smaller protests also took place in New York and L.A.

   Supporters of Assange, who is Australian, say that if governments in Britain and the US can put the WikiLeaks founder behind bars it will be a severe blow to freedom of speech --- undermining the right to publish information critical of those in power.

    At a rally last weekend in Sydney, Australia, organizer Linda Tenenbaum said the event was set up to start building “a defense campaign in Australia, New Zealand and internationally that will bring together all those committed to democratic rights --- the right of journalists to inform the population, their right to freedom of speech, and the right of everyone to be informed of the truth.”

   Tenenbaum, a leader of the Socialist Equality Party, added, “These are issues of the most fundamental character, the suppression of truth, of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and they go hand-in-hand with the destruction of democratic rights.”

   Advocates for Assange are demanding that the government of Australia step in and exercise its diplomatic power to protect the whistleblower from threats made by the British and American governments. They are asking that the WikiLeaks leader be allowed to return to Australia and that the Australian government reject any demands from the US for his extradition.

   The famed journalist John Pilger also addressed the Sydney rally, which was attended by several hundred people, according to a story in the World Socialist Website.

    “No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account,”  said Pilger.  “It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of ‘unworthy’ lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza.”

   Pilger said that the American government hatched a secret plan in 2008 to “destroy”  both WikiLeaks and Assange.  Pilger said a top-secret document from the Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments branch of the US Defense Department “described in detail how important it was to destroy the ‘feeling of trust’ that is WikiLeaks’ ‘center of gravity.’”

  “This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of exposure and criminal prosecution and an unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalize WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they plan the war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech,” Pilger said.

  He continued,  “Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media --- those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth. The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists --- after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France.”

   Pilger had previously criticized the left in both Britain and the United States by not standing in support of the Assange.  In a statement delivered by Dennis Bernstein to the Left Forum in New York in early June at a panel entitled “Russia-gate and WikiLeaks,” Pilger decried the silence of many on the left.

    “There is a silence among many who call themselves left.  The silence is Julian Assange.  As every false accusation has fallen away, every bogus smear shown to be the work of political enemies, Julian stands vindicated as one who has exposed a system that threatens humanity,” said Pilger, who was born in Australia and lives in Britain.

    After noting the many dramatic revelations that WikiLeaks has made, including the famous “Collateral Damage” video, which showed a US helicopter gunship gunning down 12 to 18 civilians in a Baghdad square in 2007, Pilger said, “The fakery of Russia-gate, the collusion of a corrupt media and the shame of the legal system that pursues truth-tellers have not been able to hold back the raw truth of WikiLeaks revelations. They have not won, not yet, and they have not destroyed the man, only the silence of good people will allow them to win. Julian Assange has never been more isolated. He needs your support and your voice. Now more than ever is the time to demand justice and free speech for Julian.”

   In addition to many in the government who have criticized Assange for endangering US military personnel by releasing classified military documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, some on the left have taken issue with Assange in the last two years due to WikiLeaks’ perceived role in influencing the 2016 election and helping Donald Trump win.  WikiLeaks was able to secure and then publish emails from the Democratic National Committee in 2016 which showed how the DNC was favoring Hillary Clinton and trying to undermine the insurgent candidacy of Bernie Sanders. 

   Trump was able to use the WikiLeaks revelations to successfully attack Clinton when he campaigned for the presidency against the former Secretary of State.  US intelligence officials and others have maintained, without solid proof, that the DNC emails were hacked by Russian operatives and then given to WikiLeaks, since Russia stood to gain by a Trump victory.  Assange has insisted that a “state actor” was not responsible for providing the emails. He said that another party, not named, provided the material.

    It is believed by many that the email material was actually made available by a disgruntled DNC staffer who backed Sanders and wanted to expose how the nomination process was stacked in favor of Clinton.

    In recent months, Assange has picked up support from a diverse group of writers, lawyers, former intelligence officials and people in arts and entertainment. Among those backing him are Chris Hedges, the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and author, John Kiriakou, a former CIA official who went to prison for exposing illegal torture practices, former FBI agent Colleen Rowley, Ken Loach, a film director, singer Lady Gaga and actress Pamela Anderson.

   

     

  

   

  

  

  

 

Freedom of Speech and Donald Trump

                 

                      

By Reginald Johnson

   Does Donald Trump have freedom of speech like all other Americans?

  Yes, unfortunately he does.

 Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our system, stemming from the very first amendment to the Constitution, which bars Congress from passing any law which would abridge that right.

  In the U.S., you can pretty much say or write anything, unless you’re advocating something illegal.

This separates our system from a lot of other places, where if you criticize the government or some high official too much, you could wind up in jail or worse.

  It’s very important to protect the first amendment. Without it, our constitutional system is shot.

  That’s why it’s a bit concerning that some protesters have gotten it into their heads that the best way to combat Trump and his offensive views is by showing up at his rallies and either shouting him down or interrupting him so many times that he can’t effectively communicate.

   The New York Times reported that at a recent event in New Orleans, Trump’s speech was interrupted repeatedly. The Times wrote “an almost continual stream of protesters interrupted a Trump event, sometimes dropping to the ground to make guards drag them out, or heckling back at Mr. Trump’s supporters with their own crude language and gestures.”

  Other campaign events by Trump have also been interrupted on multiple occasions.

  Some protesters said after the aborted Trump rally in Chicago that they had successfully “shut down” Trump’s appearance, set for an arena at the University of Illinois. The rally had drawn hundreds of protesters inside the arena, and the Trump campaign cancelled the event just after the candidate was scheduled to speak. The event descended into chaos after the announcement, with Trump supporters and protesters yelling at each other and exchanging punches.

  “Shutting down” free speech is not a good thing, no matter what you think of the person doing the speaking.

  Anyone running for office has a right to make their case. People who don’t like their views don’t have the right to prevent that.

  Let me say right here I do not like Donald Trump. He's shown himself to be bigoted, denigrating Mexican and Muslim immigrants and hesitating at one point to repudiate KKK leader David Duke. Except for a few remarks he’s made about the need to avoid overseas interventions and his opposition to trade treaties (not expressed very coherently), I have no use for this man.

   He’s also made irresponsible remarks about protesters, saying he wouldn’t care if they got punched out or remarking that “in the old days” they’d take demonstrators “out on a stretcher.”

  He also said he would pay the legal fees for anyone who beat up a protester who was “getting ready to throw a tomato.”

  These inflammatory remarks may well have fueled some incidents of violence, notably the sucker-punching of a demonstrator by a Trump supporter as the protester was being removed from a rally. Trump said last weekend that he didn’t want to see any violence at his events, but he refused to criticize the man who threw the punch.

  For his views and his incendiary remarks, Trump deserves to be condemned. The question is where and when.

 If a candidate from any party has obtained a hall or space to hold a campaign rally and make his or her pitch on why they should be elected, that person and his supporters should not be subjected to protests in the same area.

 However, it is entirely appropriate to hold demonstrations or protests outside the hall or space. Opponents of Trump should hold mass demonstrations outside the venues where Trump is going to speak. Protest rallies with hundreds or thousands of people will get press attention.  Critics can set up soft picket lines outside Trump events, carry placards, hand out leaflets and try to buttonhole event-goers and tell them why Trump is not a good candidate.

 Opponents can also take out ads in the paper, write letters, and write op-eds criticizing Trump.

  There’s plenty of ways to show opposition to candidates besides engaging in blocking tactics at campaign rallies.

  Should anti-Trump protesters continue their efforts at interrupting speeches, it is likely that opponents of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will decide to return the favor and show up at rallies for those candidates and disrupt their speeches. Campaign rallies could degenerate into circuses, which is not fair to either to the candidates trying to make their case or the people who came to hear what they have to say.