Thursday, May 17, 2012
Angry and Fighting Back
The people of Europe are sending a message loud and clear: they’ve had enough of austerity programs that have created widespread misery around the continent.
In elections last week in France, Greece and even Germany, people came out in large numbers and voted overwhelmingly against the political leaders who have been backing the austerity policies.
Nicholas Sarkozy, the conservative president of France, was dumped in favor of Socialist Francois Hollande, marking the first time a socialist had won in France in 30 years. In Greece, the PASOK and New Democratic parties, which had led Greece and backed the austerity programs, were spurned in favor of several fringe leftist parties that opposed austerity. In Germany, voters in the nation’s largest state came out in force to reject Chancellor Angela Merkel’s austerity policies.
Europeans are increasingly fed up with philosophy held by the continent’s pro-business political leaders like Sarkozy and Merkel, as well as top bankers, that in order to save the floundering economies in the European Union, ordinary people must accept sharp cutbacks in pay, pensions and government services.
The austerity policies have led to high rates of joblessness, homelessness and despair in Greece and Spain. Suicides are on the rise.
Amid all this, working people look around, and they don’t see any undue hardship imposed on well-heeled corporations or the rich. Banks and creditors which lent money to national governments, are being asked only to take modest “haircuts” on the money owed them.
Wealthy elites, with their millions, don’t have to worry about layoffs or cuts in government services. It doesn’t matter to them. And they don’t have to worry about kicking in more money to help shore up their national treasuries. Political leaders in their tow aren’t about to ask them to sacrifice.
So regular folk are revolting against this state of affairs, turning out their leaders and demonstrating on a nearly daily basis.
In Greece, which seems to be ground zero for the crisis in Europe, there’s near chaos. Since the May 6 elections, no one has been able to form a coalition government among the various parties that split the vote. The party that got the most votes, SYRIZA, has said they will not go along with any plan to continue austerity. New elections have been set for June.
Meanwhile, leaders of the European Central Bank are threatening that if the Greece doesn’t continue with the austerity plan, further loans to keep the country afloat will be halted.
There is a strong possibility that Greece will go into default, and be forced out of the Euro Zone.
That could in turn lead to other nations, like Spain and Portugal, going into bankruptcy.
World financial leaders predict dire consequences if this chain of events occurs.
But I’m not sure. Don’t we have to reexamine the value of a system that, in difficult times, imposes such mass suffering on people in order to somehow rebuild itself?
The rebellion against the banks and their political allies --- which is really a revolt against capitalism --- is also gathering steam in the United States. The Occupy Wall Street movement is alive and well and continues to grow, as recent May Day protests show.
More news comes out daily about the misconduct and disastrous management decisions made by major financial institutions like JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America.
Recently, it was revealed that JP Morgan had lost anywhere from $2 billion to $4 billion on speculative bets gone bad in its London office. There are rumblings that Bank of America is in serous trouble.
Are big banks going to come pleading to Uncle Sam for more bailouts in the near future? Are we going to hear the mantra “too big to fail” again?
After more bailouts, will Americans be asked, once again, to “tighten our belts?” because “the money just isn’t there” for social services?
More and more people here, as in Europe, are saying the game is up.
Enough!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Commentary
Ignoring the cities
By Reginald Johnson
February 19, 2012
Newspapers like the Connecticut Post and New Haven Register for years have been backing away from covering issues in the cities where they’re based, focusing instead on topics of interest to residents in wealthier suburban enclaves.
The trend has been driven in large part by a business mindset at papers, where newspaper owners have tried to please advertisers, who are trying to attract an “upscale audience” and who really don’t care too much about the less affluent folk residing in urban areas.
The result has been that publications like the Post (based in Bridgeport), the Register and even The Hartford Courant --- once a very strong daily --- have fewer and fewer stories of interest to the urban reader. And even those pieces dealing with a subject of interest that’s important to city residents are often written so that suburban voices are featured, not city people.
This journalistic disrespect for city residents was on display again last week when a major legal settlement between large banks and state and federal officials concerning fraudulent foreclosure practices was announced. The settlement will see $25 billion provided nationwide to many states, including Connecticut, to settle the claims that the banks had illegally handled thousands of foreclosures, through the practice of robo-signing documents.
Connecticut will get $190 million out of the pot, with the money earmarked for helping homeowners win loan modifications and get refinancing to avoid foreclosure.
There’s been some criticism that the agreement will not do that much good for homeowners and the government did too little to punish banks for their wrongful behavior.
Nonetheless the story is of keen interest to hundreds if not thousands of people in Connecticut’s cities, who are struggling to pay their mortgage and in some cases are actually going through foreclosure. In Bridgeport alone, there’s more than 500 people in the foreclosure process. In New Haven and Harftford, there’s hundreds more such cases.
But here’s how the state’s three biggest dailies treated the story. The Post ran stories over two days, prominently featured, with good information. Only one problem, they didn’t interview anyone in Bridgeport. The reporters talked with a nice gentleman from Stratford on his problems trying to negotiate a better loan deal with a bank. His story sounded legitimate. But that was it for homeowner quotes.
Ironically, the Post did quote the city’s senior manager of Office of Grants and Community Development, who said money from the settlement might help homeowners in Bridgeport, which she described as “one of the ‘crisis cities’ in the state with regard to foreclosure.”
So why didn’t the Post get a comment from a foreclosure victim in the ‘crisis city?’
The Hartford Courant ran a decent front-page piece on the settlement and it’s implications, but, like the Post, couldn’t bring itself to get comments from a city resident struggling with bank payments. It really wouldn’t have been hard. Just pick up the phone and call a neighborhood group or even a housing advocate and you could get plenty of names.
Instead the reporter/paper chose to quote a man from Bloomfield, a suburb of Hartford, who’s been fighting with Bank of America to make the terms of his loan more favorable.
If the Post and Courant added voices from their cities to their coverage, they would have made the stories more meaningful for city residents. But these papers don’t seem to care what urban residents feel.
The New Haven Register blew off the bank settlement story altogether, not even bothering to run a wire piece. This is really a disgrace given the potential ramifications of the settlement on residents in New Haven.
It should be noted that two of three papers mentioned ---- the Register and Courant ---- have cut their staff in recent years, citing financial problems.
Despite the cuts, papers like the Register are still able to send people out to cover shootings, court cases or accidents. If you can do that, you can certainly do a local story about a major foreclosure prevention program that could impact hundreds of local residents.
It’s really a question of priorties. It seems that the three papers mentioned so far --- as well as, I’m afraid, many other papers around the country --- prefer to devote their resources to covering crime and disaster, suburban subjects, and superficial celebrity and sports stories, instead of the deeper social, economic and governmental issues affecting people living in cities.
By the way, I should mention I worked for a number of years at the Post and for a short time at the Register as well.
I can say that there are many fine people at both these papers, and left alone, they can do a good job both editing and reporting.
But the priorities set by owners and publishers in recent years --- the direction they’ve set for these publications --- is the real problem.
Ignoring the needs of the center cities is not only a disservice to the people who live there but antithetical to good journalism.
By Reginald Johnson
February 19, 2012
Newspapers like the Connecticut Post and New Haven Register for years have been backing away from covering issues in the cities where they’re based, focusing instead on topics of interest to residents in wealthier suburban enclaves.
The trend has been driven in large part by a business mindset at papers, where newspaper owners have tried to please advertisers, who are trying to attract an “upscale audience” and who really don’t care too much about the less affluent folk residing in urban areas.
The result has been that publications like the Post (based in Bridgeport), the Register and even The Hartford Courant --- once a very strong daily --- have fewer and fewer stories of interest to the urban reader. And even those pieces dealing with a subject of interest that’s important to city residents are often written so that suburban voices are featured, not city people.
This journalistic disrespect for city residents was on display again last week when a major legal settlement between large banks and state and federal officials concerning fraudulent foreclosure practices was announced. The settlement will see $25 billion provided nationwide to many states, including Connecticut, to settle the claims that the banks had illegally handled thousands of foreclosures, through the practice of robo-signing documents.
Connecticut will get $190 million out of the pot, with the money earmarked for helping homeowners win loan modifications and get refinancing to avoid foreclosure.
There’s been some criticism that the agreement will not do that much good for homeowners and the government did too little to punish banks for their wrongful behavior.
Nonetheless the story is of keen interest to hundreds if not thousands of people in Connecticut’s cities, who are struggling to pay their mortgage and in some cases are actually going through foreclosure. In Bridgeport alone, there’s more than 500 people in the foreclosure process. In New Haven and Harftford, there’s hundreds more such cases.
But here’s how the state’s three biggest dailies treated the story. The Post ran stories over two days, prominently featured, with good information. Only one problem, they didn’t interview anyone in Bridgeport. The reporters talked with a nice gentleman from Stratford on his problems trying to negotiate a better loan deal with a bank. His story sounded legitimate. But that was it for homeowner quotes.
Ironically, the Post did quote the city’s senior manager of Office of Grants and Community Development, who said money from the settlement might help homeowners in Bridgeport, which she described as “one of the ‘crisis cities’ in the state with regard to foreclosure.”
So why didn’t the Post get a comment from a foreclosure victim in the ‘crisis city?’
The Hartford Courant ran a decent front-page piece on the settlement and it’s implications, but, like the Post, couldn’t bring itself to get comments from a city resident struggling with bank payments. It really wouldn’t have been hard. Just pick up the phone and call a neighborhood group or even a housing advocate and you could get plenty of names.
Instead the reporter/paper chose to quote a man from Bloomfield, a suburb of Hartford, who’s been fighting with Bank of America to make the terms of his loan more favorable.
If the Post and Courant added voices from their cities to their coverage, they would have made the stories more meaningful for city residents. But these papers don’t seem to care what urban residents feel.
The New Haven Register blew off the bank settlement story altogether, not even bothering to run a wire piece. This is really a disgrace given the potential ramifications of the settlement on residents in New Haven.
It should be noted that two of three papers mentioned ---- the Register and Courant ---- have cut their staff in recent years, citing financial problems.
Despite the cuts, papers like the Register are still able to send people out to cover shootings, court cases or accidents. If you can do that, you can certainly do a local story about a major foreclosure prevention program that could impact hundreds of local residents.
It’s really a question of priorties. It seems that the three papers mentioned so far --- as well as, I’m afraid, many other papers around the country --- prefer to devote their resources to covering crime and disaster, suburban subjects, and superficial celebrity and sports stories, instead of the deeper social, economic and governmental issues affecting people living in cities.
By the way, I should mention I worked for a number of years at the Post and for a short time at the Register as well.
I can say that there are many fine people at both these papers, and left alone, they can do a good job both editing and reporting.
But the priorities set by owners and publishers in recent years --- the direction they’ve set for these publications --- is the real problem.
Ignoring the needs of the center cities is not only a disservice to the people who live there but antithetical to good journalism.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Commentary
Obama's Assault on the Constitution
By Reginald Johnson
Jan. 8, 2012
Like a lot of writers, I often feel torn about how to approach sensitive issues. I’ll get worked up about a certain subject and I just want to ‘let it rip’ and write with passion about how I feel. But more often than not, I take a step back and say, ‘I better be discreet here, and write a little more cautiously. It might come out wrong.’
This time, I haven’t lapsed into a discreet mood yet. I’m going to write what I feel.
Barack Obama is a fraud and should be impeached.
On Dec. 31, 2011 --- as most people were distracted and celebrating the onset of the new year --- Obama signed into law one of the most disgraceful and damaging pieces of legislation to ever cross a president’s desk.
The bill was the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was the outline of the military spending plan for the coming year. What was shocking about this bill was not the size of the defense spending plan (everybody knows it’s excessive). It was the inclusion in the measure wording that will allow the military to scoop up American citizens, throw them in jail and hold them there indefinitely without charge or trial, just on the suspicion of terrorism.
Allegedly this provision was put in to help prosecute the supposed still-vital ‘War on Terror,’ and is aimed at getting after al-Qaeda sympathizers, who just might happen to be American citizens. The new statute will give the military the flexibility to get after foreign terrorists or their supporters at home as well as abroad.
I don’t believe this was the reason for the bill, but more about that in a minute.
This provision, developed in secret in the U.S. Senate with the backing of the White House, makes a mockery of the most fundamental provisions of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The arbitrary detention law violates the Fifth Amendment’s provision that people can’t be locked up without due process; the Sixth Amendment’s right of all people facing incarceration to know the charges they face and have a speedy and public trial; and the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that people be free from unreasonable seizure.
There’s serious question also as to whether the right of habeas corpus will apply to those citizens picked up and jailed. Habeas corpus, a fundamental right in American law that traces its origins back 800 years in England, allows a person detained to ask a judge or magistrate to review their case and determine if there are legal grounds for their detention.
Habeas corpus is enshrined in Section 9, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it.”
It is incredible that a person who is both a lawyer and a former professor of constitutional law, would sign onto this bill, but Obama did. The President maintained that he was concerned about the law’s wording on detention, and added a signing statement.
“I want to clarify, my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens…My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war and all other applicable law.
This statement (which actually sounds rather contradictory) was done purely for public relations. Obama knows that signing statements don’t have the force of law ---- statutes do. The new law clearly says the military can now lock up American citizens indefinitely, and Obama signed on.
If he was truly concerned about the legality of this provision, he could have easily vetoed the bill, or sent it back to Congress saying that ‘I’m ready to approve a defense authorization bill, but not with language allowing the military to arbitrarily arrest people. Drop this wording.’
If he had done that, he would have gotten solid support from the American people.
The truth is, the White House wanted this bill and was dishonest in its public statements. After it came out publicly that the detention provision was being discussed in the Senate as part of the defense bill, many liberals and even a few conservatives protested.
Obama came out and said he too, was concerned, and might veto the bill. Subsequently, there was debate over wording and a possible softening of the language on detention of citizens was considered. But it was a charade. U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who worked on the bill with Arizona Republican John McCain, disclosed on the floor of the Senate that the White House specifically said that language exempting American citizens from possible indefinite detention should not be removed.
The new law gives official legitimacy to military arrests and detention of citizens, something which the Bush administration had previously carried out after 911 and was roundly criticized for.
The statute allowing the military to take action domestically in the U.S is a sharp departure from standing U.S. law. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, prohibits the use of the military domestically.
I don’t agree with some who’ve said that politics was the chief reason for the detention bill --- you know, the idea that Republicans and Democrats and the President are trying to look ‘tough on terror.’ This is more than ten years after 911, al-Qaeda is decimated and the Taliban is talking peace in Afghanistan. Where are the terrorists? Yes, there are some isolated acts of terrorism --- usually perpetrated by someone psychologically disturbed --- but this is really a law enforcement and intelligence issue. The idea that we have to give the military sweeping new powers to pick up U.S. citizens to stop terrorism is wholly unwarranted.
Unless, of course, you’re worried about something else --- problems at home. There is ferment at home --- economic ferment --- and I believe the elites are worried about this.
When you look at how fast the Occupy Wall Street movement swept the country as well as the Tea Party protests before that, it’s clear there’s a tremendous amount of discontent in our country. People see their standard of living slipping away, foreclosures are everywhere, layoffs abound and quality jobs are increasingly hard to find.
Meanwhile people look around, and they see a small group of the population living very well with huge incomes. Many of these people are at the top of big banks and investment firms that caused the economic problems that we are now in. And they see a morally corrupt Congress and Executive branch doing the bidding of the financial elites, providing massive taxpayer-funded bailouts, tax giveaways for the rich while at the same time slashing social benefit programs in the name of cutting the national debt.
So yes, there is anger in the land, and I believe people at the top in the business world, Congress, the White House and the Pentagon see this unrest as a threat. The detention law is aimed at scaring people and blunting a genuine populist movement.
Kevin Zeese, an attorney and activist with the Occupy Wall Street movement, said that the wording of the detention amendment may provide a legal basis for rounding up protesters. While the law says people, including American citizens linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban can be picked up, it also says targets could be “associated forces” or people “engaged in hostilities” “in aid of a …organization or person.”
“There is a lot of flexibility in those words and when they apply --- no need for probable cause, a trial, jury verdict or sentencing --- just on suspicion, you get indefinite military detention,” Zeese wrote in a piece for Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28188)
Already, Homeland Security had established that certain activists could be classed as terrorists. In 2004 Homeland Security had “defined several categories of potential ‘conspirators’ or ‘suspected terrorists’ including ‘foreign (Islamic) terrorists,’ ‘domestic radical groups,’ (anti-war and civil rights groups) and disgruntled employees’ (labor and union activists)….,” wrote Professor Michel Chossodovsky, also in a piece in Global Research about the detention law entitled, “The Inauguration of Police State USA, 2012,” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28441)
The signing of the detention bill is the latest assault on the Consitution and international law by the Obama administration. Previous to this, you had the administration fighting legal challenges to the government’s use of warrantless wiretapping, which began under Bush and clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.
The President has allowed for extra-judicial killings of Americans suspected of terrorism abroad, in violation of due process guarantees and the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Obama has authorized bombing attacks on sovereign countries that have not attacked the U.S., including Libya and Pakistan. These attacks constitute war crimes under international law.
When you look at the last three years, Obama’s record on the Constitution and international law has been --- astoundingly --- no better than George W. Bush’s record. A number of liberals and progressive groups, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, called for Bush’s impeachment citing, in part, his backing for illegal wiretapping and use of indefinite detentions.
Where’s the accounting for Obama?
Although there has been harsh criticism of the detention law by progressives in blogs and on radio shows, most liberal pundits in the mainstream media, both in print and on television, have been silent on this issue. They seem to be more interested in covering the Republican Party nomination circus than covering the loss of fundamental rights for all Americans --- rights established more than 200 years ago by the nation’s founders.
Military detentions of citizens without charge or trial is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies.
Are we sleepwalking our way to fascism? It seems so.
As David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild put it, “For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist --- the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that’s combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don’t think we’re there yet, but I do see that we’re going in that direction.” He added, “I think the (detention) act is a significant step in that direction.” (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/30-8)
By Reginald Johnson
Jan. 8, 2012
Like a lot of writers, I often feel torn about how to approach sensitive issues. I’ll get worked up about a certain subject and I just want to ‘let it rip’ and write with passion about how I feel. But more often than not, I take a step back and say, ‘I better be discreet here, and write a little more cautiously. It might come out wrong.’
This time, I haven’t lapsed into a discreet mood yet. I’m going to write what I feel.
Barack Obama is a fraud and should be impeached.
On Dec. 31, 2011 --- as most people were distracted and celebrating the onset of the new year --- Obama signed into law one of the most disgraceful and damaging pieces of legislation to ever cross a president’s desk.
The bill was the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was the outline of the military spending plan for the coming year. What was shocking about this bill was not the size of the defense spending plan (everybody knows it’s excessive). It was the inclusion in the measure wording that will allow the military to scoop up American citizens, throw them in jail and hold them there indefinitely without charge or trial, just on the suspicion of terrorism.
Allegedly this provision was put in to help prosecute the supposed still-vital ‘War on Terror,’ and is aimed at getting after al-Qaeda sympathizers, who just might happen to be American citizens. The new statute will give the military the flexibility to get after foreign terrorists or their supporters at home as well as abroad.
I don’t believe this was the reason for the bill, but more about that in a minute.
This provision, developed in secret in the U.S. Senate with the backing of the White House, makes a mockery of the most fundamental provisions of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The arbitrary detention law violates the Fifth Amendment’s provision that people can’t be locked up without due process; the Sixth Amendment’s right of all people facing incarceration to know the charges they face and have a speedy and public trial; and the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that people be free from unreasonable seizure.
There’s serious question also as to whether the right of habeas corpus will apply to those citizens picked up and jailed. Habeas corpus, a fundamental right in American law that traces its origins back 800 years in England, allows a person detained to ask a judge or magistrate to review their case and determine if there are legal grounds for their detention.
Habeas corpus is enshrined in Section 9, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it.”
It is incredible that a person who is both a lawyer and a former professor of constitutional law, would sign onto this bill, but Obama did. The President maintained that he was concerned about the law’s wording on detention, and added a signing statement.
“I want to clarify, my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens…My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war and all other applicable law.
This statement (which actually sounds rather contradictory) was done purely for public relations. Obama knows that signing statements don’t have the force of law ---- statutes do. The new law clearly says the military can now lock up American citizens indefinitely, and Obama signed on.
If he was truly concerned about the legality of this provision, he could have easily vetoed the bill, or sent it back to Congress saying that ‘I’m ready to approve a defense authorization bill, but not with language allowing the military to arbitrarily arrest people. Drop this wording.’
If he had done that, he would have gotten solid support from the American people.
The truth is, the White House wanted this bill and was dishonest in its public statements. After it came out publicly that the detention provision was being discussed in the Senate as part of the defense bill, many liberals and even a few conservatives protested.
Obama came out and said he too, was concerned, and might veto the bill. Subsequently, there was debate over wording and a possible softening of the language on detention of citizens was considered. But it was a charade. U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who worked on the bill with Arizona Republican John McCain, disclosed on the floor of the Senate that the White House specifically said that language exempting American citizens from possible indefinite detention should not be removed.
The new law gives official legitimacy to military arrests and detention of citizens, something which the Bush administration had previously carried out after 911 and was roundly criticized for.
The statute allowing the military to take action domestically in the U.S is a sharp departure from standing U.S. law. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, prohibits the use of the military domestically.
I don’t agree with some who’ve said that politics was the chief reason for the detention bill --- you know, the idea that Republicans and Democrats and the President are trying to look ‘tough on terror.’ This is more than ten years after 911, al-Qaeda is decimated and the Taliban is talking peace in Afghanistan. Where are the terrorists? Yes, there are some isolated acts of terrorism --- usually perpetrated by someone psychologically disturbed --- but this is really a law enforcement and intelligence issue. The idea that we have to give the military sweeping new powers to pick up U.S. citizens to stop terrorism is wholly unwarranted.
Unless, of course, you’re worried about something else --- problems at home. There is ferment at home --- economic ferment --- and I believe the elites are worried about this.
When you look at how fast the Occupy Wall Street movement swept the country as well as the Tea Party protests before that, it’s clear there’s a tremendous amount of discontent in our country. People see their standard of living slipping away, foreclosures are everywhere, layoffs abound and quality jobs are increasingly hard to find.
Meanwhile people look around, and they see a small group of the population living very well with huge incomes. Many of these people are at the top of big banks and investment firms that caused the economic problems that we are now in. And they see a morally corrupt Congress and Executive branch doing the bidding of the financial elites, providing massive taxpayer-funded bailouts, tax giveaways for the rich while at the same time slashing social benefit programs in the name of cutting the national debt.
So yes, there is anger in the land, and I believe people at the top in the business world, Congress, the White House and the Pentagon see this unrest as a threat. The detention law is aimed at scaring people and blunting a genuine populist movement.
Kevin Zeese, an attorney and activist with the Occupy Wall Street movement, said that the wording of the detention amendment may provide a legal basis for rounding up protesters. While the law says people, including American citizens linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban can be picked up, it also says targets could be “associated forces” or people “engaged in hostilities” “in aid of a …organization or person.”
“There is a lot of flexibility in those words and when they apply --- no need for probable cause, a trial, jury verdict or sentencing --- just on suspicion, you get indefinite military detention,” Zeese wrote in a piece for Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28188)
Already, Homeland Security had established that certain activists could be classed as terrorists. In 2004 Homeland Security had “defined several categories of potential ‘conspirators’ or ‘suspected terrorists’ including ‘foreign (Islamic) terrorists,’ ‘domestic radical groups,’ (anti-war and civil rights groups) and disgruntled employees’ (labor and union activists)….,” wrote Professor Michel Chossodovsky, also in a piece in Global Research about the detention law entitled, “The Inauguration of Police State USA, 2012,” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28441)
The signing of the detention bill is the latest assault on the Consitution and international law by the Obama administration. Previous to this, you had the administration fighting legal challenges to the government’s use of warrantless wiretapping, which began under Bush and clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.
The President has allowed for extra-judicial killings of Americans suspected of terrorism abroad, in violation of due process guarantees and the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Obama has authorized bombing attacks on sovereign countries that have not attacked the U.S., including Libya and Pakistan. These attacks constitute war crimes under international law.
When you look at the last three years, Obama’s record on the Constitution and international law has been --- astoundingly --- no better than George W. Bush’s record. A number of liberals and progressive groups, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, called for Bush’s impeachment citing, in part, his backing for illegal wiretapping and use of indefinite detentions.
Where’s the accounting for Obama?
Although there has been harsh criticism of the detention law by progressives in blogs and on radio shows, most liberal pundits in the mainstream media, both in print and on television, have been silent on this issue. They seem to be more interested in covering the Republican Party nomination circus than covering the loss of fundamental rights for all Americans --- rights established more than 200 years ago by the nation’s founders.
Military detentions of citizens without charge or trial is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies.
Are we sleepwalking our way to fascism? It seems so.
As David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild put it, “For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist --- the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that’s combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don’t think we’re there yet, but I do see that we’re going in that direction.” He added, “I think the (detention) act is a significant step in that direction.” (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/30-8)
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Commentary
Extending thanks
By Reginald Johnson
I got a note in my email box this week from the fine group “Strengthen Social Security” enititled ‘Something to be thankful for.’
In it they extend their thanks to the many people who worked hard to send letters, made phone calls, held rallies and signed petitions when the call went out to tell Congress not to make cuts to the bedrock safety net programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Everytime Congress threatened these programs, the letter said, “you were there, pushing back. And you were successful.”
While noting that the battle to save the “Big Three” programs isn’t over, there was a major victory this week, with the announcement by the so-called congressional super committee it couldn’t reach agreement on the drive to cut the U.S. debt. The committee at one point had been considering major cuts in the social programs.
“Many people will call this a failure,” the letter said. “But make no mistake, this is a victory for the 99 percent and democracy, and it’s due to your hard work.”
I’d like to second their thoughts. But I also want to say another group should be thanked for thwarting the drive to undermine public assistance programs: all those who are participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Thousands of people, many young, are encamping around the country and rallying everyday to demand accountability from the banks and the financial elite while insisting on a fairer shake for working people. They deserve so much credit. Their persistence has forced a change in the national discussion, from talking about the so-called problems of the budget deficit and the need to cut programs, to talking about income inequality and the needs of “the 99 percent.”
What Occupy Wall Street has already accomplished is amazing --- in just two months. Despite the vicious actions of city leaders like New York’s billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg to break up the movement by destroying encampments, I think this drive for national economic justice is only going to get stronger. It has the makings of the strongest social change movement in generations.
On this Thanksgiving Day, I tip my hat to all the participants in Occupy Wall Street. Thank you.
By Reginald Johnson
I got a note in my email box this week from the fine group “Strengthen Social Security” enititled ‘Something to be thankful for.’
In it they extend their thanks to the many people who worked hard to send letters, made phone calls, held rallies and signed petitions when the call went out to tell Congress not to make cuts to the bedrock safety net programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Everytime Congress threatened these programs, the letter said, “you were there, pushing back. And you were successful.”
While noting that the battle to save the “Big Three” programs isn’t over, there was a major victory this week, with the announcement by the so-called congressional super committee it couldn’t reach agreement on the drive to cut the U.S. debt. The committee at one point had been considering major cuts in the social programs.
“Many people will call this a failure,” the letter said. “But make no mistake, this is a victory for the 99 percent and democracy, and it’s due to your hard work.”
I’d like to second their thoughts. But I also want to say another group should be thanked for thwarting the drive to undermine public assistance programs: all those who are participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Thousands of people, many young, are encamping around the country and rallying everyday to demand accountability from the banks and the financial elite while insisting on a fairer shake for working people. They deserve so much credit. Their persistence has forced a change in the national discussion, from talking about the so-called problems of the budget deficit and the need to cut programs, to talking about income inequality and the needs of “the 99 percent.”
What Occupy Wall Street has already accomplished is amazing --- in just two months. Despite the vicious actions of city leaders like New York’s billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg to break up the movement by destroying encampments, I think this drive for national economic justice is only going to get stronger. It has the makings of the strongest social change movement in generations.
On this Thanksgiving Day, I tip my hat to all the participants in Occupy Wall Street. Thank you.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Report
Going after the banks
To Tiffany Mellers, big banks are doing the American people an injustice.
They’re charging high credit card rates, making it difficult to get mortgages and hitting people with excessive fees. They’re also not investing in the local communities like Bridgeport, said Mellers, herself a city resident. At the same time, the large banks are pulling in record profits and rewarding their top officers with hefty bonuses. In many cases, they’re also paying little or no taxes, Mellers said..
Like thousands of others around the country, Mellers has decided that the people have to fight back. One way they’re doing that is by encouraging people to move their money from banks like Bank of America, Chase and Wells Fargo into small banks and credit unions.
On Saturday, Mellers took part in “Bank Transfer Day” --- a nationwide action where people were urged to withdraw their money from large banks and shift the funds to smaller institutions.
Mellers joined several other protestors in Bridgeport, standing outside the Bank of America branch on Middle Street and then on Main Street and Capital Avenue, to urge people to drop business with the bank.
“This is about holding banks like this accountable,” said Mellers, as she handed out flyers near the branch on Main Street.
By investing money in credit unions and community banks, she said, people will better insure their money will be invested locally.
“These banks aren’t recycling the money locally,” Mellers, pointing back at the Bank of America sign.
The nationwide protest, also called “Move Your Money Day,” was organized by Moveon.org and a number of other progressive organizations. Since September, there’s been increasing calls for consumers to move their money out of mega banks. Part of the drive has emanated from the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is aimed at making corporations, including large banks, pay their fair share in taxes and act more responsibly in terms of credit card rates, foreclosure procedures and fees.
Just since Sept. 29, credit unions have pulled in some 650,000 new customers, according to an industry trade group. That influx took place after Bank of America announced they were hitting customers with a new $5-a-month debit card fee. (The bank has rescinded its decision, and other banks dropped similar plans).
Credit unions are not-for-profit cooperatives owned by their members. They generally charge less fees than banks and offer credit cards with lower rates of interest.
Mellers is an organizer with Moveon.org and a member of the “American Dream Movement.”
In the Saturday protest, Mellers was dressed up in a colorful red, white and blue costume. Calling herself the “American Dream Girl,” she held up a sign saying “Save the American Dream.”
When she wasn’t chatting with people who stopped at the stop light, she sometimes broke out in song. One ditty went:
“The banks have tanked, We bailed them out, It’s time to take your money out. Move your money!”
To Tiffany Mellers, big banks are doing the American people an injustice.
They’re charging high credit card rates, making it difficult to get mortgages and hitting people with excessive fees. They’re also not investing in the local communities like Bridgeport, said Mellers, herself a city resident. At the same time, the large banks are pulling in record profits and rewarding their top officers with hefty bonuses. In many cases, they’re also paying little or no taxes, Mellers said..
Like thousands of others around the country, Mellers has decided that the people have to fight back. One way they’re doing that is by encouraging people to move their money from banks like Bank of America, Chase and Wells Fargo into small banks and credit unions.
On Saturday, Mellers took part in “Bank Transfer Day” --- a nationwide action where people were urged to withdraw their money from large banks and shift the funds to smaller institutions.
Mellers joined several other protestors in Bridgeport, standing outside the Bank of America branch on Middle Street and then on Main Street and Capital Avenue, to urge people to drop business with the bank.
“This is about holding banks like this accountable,” said Mellers, as she handed out flyers near the branch on Main Street.
By investing money in credit unions and community banks, she said, people will better insure their money will be invested locally.
“These banks aren’t recycling the money locally,” Mellers, pointing back at the Bank of America sign.
The nationwide protest, also called “Move Your Money Day,” was organized by Moveon.org and a number of other progressive organizations. Since September, there’s been increasing calls for consumers to move their money out of mega banks. Part of the drive has emanated from the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is aimed at making corporations, including large banks, pay their fair share in taxes and act more responsibly in terms of credit card rates, foreclosure procedures and fees.
Just since Sept. 29, credit unions have pulled in some 650,000 new customers, according to an industry trade group. That influx took place after Bank of America announced they were hitting customers with a new $5-a-month debit card fee. (The bank has rescinded its decision, and other banks dropped similar plans).
Credit unions are not-for-profit cooperatives owned by their members. They generally charge less fees than banks and offer credit cards with lower rates of interest.
Mellers is an organizer with Moveon.org and a member of the “American Dream Movement.”
In the Saturday protest, Mellers was dressed up in a colorful red, white and blue costume. Calling herself the “American Dream Girl,” she held up a sign saying “Save the American Dream.”
When she wasn’t chatting with people who stopped at the stop light, she sometimes broke out in song. One ditty went:
“The banks have tanked, We bailed them out, It’s time to take your money out. Move your money!”
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Commentary
Heading for general strikes?
When I hear the words “general strike,” it’s music to my ears.
This is an event where everyone in a city or country decide they’ve had enough of being exploited and they want a fairer shake from their government, their employer or prevailing economic system. Often general strikes have been made in support of a group of workers who are being abused by a company.
The general strike sees workers, students and regular citizens stop their normal routines. They don't go to work, don't patronize businesses, don't to school. The system comes to a halt for that day, or days.
A general strike can send a powerful message to the powers that be that the people are really serious, and they’re willing to make major sacrifices to bring about greater political fairness and wider economic rights.
Huge general strikes took place in Egypt earlier this year, which led to the ouster of long-time dictator Hosni Mubarak. General strikes have also rocked Spain and Greece, where millions of people chafe under the brutal austerity demands of governments and corporate elites.
The U.S. --- where some historic general strikes took place back in the turbulent 1930s --- has not seen much in recent years.
But things are changing now, as the Occupy Wall Street movement sweeps the country.
On Wednesday, Occupy Oakland plans a general strike aimed at shutting down the Bay Area city.
Members of the Oakland movement are furious over their treatment by city authorities. Police evicted them from their encampment at a plaza near City Hall last week and 85 people were arrested. Then when the group tried to retake the plaza, police beat them back using stun grenades and tear gas. During the melee, a 24-year-old Iraq War veteran, Scott Olsen, was hit in the head by a tear gas canister, leaving him seriously injured.
News of the injury created a wave of anger among the protesters and Olsen has become a rallying cry for the Occupy Wall Street movement nationwide.
The movement, which began with an occupation near Wall Street in New York City in September, is aimed at fighting economic inequality and corporate greed. Occupiers say there's something wrong with a system that allows the top 1 percent of income earners to enjoy so much wealth and power while everyone else --- the 99 percent --- struggle with unemployment, declining incomes and escalating costs.
"Occupy" protests have sprung up at 200 locations around the country.
Of the general strike, organizer Cat Brooks said, “We mean nobody goes to work, nobody goes to school, we shut the city down.”
He added, “The only thing they seem to care about is money and they don’t understand that it’s our money they need. We don’t don’t need them, they need us.”
It’s not clear how successful the Oakland strike will be, which was hastily organized.
Protests will be held Wednesday at banks and corporations that refuse to shut down. Protesters will then march to the Port of Oakland to try to shut down the night shift.
It’s interesting to note that one of the most famous general strikes in U.S. history took place in 1934 in San Francisco, when thousands of both union and non-union workers walked off their jobs to show support for striking longshoremen and protest violence by police.
Even if the Oakland action is not totally successful, I think a spark has been lit, and there’s likely to be more general strikes in other areas and possibly a nationwide general strike down the road.
Let’s hope so.
When I hear the words “general strike,” it’s music to my ears.
This is an event where everyone in a city or country decide they’ve had enough of being exploited and they want a fairer shake from their government, their employer or prevailing economic system. Often general strikes have been made in support of a group of workers who are being abused by a company.
The general strike sees workers, students and regular citizens stop their normal routines. They don't go to work, don't patronize businesses, don't to school. The system comes to a halt for that day, or days.
A general strike can send a powerful message to the powers that be that the people are really serious, and they’re willing to make major sacrifices to bring about greater political fairness and wider economic rights.
Huge general strikes took place in Egypt earlier this year, which led to the ouster of long-time dictator Hosni Mubarak. General strikes have also rocked Spain and Greece, where millions of people chafe under the brutal austerity demands of governments and corporate elites.
The U.S. --- where some historic general strikes took place back in the turbulent 1930s --- has not seen much in recent years.
But things are changing now, as the Occupy Wall Street movement sweeps the country.
On Wednesday, Occupy Oakland plans a general strike aimed at shutting down the Bay Area city.
Members of the Oakland movement are furious over their treatment by city authorities. Police evicted them from their encampment at a plaza near City Hall last week and 85 people were arrested. Then when the group tried to retake the plaza, police beat them back using stun grenades and tear gas. During the melee, a 24-year-old Iraq War veteran, Scott Olsen, was hit in the head by a tear gas canister, leaving him seriously injured.
News of the injury created a wave of anger among the protesters and Olsen has become a rallying cry for the Occupy Wall Street movement nationwide.
The movement, which began with an occupation near Wall Street in New York City in September, is aimed at fighting economic inequality and corporate greed. Occupiers say there's something wrong with a system that allows the top 1 percent of income earners to enjoy so much wealth and power while everyone else --- the 99 percent --- struggle with unemployment, declining incomes and escalating costs.
"Occupy" protests have sprung up at 200 locations around the country.
Of the general strike, organizer Cat Brooks said, “We mean nobody goes to work, nobody goes to school, we shut the city down.”
He added, “The only thing they seem to care about is money and they don’t understand that it’s our money they need. We don’t don’t need them, they need us.”
It’s not clear how successful the Oakland strike will be, which was hastily organized.
Protests will be held Wednesday at banks and corporations that refuse to shut down. Protesters will then march to the Port of Oakland to try to shut down the night shift.
It’s interesting to note that one of the most famous general strikes in U.S. history took place in 1934 in San Francisco, when thousands of both union and non-union workers walked off their jobs to show support for striking longshoremen and protest violence by police.
Even if the Oakland action is not totally successful, I think a spark has been lit, and there’s likely to be more general strikes in other areas and possibly a nationwide general strike down the road.
Let’s hope so.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Commentary
The Executioners
By Reginald Johnson
October 26, 2011
A lot of people are cheering the fact that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been killed. Good riddance to a brutal despot, they say, the world is better without him.
I’m not cheering. It’s not that I think Gadhafi was some kind of nice guy. He clearly was not. He was a brutal tyrant. It’s just that I am getting sick and tired of how the United States thinks that it has the right to essentially rub out any person it deems to be acting against its interest, and to do so irrespective of U.S. law and international law.
As Noam Chomsky would say, we act like a Mafia don on the world stage --- using force and violence to get our way. Look at the godfather cross-eyed, and you’re history.
The so-called Libyan rebels reportedly killed Gadhafi, after a protracted battle for the dictator ‘s hometown of Sirte. But the reality is, the Americans and their fellow partners in crime, France, Britain and Italy, killed Gadhafi.
While there was a genuine uprising in Libya’s east in February against the dictatorship, and Western countries entered the conflict supposedly on humanitarian grounds --- to protect rebel areas and civilians from a massacre by Gadhafi forces --- the intervention soon became an all-out assault on the entire country. The action against Libya --- in the form of NATO planes attacking pro-Gadhafi areas constituted an illegal invasion that went far beyond the terms of the UN resolution passed in March allowing for military action to protect civilians.
The U.S. and their allies wanted Gadhafi out. Getting rid of the eccentric and independent-minded Libyan leader was seen as a means to install a more pliant government, which would surely grant unconditional access to the Libya’s massive amounts of high quality oil and water. A more obedient government in Tripoli also means the U.S. can build military bases in the country giving America a springboard for further interventions in the rest of resource-rich Africa.
The U.S., Britain and France saw the Benghazi uprising as providing a pretext for making their move on Gadhafi. The intervention had nothing to do with helping the Libyans achieve democracy, or promote the Arab Spring --- a idea advanced by some people on the left who should know better.
After months of NATO bombing runs --- with many civilians killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed ---- the rag tag rebel army caught up with Gadhafi and shot him. The exact circumstances of Gadhafi’s death are not clear, but this fact is: the rebel army never could have won this war without NATO assistance, and if the word had come down during the battle for Sirte, ‘capture, don’t kill Gadhafi,’ the dictator would have been taken alive. He was not --- this was an execution.
The annoying and nationalist-minded Col. Gadhafi was out of the way.
But had Libya attacked the United States, France or Britain? No. There was no legal basis under international law for the all-out assault that took place on this sovereign country. Nor did President Barack Obama get congressional approval for the attack in which the United States was so centrally involved. In so doing, Obama trampled on the constitution and the War Powers Act.
The elimination of Gadhafi was the third time this year that the U.S. carried out extra-judicial killings of heads of state or alleged terrorist leaders.
In September, a CIA drone in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric with alleged al-Qaeda ties. He had been implicated in plots to harm the United States, but was never indicted. Nonetheless, he was put on a “kill list” set up by a secret panel in the White House’s National Security Council.
Awlaki’s killing violated the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment says no American citizen shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
What due process was given al-Awlaki? None. Just put on a kill list, and boom, taken out.
How different is this than what Stalin and Hitler did to opponents of their regimes, or those who they considered terrorists?
Al-Awlaki should have been captured and put on trial. Why wasn’t he? Maybe because the case against him wouldn’t have stood up in court?
Osama Bin-Laden, the reputed author of the 911 attacks (though no conclusive evidence has ever been presented to verify his role) was executed by U.S. commandoes in May. The raid on Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan was done unilaterally by the U.S. without consultation with Pakistan.
Bin Laden was unarmed at the time of the raid, and could have been taken alive. Like al-Awlaki, he should have been captured, and brought to trial for his alleged crimes. He had been indicted for his role in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
But he was executed, possibly on orders of President Obama, who watched the raid in real time with his White House team.
His body was then dumped at sea.
What has our nation come to? Is this the America of 2011 --- one whose government has secret kill lists, execution teams and a population (at least many) who cheer when designated “bad guys” are killed in a lawless manner? Apparently so.
By Reginald Johnson
October 26, 2011
A lot of people are cheering the fact that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been killed. Good riddance to a brutal despot, they say, the world is better without him.
I’m not cheering. It’s not that I think Gadhafi was some kind of nice guy. He clearly was not. He was a brutal tyrant. It’s just that I am getting sick and tired of how the United States thinks that it has the right to essentially rub out any person it deems to be acting against its interest, and to do so irrespective of U.S. law and international law.
As Noam Chomsky would say, we act like a Mafia don on the world stage --- using force and violence to get our way. Look at the godfather cross-eyed, and you’re history.
The so-called Libyan rebels reportedly killed Gadhafi, after a protracted battle for the dictator ‘s hometown of Sirte. But the reality is, the Americans and their fellow partners in crime, France, Britain and Italy, killed Gadhafi.
While there was a genuine uprising in Libya’s east in February against the dictatorship, and Western countries entered the conflict supposedly on humanitarian grounds --- to protect rebel areas and civilians from a massacre by Gadhafi forces --- the intervention soon became an all-out assault on the entire country. The action against Libya --- in the form of NATO planes attacking pro-Gadhafi areas constituted an illegal invasion that went far beyond the terms of the UN resolution passed in March allowing for military action to protect civilians.
The U.S. and their allies wanted Gadhafi out. Getting rid of the eccentric and independent-minded Libyan leader was seen as a means to install a more pliant government, which would surely grant unconditional access to the Libya’s massive amounts of high quality oil and water. A more obedient government in Tripoli also means the U.S. can build military bases in the country giving America a springboard for further interventions in the rest of resource-rich Africa.
The U.S., Britain and France saw the Benghazi uprising as providing a pretext for making their move on Gadhafi. The intervention had nothing to do with helping the Libyans achieve democracy, or promote the Arab Spring --- a idea advanced by some people on the left who should know better.
After months of NATO bombing runs --- with many civilians killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed ---- the rag tag rebel army caught up with Gadhafi and shot him. The exact circumstances of Gadhafi’s death are not clear, but this fact is: the rebel army never could have won this war without NATO assistance, and if the word had come down during the battle for Sirte, ‘capture, don’t kill Gadhafi,’ the dictator would have been taken alive. He was not --- this was an execution.
The annoying and nationalist-minded Col. Gadhafi was out of the way.
But had Libya attacked the United States, France or Britain? No. There was no legal basis under international law for the all-out assault that took place on this sovereign country. Nor did President Barack Obama get congressional approval for the attack in which the United States was so centrally involved. In so doing, Obama trampled on the constitution and the War Powers Act.
The elimination of Gadhafi was the third time this year that the U.S. carried out extra-judicial killings of heads of state or alleged terrorist leaders.
In September, a CIA drone in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric with alleged al-Qaeda ties. He had been implicated in plots to harm the United States, but was never indicted. Nonetheless, he was put on a “kill list” set up by a secret panel in the White House’s National Security Council.
Awlaki’s killing violated the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment says no American citizen shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
What due process was given al-Awlaki? None. Just put on a kill list, and boom, taken out.
How different is this than what Stalin and Hitler did to opponents of their regimes, or those who they considered terrorists?
Al-Awlaki should have been captured and put on trial. Why wasn’t he? Maybe because the case against him wouldn’t have stood up in court?
Osama Bin-Laden, the reputed author of the 911 attacks (though no conclusive evidence has ever been presented to verify his role) was executed by U.S. commandoes in May. The raid on Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan was done unilaterally by the U.S. without consultation with Pakistan.
Bin Laden was unarmed at the time of the raid, and could have been taken alive. Like al-Awlaki, he should have been captured, and brought to trial for his alleged crimes. He had been indicted for his role in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
But he was executed, possibly on orders of President Obama, who watched the raid in real time with his White House team.
His body was then dumped at sea.
What has our nation come to? Is this the America of 2011 --- one whose government has secret kill lists, execution teams and a population (at least many) who cheer when designated “bad guys” are killed in a lawless manner? Apparently so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)