Proyecto Censurado 2009
Jessica Lee/Lindsay Beyerstein/Matt Renner
Indypendent/In These Times/Truthout
En una alarmante afrenta a las libertades estadounidenses de expresión, privacidad y asociación la Casa de Representantes votó el 23 de octubre de 2007 la Ley de Prevención de la Radicalización Violenta y el Terrorismo Interno, aprobándola por 404-6, en tanto el Senado todavía tiene pendiente el asunto. La ley, llamada H.R. 1955, establecería una “comisión nacional” y una universidad como base de un “Centro para la Excelencia” destinado a estudiar y proponer una legislación para prevenir la amenaza de "radicalización" de los estadounidenses.
La autora de la propuesta, la representante demócrata por California Jane Harman, explicó: "Estamos estudiando el fenómeno de la gente con creencias radicales que puede convencer al pueblo para que utilice la violencia". La ley señala que "mientras EEUU debe continuar sus esfuerzos vigilantes para combatir al terrorismo internacional, también debe consolidar esfuerzos para combatir la amenaza planteada por los terroristas domésticos que operan internamente en EEUU. Entender los factores motivacionales que conducen a la radicalización violenta y al terrorismo doméstico, ideológicamente basados en la violencia, es un paso vital hacia la supresión de estas amenazas en Estados Unidos".
Sin embargo, el propósito de la ley va más allá de la indagación académica. En una conferencia de prensa, Harman dijo: "La Comisión Nacional propondrá iniciativas a ambas ramas del Congreso y [al Secretario de Seguridad de la Patria Michael] Chertoff para intervenir antes que la radicalización individual se torne violenta”. El texto del proyecto de ley continúa: "Previendo un aumento potencial de la radicalización personal no se puede alcanzar de manera fácil la desarticulación de los terroristas en el plano nacional sólo con los tradicionales esfuerzos federales de inteligencia y de aplicación de la ley, que pueden fortalecerse con la incorporación de esfuerzos locales y de los estados".
Harman, que preside el Subcomité de Inteligencia, Información Compartida y Riesgo de Terrorismo de la Casa de Representantes, también tiene estrechos lazos con la Corporación RAND, un “tanque pensante” de derecha que parece haber influido en la iniciativa legislativa. Dos semanas antes de la introducción del proyecto el 19 de abril de 2007, Brian Michael Jenkins de la RAND entregó al subcomité de Harman un testimonio sobre "Radicalización y Reclutamiento Jihadista".
En junio, Jenkins habló ante el subcomité de Harman cuando éste discutía el papel de la comisión nacional. “El terrorismo interno es la principal amenaza a la que hacemos frente como país y, probablemente, será la principal amenaza a que haremos frente durante décadas... A menos que podamos encontrar una manera de intervenir en el proceso de radicalización, estamos condenados a caminar como cucarachas, de a una a la vez", indicó. En un informe RAND divulgado en 2005 con el título "Tendencias en Terrorismo", se dedica enteramente un capítulo a la “amenaza terrorista doméstica, de ‘cosecha propia’”, no-musulmana. El blanco son también los sectores opuestos a la globalización.
En un esfuerzo por prevenir que la gente "propensa" se convierta a la radicalización, esta medida orientada preferentemente a limpiar el pensamiento político, identifica específicamente a Internet como principal herramienta de radicalización: "Internet ha ayudado a facilitar la radicalización ideológicamente basada en la violencia y el proceso del “terrorismo de cosecha propia” en territorio de Estados Unidos, proporcionando acceso a los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos a las amplias y constantes corrientes de propaganda terrorista implícita", dijo la demócrata Harman.
La legislación autoriza a diez miembros de la comisión nacional (el proyecto en el Senado propone doce miembros) designada por el Presidente, la secretaría de Seguridad de la Patria, los líderes del Congreso y los presidentes de los comités del Senado y de la Casa de Representantes sobre Seguridad de la Patria y Asuntos Gubernamentales.
Una vez acordada, la Comisión suministrará informes en intervalos de seis a dieciocho meses al Presidente y al Congreso, indicando sus resultados, conclusiones y recomendaciones legislativas "para contramedidas inmediatas y a largo plazo... de prevención de la radicalización violenta, el “terrorismo de cosecha propia” y la violencia fundada ideológicamente".
Esta comisión tiene perturbadoras semejanzas con Cointelpro, el programa de contrainteligencia que en 1974-75 fue investigado por un comité selecto del Senado de EEUU sobre las actividades de inteligencia, la Comisión [Frank] Church. Este comité encontró que entre 1956 y 1971, "la Oficina [FBI] condujo una operación sofisticada de vigilancia federal derechamente dirigida a socavar el ejercicio de los derechos de expresión y asociación consagrados por la Primera Enmienda, en la teoría de que la prevención del crecimiento de grupos peligrosos y de la propagación de ideas peligrosas protegería la seguridad nacional y disuadiría la violencia".
El proyecto H.R. 1955 otorgaría poder al secretario del Departamento de Seguridad de la Patria (DHS, su sigla en inglés) para establecer un "centro de excelencia", un programa de investigación basado en una universidad que "reúne a expertos y a investigadores principales para conducir la investigación y la educación multidisciplinarias para dar soluciones a la Seguridad de la Patria". El DHS tiene actualmente ocho centros en instituciones académicas a través del país, consolidando lo que muchos ven como un complejo militar, académico y de seguridad cada vez más grande. Harman, en una rueda de prensa del 23 de octubre, indicó que el centro "examina las raíces sociales, criminales, políticas, psicológicas y económicas del terrorismo doméstico".
Hope Marston, organizador regional de la Cuenta del Comité de Defensa de Derechos (BORDC) advirtió contra el peligro de los términos vago definidos en esta legislación, capaces de abrir una interpretación muy amplia ante los espejos de un patrón histórico de represión arrebatadora del gobierno.
Jules Boykoff, autor y profesor de política y gobierno en la Pacific University, se mostró alarmado ante la definición circular, por ejemplo, "de ideológicamente basado en la violencia” concepto que por sí mismo no puede definir los términos "amenaza", "fuerza" o "violencia”. Boykoff comentó que la iniciativa parlamentaria utilizó alternativamente los términos "extremismo" y "radicalismo". "La palabra ‘radical’ comparte la raíz etimológica del término “rábano”, que significa ir a la raíz del problema", dijo. "De esta manera, si el gobierno desea conseguir la raíz real del terrorismo, entonces nos debe dejar hablar realmente de ella. Necesitamos hablar de las raíces económicas, de las extensas inequidades de la abundancia entre ricos y pobres".
Caroline Fredrickson, directora de la Oficina Legislativa de Washington de la Unión Americana de las Libertades Civiles, dijo: “La aplicación de la ley debe centrarse en la acción, no en el pensamiento. Necesitamos preocuparnos más bien de la gente que está cometiendo crímenes que de quienes abriguen creencias que el gobierno puede considerar “extremas”.
Actualización de Jessica Lee
Mientras grupos que abogan por las libertades civiles y los derechos religiosos libres aseguran a periodistas independientes y a activistas populares que ayudarán a mantener atascado el avance de la Ley de Prevención de la Radicalización Violenta y el Terrorismo Interno 2007, algunos miembros del Congreso continúan presionando por la censura en Internet y el perfil racial como necesarios para prevenir el "terrorismo de cosecha propia".
La Cámara de Representantes aprobó la Ley de Prevención de la Radicalización Violenta y el Terrorismo Interno 2007 por una votación 404-6, pero la extensa oposición forzó al Senado a dejar de lado la idea. Hasta el 1 de junio de 2008 no programó ni calendarizó ninguna votación para el año legislativo actual.
Supe de esta ley a comienzos de noviembre de 2007. Con excepción del artículo de Lindsay Beyerstein, "Examinando la Ley de Prevención del Terrorismo de Cosecha Propia" (In These Times, 11/1/07), ninguno de los medios corporativos importantes informó sobre el tema, a pesar de los peligros planteados a las libertades civiles y al aislamiento de las comunidades musulmanas y árabes en Estados Unidos. No obstante, descubrí una activa discusión en línea sobre el proyecto, principalmente en blogs y videos de YouTube.
Isabel Macdonald, directora de comunicaciones de Imparcialidad y Exactitud en la Información, comentó: "Quizás, debido a la relación simbiótica entre las corporaciones de grandes medios y los funcionarios del gobierno, los medios corporativos han mostrado constante aversión a ofrecer cobertura crítica sobre la erosión de las libertades civiles. Los medios independientes –y específicamente el Indypendent– desempeñaron un papel crítico en romper la historia de este proyecto y con cobertura en blogs y en Democracy Now!, manteniendo viva la historia".
A un mes del artículo del Indypendent, numerosas organizaciones de libertades civiles, libertad religiosa, entidades musulmanas y árabe-estadounidenses celebraron reuniones desde Maine a California y encendieron las alarmas de acción para animar a la gente a entrar en contacto con sus representantes del Congreso en un esfuerzo por parar la iniciativa en el Senado.
Según los lobbystas de derechos civiles, la protesta pública forzó al jefe del comité del Senado Joseph Lieberman, republicano por Connecticut, a dejar la cuenta en la hornilla trasera. Sin embargo, Lieberman y la líder de la minoría RAND del comité, la senadora republicana por Maine Susan Collins, continúan alegando que el "terrorismo islámico doméstico" es una grave amenaza y el 8 de mayo de 2008 publicaron su propio informe, sin el respaldo público de otros miembros del comité, advirtiendo que "la amenaza del terrorismo de ‘cosecha propia’ está en auge, secundado por la capacidad de fomentar el reclutamiento de bases que ofrece Internet, junto con la difusión del mensaje de entrenamiento de los grupos terroristas islámicos violentos".
En respuesta, más de treinta grupos de libertades civiles y asociaciones por la libertad religiosa enviaron una carta al comité del Senado el 30 de mayo, expresando preocupación porque el informe podría afectar a la libertad de expresión, apuntando injustificadamente a los musulmanes y definiendo a Internet como "arma".
Un grupo de organizaciones representativas de las comunidades árabe y musulmanas estadounidenses también emitió un pronunciamiento en respuesta al informe, reclamando que fueron excluidos de las audiencias del Senado durante gran parte del proceso legislativo y que el informe se apoya en otro reporte desacreditado emitido en 2007 por el Departamento de Policía de Nueva York, que trató de explicar el proceso de "radicalización violenta" de los musulmanes individuales.
Poco después de publicar el informe, Lieberman exigió que Google quitara los videos de YouTube producidos por "organizaciones terroristas tales como Al-Qaeda". Google respondió el 19 de mayo retirando ochenta videos que la compañía estuvo de acuerdo en que violaban las Pautas de la Comunidad de YouTube, que representaban violencia gratuita, abogaron por la violencia o utilizaron el discurso del odio. Google, sin embargo, rechazó acceder a todas las demandas de Lieberman, que incluía la censura de todos los videos que mencionaban o aludían a grupos como Al-Qaeda, listados por el departamento de Estado de EEUU como organizaciones extranjeras terroristas.
"El senador Lieberman indicó su creencia... que todos los videos que mencionan o se refieren a estos grupos se deben quitar de YouTube, siendo legales, no violentos y sin expresiones de odio”, respondió Google. "YouTube apoya la libertad de expresión y defiende los derechos de cada uno a expresar puntos de vista impopulares".
Chip Berlet, analista superior de Political Research Associates, de Boston, dijo creer que las acciones de Lieberman constituyen un "sucio truco político" motivado por el intento de empujar a los candidatos presidenciales hacia una postura más agresiva en el Oriente Medio.
Las organizaciones que encabezan el esfuerzo de oponerse a la legislación incluyen a Defending Dissent Foundation (www.defendingdissent.org), Bill of Rights Defense Committee (www.bordc.org), Center for Constitutional Rights (www.ccrjustice.org), American Civil Liberties Union (www.aclu.org) y Council on American-Islamic Relations (www.cair.com).
Actualización de Lindsay Beyerstein
La iniciativa del "Terrorismo Doméstico" se ha empantanado en el Senado desde el pasado mes de octubre. El proyecto navegó a través de la Cámara con algún pequeño comentario público, pero posteriormente encontró una oposición dura a través del espectro político. Hasta hace poco tiempo, parecía que los grupos de libertades civiles y las organizaciones cívicas musulmanas habían bloqueado con éxito la versión del Senado de la iniciativa.
La iniciativa parecía destinada morir en el comité… es decir, hasta que el senador Joe Lieberman, jefe del comité del Senado sobre Seguridad de la Patria, señaló su impaciencia por revivir la cuestión lanzando un nuevo informe y escogiendo una lucha con YouTube.
El 8 mayo, el senador Lieberman y la senadora RAND Susan Collins lanzaron el informe “Extremismo Islámico Violento, Internet y la Amenaza del Terrorismo Doméstico”, un reporte políticamente bipartidista basado en las audiencias ante el Comité sobre Seguridad de la Patria del Senado.
Incluso antes de que fuera lanzado al público, el informe provocó el fuego de una coalición de organizaciones de libertades civiles protegidas por la ACLU. La coalición exteriorizó sus preocupaciones por el informe que los dos miembros del Comité hicieron público el 7 de mayo.
"Nuestra preocupación es que este foco sobre Internet podría ser un precursor de propósitos de censurar y regular la expresión en Internet. De hecho, algunos fabricantes de política han abogado por echar abajo sitios web desagradables”, expresó la nota.
Lieberman reforzó esas dudas el 19 de mayo cuando escribió al CEO de Google (casa matriz de YouTube) exigiendo que un número no especificado de videos de propaganda islámica fueran removidos del popular sitio de videos compartidos. Lieberman alegó en su carta que los video clips eran resultado del trabajo de una sofisticada red islámica de propaganda cuestionada en el reciente informe de su comité. También argumentó que los videos violaron las normas de la comunidad de YouTube.
Las normas de YouTube prohíben expresamente la violencia, discursos de odio, amenazas, hostigamiento y descripciones gratuitas de crímenes tales como fabricación de bombas. Cientos de millares de videos son “subidos” diariamente al sitio. En vez de hacer un pre-escrutinio de contenidos, YouTube confía en que los usuarios señalen con una bandera el material que viola los estándares de la comunidad. Los contenidos que rompen las reglas se están retirando rutinariamente.
Después de revisar los clips, YouTube rechazó quitar el grueso del material señalado por el personal de Lieberman mediante una bandera. Fue removido un puñado de videos que violaban los estándares de la comunidad, pero el resto permaneció on line.
"La mayoría de los videos que no contienen mensajes de odio o violencia no fueron removidos porque no violan nuestras Pautas de la Comunidad", dijo una declaración publicada por el equipo de YouTube. La declaración se lanzó para afirmar el derecho de los usuarios de YouTube a expresar puntos de vista impopulares.
Lieberman no quedó satisfecho con la respuesta. "No importa cuál sea el contenido de los videos producidos por organizaciones terroristas como Al-Qaeda; no deben ser tolerados porque están confabuladas para atacar Estados Unidos y matar estadounidenses. Google debe reconsiderar su política", indicó Lieberman el 20 de mayo.
No ha sido programada ninguna votación, pero la lucha de Lieberman con Google ha puesto de nuevo bajo los reflectores a la iniciativa del terrorismo doméstico. Después de meses de silencio, los grandes medios finalmente están comenzando a hacer preguntas sobre el creciente entusiasmo del gobierno por supervisar el discurso "radical" en Internet. El New York Times criticó agudamente a Lieberman y a su informe en el editorial del 25 de mayo, llamándolo "censor en ciernes" cuyos esfuerzos por restringir constitucionalmente la protección del discurso de YouTube "contradice valores americanos fundamentales".
Los lectores pueden hacerse sus propias opiniones acerca del proyecto de ley sobre el terrorismo de “cosecha propia” entrando en contacto con sus senadores y los miembros del comité del Senado sobre Seguridad de la Patria. Todos los contendores de la carrera presidencial 2008 son senadores. Ahora, los votantes tienen un buen momento para ejercer presión sobre los candidatos presidenciales a fin de que tomen posiciones claras respecto a la iniciativa del terrorismo doméstico. El senador Barack Obama, demócrata por Illinois, tiene un asiento en el Comité de Seguridad de la Patria, pero no contribuyó al informe. El senador John McCain, demócrata por Arizona, está estrechamente aliado al senador Lieberman, especialmente en los temas pertinentes al terrorismo.
Actualización de Matt Renner
El polémico plan para estudiar y fichar el terrorismo doméstico fue desechado después que la presión popular lo empujara atrás. Sin embargo, el espíritu de la legislación sigue vivo en la oficina del senador Joe Lieberman.
La cuenta HR 1955, "Ley de Prevención de la Radicalización Violenta y el Terrorismo Interno" pasó la Casa de Representantes en octubre de 2007 con apoyo casi unánime. La cuenta cayó inmediatamente bajo el fuego de los “perros guardianes” de las libertades civiles debido a que mostraba mucho interés deliberado en apuntar a los musulmanes y a los árabes y por sus posibles efectos perniciosos para la libertad de expresión.
El proyecto de ley original preveía instalar una comisión gubernamental para investigar la amenaza supuesta de terroristas producidos nacionalmente y las ideologías que sostienen su radicalización. La comisión de diez miembros debía ser autorizada "para llevar a cabo audiencias y para sentarse y actuar a discreción en las oportunidades y lugares necesitados para tomar testimonios, recibir evidencias y administrar los juramentos que la Comisión estimara recomendables para cumplir sus deberes". La iniciativa también identificó a Internet como un vehículo útil a los terroristas para esparcir su ideología con la intención de reclutar y entrenar a nuevos terroristas.
Después de la significativa presión pública, la cuenta se atascó en el Senado. Sin embargo, el senador Joe Lieberman (republicano por Connecticut), presidente actual de los Comités de Seguridad de la Patria y de Asuntos Gubernamentales del Senado, abrazó el impulso a la legislación y ha estado trabajando por sacar adelante algunas de las metas de la cuenta original, incluyendo una tentativa de escardar hacia fuera de Internet la “propaganda terrorista”.
El 19 de mayo Lieberman envió una carta a Eric Schmidt, CEO de Google Inc., exigiendo que la casa matriz de YouTube Google "remueva inmediatamente de YouTube los contenidos producidos por organizaciones terrorista islamistas".
"Tomando acciones para restringir el uso de YouTube en diseminar las metas y métodos de quienes desean matar a civiles inocentes, Google hará una contribución singular e importante a este relevante esfuerzo nacional", escribió Lieberman.
Google reaccionó rechazando sacar el material que no violó el código de conducta del sitio. "Mientras respetemos y entendamos sus opiniones, YouTube anima la libertad de expresión y defiende el derecho de cada uno a expresar puntos de vista impopulares", señaló la respuesta de Schmidt. Agregó: "Creemos que YouTube es una plataforma muy rica y mucho más relevante para los usuarios precisamente porque alberga a una gama diversa de opiniones y más bien que sofocar la discusión, permitimos que nuestros usuarios puedan conocer todos los contenidos aceptables y hagan su propia decisión en sus mentes".
Google removió algunos de los videos que violaron sus reglas contra discursos en favor del odio y la violencia, pero hizo un alto para escribir: "La mayoría de los videos que no contienen discursos violentos o de odio no fueron quitados porque no violan nuestras Pautas de la Comunidad".
Según activistas de las libertades civiles, el senador Lieberman lideró un esfuerzo por censurar la expresión en Internet. Su comité lanzó recientemente un informe titulado "Extremismo Islamista Violento, Internet y la Creciente Amenaza del Terrorismo Casero", reporte que describía el uso de los sitios de Internet como herramientas para difundir propaganda favorable al terrorismo.
El informe culpa repetidamente de “radicalización” a los sitios web y a los “chat rooms” de Internet llamándolos "portales" en que terroristas potenciales pueden "participar en el violento movimiento global islamista y reclutar a otros para su causa". Como lo han precisado los grupos por las libertades civiles, el informe se centró únicamente en una visión del terrorismo como asociado del Islam.
Caroline Fredrickson, directora de la oficina legislativa de la ACLU en Washington D.C., dijo que Lieberman "está intentando imponer que en Internet sólo debe permanecer lo que él piensa". Añadió que "huele a un interés en censurar toda clase de diálogos en la diversidad".
"Si alguien critica el trato de Israel a los palestinos y favorece a Hamas, ¿debe ser censurado?", preguntó Fredrickson. Comentario de Mickey Huff, autor del capítulo 14
La cobertura de esta historia por los autores reseñados resulta altamente recomendable. Sin embargo, existe otro elemento también parece haber sido censurado respecto a la posible aplicación de la ley H.R. 1955 y S. 1959, y también en la uniforme cobertura de prensa independiente y progresista: se trata de la especificidad de los posibles activistas domésticos mencionados en las audiencias sostenidas en Washington por la representante Jane Harman. Mientras los autores ya mencionados se refieren a los activistas a favor de los derechos de los animales y contrarios a la globalización como blancos potenciales de esta legislación, ninguno menciona a los activistas ni a los científicos de “La verdad del 11 de Septiembre” (9/11 Truth) que fueron citados por su nombre en las audiencias de Harman en el Capitolio. (Para profundizar posibles explicaciones adicionales sobre el modelo de propaganda dentro de la prensa progresista izquierdista, véase el Capítulo 7 de Proyecto Censurado 2008).
Entre las demandas de quienes testificaron ante el Congreso sobre la "necesidad" de la legislación H.R. 1955 se dijo que cualquier persona que cuestione la explicación oficial del gobierno sobre el 11 de Septiembre está relacionada con un terrorista o algún ayudista material del terrorismo. El portavoz Mark Weitzman del Centro Wiesenthal (irónicamente, fundado por el sobreviviente del holocausto Simon Wiesenthal para educar al público sobre crímenes de guerra), demandó que los arquitectos, ingenieros y científicos que dudan de la narrativa oficial del 11 de Septiembre son iguales a los grupos jihadistas acusados de violentos.
Esto llegó más lejos en una “presentación power point” en que Weitzman mostró el sitio web del arquitecto Richard Gage http://AE911Truth.org junto a los sitios acusados de violencia jihadista. Gage ha criticado la historia oficial sobre la destrucción de las torres gemelas y del Edificio Nº 7 del 11 de Septiembre. Basándose en su experticia profesional en edificios de vigas de acero, Gage afirmó que los edificios no pudieron venirse abajo por las razones explicadas por el gobierno y ofrece teorías alternativas apoyadas por la evidencia. Sin importar si uno cree o no en las argumentaciones contrarias sobre los acontecimientos del 11 de Septiembre, no tiene por qué criminalizarse la libertad de expresión y el cuestionamiento de la versión del gobierno.
Éste es el round más reciente en la confrontación oficial entre terroristas y activistas en EEUU. ¿Existe algún vínculo comprobado entre estos grupos? No, no existe. Pero eso no detiene a la gente que simplemente habla para el expediente público sin proporcionar ninguna evidencia. Y Jane Harmon, la demócrata que co-patrocina esta legislación, no preguntó nada, ni invitó a una refutación. Esto es una reminiscencia del mccarthyismo del período del Susto Rojo de los años 50.
Escribí originalmente sobre esta cuestión aquí:
http://mythinfo.blogspot.com/2007/11/state-terror-hr-1955-weapon-of-mass.html
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007112285903892
El video de la audiencia puede verse aquí (dura 39 minutos):
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=202123-1
Otros vínculos:
Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, And The Home Grown Terrorism Threat
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/IslamistReport.pdf
New York Times Editorial on Lieberman's attempt to censor YouTube
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/opinion/25sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Lieberman's Response to New York Times Editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/opinion/25sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Fuentes:
Indypendent, November 16, 2007
Título: “Bringing the War on Terrorism Home”
Autor: Jessica Lee
In These Times, November 2007
Título: “Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”
Autor: Lindsay Beyerstein
Truthout, November 29, 2007
Título: “The Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007”
Autor: Matt Renner
Estudiantes investigadores: Dan Bluthardt and Cedric Therene
Evaluador académico: Robert Proctor, Ph.D.
Título original: The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
Traducción: Ernesto Carmona (especial para ARGENPRESS.info)
Share This
Tecpatl
Our Word is Our Weapon, if you have anything you would like us to publish please send us an email @ maiz_centeotl_chicomecoatl@riseup.net
Subscribe To Maiz Today!!!!
Posts
All Comments
10/10/08
U.S. Supreme Court's intervention places damage claim in limbo - again
High court grabs Peabody royalty case
By Bill Donovan
Special to the Times
http://www.navajotimes.com/news/index.php
WINDOW ROCK, Oct. 9, 2008
For more than 15 years, Navajo Nation attorneys have been pursuing legal action to hold the U.S. government and Peabody Coal Co. accountable for a conspiracy that cost the Navajos hundreds of millions of dollars in lost coal royalties.
Last year the Navajos seemed poised at long last to achieve that goal when the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, setting the stage for a trial to determine how much of the $600 million being sought would be awarded to the tribe.
Now, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared it will review the appeals court ruling - an indication that it may be getting ready to reverse the case and prevent the Navajos from collecting any money.
The appeals court ruling said the Interior Department failed to uphold its trust responsibilities to the Navajo Nation and that the tribe is entitled to damages based on that.
Tribal attorneys said if the Supreme Court affirms that finding, the case would go back to the Court of Federal Claims - where it was headed before the Supreme Court decided to intervene - for a decision on how much the Navajo Nation was damaged.
The tribe has been seeking $600 million - the amount in coal royalties that were lost because then Interior Secretary Donald Hodel wrongly advised the tribe that it was seeking unreasonably high increases, when in fact his staff had performed and review and concluded just the opposite.
This occurred in 1987 when the tribe was negotiating with Peabody to renew the lease for Black Mesa coal.
A provision in the original 1964 contract between the tribe and Peabody allowed the federal government to adjust the royalty rate after 20 years.
Although tribal officials were happy about the lease agreement in the 1960s, saying that it would provide millions of dollars to meet tribal needs, the royalty rate was widely viewed as outdated.
When Peter MacDonald became chairman in 1971, he compared the Peabody deal to selling Manhattan Island for $20 worth of beads.
When Peterson Zah became chairman in 1982, he initiated action to increase the royalty rate using the 20-year provision of the lease. MacDonald continued the fight after defeating Zah in the 1986 election.
Secret meetings
What tribal leaders didn't know at the time was Hodel, after secret meetings between Interior and Peabody officials, concealed his staff's report that said the Navajo request was reasonable compared with rates being paid elsewhere at the time.
Instead the Navajos were persuaded to settle for half the rate they were seeking.
In a 1999 article in the New York Times, John Fritz, who worked for the Interior Department under Ronald Reagan, was preparing to make a ruling that would have sharply increased the fees Peabody paid to the Navajos.
But he said he was ordered by Hodel not to do so.
"All of a sudden, I got this thing flat out of the blue," Fritz was quoted as saying in the Times, adding that it wasn't until the Navajos filed their lawsuit that he became aware of what was going on behind the scenes.
What was going on, according to the Navajo lawsuit, was that Peabody hired Stanley W. Hulett, a former Interior Department official and a personal friend of Hodel, to lobby on their behalf.
And although Hodel and the Interior Department were supposed to be looking out after the welfare of the Navajos because of the government's trust responsibility, what happened, according to Navajo attorneys, was that Hodel helped Peabody get a good deal.
Over the years, Peabody has claimed time after time that the Navajos got a fair deal that was based on the standard royalty rate at the time.
In fact, one of Peabody's spokesmen on the issue, Vic Svec, when asked about whether the company used its influence on Hodel and the Interior Department, said, "We believed it is the fundamental right of every person and organization to petition their government and this is what we were doing."
Navajo attorneys said that if the Navajo Nation had been aware of the documents that Fritz had prepared, the negotiations would have gone a lot differently and the tribe would have received millions of dollars more annually in coal royalties.
Years in court
It hasn't been easy for the Navajo Nation to get its day in court.
For years the federal courts issued one adverse decision after another.
In 2000, for example, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that Hodel did indeed breach his most fundamental trust responsibilities to the Navajo Nation - duties of care, candor and loyalty.
However, it held that "regrettably" it did not have the jurisdiction to award damages for the misconduct because the 1938 Indian Mineral Leasing Act did not confer sufficient control or supervision over lease negotiations to impose a penalty on Interior for failing to carry through with its responsibilities.
The Court of Appeals said while this was true, there were other federal statutes that may allow the Navajo Nation to pursue a claim and the court sent the case back to the Court of Federal Claims for more analysis.
The lower court stuck by its earlier decision and dismissed the case again in 2005. So the Navajos went back to the Court of Appeals and on Sept. 13, 2007, the appeals court ruled in favor of the Navajos and directed the Court of Federal Claims to determine how much in damages should be awarded to the tribe.
The Bush administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that its intervention was needed to determine if the appeals court's interpretation of law was correct.
The high court could have chosen to let the appeals court ruling stand, and the hearing on damages then would proceed.
Instead, the Supreme Court has chosen the Navajo case as one of only two involving Native American rights that it will examine in this session, raising the possibility that it may reverse the appeals court and rule against the Navajo Nation.
By Bill Donovan
Special to the Times
http://www.navajotimes.com/news/index.php
WINDOW ROCK, Oct. 9, 2008
For more than 15 years, Navajo Nation attorneys have been pursuing legal action to hold the U.S. government and Peabody Coal Co. accountable for a conspiracy that cost the Navajos hundreds of millions of dollars in lost coal royalties.
Last year the Navajos seemed poised at long last to achieve that goal when the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, setting the stage for a trial to determine how much of the $600 million being sought would be awarded to the tribe.
Now, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared it will review the appeals court ruling - an indication that it may be getting ready to reverse the case and prevent the Navajos from collecting any money.
The appeals court ruling said the Interior Department failed to uphold its trust responsibilities to the Navajo Nation and that the tribe is entitled to damages based on that.
Tribal attorneys said if the Supreme Court affirms that finding, the case would go back to the Court of Federal Claims - where it was headed before the Supreme Court decided to intervene - for a decision on how much the Navajo Nation was damaged.
The tribe has been seeking $600 million - the amount in coal royalties that were lost because then Interior Secretary Donald Hodel wrongly advised the tribe that it was seeking unreasonably high increases, when in fact his staff had performed and review and concluded just the opposite.
This occurred in 1987 when the tribe was negotiating with Peabody to renew the lease for Black Mesa coal.
A provision in the original 1964 contract between the tribe and Peabody allowed the federal government to adjust the royalty rate after 20 years.
Although tribal officials were happy about the lease agreement in the 1960s, saying that it would provide millions of dollars to meet tribal needs, the royalty rate was widely viewed as outdated.
When Peter MacDonald became chairman in 1971, he compared the Peabody deal to selling Manhattan Island for $20 worth of beads.
When Peterson Zah became chairman in 1982, he initiated action to increase the royalty rate using the 20-year provision of the lease. MacDonald continued the fight after defeating Zah in the 1986 election.
Secret meetings
What tribal leaders didn't know at the time was Hodel, after secret meetings between Interior and Peabody officials, concealed his staff's report that said the Navajo request was reasonable compared with rates being paid elsewhere at the time.
Instead the Navajos were persuaded to settle for half the rate they were seeking.
In a 1999 article in the New York Times, John Fritz, who worked for the Interior Department under Ronald Reagan, was preparing to make a ruling that would have sharply increased the fees Peabody paid to the Navajos.
But he said he was ordered by Hodel not to do so.
"All of a sudden, I got this thing flat out of the blue," Fritz was quoted as saying in the Times, adding that it wasn't until the Navajos filed their lawsuit that he became aware of what was going on behind the scenes.
What was going on, according to the Navajo lawsuit, was that Peabody hired Stanley W. Hulett, a former Interior Department official and a personal friend of Hodel, to lobby on their behalf.
And although Hodel and the Interior Department were supposed to be looking out after the welfare of the Navajos because of the government's trust responsibility, what happened, according to Navajo attorneys, was that Hodel helped Peabody get a good deal.
Over the years, Peabody has claimed time after time that the Navajos got a fair deal that was based on the standard royalty rate at the time.
In fact, one of Peabody's spokesmen on the issue, Vic Svec, when asked about whether the company used its influence on Hodel and the Interior Department, said, "We believed it is the fundamental right of every person and organization to petition their government and this is what we were doing."
Navajo attorneys said that if the Navajo Nation had been aware of the documents that Fritz had prepared, the negotiations would have gone a lot differently and the tribe would have received millions of dollars more annually in coal royalties.
Years in court
It hasn't been easy for the Navajo Nation to get its day in court.
For years the federal courts issued one adverse decision after another.
In 2000, for example, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that Hodel did indeed breach his most fundamental trust responsibilities to the Navajo Nation - duties of care, candor and loyalty.
However, it held that "regrettably" it did not have the jurisdiction to award damages for the misconduct because the 1938 Indian Mineral Leasing Act did not confer sufficient control or supervision over lease negotiations to impose a penalty on Interior for failing to carry through with its responsibilities.
The Court of Appeals said while this was true, there were other federal statutes that may allow the Navajo Nation to pursue a claim and the court sent the case back to the Court of Federal Claims for more analysis.
The lower court stuck by its earlier decision and dismissed the case again in 2005. So the Navajos went back to the Court of Appeals and on Sept. 13, 2007, the appeals court ruled in favor of the Navajos and directed the Court of Federal Claims to determine how much in damages should be awarded to the tribe.
The Bush administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that its intervention was needed to determine if the appeals court's interpretation of law was correct.
The high court could have chosen to let the appeals court ruling stand, and the hearing on damages then would proceed.
Instead, the Supreme Court has chosen the Navajo case as one of only two involving Native American rights that it will examine in this session, raising the possibility that it may reverse the appeals court and rule against the Navajo Nation.
The Sky is Falling on Mexico, Too
The Long-Running Mexican Meltdown
By JOHN ROSS
http://www.counterpunch.com/ross10122008.html
Mexico City.
Fury at the billionaire bail-out of the criminal class that has driven Wall Street into a disaster of 9/11 dimensions festers down at the bottom of the economic food chain on Main Street USA. It is a familiar syndrome south of the border. Bailing out the super rich on the backs of the rest of us has had Mexicans seething since the great FOBAPROA scam of the mid-1990s.
The Mexican Meltdown kicked in in late 1994. The outgoing president, the reviled Carlos Salinas de Gortari, had borrowed $33 billion USD in short-term loans to keep his house of cards from crashing down before he left office. Worried about his legacy, Salinas refused to devaluate a chronically over-valued peso, leaving the dirty work to his inept successor Ernesto Zedillo. When on December 20th, the new president was forced to devalue, the peso sank from three to ten to a dollar overnight. Panicked investors pulled their money out of the country to the tune of $1.5 billion a day. Capital flight emptied out the nation's once-healthy reserves. With payback on Salinas's short-term "tesobonos" coming due daily, Mexico was staring down default by January 1995.
Meanwhile, Mexican banks, which were re-privatized just two years previous, had been stripped back to the bone. The only liquidity left in the vaults was said to be $26 billion in narco-money that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration claims is washed through the Mexican banking system annually. Interest rates were ratcheted up to 100% plus and debtors were crucified.
Encouraged by the banks, farmers had borrowed beyond their means to position themselves for the never-materialized bonanza of the North American Free Trade Agreement (TLCAN are its Spanish initials) and couldn't pay up. The banks foreclosed on family farms, ranches, machinery, and herds of livestock.
Urban borrowers, squeezed by the soaring rates, lost taxis and taco stands, their furniture and their apartments. The banks hired armed, off-duty cops who broke down the doors of the debtors, terrorizing their families. Over a thousand citizens were unlawfully jailed and charged with theft.
By February 1995, Mexico had lurched into its deepest economic slide since the Great Depression. Indeed, depression was the mood of the day. Farmers drank pesticide to end it all or poured gasoline over their bodies and immolated themselves in despair. 33 citizens leaped to their deaths before onrushing trains down in the Mexico City Metro in 1996, a record.
But other debtors organized and fought back. El Barzon which took its name from a popular depression-era tune (the "barzon" was the strap that fastened the plough to the mule team) mobilized farmers and cityslickers alike. Bank officials were tarred and feathered, highway tollbooths burnt to the ground. In Mexico City, the Barzonistas sealed bank doors shut with superglue and marched through the streets in their underwear or less or clothed only in barrels in classic Great Depression style. One day, El Barzon paraded a circus the banks had foreclosed on to the great doors of the Bank of Mexico where the elephants took dumps on the marble steps, a steaming souvenir for the hated bankers.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency told the daily business journal El Financiero that the Barzon movement was even more subversive than the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, the Indian rebels in Chiapas whom Zedillo was falsely blaming for destabilizing Mexico and triggering the collapse.
Like the Cassandras of Wall Street today, the bankers cried Armageddon and the president, Zedillo, much as George Bush in the current imbroglio, stampeded congress into a monumental bail-out. FOBAPROA ("Banking Fund for the Protection of Savings") dumped $120 billion USD in bad debt on the backs of Mexican taxpayers, 20% of the nation's gross domestic product - Bush's monstrous bail-out only accounts for 7% of U.S. GDP.
Unlike the U.S. Congress's testy reaction to what is being dubbed "GRINGOPROA" here, the Mexican legislature, then dominated by the long-ruling (71 years) Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), in connivance with the right-wing PAN, signed off on FOBAPROA without missing a beat. Only the left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), led by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) raised its voice in protest. A referendum on the bail-out organized by Lopez Obrador drummed up 2,000,000 votes against Zedillo's skam.
The cost of FOBAPROA has been incalculable. With the Mexican government obligated to shell out $8 to 10 billion USD of Mexican taxpayers hard-earned money each year to pay off the debts of deadbeat banks, social budgets have shrunk, schools and hospitals do not get built, and the nation's highway system, also privatized under Salinas and Zedillo, has fallen into dangerous disrepair.
Once the banks had been reasonably sanitized, the Zedillo government sold them off to international financial combines - Citigroup, Santander, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Spanish BBVA, and the Hong Kong-based HSBC dominate the Mexican banking industry, 90% of which is in non-Mexican hands. Now the globalization of the Mexican banking system has left it vulnerable to contagion from the collapse of Wall Street.
In fact, the gringo credit crunch has already spread south of the border. Battered by spiraling interest rates, Mexican borrowers are defaulting big time on their loans - 6.9% of all bank loans are unrecoverable. Spurred by unconscionable hand-outs of credit cards to the middle and underclasses, 8.9% of all plastic is contaminating credit markets. Constricting credit threatens 2,000,000 small businesses and doomsayers speculate that fresh crisis and a new FOBAPROA are on Mexico's plate for 2009.
The U.S. debacle, tagged the "Jazz Effect" by Argentinean president Cristina Fernandez at the United Nations General Assembly conclave last week (an insult to a uniquely American art form), has infected Mexico's economic bloodstream and the nation's well-being seems beyond recovery for the foreseeable future.
Whereas President Felipe Calderon and his 350-pound finance minister Agustin Carstens once assured suspicious investors of 3% growth in 2008, the lowest on the Latin American totem pole trailing even basket case countries like Honduras and Haiti, Merrill Lynch, itself a flattened former powerhouse just spun off to the Bank of America, has recalibrated that anemic forecast to a sickly 1.9% in light of the fall-out from the downturn in El Norte.
Sinking oil prices as energy demand tails off into a deflationary spiral will cripple investment in PEMEX, the national oil consortium Calderon so ardently wants to sell off to Big Oil - PEMEX accounts for 40% of the nation's budget. Even more ominous is the nosedive in "remesas", remittances sent south by Mexican workers in the U.S. that is the only sustenance for whole rural regions and which constitute Mexico's poverty program - one out of every four Mexican families now subsist on the remesas. Remittances are Mexico's second source of dollars, right behind petroleum.
This August, the flow of greenbacks from the north diminished by a shocking 12% and total remesas have sunk 4.4% in the first five months of 2008. Prospects for relief are dim. Mexicans working in the U.S. are the last hired and the first fired. With U.S. national unemployment topping 6% - California where more Mexicans work than any other state registered 7.9% unemployment last month and the construction industry which employs many Mexican workers is off 14% - workers are beginning to return home even though unemployment and inflation here are hitting highs not seen since the Meltdown of the 1990s.
Although the Calderon administration minimalizes the return migration, estimating that no more than 200,000 workers will come home to Mexico in coming months, many immigration watchers are calculating that the numbers could stretch into the millions. Despite labor secretary Javiar Lozano's happy face forecast that Mexico will be able to provide jobs for the returnees, it should be remembered that these workers fled to the U.S. precisely because they could not find work here.
Moreover, Mexico, which runs a serious trade deficit with the U.S., will see exports and the jobs they generate dry up in 2009. Automobile and auto parts orders, a big chunk of Mexico's export basket, have been cancelled due to sagging sales up north and workers are being laid off on both sides of the border. Manufacturing orders for border-based maquiladoras are plummeting and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost to even lower wage countries like China in recent years.
The news gets worse. Workers' pension funds, privatized under Zedillo to allow for investment in money markets, have lost 62.5 billion pesos since the first of the year. The credit collapse has gutted the Mexican stock market as sorely as it has eviscerated U.S., European, and Asian exchanges - the Bolsa de Valores has lost over a thousand points just in the last month, panicking the nation's top Forbes list billionaires.
Carlos Slim, the world's first, second, third, or fourth richest man depending on how one measures fortunes, claims to have lost half of his in recent weeks - Slim, owner of many telephone companies in Latin America, is heavily invested in both Wall Street and the Mexican stock market where his corporations account for a third of the trading volume. The despondent Slim recently summoned the press to hear out his doom and gloom prognosis, describing the current credit crisis as far more dangerous than 1929 and anticipating deep and prolonged world recession if not Great Depression.
While the sky falls in on Mexico's future, President Felipe Calderon appears astoundingly blasé, echoing John McCain's misguided appraisal of his own economy by declaring Mexico's "fundamentally sound", an opinion he shared with brokers last week at the reeling New York Stock Exchange where he was invited to open trading by clanging the traditional bell.
Calderon's optimism was echoed by his super-sized finance minister Carstens who assures investors that "this is one crisis Mexico is prepared for." The old maxim that when Wall Street gets the sniffles, Mexico comes down with pneumonia is no longer operative, the former World Bank behemoth counsels. "Now Wall Street has pneumonia and we will only get a little cough." Such delusional reasoning invoked a chorus of coughing when Carstens went before congress recently to insist that Mexico would resist the gringo disease without resorting to cutting budgets.
Dubious observers like La Jornada financial columnist Carlos Fernandez Vega suggests that a good place to initiate cuts might be Carstens himself. Imagine how much Mexico could save in spiraling food costs if the corpulent finance secretary's intake was slashed 10% in the next budget cycle.
John Ross is wrestling with "El Monstruo" in the maw of Mexico City. These dispatches will continue at 10-day intervals until the draft is done. If you have further information visit www.johnross-rebeljournalist.com or johnross@igc.org
By JOHN ROSS
http://www.counterpunch.com/ross10122008.html
Mexico City.
Fury at the billionaire bail-out of the criminal class that has driven Wall Street into a disaster of 9/11 dimensions festers down at the bottom of the economic food chain on Main Street USA. It is a familiar syndrome south of the border. Bailing out the super rich on the backs of the rest of us has had Mexicans seething since the great FOBAPROA scam of the mid-1990s.
The Mexican Meltdown kicked in in late 1994. The outgoing president, the reviled Carlos Salinas de Gortari, had borrowed $33 billion USD in short-term loans to keep his house of cards from crashing down before he left office. Worried about his legacy, Salinas refused to devaluate a chronically over-valued peso, leaving the dirty work to his inept successor Ernesto Zedillo. When on December 20th, the new president was forced to devalue, the peso sank from three to ten to a dollar overnight. Panicked investors pulled their money out of the country to the tune of $1.5 billion a day. Capital flight emptied out the nation's once-healthy reserves. With payback on Salinas's short-term "tesobonos" coming due daily, Mexico was staring down default by January 1995.
Meanwhile, Mexican banks, which were re-privatized just two years previous, had been stripped back to the bone. The only liquidity left in the vaults was said to be $26 billion in narco-money that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration claims is washed through the Mexican banking system annually. Interest rates were ratcheted up to 100% plus and debtors were crucified.
Encouraged by the banks, farmers had borrowed beyond their means to position themselves for the never-materialized bonanza of the North American Free Trade Agreement (TLCAN are its Spanish initials) and couldn't pay up. The banks foreclosed on family farms, ranches, machinery, and herds of livestock.
Urban borrowers, squeezed by the soaring rates, lost taxis and taco stands, their furniture and their apartments. The banks hired armed, off-duty cops who broke down the doors of the debtors, terrorizing their families. Over a thousand citizens were unlawfully jailed and charged with theft.
By February 1995, Mexico had lurched into its deepest economic slide since the Great Depression. Indeed, depression was the mood of the day. Farmers drank pesticide to end it all or poured gasoline over their bodies and immolated themselves in despair. 33 citizens leaped to their deaths before onrushing trains down in the Mexico City Metro in 1996, a record.
But other debtors organized and fought back. El Barzon which took its name from a popular depression-era tune (the "barzon" was the strap that fastened the plough to the mule team) mobilized farmers and cityslickers alike. Bank officials were tarred and feathered, highway tollbooths burnt to the ground. In Mexico City, the Barzonistas sealed bank doors shut with superglue and marched through the streets in their underwear or less or clothed only in barrels in classic Great Depression style. One day, El Barzon paraded a circus the banks had foreclosed on to the great doors of the Bank of Mexico where the elephants took dumps on the marble steps, a steaming souvenir for the hated bankers.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency told the daily business journal El Financiero that the Barzon movement was even more subversive than the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, the Indian rebels in Chiapas whom Zedillo was falsely blaming for destabilizing Mexico and triggering the collapse.
Like the Cassandras of Wall Street today, the bankers cried Armageddon and the president, Zedillo, much as George Bush in the current imbroglio, stampeded congress into a monumental bail-out. FOBAPROA ("Banking Fund for the Protection of Savings") dumped $120 billion USD in bad debt on the backs of Mexican taxpayers, 20% of the nation's gross domestic product - Bush's monstrous bail-out only accounts for 7% of U.S. GDP.
Unlike the U.S. Congress's testy reaction to what is being dubbed "GRINGOPROA" here, the Mexican legislature, then dominated by the long-ruling (71 years) Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), in connivance with the right-wing PAN, signed off on FOBAPROA without missing a beat. Only the left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), led by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) raised its voice in protest. A referendum on the bail-out organized by Lopez Obrador drummed up 2,000,000 votes against Zedillo's skam.
The cost of FOBAPROA has been incalculable. With the Mexican government obligated to shell out $8 to 10 billion USD of Mexican taxpayers hard-earned money each year to pay off the debts of deadbeat banks, social budgets have shrunk, schools and hospitals do not get built, and the nation's highway system, also privatized under Salinas and Zedillo, has fallen into dangerous disrepair.
Once the banks had been reasonably sanitized, the Zedillo government sold them off to international financial combines - Citigroup, Santander, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Spanish BBVA, and the Hong Kong-based HSBC dominate the Mexican banking industry, 90% of which is in non-Mexican hands. Now the globalization of the Mexican banking system has left it vulnerable to contagion from the collapse of Wall Street.
In fact, the gringo credit crunch has already spread south of the border. Battered by spiraling interest rates, Mexican borrowers are defaulting big time on their loans - 6.9% of all bank loans are unrecoverable. Spurred by unconscionable hand-outs of credit cards to the middle and underclasses, 8.9% of all plastic is contaminating credit markets. Constricting credit threatens 2,000,000 small businesses and doomsayers speculate that fresh crisis and a new FOBAPROA are on Mexico's plate for 2009.
The U.S. debacle, tagged the "Jazz Effect" by Argentinean president Cristina Fernandez at the United Nations General Assembly conclave last week (an insult to a uniquely American art form), has infected Mexico's economic bloodstream and the nation's well-being seems beyond recovery for the foreseeable future.
Whereas President Felipe Calderon and his 350-pound finance minister Agustin Carstens once assured suspicious investors of 3% growth in 2008, the lowest on the Latin American totem pole trailing even basket case countries like Honduras and Haiti, Merrill Lynch, itself a flattened former powerhouse just spun off to the Bank of America, has recalibrated that anemic forecast to a sickly 1.9% in light of the fall-out from the downturn in El Norte.
Sinking oil prices as energy demand tails off into a deflationary spiral will cripple investment in PEMEX, the national oil consortium Calderon so ardently wants to sell off to Big Oil - PEMEX accounts for 40% of the nation's budget. Even more ominous is the nosedive in "remesas", remittances sent south by Mexican workers in the U.S. that is the only sustenance for whole rural regions and which constitute Mexico's poverty program - one out of every four Mexican families now subsist on the remesas. Remittances are Mexico's second source of dollars, right behind petroleum.
This August, the flow of greenbacks from the north diminished by a shocking 12% and total remesas have sunk 4.4% in the first five months of 2008. Prospects for relief are dim. Mexicans working in the U.S. are the last hired and the first fired. With U.S. national unemployment topping 6% - California where more Mexicans work than any other state registered 7.9% unemployment last month and the construction industry which employs many Mexican workers is off 14% - workers are beginning to return home even though unemployment and inflation here are hitting highs not seen since the Meltdown of the 1990s.
Although the Calderon administration minimalizes the return migration, estimating that no more than 200,000 workers will come home to Mexico in coming months, many immigration watchers are calculating that the numbers could stretch into the millions. Despite labor secretary Javiar Lozano's happy face forecast that Mexico will be able to provide jobs for the returnees, it should be remembered that these workers fled to the U.S. precisely because they could not find work here.
Moreover, Mexico, which runs a serious trade deficit with the U.S., will see exports and the jobs they generate dry up in 2009. Automobile and auto parts orders, a big chunk of Mexico's export basket, have been cancelled due to sagging sales up north and workers are being laid off on both sides of the border. Manufacturing orders for border-based maquiladoras are plummeting and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost to even lower wage countries like China in recent years.
The news gets worse. Workers' pension funds, privatized under Zedillo to allow for investment in money markets, have lost 62.5 billion pesos since the first of the year. The credit collapse has gutted the Mexican stock market as sorely as it has eviscerated U.S., European, and Asian exchanges - the Bolsa de Valores has lost over a thousand points just in the last month, panicking the nation's top Forbes list billionaires.
Carlos Slim, the world's first, second, third, or fourth richest man depending on how one measures fortunes, claims to have lost half of his in recent weeks - Slim, owner of many telephone companies in Latin America, is heavily invested in both Wall Street and the Mexican stock market where his corporations account for a third of the trading volume. The despondent Slim recently summoned the press to hear out his doom and gloom prognosis, describing the current credit crisis as far more dangerous than 1929 and anticipating deep and prolonged world recession if not Great Depression.
While the sky falls in on Mexico's future, President Felipe Calderon appears astoundingly blasé, echoing John McCain's misguided appraisal of his own economy by declaring Mexico's "fundamentally sound", an opinion he shared with brokers last week at the reeling New York Stock Exchange where he was invited to open trading by clanging the traditional bell.
Calderon's optimism was echoed by his super-sized finance minister Carstens who assures investors that "this is one crisis Mexico is prepared for." The old maxim that when Wall Street gets the sniffles, Mexico comes down with pneumonia is no longer operative, the former World Bank behemoth counsels. "Now Wall Street has pneumonia and we will only get a little cough." Such delusional reasoning invoked a chorus of coughing when Carstens went before congress recently to insist that Mexico would resist the gringo disease without resorting to cutting budgets.
Dubious observers like La Jornada financial columnist Carlos Fernandez Vega suggests that a good place to initiate cuts might be Carstens himself. Imagine how much Mexico could save in spiraling food costs if the corpulent finance secretary's intake was slashed 10% in the next budget cycle.
John Ross is wrestling with "El Monstruo" in the maw of Mexico City. These dispatches will continue at 10-day intervals until the draft is done. If you have further information visit www.johnross-rebeljournalist.com or johnross@igc.org
"Quiero compartir y proponer para un debate unos 10 mandamientos para salvar al planeta, a la humanidad y la vida"
Mensaje a los movimientos sociales que integran la Jornada Continental de Solidaridad con Bolivia
Evo Morales
En el marco de la Jornada Continental de Solidaridad con Bolivia y con Evo Morales, que se realiza hoy, 9 de octubre en la ciudad de Guatemala, como actividad conexa al III Foro Social Américas, el presidente boliviano hizo llegar el siguiente mensaje a los movimientos sociales presentes en el acto
Mensaje del Presidente Evo Morales a la Jornada Continental de Solidaridad con Bolivia, Ciudad de Guatemala, 9 de Octubre de 2008
Hermanas y hermanos, a nombre del pueblo de Bolivia, saludo a los movimientos sociales del continente, presentes en este acto de la Jornada Continental de Solidaridad con Bolivia.
Acabamos de sufrir la violencia de la oligarquía, que tuvo su mas brutal expresión en la masacre en Pando, hecho que nos enseña que ostentar el poder en base a la plata y las armas para oprimir el pueblo no es sostenible. Fácilmente se derrumba, si no es basado en un programa y la conciencia del pueblo.
Estamos viendo que la refundación de Bolivia afecta a los mezquinos intereses de unas cuantas familias de grandes terratenientes, que rechazan como agresión las medidas a favor del pueblo como la distribución más equilibrada de los recursos del gas para nuestros abuelos y abuelas, igual que la distribución de tierras, las campañas de salud y alfabetización, y otras.
Para resguardar su poder y privilegios y evadir el proceso de cambio, las oligarquías latifundistas de la llamada media luna se encubren en las autonomías departamentales y la división de la unidad nacional, prestándose a los intereses yanquis de acabar con la refundación de Bolivia.
Pero, en el referendo revocatorio del 10 de agosto, acabamos de recibir el mandato de dos tercios del pueblos boliviano, para consolidar este proceso de cambio, para seguir avanzando en la recuperación de nuestros recursos naturales, en asegurar el Vivir Bien para todas las bolivianas y bolivianos, y unir a los distintos sectores del campo y la ciudad, de oriente y de occidente.
Hermanas y hermanos, lo que ha pasado en el referendo revocatorio en Bolivia es algo importante no solamente para los bolivianos sino para todos los latinoamericanos. Lo dedicamos a todos los revolucionarios de Latinoamérica y del mundo, reivindicando la lucha de todos los procesos de cambio.
Yo venía a expresar la forma de cómo recuperar la vivencia de nuestros pueblos, llamado el Vivir Bien, recuperar nuestra visión sobre la madre tierra, que para nosotros es vida, porque no es posible que un modelo capitalista convierta a la madre tierra en mercancía. Cada vez más vemos profundas coincidencias entre el movimiento indígena y las organizaciones de los movimientos sociales, que apuestan también por el Vivir Bien. Saludamos a ellos para que de manera conjunta podamos buscar cierto equilibrio en el mundo.
Y dentro ese marco, quiero compartir y proponer para un debate unos 10 mandamientos para salvar al planeta, a la humanidad y la vida, no solamente a este nivel sino también para debatir con nuestras comunidades, con nuestras organizaciones.
Primero, si queremos salvar al planeta tierra para salvar la vida y a la humanidad, estamos en la obligación de acabar con el sistema capitalista. Los graves efectos del cambio climático, de las crisis energéticas, alimentarias y financieras, no son producto de los seres humanos en general, sino es del sistema capitalista vigente, inhumano con su desarrollo industrial ilimitado.
Segundo: renunciar a la guerra, porque de las guerras no ganan los pueblos, solo ganan los imperios, no ganan las naciones, sino las transnacionales. Las guerras benefician a pequeñas familias y no a los pueblos. Los trillones de millones que se destinan a la guerra deben ser destinados para reparar y curar a la madre tierra que esta herida por el cambio climático.
Tercera propuesta para el debate: un mundo sin imperialismo ni colonialismo, donde las relacionas deben estar orientadas en el marco de la complementariedad, y tomar en cuenta las profundas asimetrías que existe de familia a familia, de país a país, y de continente a continente.
El cuarto punto esta orientado al tema del agua, que debe ser garantizada como derecho humano y evitar su privatización en pocas manos, ya que el agua es vida.
Como un quinto punto, quiero decirles que debemos buscar cómo acabar con el derroche de energía. En 100 años estamos acabando con la energía fósil creada durante millones de años. Como algunos presidentes reservan tierras para automóviles de lujo y no para el ser humano, debemos implementar políticas para frenar los agrocombustibles y de esta manera evitar hambre y miseria para nuestros pueblos.
Como sexto punto: respecto a la Madre Tierra. El sistema capitalista trae a la Madre Tierra como una materia prima, pero la tierra no puede ser entendida como una mercancía, ¿quién podría privatizar o alquilar, fletar a su madre? Propongo que organicemos un movimiento internacional en defensa de la Madre Naturaleza, para recuperar la salud de la Madre Tierra y restablecer la vida armónica y responsable con ella.
Un tema central como séptimo punto para el debate, es que los servicios básicos, sea agua, luz, educación, salud, deben ser tomados en cuenta como un derecho humano.
Como octavo punto, consumir lo necesario, priorizar lo que producimos y consumimos localmente, acabar con el consumismo, el derroche y el lujo. Debemos priorizar la producción local para el consumo local, estimulando el auto sostenimiento y la soberanía de las comunidades dentro de los límites que la salud y los recursos menguados del planeta permitan.
Como penúltimo punto, promover la diversidad de culturas y economías. Vivir en unidad respetando nuestras diferencias, no solamente fisonómicas, también económicas, economías manejadas por las comunidades y las asociaciones.
Hermanas y hermanos, como décimo punto, planteamos el Vivir Bien, no vivir mejor a costa del otro, un Vivir Bien basado en la vivencia de nuestros pueblos, las riquezas de nuestras comunidades, tierras fértiles, agua y aire limpios. Se habla mucho del socialismo, pero hay que mejorar ese socialismo del siglo XXI, construyendo un socialismo comunitario o sencillamente el Vivir Bien, en armonía con la Madre Tierra, respetando las formas de vivencia de la comunidad.
Finalmente, hermanas y hermanos, seguramente ustedes están haciendo seguimiento sobre los problemas que existen. Llego a la conclusión que siempre habrá problemas, pero quiero decirles que estoy muy contento, no decepcionado ni preocupado porque esos grupos que permanentemente esclavizaron a nuestras familias durante la colonia, la república y en la época del neoliberalismo, siguen agrupados en algunas familias, resistiéndome.
Es nuestra lucha enfrentar esos grupos que viven en el lujo y no quieren perder el lujo, perder sus tierras. Es una lucha histórica y sigue aún esta lucha.
Hermanas y hermanos, esperando que esta Jornada Continental del III Foro Social Américas culmine con fuertes lazos de unidad entre todos ustedes y con un firme Plan de Acción a favor del pueblo de Bolivia y todos nuestros pueblos, reitero mi saludo fraternal.
Evo Morales Ayma
Presidente de la República de Bolivia
Evo Morales
En el marco de la Jornada Continental de Solidaridad con Bolivia y con Evo Morales, que se realiza hoy, 9 de octubre en la ciudad de Guatemala, como actividad conexa al III Foro Social Américas, el presidente boliviano hizo llegar el siguiente mensaje a los movimientos sociales presentes en el acto
Mensaje del Presidente Evo Morales a la Jornada Continental de Solidaridad con Bolivia, Ciudad de Guatemala, 9 de Octubre de 2008
Hermanas y hermanos, a nombre del pueblo de Bolivia, saludo a los movimientos sociales del continente, presentes en este acto de la Jornada Continental de Solidaridad con Bolivia.
Acabamos de sufrir la violencia de la oligarquía, que tuvo su mas brutal expresión en la masacre en Pando, hecho que nos enseña que ostentar el poder en base a la plata y las armas para oprimir el pueblo no es sostenible. Fácilmente se derrumba, si no es basado en un programa y la conciencia del pueblo.
Estamos viendo que la refundación de Bolivia afecta a los mezquinos intereses de unas cuantas familias de grandes terratenientes, que rechazan como agresión las medidas a favor del pueblo como la distribución más equilibrada de los recursos del gas para nuestros abuelos y abuelas, igual que la distribución de tierras, las campañas de salud y alfabetización, y otras.
Para resguardar su poder y privilegios y evadir el proceso de cambio, las oligarquías latifundistas de la llamada media luna se encubren en las autonomías departamentales y la división de la unidad nacional, prestándose a los intereses yanquis de acabar con la refundación de Bolivia.
Pero, en el referendo revocatorio del 10 de agosto, acabamos de recibir el mandato de dos tercios del pueblos boliviano, para consolidar este proceso de cambio, para seguir avanzando en la recuperación de nuestros recursos naturales, en asegurar el Vivir Bien para todas las bolivianas y bolivianos, y unir a los distintos sectores del campo y la ciudad, de oriente y de occidente.
Hermanas y hermanos, lo que ha pasado en el referendo revocatorio en Bolivia es algo importante no solamente para los bolivianos sino para todos los latinoamericanos. Lo dedicamos a todos los revolucionarios de Latinoamérica y del mundo, reivindicando la lucha de todos los procesos de cambio.
Yo venía a expresar la forma de cómo recuperar la vivencia de nuestros pueblos, llamado el Vivir Bien, recuperar nuestra visión sobre la madre tierra, que para nosotros es vida, porque no es posible que un modelo capitalista convierta a la madre tierra en mercancía. Cada vez más vemos profundas coincidencias entre el movimiento indígena y las organizaciones de los movimientos sociales, que apuestan también por el Vivir Bien. Saludamos a ellos para que de manera conjunta podamos buscar cierto equilibrio en el mundo.
Y dentro ese marco, quiero compartir y proponer para un debate unos 10 mandamientos para salvar al planeta, a la humanidad y la vida, no solamente a este nivel sino también para debatir con nuestras comunidades, con nuestras organizaciones.
Primero, si queremos salvar al planeta tierra para salvar la vida y a la humanidad, estamos en la obligación de acabar con el sistema capitalista. Los graves efectos del cambio climático, de las crisis energéticas, alimentarias y financieras, no son producto de los seres humanos en general, sino es del sistema capitalista vigente, inhumano con su desarrollo industrial ilimitado.
Segundo: renunciar a la guerra, porque de las guerras no ganan los pueblos, solo ganan los imperios, no ganan las naciones, sino las transnacionales. Las guerras benefician a pequeñas familias y no a los pueblos. Los trillones de millones que se destinan a la guerra deben ser destinados para reparar y curar a la madre tierra que esta herida por el cambio climático.
Tercera propuesta para el debate: un mundo sin imperialismo ni colonialismo, donde las relacionas deben estar orientadas en el marco de la complementariedad, y tomar en cuenta las profundas asimetrías que existe de familia a familia, de país a país, y de continente a continente.
El cuarto punto esta orientado al tema del agua, que debe ser garantizada como derecho humano y evitar su privatización en pocas manos, ya que el agua es vida.
Como un quinto punto, quiero decirles que debemos buscar cómo acabar con el derroche de energía. En 100 años estamos acabando con la energía fósil creada durante millones de años. Como algunos presidentes reservan tierras para automóviles de lujo y no para el ser humano, debemos implementar políticas para frenar los agrocombustibles y de esta manera evitar hambre y miseria para nuestros pueblos.
Como sexto punto: respecto a la Madre Tierra. El sistema capitalista trae a la Madre Tierra como una materia prima, pero la tierra no puede ser entendida como una mercancía, ¿quién podría privatizar o alquilar, fletar a su madre? Propongo que organicemos un movimiento internacional en defensa de la Madre Naturaleza, para recuperar la salud de la Madre Tierra y restablecer la vida armónica y responsable con ella.
Un tema central como séptimo punto para el debate, es que los servicios básicos, sea agua, luz, educación, salud, deben ser tomados en cuenta como un derecho humano.
Como octavo punto, consumir lo necesario, priorizar lo que producimos y consumimos localmente, acabar con el consumismo, el derroche y el lujo. Debemos priorizar la producción local para el consumo local, estimulando el auto sostenimiento y la soberanía de las comunidades dentro de los límites que la salud y los recursos menguados del planeta permitan.
Como penúltimo punto, promover la diversidad de culturas y economías. Vivir en unidad respetando nuestras diferencias, no solamente fisonómicas, también económicas, economías manejadas por las comunidades y las asociaciones.
Hermanas y hermanos, como décimo punto, planteamos el Vivir Bien, no vivir mejor a costa del otro, un Vivir Bien basado en la vivencia de nuestros pueblos, las riquezas de nuestras comunidades, tierras fértiles, agua y aire limpios. Se habla mucho del socialismo, pero hay que mejorar ese socialismo del siglo XXI, construyendo un socialismo comunitario o sencillamente el Vivir Bien, en armonía con la Madre Tierra, respetando las formas de vivencia de la comunidad.
Finalmente, hermanas y hermanos, seguramente ustedes están haciendo seguimiento sobre los problemas que existen. Llego a la conclusión que siempre habrá problemas, pero quiero decirles que estoy muy contento, no decepcionado ni preocupado porque esos grupos que permanentemente esclavizaron a nuestras familias durante la colonia, la república y en la época del neoliberalismo, siguen agrupados en algunas familias, resistiéndome.
Es nuestra lucha enfrentar esos grupos que viven en el lujo y no quieren perder el lujo, perder sus tierras. Es una lucha histórica y sigue aún esta lucha.
Hermanas y hermanos, esperando que esta Jornada Continental del III Foro Social Américas culmine con fuertes lazos de unidad entre todos ustedes y con un firme Plan de Acción a favor del pueblo de Bolivia y todos nuestros pueblos, reitero mi saludo fraternal.
Evo Morales Ayma
Presidente de la República de Bolivia
10/9/08
New Evidence Shows Bush Had No Plan to Catch bin Laden After 9/11
By Gareth Porter, IPS News
Posted on October 7, 2008, Printed on October 9, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/102020/
New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.
That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the area to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.
Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept him, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.
On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora mountains close to the Pakistani border.
The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.
Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.
Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.
Franks apparently already realized that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the (Pakistanis) to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out," according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War.
Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that."
A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.
A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks' request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book Inside Centcom that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that" because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.
But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.
Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden's exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look, you are missing the point: There are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.
Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin." The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.
But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than were available.
Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.
Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.
Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines into Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the air base there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had steamed into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.
The Marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al Qaeda officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometers of border."
U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said, "because he had given them millions of dollars."
Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the area over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.
"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.
The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sept. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and July 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.
Even after Sept. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.
Bush's top-secret order of Sept. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book A Pretext for War.
Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in National Security Council meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.
© 2008 IPS News All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/102020/
Posted on October 7, 2008, Printed on October 9, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/102020/
New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.
That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the area to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.
Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept him, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.
On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora mountains close to the Pakistani border.
The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.
Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.
Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.
Franks apparently already realized that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the (Pakistanis) to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out," according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War.
Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that."
A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.
A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks' request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book Inside Centcom that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that" because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.
But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.
Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden's exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look, you are missing the point: There are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.
Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin." The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.
But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than were available.
Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.
Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.
Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines into Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the air base there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had steamed into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.
The Marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al Qaeda officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometers of border."
U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said, "because he had given them millions of dollars."
Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the area over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.
"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.
The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sept. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and July 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.
Even after Sept. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.
Bush's top-secret order of Sept. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book A Pretext for War.
Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in National Security Council meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.
© 2008 IPS News All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/102020/
The Ordeal of the Wrongly Imprisoned Uighurs
From Guantánamo to the United States
By ANDY WORTHINGTON
http://www.counterpunch.com/worthington10092008.html
In an extraordinary and unprecedented ruling in a US District Court, Judge Ricardo Urbina has ruled that 17 wrongly imprisoned Chinese Muslims at Guantánamo must be allowed entry to the United States. It is, as the media has been reporting, the first time that a US court has directly ordered the release of a prisoner at Guantánamo, and the first time that a foreign national held at the prison has been ordered to be brought to the United States. It is also a resounding blow to the administration’s claims that it can seize anyone it wishes as an “enemy combatant,” and hold them indefinitely, even if there is no evidence whatsoever to support their detention.
The road to Guantánamo
The 17 men -- Uighurs (or Uyghurs) from Xinjiang province in the People’s Republic of China (known to the Uighurs as East Turkestan) -- have been a problem for the authorities since they were captured nearly seven years ago. Refugees from Chinese oppression, 13 of the men had, by accident or design, made their way to a run-down hamlet in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora mountains, where they spent their time making the place habitable, and indulging in futile dreams of rising up against their historic oppressors. After the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, they were targeted in a US bombing raid, in which several of their companions died. The survivors made their way to the Pakistani border, where they were welcomed by villagers, who betrayed them soon after, selling them for a bounty to US forces.
The other four Uighurs were caught up in similarly bleak scenarios. One had fled from death and destruction in Kabul, and was caught as he attempted to cross the Pakistani border, and three were randomly seized in northern Afghanistan and imprisoned with several hundred foreign Taliban fighters in Qala-i-Janghi, a fort run by General Rashid Dostum, one of the leaders of the Northern Alliance. When Alliance troops, with support from US and British Special Forces, began tying the men’s hands behind their backs, some of the Taliban soldiers thought that they were about to be executed, and rose up against their captors. In the ensuing massacre -- involving ground troops and bombing raids -- the majority of the prisoners were killed, but the Uighurs, along with 84 others, had stayed in the basement, where they survived death by bombing, fire and flooding, and they were part of a group of around 50 survivors who were eventually transferred to Guantánamo.
According to Chris Mackey, the pseudonym of a senior interrogator at the US-run prisons in Kandahar and Bagram, which were used to process the prisoners for Guantánamo, US forces realized almost immediately that the men were not involved with al-Qaeda, but decided to hold them for their supposed intelligence value. In his book The Interrogators, Mackey explained that their arrival triggered a frenzy of activity in the upper echelons of the administration. “The requests for follow-up questions flooded in from Washington,” he wrote, “and every query that came in made it clear that US intelligence was starting from practically zero with this group.”
Twisted tribunals
Transferred to Guantánamo, so that the authorities could continue milking them for information about China, the US authorities nevertheless persisted in identifying the men with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, by claiming that they were associated with the East Turkestan Independence Movement (ETIM), a Uighur resistance group. And when the administration sought support from China for its invasion of Iraq -- or, at least, a lack of opposition -- it obligingly designated ETIM a terrorist organization, and allowed Chinese interrogators to visit Guantánamo, where, according to several of the prisoners, they received threats that they would be killed if they ever returned to China.
In 2004, when the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners had habeas corpus rights (in other words, the right to challenge the basis of their detention in a federal court), the administration’s cynical response was to introduce military review boards at Guantánamo -- the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) -- to assess whether, on capture, the prisoners had been correctly designated as “enemy combatants,” who could be held without charge or trial. This was a hideously unjust process, as the prisoners were not allowed legal representation, were confronted with often spurious allegations (frequently produced through the torture or coercive interrogations of other prisoners), and were also prevented from either seeing or hearing the “classified evidence” against them, which could also have been produced in the same unjust, unprincipled, and often illegal manner.
Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a veteran of US intelligence who worked on the tribunals, caused a stir last year when he explained how the information used in the tribunals frequently consisted of intelligence “of a generalized nature -- often outdated, often ‘generic,’ rarely specifically relating to the individual subjects of the CSRTs or to the circumstances related to those individuals’ status,” and how the entire process was, essentially, designed to rubber-stamp the prisoners’ prior designation as “enemy combatants.” As a result, only 38 of the 558 prisoners were cleared for release after the tribunals, and on a few occasions, when the result of the tribunal displeased the administration, further tribunals were held until the desired result was achieved.
This happened to at least two of the Uighurs, Anwar Hassan and Hammad Mohammed, but others were among the lucky 38 who were found to be “No Longer Enemy Combatants” after the CSRTs, and five of these men were finally released in May 2006, when Albania stepped forward as the only country in the world prepared to risk the wrath of China by giving the men a new home -- albeit one with no Uighur community, no work prospects, and no chance for them ever to be reunited with their families.
While these men struggled to survive in Albania, the other Uighurs -- who were all eventually cleared for release after further review boards -- remained in severe isolation in Guantanamo. Like the majority of other cleared prisoners from human rights-abusing regimes (including Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and Uzbekistan), few of the men were held in Camp 4, the only block that allowed the prisoners to share dorm-like facilities, and the majority continued to be held in maximum security cellblocks for 22 or 23 hours a day, prohibited from meeting each other and with little, if any outside stimulation to break the corrosive monotony of their existence, or their fears that they would never be released or would, in fact, be surreptitiously returned to China.
In March, a letter from Guantánamo by one of the prisoners, Abdulghappar, described the suffering of the men in painful detail. He wrote: “Being away from family, away from our homeland, and also away from the outside world and losing any contact with anyone is not suitable for a human being, as, also, is being forbidden from experiencing natural sunlight and natural air, and being surrounded by a metal box on all sides.” He also reported that one of his compatriots had embarked on a hunger strike in protest, but was being punished for it, and asked, “In the US Constitution, is it a crime for someone to ask to protect his health and to ask for his rights? If it does count as a crime, then what is the difference between the US Constitution and the Communist Constitution?”
Empty evidence
This impasse over the Uighurs’ plight was finally broken in June, after the Supreme Court, dismayed that the habeas rights it had granted the prisoners in 2004 had been removed in subsequent legislation, stamped its authority by ruling that the prisoners had constitutional habeas rights. This unblocked a queue of contested habeas cases that had been on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling, and when the first of the cases, Parhat v. Gates, reached the Court of Appeals in Washington, the judges’ explosive ruling led directly to Judge Urbina’s historic ruling on Tuesday.
The three Appeal Court judges -- noticeably, two Conservatives and a Liberal -- ruled that the CSRT’s decision that Huzaifa Parhat, one of the Uighurs, was an “enemy combatant” was “invalid,” and “directed the government to release or transfer” him (or to hold a new tribunal “consistent with the Court’s opinion”). In a savage denunciation of the CSRT decision, they lambasted the government for the flimsy and unsubstantiated allegations and associations it used to conclude that Parhat was an “enemy combatant,” and in a memorable passage compared the government’s argument that its evidence was reliable because it was mentioned in three different classified documents to a line from a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. As Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland explained, “Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact the government has ’said it thrice’ does not make an allegation true.”
With the Parhat ruling, the government’s attempts to insist that any of the Uighurs were “enemy combatants” were clearly no longer tenable. At a hearing in August, when the idea was first floated that they should be released into the United States, Judge Urbina “hinted,” as the Washington Post described it, “that he was intrigued by the detainees’ proposal,” and stated, “I don’t understand why that would not be a viable option.”
The Justice Department did not respond directly to Judge Urbina’s comments, but its lawyers argued in court that only the President had the authority to allow the men into the United States. However, the Post explained that, although the issues were “complex,” legal scholars “generally disagreed with the government’s position, saying the judge has the ultimate authority” to decide whether to bring the men to the US mainland.
The Justice Department also insisted that the judge was legally prevented from ordering the Uighurs’ entry into the US if they had ties to terrorist groups. As Parhat v. Gates showed, however, neither Huzaifa Parhat nor, by extension, the other 12 men seized with him had ties to terrorist groups, and as the weeks passed the government fatally undermined its own arguments: first it announced, in belated response to the Parhat ruling, that it would not arrange a new trial for Parhat and that it would “serve no purpose” to continue trying to prove that he was an “enemy combatant”; then it did the same for four of his compatriots; and on September 30 it added the last 12 Uighurs to its list of non-combatants.
Welcome to America
As a result, Judge Urbina came to work on Tuesday facing a stark but simple decision: to obey the US Constitution or to turn his back on all he had been brought up to believe in.
He chose to obey the Constitution. Ordering the 17 men to be brought from Guantánamo to the courtroom on Friday, he indicated that he would release them to supporters in the United States -- in Florida, and in the Washington D.C. area -- who would look after them while the government worked out if it could come up with another solution that did not involve their continued imprisonment.
“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Urbina stated, adding, “Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful.”
He also explained, as the New York Times described it, that “the men had never fought the United States and were not a security threat,” and impatiently rejected a government request to stay his order to permit an immediate appeal. “All of this means more delay,” he said, “and delay is the name of the game up until this point.” Drawing on the historic right of a judge to demand that a prisoner be brought before him (the core, in fact, of habeas corpus, which means, literally, “you have the body”), he added, “I want to see the individuals.”
When the government suggested that immigration officials might detain the men on arrival in the United States, Judge Urbina snapped, “I do not expect these Uighurs will be molested by any member of the United States government. I’m a federal judge, and I’ve issued an order.” Crucially, as the Times put it, he “underscored the significance of his ruling with repeated references to the constitutional separation of powers and the judiciary’s role,” rejecting arguments put forward by the Justice Department as “assertions of executive power to detain people indefinitely without court review,” which, he said, were “not in keeping with our system of government.”
As the judge rose to leave the bench, the crowded courtroom burst into applause. Members of the Washington D.C. Uighur community, who settled here in the 1980s, when they fled Chinese oppression and were regarded as anti-Communist heroes, had come to lend support, and their offers of help -- and those offered by community leaders from Tallahassee, Florida, who have also been involved in plans to welcome the Uighurs -- were credited with helping the judge make his decision.
Nury Turkel, a D.C.-based aviation lawyer, explained, “Our community said, 'We are here to help. Release them into our custody.' We have people offering them places to stay, English training, employment. We don't want anyone to think they will be a burden on society.”
Although the government immediately pledged that it would appeal Judge Urbina’s ruling, and the White House’s press secretary, Dana Perino, claimed, somewhat hysterically, that it “could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country,” no decision had been made by the close of business on Wednesday.
As CNN reported, the government had filed an emergency motion, reiterating its argument that “only the executive branch, not the courts, may decide whether to admit an alien into the United States,” and insisting that Judge Urbina’s ruling “threatens serious harm to the interests of the United States and its citizens by mandating that the government release in the nation's capital 17 individuals who engaged in weapons training at a military training camp.” In response, as the Associated Press reported, the prisoners stated that Judge Urbina had “made the right decision in ordering their release since they are no longer considered enemy combatants,” and their lawyers argued that delaying their release would mean that “the government would prolong by months, and perhaps years, an imprisonment whose legal justification it has conceded away.”
In the hope that justice will prevail, I leave the final word -- for now -- to Sabin Willett, a Boston-based lawyer who represents some of the Uighur prisoners. Willett and his colleagues have campaigned assiduously for their clients, and after arguing the case before Judge Urbina, he stated, with a dignity sorely lacking from the government’s rhetoric, “In the history of our Republic, the military never imprisoned any man so harshly, and for so long, let alone men who are not the enemy. We have broken faith with the rule of law, and been untrue to the generosity of spirit that is our national character.”
Note: Early on the morning of October 9, Reuters reported that a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the Uighurs’ release, granting the government a stay until October 16, in order to give the court more time to consider the dispute. The three judges added, however, that the stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of the government's request.
Andy Worthington is a British historian, and the author of 'The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison' (published by Pluto Press). Visit his website at: www.andyworthington.co.uk He can be reached at: andy@andyworthington.co.uk
By ANDY WORTHINGTON
http://www.counterpunch.com/worthington10092008.html
In an extraordinary and unprecedented ruling in a US District Court, Judge Ricardo Urbina has ruled that 17 wrongly imprisoned Chinese Muslims at Guantánamo must be allowed entry to the United States. It is, as the media has been reporting, the first time that a US court has directly ordered the release of a prisoner at Guantánamo, and the first time that a foreign national held at the prison has been ordered to be brought to the United States. It is also a resounding blow to the administration’s claims that it can seize anyone it wishes as an “enemy combatant,” and hold them indefinitely, even if there is no evidence whatsoever to support their detention.
The road to Guantánamo
The 17 men -- Uighurs (or Uyghurs) from Xinjiang province in the People’s Republic of China (known to the Uighurs as East Turkestan) -- have been a problem for the authorities since they were captured nearly seven years ago. Refugees from Chinese oppression, 13 of the men had, by accident or design, made their way to a run-down hamlet in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora mountains, where they spent their time making the place habitable, and indulging in futile dreams of rising up against their historic oppressors. After the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, they were targeted in a US bombing raid, in which several of their companions died. The survivors made their way to the Pakistani border, where they were welcomed by villagers, who betrayed them soon after, selling them for a bounty to US forces.
The other four Uighurs were caught up in similarly bleak scenarios. One had fled from death and destruction in Kabul, and was caught as he attempted to cross the Pakistani border, and three were randomly seized in northern Afghanistan and imprisoned with several hundred foreign Taliban fighters in Qala-i-Janghi, a fort run by General Rashid Dostum, one of the leaders of the Northern Alliance. When Alliance troops, with support from US and British Special Forces, began tying the men’s hands behind their backs, some of the Taliban soldiers thought that they were about to be executed, and rose up against their captors. In the ensuing massacre -- involving ground troops and bombing raids -- the majority of the prisoners were killed, but the Uighurs, along with 84 others, had stayed in the basement, where they survived death by bombing, fire and flooding, and they were part of a group of around 50 survivors who were eventually transferred to Guantánamo.
According to Chris Mackey, the pseudonym of a senior interrogator at the US-run prisons in Kandahar and Bagram, which were used to process the prisoners for Guantánamo, US forces realized almost immediately that the men were not involved with al-Qaeda, but decided to hold them for their supposed intelligence value. In his book The Interrogators, Mackey explained that their arrival triggered a frenzy of activity in the upper echelons of the administration. “The requests for follow-up questions flooded in from Washington,” he wrote, “and every query that came in made it clear that US intelligence was starting from practically zero with this group.”
Twisted tribunals
Transferred to Guantánamo, so that the authorities could continue milking them for information about China, the US authorities nevertheless persisted in identifying the men with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, by claiming that they were associated with the East Turkestan Independence Movement (ETIM), a Uighur resistance group. And when the administration sought support from China for its invasion of Iraq -- or, at least, a lack of opposition -- it obligingly designated ETIM a terrorist organization, and allowed Chinese interrogators to visit Guantánamo, where, according to several of the prisoners, they received threats that they would be killed if they ever returned to China.
In 2004, when the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners had habeas corpus rights (in other words, the right to challenge the basis of their detention in a federal court), the administration’s cynical response was to introduce military review boards at Guantánamo -- the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) -- to assess whether, on capture, the prisoners had been correctly designated as “enemy combatants,” who could be held without charge or trial. This was a hideously unjust process, as the prisoners were not allowed legal representation, were confronted with often spurious allegations (frequently produced through the torture or coercive interrogations of other prisoners), and were also prevented from either seeing or hearing the “classified evidence” against them, which could also have been produced in the same unjust, unprincipled, and often illegal manner.
Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a veteran of US intelligence who worked on the tribunals, caused a stir last year when he explained how the information used in the tribunals frequently consisted of intelligence “of a generalized nature -- often outdated, often ‘generic,’ rarely specifically relating to the individual subjects of the CSRTs or to the circumstances related to those individuals’ status,” and how the entire process was, essentially, designed to rubber-stamp the prisoners’ prior designation as “enemy combatants.” As a result, only 38 of the 558 prisoners were cleared for release after the tribunals, and on a few occasions, when the result of the tribunal displeased the administration, further tribunals were held until the desired result was achieved.
This happened to at least two of the Uighurs, Anwar Hassan and Hammad Mohammed, but others were among the lucky 38 who were found to be “No Longer Enemy Combatants” after the CSRTs, and five of these men were finally released in May 2006, when Albania stepped forward as the only country in the world prepared to risk the wrath of China by giving the men a new home -- albeit one with no Uighur community, no work prospects, and no chance for them ever to be reunited with their families.
While these men struggled to survive in Albania, the other Uighurs -- who were all eventually cleared for release after further review boards -- remained in severe isolation in Guantanamo. Like the majority of other cleared prisoners from human rights-abusing regimes (including Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and Uzbekistan), few of the men were held in Camp 4, the only block that allowed the prisoners to share dorm-like facilities, and the majority continued to be held in maximum security cellblocks for 22 or 23 hours a day, prohibited from meeting each other and with little, if any outside stimulation to break the corrosive monotony of their existence, or their fears that they would never be released or would, in fact, be surreptitiously returned to China.
In March, a letter from Guantánamo by one of the prisoners, Abdulghappar, described the suffering of the men in painful detail. He wrote: “Being away from family, away from our homeland, and also away from the outside world and losing any contact with anyone is not suitable for a human being, as, also, is being forbidden from experiencing natural sunlight and natural air, and being surrounded by a metal box on all sides.” He also reported that one of his compatriots had embarked on a hunger strike in protest, but was being punished for it, and asked, “In the US Constitution, is it a crime for someone to ask to protect his health and to ask for his rights? If it does count as a crime, then what is the difference between the US Constitution and the Communist Constitution?”
Empty evidence
This impasse over the Uighurs’ plight was finally broken in June, after the Supreme Court, dismayed that the habeas rights it had granted the prisoners in 2004 had been removed in subsequent legislation, stamped its authority by ruling that the prisoners had constitutional habeas rights. This unblocked a queue of contested habeas cases that had been on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling, and when the first of the cases, Parhat v. Gates, reached the Court of Appeals in Washington, the judges’ explosive ruling led directly to Judge Urbina’s historic ruling on Tuesday.
The three Appeal Court judges -- noticeably, two Conservatives and a Liberal -- ruled that the CSRT’s decision that Huzaifa Parhat, one of the Uighurs, was an “enemy combatant” was “invalid,” and “directed the government to release or transfer” him (or to hold a new tribunal “consistent with the Court’s opinion”). In a savage denunciation of the CSRT decision, they lambasted the government for the flimsy and unsubstantiated allegations and associations it used to conclude that Parhat was an “enemy combatant,” and in a memorable passage compared the government’s argument that its evidence was reliable because it was mentioned in three different classified documents to a line from a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. As Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland explained, “Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact the government has ’said it thrice’ does not make an allegation true.”
With the Parhat ruling, the government’s attempts to insist that any of the Uighurs were “enemy combatants” were clearly no longer tenable. At a hearing in August, when the idea was first floated that they should be released into the United States, Judge Urbina “hinted,” as the Washington Post described it, “that he was intrigued by the detainees’ proposal,” and stated, “I don’t understand why that would not be a viable option.”
The Justice Department did not respond directly to Judge Urbina’s comments, but its lawyers argued in court that only the President had the authority to allow the men into the United States. However, the Post explained that, although the issues were “complex,” legal scholars “generally disagreed with the government’s position, saying the judge has the ultimate authority” to decide whether to bring the men to the US mainland.
The Justice Department also insisted that the judge was legally prevented from ordering the Uighurs’ entry into the US if they had ties to terrorist groups. As Parhat v. Gates showed, however, neither Huzaifa Parhat nor, by extension, the other 12 men seized with him had ties to terrorist groups, and as the weeks passed the government fatally undermined its own arguments: first it announced, in belated response to the Parhat ruling, that it would not arrange a new trial for Parhat and that it would “serve no purpose” to continue trying to prove that he was an “enemy combatant”; then it did the same for four of his compatriots; and on September 30 it added the last 12 Uighurs to its list of non-combatants.
Welcome to America
As a result, Judge Urbina came to work on Tuesday facing a stark but simple decision: to obey the US Constitution or to turn his back on all he had been brought up to believe in.
He chose to obey the Constitution. Ordering the 17 men to be brought from Guantánamo to the courtroom on Friday, he indicated that he would release them to supporters in the United States -- in Florida, and in the Washington D.C. area -- who would look after them while the government worked out if it could come up with another solution that did not involve their continued imprisonment.
“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Urbina stated, adding, “Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful.”
He also explained, as the New York Times described it, that “the men had never fought the United States and were not a security threat,” and impatiently rejected a government request to stay his order to permit an immediate appeal. “All of this means more delay,” he said, “and delay is the name of the game up until this point.” Drawing on the historic right of a judge to demand that a prisoner be brought before him (the core, in fact, of habeas corpus, which means, literally, “you have the body”), he added, “I want to see the individuals.”
When the government suggested that immigration officials might detain the men on arrival in the United States, Judge Urbina snapped, “I do not expect these Uighurs will be molested by any member of the United States government. I’m a federal judge, and I’ve issued an order.” Crucially, as the Times put it, he “underscored the significance of his ruling with repeated references to the constitutional separation of powers and the judiciary’s role,” rejecting arguments put forward by the Justice Department as “assertions of executive power to detain people indefinitely without court review,” which, he said, were “not in keeping with our system of government.”
As the judge rose to leave the bench, the crowded courtroom burst into applause. Members of the Washington D.C. Uighur community, who settled here in the 1980s, when they fled Chinese oppression and were regarded as anti-Communist heroes, had come to lend support, and their offers of help -- and those offered by community leaders from Tallahassee, Florida, who have also been involved in plans to welcome the Uighurs -- were credited with helping the judge make his decision.
Nury Turkel, a D.C.-based aviation lawyer, explained, “Our community said, 'We are here to help. Release them into our custody.' We have people offering them places to stay, English training, employment. We don't want anyone to think they will be a burden on society.”
Although the government immediately pledged that it would appeal Judge Urbina’s ruling, and the White House’s press secretary, Dana Perino, claimed, somewhat hysterically, that it “could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country,” no decision had been made by the close of business on Wednesday.
As CNN reported, the government had filed an emergency motion, reiterating its argument that “only the executive branch, not the courts, may decide whether to admit an alien into the United States,” and insisting that Judge Urbina’s ruling “threatens serious harm to the interests of the United States and its citizens by mandating that the government release in the nation's capital 17 individuals who engaged in weapons training at a military training camp.” In response, as the Associated Press reported, the prisoners stated that Judge Urbina had “made the right decision in ordering their release since they are no longer considered enemy combatants,” and their lawyers argued that delaying their release would mean that “the government would prolong by months, and perhaps years, an imprisonment whose legal justification it has conceded away.”
In the hope that justice will prevail, I leave the final word -- for now -- to Sabin Willett, a Boston-based lawyer who represents some of the Uighur prisoners. Willett and his colleagues have campaigned assiduously for their clients, and after arguing the case before Judge Urbina, he stated, with a dignity sorely lacking from the government’s rhetoric, “In the history of our Republic, the military never imprisoned any man so harshly, and for so long, let alone men who are not the enemy. We have broken faith with the rule of law, and been untrue to the generosity of spirit that is our national character.”
Note: Early on the morning of October 9, Reuters reported that a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the Uighurs’ release, granting the government a stay until October 16, in order to give the court more time to consider the dispute. The three judges added, however, that the stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of the government's request.
Andy Worthington is a British historian, and the author of 'The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison' (published by Pluto Press). Visit his website at: www.andyworthington.co.uk He can be reached at: andy@andyworthington.co.uk
10/8/08
The End of American Capitalism?
5 Short Takes on Where the Financial Crisis Might Be Headed
By , Al Jazeera
Posted on October 7, 2008, Printed on October 8, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/101854/
The past week has seen the US economy rocked by some of the worst global financial turmoil in decades, with venerable firms collapsing, global banks and governments pouring huge sums of money into financial markets in a bid to ease turmoil and thousands facing unemployment or financial ruin.
As US officials announce planned measures to tackle the crisis, Al Jazeera asked five prominent economists: Does the crisis signal the end of US-style capitalism? And if so, what are the lessons learned?
James Galbraith, economist, professor at University of Texas, Austin
This does not mean the end of the United States' position in the world economy.
The US dollar has not moved, which does suggest that the position of the US government is still very much intact.
I think what it means is that in the future the big firms will have a smaller presence.
The years when the US government took the position that financial firms can run the country as they see fit and that regulation could be dismised is finished. There will be a major examination of how the financial markets are regulated.
Such financial events will have a lagged effect on everyone ... its most likely consequence is that the credit crisis will get more intense and the foreclosure crisis will get worse.
We will have to wait and see. But people do not learn from mistakes. How many times do we have to go through this?
'Enormous mess'
A well-functioning financial system has rules and it's when the rules are relaxed that shady practices and get rich quick schemes abound, which is what happened in the [sub-prime] mortgage system in 2005 and 2006.
The banks' behavior was conditioned by Bush. [He] sent a clear signal that they could get away with everything, [that there was] no more effective supervision so go ahead and make toxic loans, we won't stop you, then everyone made a bundle and left an enormous mess.
The evolution of good conduct is defined by effective rules. John McCain [the Republican presidential candidate] lectures on the morals of Wall Street but they are no more or less corrupt than other humans.
A full recovery will only begin with a new administration with a different philosophy seriously committed to ... bringing in new people, giving them adequate resources and the legal authority.
I would argue it is impossible for McCain to do it. Even if he is a genuine convert to prudent regulation which he has opposed thoughout his career, who would believe it?
He has been an enabler of the most speculative elements of banking system.
I think Barack Obama [Democratic presidential candidate] appreciates the severity of the issue and has the judicious temperament.
This is not a job for zealots or revolutionaries, it's for serious people to build institutions that can last for a long time.
Gerald Friedman, economics professor, University of Massachusetts
The end of US capitalism? I really doubt it.
This is a very serious financial crisis and if mishandled could become a serious recession even a depression, but it is unlikely to be as bad as the Great Depression of 1929-40 as the authorities have learned to co-operate in crises.
More importantly, a capitalist system - or any social system - can only be brought down by an opposing system supported by a rising economic class.
There is no such contender on the horizon right now to challenge capitalism. So, we'll continue to muddle along.
Still, it will be bad all around unless we change direction. An effective anti-depression strategy would help those with bad mortgages so that they will be able to make payments on their mortgages and keep their houses; such a policy would help the banks by allowing for a "trickle-up" effect.
Instead, the Federal Reserve is trying to hold back the tide of defaults and foreclosures by helping the top.
At best, this will transfer the costs to average Americans, who lose their homes, watch their neighbours lose their homes, and will in many cases lose jobs when construction and other businesses fail.
Foreigners will be hurt too because many banks and other financial institutions outside the US have invested heavily in US securities including mortgages and stocks and bonds in US investment banks.
Helping the people
We need a trickle-up strategy: Help the financial barons by helping the people.
The US should provide major help to people holding mortgages to renegotiate these and to make some payments so that people can stay in their homes and banks will be able to continue to carry these mortgages on their books.
There should also be a major increase in unemployment benefits so laid-off workers are protected and can continue to buy things and make payments on their debts. This, too, will help the banks.
We should also have a major public works programme to employ laid-off construction workers in overdue infrastructure building and have strict new transparency requirements on banks and other financial institutions.
The Fed, the Treasury, and foreign central banks (especially the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan) should announce that they will stand behind every major bank and financial institution so that average investors will be absolutely protected.
This will end panic selling and allow the markets to stabilise.
At the same time, the Fed and others should take an equity stake in these institutions to to pry open the accounting records and to enforce new regulations that would clearly separate normal business operations from the speculative activities of the last decade.
Mark Weisbrot, co-director, Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)
No, the US Federal Reserve has the capacity to provide enough liquidity so this crisis can be smoothed over.
But it's not going to end the bankruptcies of institutions that are financially insolvent, including some major banks.
The problem is the real economy [ie. not the financial markets], which is on a downwards path because of the housing bubble, and it will continue even if banking crisis is resolved.
There have been a lot of crisis in the last 40 years and this happens to be the worst one since the US depression (in the 1930s) but I wouldn't exaggerate it.
It is not like the 1930s, we have learned from that period. This time the Fed and banks have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars of liquidity into the market and as long as they are willing to do that we should be able to minimise the impact of the credit crunch on real economy.
'Serious recession' fears
The economy will slow down because consumers are not borrowing against their homes as they did since 2001 when the last recession ended, that is what drove the last recovery - rising home equity. That process is now in reverse.
The solution is fiscal policy, the government can make up for slowing demand - it did some work with the stimulus package and if willing to do more the US can neutralise the effect of recession.
However, I don't think they'll be smart enough so there will be a serious recession.
The most affected are those who have lost jobs, people who have lost homes, millions losing equity or life savings - these are top the three negative impacts.
Should the US rethink its policies? No doubt. Even John MCain is acknowledging that, must be a change of policy?
The most important question not being asked is a simple one – why was this housing bubble allowed to grow to catastrophic portions? This shouldn't have happened.
I think we can blame media irresponsibility to an extent, as the [journalists] that report should have looked at the numbers, but I think they were following Alan Greenspan [former chairman of the Federal Reserve] and he had to know there was a bubble.
John Berlau, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
Is this the end of US capitalism? No, because we haven't had pure capitalism for a long time.
Our banking system is heavily regulated, but we have outdated rules for banks and we should be getting rid of these rules for banks so they can compete with hedge funds.
More competition is needed, everyone is bashing the short sellers but they are heroes - they were right and we should have been listening to them years ago.
Savings and mutual funds should be able to short bank funds as well. I think one way of lessening risk is letting common investment vehicles use those strategies, if more had been shorting we would not have a bull market now.
I think we need a modernisation of regulation and an updating of rules but that does not mean more.
'Moral hazard'
The Bush administration is hardly deregulatory – they put in rules after the Enron scandal which cost companies billions of dollars and also had accountants chasing after minutiae and not the big stuff.
We have had some regulation and it did not turn out to do much good. So examining what makes sense and doesn't could be good.
The US housing crisis has not impacted as much as some might think. It is only if people were involved in real estate or had to sell now. Oil prices increasing and inflation would have much more effect on lives of everyday Americans than the failure of a big banking firm.
It was right to let Lehmans to let them go bankrupt and not right to bail out AIG, how is that aiding ordinary Americans? It's a moral hazard if we bail out everyone out.
Failure is a part of capitalism but we also have to be responsible for the outcomes.
No 'scapegoats'
People who took risks and got big loans should learn their lesson. I have sympathy for those who were deceived and the government should punish fraud but the people who gambled should have live with the consequences and neither should a borrower be bailed out.
[We should look at] accounting rules and what makes regulatory sense, so if one bank sells a bad loan and others are spreading that contagion that should be looked at.
The government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as implicitly government supported so they were not as careful as other firms, they inflated the bubble.
Polititians also pushed this idea that everyone should have a home, some of the laws they created encouraged banks to abandon underwriting standards and accusing them of discriminatign against the poor, it must be more transparent.
Everyone is looking for scapegoats but it is about the antiquated rules, not more or less regulation, and what makes sense for the 21st century.
James S Henry, economist, author of The Blood Bankers
This certainly changes the nature of US capitalism. It is not the the end of it, but it is the beginning for a new more carefully regulated financial and housing sector and I thnk with much more government oversight.
We have allowed basically a more or less hands off policy towards major financial institutions at the core of the economy. We've deregulated and now we must regulate.
The system as we know it exercises enormous political and economic power and we should have learned about the perils of this kind of "laissez-faire" approach.
Every time we act as if this has never happened before when actually lessons could have been learned much earlier.
Years of neglect
Is either political party ready to take a new approach? Many are ideologically beholden to the neo-liberal approach of financial capitalism.
But there is a whole new generation of younger ecomomists who will be more activists and less free market oriented.
Ironically, we've had all kinds of government intervention but it's been on the side of the institutions - what's the national interest there?
There are enormous ramifications for developing nationsas the US is a main trading economy. People from Mexico and the Philippines come here to send back billions in remittances but those flows are declining.
Trade will also suffer. We're a big market for industrial countries such as China, Japan and Canada. Middle tier countries such as Brazil and India may also notice some immediate impact.
And from the standpoint of Europe, there has been a major loss of net worth to lots ordinary investors and homeowners, so it will have real impact on the main street economy in the first world,.
The sources of credit people have lived off for year are drying up and will have big impact on consumption.
I don't think we need to worry about collapse, it's more like stagnation, many years of trying to work off loans and bad debts.
We are suffering from years of neglect, we'll learn that you need a market economy that is led and regulated intelligently, with strong government institutions with smart people not hostage to the institutions they are regulating.
© 2008 Al Jazeera All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/101854/
By , Al Jazeera
Posted on October 7, 2008, Printed on October 8, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/101854/
The past week has seen the US economy rocked by some of the worst global financial turmoil in decades, with venerable firms collapsing, global banks and governments pouring huge sums of money into financial markets in a bid to ease turmoil and thousands facing unemployment or financial ruin.
As US officials announce planned measures to tackle the crisis, Al Jazeera asked five prominent economists: Does the crisis signal the end of US-style capitalism? And if so, what are the lessons learned?
James Galbraith, economist, professor at University of Texas, Austin
This does not mean the end of the United States' position in the world economy.
The US dollar has not moved, which does suggest that the position of the US government is still very much intact.
I think what it means is that in the future the big firms will have a smaller presence.
The years when the US government took the position that financial firms can run the country as they see fit and that regulation could be dismised is finished. There will be a major examination of how the financial markets are regulated.
Such financial events will have a lagged effect on everyone ... its most likely consequence is that the credit crisis will get more intense and the foreclosure crisis will get worse.
We will have to wait and see. But people do not learn from mistakes. How many times do we have to go through this?
'Enormous mess'
A well-functioning financial system has rules and it's when the rules are relaxed that shady practices and get rich quick schemes abound, which is what happened in the [sub-prime] mortgage system in 2005 and 2006.
The banks' behavior was conditioned by Bush. [He] sent a clear signal that they could get away with everything, [that there was] no more effective supervision so go ahead and make toxic loans, we won't stop you, then everyone made a bundle and left an enormous mess.
The evolution of good conduct is defined by effective rules. John McCain [the Republican presidential candidate] lectures on the morals of Wall Street but they are no more or less corrupt than other humans.
A full recovery will only begin with a new administration with a different philosophy seriously committed to ... bringing in new people, giving them adequate resources and the legal authority.
I would argue it is impossible for McCain to do it. Even if he is a genuine convert to prudent regulation which he has opposed thoughout his career, who would believe it?
He has been an enabler of the most speculative elements of banking system.
I think Barack Obama [Democratic presidential candidate] appreciates the severity of the issue and has the judicious temperament.
This is not a job for zealots or revolutionaries, it's for serious people to build institutions that can last for a long time.
Gerald Friedman, economics professor, University of Massachusetts
The end of US capitalism? I really doubt it.
This is a very serious financial crisis and if mishandled could become a serious recession even a depression, but it is unlikely to be as bad as the Great Depression of 1929-40 as the authorities have learned to co-operate in crises.
More importantly, a capitalist system - or any social system - can only be brought down by an opposing system supported by a rising economic class.
There is no such contender on the horizon right now to challenge capitalism. So, we'll continue to muddle along.
Still, it will be bad all around unless we change direction. An effective anti-depression strategy would help those with bad mortgages so that they will be able to make payments on their mortgages and keep their houses; such a policy would help the banks by allowing for a "trickle-up" effect.
Instead, the Federal Reserve is trying to hold back the tide of defaults and foreclosures by helping the top.
At best, this will transfer the costs to average Americans, who lose their homes, watch their neighbours lose their homes, and will in many cases lose jobs when construction and other businesses fail.
Foreigners will be hurt too because many banks and other financial institutions outside the US have invested heavily in US securities including mortgages and stocks and bonds in US investment banks.
Helping the people
We need a trickle-up strategy: Help the financial barons by helping the people.
The US should provide major help to people holding mortgages to renegotiate these and to make some payments so that people can stay in their homes and banks will be able to continue to carry these mortgages on their books.
There should also be a major increase in unemployment benefits so laid-off workers are protected and can continue to buy things and make payments on their debts. This, too, will help the banks.
We should also have a major public works programme to employ laid-off construction workers in overdue infrastructure building and have strict new transparency requirements on banks and other financial institutions.
The Fed, the Treasury, and foreign central banks (especially the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan) should announce that they will stand behind every major bank and financial institution so that average investors will be absolutely protected.
This will end panic selling and allow the markets to stabilise.
At the same time, the Fed and others should take an equity stake in these institutions to to pry open the accounting records and to enforce new regulations that would clearly separate normal business operations from the speculative activities of the last decade.
Mark Weisbrot, co-director, Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)
No, the US Federal Reserve has the capacity to provide enough liquidity so this crisis can be smoothed over.
But it's not going to end the bankruptcies of institutions that are financially insolvent, including some major banks.
The problem is the real economy [ie. not the financial markets], which is on a downwards path because of the housing bubble, and it will continue even if banking crisis is resolved.
There have been a lot of crisis in the last 40 years and this happens to be the worst one since the US depression (in the 1930s) but I wouldn't exaggerate it.
It is not like the 1930s, we have learned from that period. This time the Fed and banks have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars of liquidity into the market and as long as they are willing to do that we should be able to minimise the impact of the credit crunch on real economy.
'Serious recession' fears
The economy will slow down because consumers are not borrowing against their homes as they did since 2001 when the last recession ended, that is what drove the last recovery - rising home equity. That process is now in reverse.
The solution is fiscal policy, the government can make up for slowing demand - it did some work with the stimulus package and if willing to do more the US can neutralise the effect of recession.
However, I don't think they'll be smart enough so there will be a serious recession.
The most affected are those who have lost jobs, people who have lost homes, millions losing equity or life savings - these are top the three negative impacts.
Should the US rethink its policies? No doubt. Even John MCain is acknowledging that, must be a change of policy?
The most important question not being asked is a simple one – why was this housing bubble allowed to grow to catastrophic portions? This shouldn't have happened.
I think we can blame media irresponsibility to an extent, as the [journalists] that report should have looked at the numbers, but I think they were following Alan Greenspan [former chairman of the Federal Reserve] and he had to know there was a bubble.
John Berlau, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
Is this the end of US capitalism? No, because we haven't had pure capitalism for a long time.
Our banking system is heavily regulated, but we have outdated rules for banks and we should be getting rid of these rules for banks so they can compete with hedge funds.
More competition is needed, everyone is bashing the short sellers but they are heroes - they were right and we should have been listening to them years ago.
Savings and mutual funds should be able to short bank funds as well. I think one way of lessening risk is letting common investment vehicles use those strategies, if more had been shorting we would not have a bull market now.
I think we need a modernisation of regulation and an updating of rules but that does not mean more.
'Moral hazard'
The Bush administration is hardly deregulatory – they put in rules after the Enron scandal which cost companies billions of dollars and also had accountants chasing after minutiae and not the big stuff.
We have had some regulation and it did not turn out to do much good. So examining what makes sense and doesn't could be good.
The US housing crisis has not impacted as much as some might think. It is only if people were involved in real estate or had to sell now. Oil prices increasing and inflation would have much more effect on lives of everyday Americans than the failure of a big banking firm.
It was right to let Lehmans to let them go bankrupt and not right to bail out AIG, how is that aiding ordinary Americans? It's a moral hazard if we bail out everyone out.
Failure is a part of capitalism but we also have to be responsible for the outcomes.
No 'scapegoats'
People who took risks and got big loans should learn their lesson. I have sympathy for those who were deceived and the government should punish fraud but the people who gambled should have live with the consequences and neither should a borrower be bailed out.
[We should look at] accounting rules and what makes regulatory sense, so if one bank sells a bad loan and others are spreading that contagion that should be looked at.
The government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as implicitly government supported so they were not as careful as other firms, they inflated the bubble.
Polititians also pushed this idea that everyone should have a home, some of the laws they created encouraged banks to abandon underwriting standards and accusing them of discriminatign against the poor, it must be more transparent.
Everyone is looking for scapegoats but it is about the antiquated rules, not more or less regulation, and what makes sense for the 21st century.
James S Henry, economist, author of The Blood Bankers
This certainly changes the nature of US capitalism. It is not the the end of it, but it is the beginning for a new more carefully regulated financial and housing sector and I thnk with much more government oversight.
We have allowed basically a more or less hands off policy towards major financial institutions at the core of the economy. We've deregulated and now we must regulate.
The system as we know it exercises enormous political and economic power and we should have learned about the perils of this kind of "laissez-faire" approach.
Every time we act as if this has never happened before when actually lessons could have been learned much earlier.
Years of neglect
Is either political party ready to take a new approach? Many are ideologically beholden to the neo-liberal approach of financial capitalism.
But there is a whole new generation of younger ecomomists who will be more activists and less free market oriented.
Ironically, we've had all kinds of government intervention but it's been on the side of the institutions - what's the national interest there?
There are enormous ramifications for developing nationsas the US is a main trading economy. People from Mexico and the Philippines come here to send back billions in remittances but those flows are declining.
Trade will also suffer. We're a big market for industrial countries such as China, Japan and Canada. Middle tier countries such as Brazil and India may also notice some immediate impact.
And from the standpoint of Europe, there has been a major loss of net worth to lots ordinary investors and homeowners, so it will have real impact on the main street economy in the first world,.
The sources of credit people have lived off for year are drying up and will have big impact on consumption.
I don't think we need to worry about collapse, it's more like stagnation, many years of trying to work off loans and bad debts.
We are suffering from years of neglect, we'll learn that you need a market economy that is led and regulated intelligently, with strong government institutions with smart people not hostage to the institutions they are regulating.
© 2008 Al Jazeera All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/101854/
Raw Milk and Civil Liberties
Consumer Choice and the Future of Family Farms
By KIMBERLY HARTKE
http://www.counterpunch.com/hartke10082008.html
Our constitutional right to liberty is systematically being attacked by government agencies flanked by anti-competitive forces in the food industry. Nowhere, is this more obvious than on the raw milk issue. California Governor Arnold Swartzenegger recently vetoed SB201, a bill to preserve consumers rights to access farm fresh milk, while guaranteeing its safety.
The Governor, who likely consumed raw dairy in his rise to stardom as a body builder, thwarted the freedoms of the over 40,000 raw milk devotees in his state. He ignored the will of the people in favor of the milk processors and the government regulators bent on crushing the raw dairy producers in their state—two of which are the most successful in the nation.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture, whose officials repeatedly refused to appear at hearings on the legislation, by pushed The Terminator’s pen on a bill that received populist support and nearly unanimous approval by both houses of the legislature.
Similar back room politics killed the Farm Fresh Milk Act in Maryland last year, which would have reinvigorated struggling small dairy farms by recognizing their right to sell milk direct to consumers at the farm gate. Hundreds of Maryland families participated in lobbying efforts in support of the bill, and yet it was killed in committee (by a very close vote) because of the bureaucrats’ dire warnings of an imminent threat to public health.
In Pennsylvania, an aggressive anti-raw milk stance has created a hostile atmosphere for over 100 family farms. Pennsylvania raw milk farms practice humane animal husbandry and consequently, offer a superior product to thousands of consumers, many of whom imbibe raw milk for its healing qualities. Bill Chirdon, the Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’s (PDA) Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services, is spearheading a pathogen witch hunt that appears to have as its aim a chilling of consumer demand for raw dairy. Through stepped up inspection schedules and a flurry of negative press releases warning of pathogens in raw milk in 2008, He has managed to damage farmer’s livelihoods, thus raising the ire of consumers and farmers alike. Taking a guilty until proven innocent attitude toward one dairy farmer in a recent case, Chirdon even issued a press release pinning blame for several illnesses on the dairy, prior to the return of official test results. When the test results came back negative, he proceeded to withhold the release of the results to the media, while disseminating another press release, which claimed a pathogen was found in an opened milk container from a sick household.
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund Board member, Ted Beals, M.D. a pathologist and former laboratory chief says that the testing of an opened container, especially from a sick household, is an unacceptable test. An opened container may be cross-contaminated, and this is even more likely to happen in a home where there is illness. This release to the media of the unorthodox test results, however, totally eclipsed the PDA’s subsequent announcement that the official test results for pathogens in the dairy’s milk came back negative. The dairy had been exonerated, yet the public perception was left that it was risky to buy its products.
Consumer choice and the survival of family farms, particularly those who practice traditional and sustainable farming methods, are under siege by government policies informed by institutional bias against unprocessed milk. Sally Fallon Morell, President of the Weston A. Price Foundation www.westonaprice.org and the nation’s leading champion of raw dairy for its nutritional benefits, www.realmilk.com has a dire warning of her own, “The right to produce and consume raw dairy is vital to the health of the family farm and our citizens. The future of sustainable agriculture and the health of our nation depends on a new paradigm that respects the essential liberties of farmers and consumers.”
Bureaucrats and Big Business with wanton disregard for our freedoms, may stir up such resistance that they end up stimulating demand for raw dairy, rather than curbing sales. Their campaign of oppression may be just what we need to bring that new paradigm about.
Kimberly Hartke, is a raw dairy consumer in the state of Virginia. She suffers from a painful knee condition, chondromalacia patella (runners knee) that has been greatly alleviated by adding raw dairy to her diet. Virginia outlaw retail and farm sales of raw milk, so her family had to buy a share of a cow in order to have access to farm fresh milk. She is now the publicist for the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit, which suggests raw dairy from pasture-raised cows can heal many health problems. Visit her blog, Hartke Is Online, at http://www.hartkeonline.blogspot.com/
By KIMBERLY HARTKE
http://www.counterpunch.com/hartke10082008.html
Our constitutional right to liberty is systematically being attacked by government agencies flanked by anti-competitive forces in the food industry. Nowhere, is this more obvious than on the raw milk issue. California Governor Arnold Swartzenegger recently vetoed SB201, a bill to preserve consumers rights to access farm fresh milk, while guaranteeing its safety.
The Governor, who likely consumed raw dairy in his rise to stardom as a body builder, thwarted the freedoms of the over 40,000 raw milk devotees in his state. He ignored the will of the people in favor of the milk processors and the government regulators bent on crushing the raw dairy producers in their state—two of which are the most successful in the nation.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture, whose officials repeatedly refused to appear at hearings on the legislation, by pushed The Terminator’s pen on a bill that received populist support and nearly unanimous approval by both houses of the legislature.
Similar back room politics killed the Farm Fresh Milk Act in Maryland last year, which would have reinvigorated struggling small dairy farms by recognizing their right to sell milk direct to consumers at the farm gate. Hundreds of Maryland families participated in lobbying efforts in support of the bill, and yet it was killed in committee (by a very close vote) because of the bureaucrats’ dire warnings of an imminent threat to public health.
In Pennsylvania, an aggressive anti-raw milk stance has created a hostile atmosphere for over 100 family farms. Pennsylvania raw milk farms practice humane animal husbandry and consequently, offer a superior product to thousands of consumers, many of whom imbibe raw milk for its healing qualities. Bill Chirdon, the Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’s (PDA) Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services, is spearheading a pathogen witch hunt that appears to have as its aim a chilling of consumer demand for raw dairy. Through stepped up inspection schedules and a flurry of negative press releases warning of pathogens in raw milk in 2008, He has managed to damage farmer’s livelihoods, thus raising the ire of consumers and farmers alike. Taking a guilty until proven innocent attitude toward one dairy farmer in a recent case, Chirdon even issued a press release pinning blame for several illnesses on the dairy, prior to the return of official test results. When the test results came back negative, he proceeded to withhold the release of the results to the media, while disseminating another press release, which claimed a pathogen was found in an opened milk container from a sick household.
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund Board member, Ted Beals, M.D. a pathologist and former laboratory chief says that the testing of an opened container, especially from a sick household, is an unacceptable test. An opened container may be cross-contaminated, and this is even more likely to happen in a home where there is illness. This release to the media of the unorthodox test results, however, totally eclipsed the PDA’s subsequent announcement that the official test results for pathogens in the dairy’s milk came back negative. The dairy had been exonerated, yet the public perception was left that it was risky to buy its products.
Consumer choice and the survival of family farms, particularly those who practice traditional and sustainable farming methods, are under siege by government policies informed by institutional bias against unprocessed milk. Sally Fallon Morell, President of the Weston A. Price Foundation www.westonaprice.org and the nation’s leading champion of raw dairy for its nutritional benefits, www.realmilk.com has a dire warning of her own, “The right to produce and consume raw dairy is vital to the health of the family farm and our citizens. The future of sustainable agriculture and the health of our nation depends on a new paradigm that respects the essential liberties of farmers and consumers.”
Bureaucrats and Big Business with wanton disregard for our freedoms, may stir up such resistance that they end up stimulating demand for raw dairy, rather than curbing sales. Their campaign of oppression may be just what we need to bring that new paradigm about.
Kimberly Hartke, is a raw dairy consumer in the state of Virginia. She suffers from a painful knee condition, chondromalacia patella (runners knee) that has been greatly alleviated by adding raw dairy to her diet. Virginia outlaw retail and farm sales of raw milk, so her family had to buy a share of a cow in order to have access to farm fresh milk. She is now the publicist for the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit, which suggests raw dairy from pasture-raised cows can heal many health problems. Visit her blog, Hartke Is Online, at http://www.hartkeonline.blogspot.com/
Mouriño cosecha andanada de críticas de todas las fuerzas políticas en el Senado
Advierten legisladores sobre el desgaste que sufren las fuerzas armadas al enfrentar al narco
Andrea Becerril y Víctor Ballinas
La Jornada
Pese a cuestionamientos de senadores de todas las fuerzas políticas, incluido el PAN, sobre el desgaste al que se ha sometido a las fuerzas armadas, el secretario de Gobernación, Juan Camilo Mouriño, defendió la participación del Ejército en el combate al narcotráfico, ya que, argumentó, la presencia militar es importante para frenar a las bandas criminales que están desafiando y disputando el territorio al Estado mexicano.
Al comparecer durante casi cuatro horas antes comisiones del Senado para la glosa del segundo Informe presidencial, Mouriño recibió severas críticas de la oposición sobre la estrategia gubernamental de combate a la delincuencia organizada. El perredista Ricardo Monreal le preguntó si no debería renunciar “por dignidad”, ya que en la dependencia a su cargo no hay resultados, interlocución, ni oficio.
“¿No les da pena tener al país como está?”, insistió el perredista, mientras el senador priísta Francisco Labastida Ochoa recalcó que el gobierno ha reconocido, pero no solucionado, “el grave problema de delincuencia y de impunidad que se vive”.
Ambos expresaron preocupación por la insistencia gubernamental de militarizar el combate a las bandas criminales. Con ellos coincidió el senador panista Ricardo García Cervantes, quien alertó: “Nuestras fuerzas armadas tienen otras funciones y el desgaste a que se les somete puede ser grave para el país”.
Subrayó que no se puede sustituir “las incapacidades civiles con la participación de nuestras fuerzas armadas, que están diseñadas, formadas y capacitadas para otras funciones”. Demandó que ya sea a mediano o corto plazos, en la medida en que se pueda ir recuperando la capacidad de las autoridades, se libere al Ejército de ese desgaste.
Labastida Ochoa manifestó que al PRI le preocupa que “al Ejército se les están cargando algunas tareas en las cuales ha tenido, desde luego, muchos éxitos, pero también donde están teniendo problemas”.
El ex secretario de Gobernación se refirió a cateos realizados por militares en la casa de la viuda de Manuel Clouthier y de Jorge del Rincón, “uno de los distinguidos militantes de mayor prosapia del PAN”. Obviamente, dijo, no hubo el mínimo trabajo de investigación en esas acciones, y pidió “no someter al Ejército a una tarea de desgaste político. Fortalezcamos las tareas de inteligencia, para que no se deteriore la imagen de una institución que es una de las más grandes que tenemos en el país”.
Ante la insistencia de los legisladores, Mouriño respondió que coincide con ese objetivo de fortalecer a las instituciones, para que sean las policías municipales, estatales y federales las que se hagan cargo de manera cotidiana de la lucha contra el hampa.
También debió responder a muchas más críticas, como la formulada por el senador priísta Fernando Castro Trenti, quien resaltó que a más de 20 meses de la administración de Calderón los problemas se agravan sin que haya coordinación ni resultados, y le preguntó si saben o no cómo resolverlos.
El funcionario sostuvo que el gobierno federal no es triunfalista, y defendió la estrategia federal contra la inseguridad, ya que, aseguró, le está pegando al narcotráfico, donde más le duele, que “es en el bolsillo”. Incluso sostuvo que ha habido resultados sin precedente en el desmantelamiento de redes financieras y se refirió al segundo decomiso más importante de dinero en efectivo en la historia del país: 26 millones de dólares incautados al cártel de Sinaloa.
Anunció que la PGR y la Secretaría de Hacienda presentarán ante el consejo de seguridad una estrategia específica para combatir el lavado de dinero.
Tanto Monreal como su compañero de partido Juan Ignacio García Zalvidea inquirieron al titular de Gobernación sobre la decisión del Ejecutivo de trasladar a los elementos de la Agencia Federal de Investigación a la Secretaría de Seguridad Pública.
Hicieron notar que eso contraviene lo establecido en el artículo 21 constitucional, en el cual se indica que el mando de las policías estará bajo el cargo del Ministerio Público Federal, es decir, de la PGR, y le preguntaron si está consciente de esa violación.
Mouriño evadió dar una respuesta directa y sólo se refirió al artículo primero de la Ley de la Policía Federal Preventiva.
Otra de las inquietudes expresadas por los legisladores fue en torno al reciente motín en el penal de La Mesa, en Tijuana, Baja California. El priísta Castro Trenti lo calificó de un crimen de Estado, y el funcionario contestó que esperarán los resultados de las investigaciones.
Aunque Mouriño informó que los muertos en ese penal fueron 23 y hay tres funcionarios públicos a disposición del Ministerio Público, tanto Monreal como Trenti refutaron los datos.
Al final, tanto priístas como perredistas dejaron en claro que están dispuestos a legislar, pero el gobierno debe hacer su parte. “No estamos en el plan de escatimar ni regatear los apoyos que se necesiten para que la lucha contra la violencia prospere, pero tampoco estamos en el plan de apoyar incondicionalmente cualquier propuesta”, advirtió Labastida Ochoa.
Andrea Becerril y Víctor Ballinas
La Jornada
Pese a cuestionamientos de senadores de todas las fuerzas políticas, incluido el PAN, sobre el desgaste al que se ha sometido a las fuerzas armadas, el secretario de Gobernación, Juan Camilo Mouriño, defendió la participación del Ejército en el combate al narcotráfico, ya que, argumentó, la presencia militar es importante para frenar a las bandas criminales que están desafiando y disputando el territorio al Estado mexicano.
Al comparecer durante casi cuatro horas antes comisiones del Senado para la glosa del segundo Informe presidencial, Mouriño recibió severas críticas de la oposición sobre la estrategia gubernamental de combate a la delincuencia organizada. El perredista Ricardo Monreal le preguntó si no debería renunciar “por dignidad”, ya que en la dependencia a su cargo no hay resultados, interlocución, ni oficio.
“¿No les da pena tener al país como está?”, insistió el perredista, mientras el senador priísta Francisco Labastida Ochoa recalcó que el gobierno ha reconocido, pero no solucionado, “el grave problema de delincuencia y de impunidad que se vive”.
Ambos expresaron preocupación por la insistencia gubernamental de militarizar el combate a las bandas criminales. Con ellos coincidió el senador panista Ricardo García Cervantes, quien alertó: “Nuestras fuerzas armadas tienen otras funciones y el desgaste a que se les somete puede ser grave para el país”.
Subrayó que no se puede sustituir “las incapacidades civiles con la participación de nuestras fuerzas armadas, que están diseñadas, formadas y capacitadas para otras funciones”. Demandó que ya sea a mediano o corto plazos, en la medida en que se pueda ir recuperando la capacidad de las autoridades, se libere al Ejército de ese desgaste.
Labastida Ochoa manifestó que al PRI le preocupa que “al Ejército se les están cargando algunas tareas en las cuales ha tenido, desde luego, muchos éxitos, pero también donde están teniendo problemas”.
El ex secretario de Gobernación se refirió a cateos realizados por militares en la casa de la viuda de Manuel Clouthier y de Jorge del Rincón, “uno de los distinguidos militantes de mayor prosapia del PAN”. Obviamente, dijo, no hubo el mínimo trabajo de investigación en esas acciones, y pidió “no someter al Ejército a una tarea de desgaste político. Fortalezcamos las tareas de inteligencia, para que no se deteriore la imagen de una institución que es una de las más grandes que tenemos en el país”.
Ante la insistencia de los legisladores, Mouriño respondió que coincide con ese objetivo de fortalecer a las instituciones, para que sean las policías municipales, estatales y federales las que se hagan cargo de manera cotidiana de la lucha contra el hampa.
También debió responder a muchas más críticas, como la formulada por el senador priísta Fernando Castro Trenti, quien resaltó que a más de 20 meses de la administración de Calderón los problemas se agravan sin que haya coordinación ni resultados, y le preguntó si saben o no cómo resolverlos.
El funcionario sostuvo que el gobierno federal no es triunfalista, y defendió la estrategia federal contra la inseguridad, ya que, aseguró, le está pegando al narcotráfico, donde más le duele, que “es en el bolsillo”. Incluso sostuvo que ha habido resultados sin precedente en el desmantelamiento de redes financieras y se refirió al segundo decomiso más importante de dinero en efectivo en la historia del país: 26 millones de dólares incautados al cártel de Sinaloa.
Anunció que la PGR y la Secretaría de Hacienda presentarán ante el consejo de seguridad una estrategia específica para combatir el lavado de dinero.
Tanto Monreal como su compañero de partido Juan Ignacio García Zalvidea inquirieron al titular de Gobernación sobre la decisión del Ejecutivo de trasladar a los elementos de la Agencia Federal de Investigación a la Secretaría de Seguridad Pública.
Hicieron notar que eso contraviene lo establecido en el artículo 21 constitucional, en el cual se indica que el mando de las policías estará bajo el cargo del Ministerio Público Federal, es decir, de la PGR, y le preguntaron si está consciente de esa violación.
Mouriño evadió dar una respuesta directa y sólo se refirió al artículo primero de la Ley de la Policía Federal Preventiva.
Otra de las inquietudes expresadas por los legisladores fue en torno al reciente motín en el penal de La Mesa, en Tijuana, Baja California. El priísta Castro Trenti lo calificó de un crimen de Estado, y el funcionario contestó que esperarán los resultados de las investigaciones.
Aunque Mouriño informó que los muertos en ese penal fueron 23 y hay tres funcionarios públicos a disposición del Ministerio Público, tanto Monreal como Trenti refutaron los datos.
Al final, tanto priístas como perredistas dejaron en claro que están dispuestos a legislar, pero el gobierno debe hacer su parte. “No estamos en el plan de escatimar ni regatear los apoyos que se necesiten para que la lucha contra la violencia prospere, pero tampoco estamos en el plan de apoyar incondicionalmente cualquier propuesta”, advirtió Labastida Ochoa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Armas
