 |
Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Thursday, 12 November 2020
Progressives Made Trumps Defeat Possible. Now Its Time to Challenge
Mood:
bright
Now Playing: The PeaceWorker article on the future of America - Nov 2020
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
The future of America I'm sharing an interesting article (and a back story) ...that I can wrap my head around and see the exciting message the author is explaining .... (that said at the same time ironically, I'm trying to tune all this political stuff out and just run out to SG)
.... But, none the less this author Norman Solomon, (whom I read his stuff occasionally) ... makes a good point regarding the future of America with our new "Democrat" (aka left) president.
I have not voted for the Dem Party in over 20 years = they never represented my principles, I voted for Joe, this time, to help shift the world in a better direction that it was headed under Trump ...It was very hard for me to do that, but it was a desperate time - I was forced to help "make change"
This article (for me) explains that kind of voting "logic" and what we need to do next (for social / environmental & economic justice issues). By making sure we continue going in the right direction: our grass roots politics, actions and encouragement, is going to be needed to gain new ground, that we are not silent, but continue to "push" onward for Real Change that our country and the people in it --> NEED
I'm not that active these days .... sharing the info for progressive change is a little step I can take, in a long walk.
The "good fight" (as Ralph Nader used to say) is not over .....
We need to Hunker Down and press for STILL NEEDED ----> REAL Change!
The article comes out of Salem ...I know this editor (Peter Bergel) of this news service: PEACEWORKER.org
In fact, I filmed him protesting 15 years ago in front of the World Trade Center in Portland (at Sen Smiths office) (anti war protest) (--> the cops said! he was arrested because he was blocking the entry doors) My video was used in his court trial and.... ALL CHARGES DROPPED (my video proved he was NOT blocking any doors)
--- LOL damn we beat them at their phony game of intimidation = it was a great win for protesting at Sen Smiths hidden office in the Trade Center (I say hidden cause the building security would not let anti war citizens up to his office to talk w/ their Senator (that is illegal) but they did it anyway and used the security of the World Trade Center as their key stepping stone to prevent Smith from activist without an invite and permission at the front desk (what a punk) to go up to the floor where the Sen was hiding,
That is a bit of history of the editor .... now on to the article by Norman:
Progressives Made Trump’s Defeat Possible. Now It’s Time to Challenge Biden and Other Corporate Democrats. =========================================================== By Norman Solomon The evident defeat of Donald Trump would not have been possible without the grassroots activism and hard work of countless progressives. Now, on vital issues — climate, healthcare, income inequality, militarism, the prison-industrial complex, corporate power and so much more — it’s time to engage with the battle that must happen inside the Democratic Party. The realpolitik rationales for the left to make nice with the incoming Democratic president are bogus. All too many progressives gave the benefit of doubts to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, making it easier for them to service corporate America while leaving working-class Americans in the lurch. Two years later, in 1994 and 2010, Republicans came roaring back and took control of Congress. From the outset, progressive organizations and individuals (whether they consider themselves to be “activists” or not) should confront Biden and other elected Democrats about profound matters. Officeholders are supposed to work for the public interest. And if they’re serving Wall Street instead of Main Street, we should show that we’re ready, willing and able to “primary” them. Progressives would be wise to quickly follow up on Biden’s victory with a combative approach toward corporate Democrats. Powerful party leaders have already signaled their intentions to aggressively marginalize progressives. “Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants,” Politico reports, “had a stark warning for Democrats on Thursday: Swing too far left and they’re all but certain to blow their chances in the Georgia runoff that will determine which party controls the Senate.” Also on the conference call with congressional Democrats was House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who reportedly declared that if “we are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we’re not going to win.” Such admonitions were predictable and odd, coming from House Democratic leaders who just saw shrinkage of members of their party due to the loss of “moderate” incumbents as well as the losses of avowedly “moderate” and widely heralded Democratic senatorial candidates in Maine, Kentucky, Iowa and elsewhere. At the core of such conflicts, whether simmering or exploding, is class war. When Pelosi & Co. try to stamp out the genuinely progressive upsurge in congressional ranks that is fueled from the grassroots, they’re “dancing with those who brung them” — corporate elites. It’s an extremely lucrative approach for those who feed out of the troughs of the Democratic National Committee, the Senate and House party campaign committees, the House Majority PAC and many other fat-cat political campaign entities. Consultant contracts and lobbying deals keep flowing, even after Democrats lose quite winnable elections. Biden almost lost this election. And while the Biden campaign poured in vast financial resources and vague flowery messaging that pandered to white suburban voters, relatively little was focused on those who most made it possible to overcome Trump’s election-night lead — people of color and the young. Constrained by his decades-long political mentality and record, Biden did not energize working-class voters as he lip-sunk populist tunes in unconvincing performances. That’s the kind of neoliberal approach that Bernie Sanders and so many of his supporters were warning about in 2016 and again this year. Both times there was a huge failure of the Democratic nominee to make a convincing case as an advocate for working people against the forces of wealthy avarice and corporate greed. In fact, Clinton and Biden reeked of coziness with economic elites throughout their political careers. To many people, Clinton came off as a fake when she tried to sound populist, claiming to represent the little people against corporate giants. And to those who actually knew much about Biden’s political record, his similar claims also were apt to seem phony. It’s clear from polling that Biden gained a large proportion of his votes due to animosity toward his opponent rather than enthusiasm for Biden. He hasn’t inspired the Democratic base, and his appeal had much more to do with opposing the evils of Trumpism than embracing his own political approach. More than ever, merely being anti-Trump or anti-Republican isn’t going to move Democrats and the country in the vital directions we need. Without a strong progressive program as a rudder, the Biden presidency will be awash in much the same old rhetorical froth and status-quo positions that have so often caused Democratic incumbents to founder, bringing on GOP electoral triumphs. In recent months, Biden showed that he knew how to hum the refrains of economic populism when that seemed tactically useful, but he scarcely knew the words and could hardly belt out the melody. His media image as “Lunch Bucket Joe” was a helpful mirage in corporate medialand, but that kind of puffery only went so far. Meanwhile, the Biden strategists decided to coast on the issue of the pandemic, spotlighting Trump’s lethally narcissistic insanity. But when it came to healthcare — obviously a central concern in people’s lives, especially amid the coronavirus — Biden largely fell back on Obamacare rather than advocating for a genuine guarantee of healthcare as a human right. Likewise, Biden talked a bit about easing the economic burdens on small businesses and families, but it was pretty pallid stuff compared to what’s desperately needed. To a large extent, he surrendered the economic playing field to Trump’s pseudo-populist blather. Looking ahead, we need vigorous successors to the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society programs of the mid-1960s that were asphyxiated, politically and budgetarily, by the Vietnam War. Set aside the phrase if you want to, but we need some type of “democratic socialism” (as Martin Luther King Jr. asserted in the last years of his life). The ravages of market-based “solutions” are all around us; the public sector has been decimated, and it needs to be revitalized with massive federal spending that goes way beyond occasional “stimulus” packages. The potential exists to create millions of good jobs while seriously addressing the climate catastrophe. If we’re going to get real about ending systemic and massive income inequality, we’re going to have to fight for — and achieve — massive long-term public investments, financed by genuinely progressive taxation and major cuts in the military budget. With enormous grassroots outreach that only they could credibly accomplish, progressive activists were a crucial part of the de facto united front to defeat Trump. Now it’s time to get on with grassroots organizing to challenge corporate Democrats. Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California for the 2020 Democratic National Convention.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:17 AM PST
Monday, 12 October 2020
Broken Window - Broken Bones - HATE on the RISE
Mood:
irritated
Now Playing: My heart cries ...for the human skin... not corporate windows
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
A reply I sent to an email I recieved that mentioned windows broken and a statue toppled in Portland by protesters. (windows broken statue toppled)
to start the converstaion
i dont throw rocks or break window i dont like seeing stuff happen like this....
its sad that these issues cannot be rectified
BUT
when a country prides its self on racism and hate and violence when we have statues and art that cherishes that ugliness something needs to change ! something will change ! it has to
i don't support property damage but a building or a glass door... or a cement statue mean very little to me
i don't think OMG ..... I actually think "why are people so upset to react like that?"
i wouldnt act that way *but
...i understand their rage and hurt and the meaning of these symbols (statues/art etc.)
to be crushed or removed ...they cant continue to stand in representing what they are (its not right)
sad times never seen so much hate in all my life i blame elected leadership and us citizens
i blame and the support citizens toss to the leadership
.... "to keep the status quo and make no changes"
i blame the support of citizens encouraging Gov Agents using guns, violence, prison, military and its weapons to crush any protesting change ideas or social justice concerns
i always will also repect life
over property if you have to only pick one --> I say LIFE --> I say People ....
Cause it is getting down to what side are you supporting
I could write for hours on this topic i spent 20 years begging the leaders to work for peace (yet) the past 2 years has unleashed so much HATE upon our society challenging all I worked for
to such an EXTREME degree that I no longer try to change society or help push forward peace (its to late)
50 percent of the country hates my activism and supported crushing the left progressive peace / justice voice
Hundreds flock to wave guns and flags and mock and threaten my voice and my 20 year message
That worries me WAY more than broken windows
I (myself) worry nothing much over property damage these days (i knew it was coming)
I REALLY worry --> that the heart of America's soul is now gone - that's the gut feeling worry I get now!
We are a country of guns police and power and abuse, and we use it AGAINST our own citizens ...and its a failing greedy corrupt system that is crumbling before our eyes
too bad we couldn't of peacefully all worked together everything I worked "peacefully" for years ...was met w/ resistance the powers that be (GOV, Police, Big Banks, Big Labor, EPA, Police Unions, Mayors Office) all pushed back and made no amends to correct or hear the voice for change.
I was concerned about police abuse for 20 years and took those issue front and center to City Hall or the police
- the reaction from leaders and the average society was --> SHUT UP they have a hard job to do
The mayor, the president, big banks, big corporations, immigration laws, civil rights, and little old grannies asking for no more war ...have all been met w/ OPPOSIOTION FULL ON and been pushed back by armed guns and GOV agents
... So with all the push back - it takes "the protest" to new levels.
The writing was on the wall obvious to me. Violence begets violence.
For 20 years I face armed cops right nose to nose. They had weapons...we had peace signs. THEY HATED US - THEY PUSHED US AND ARRESTED US we were all peaceful .... the authorities response has NOW increased the level
The peaceful group n longer "just takes it" they are pushing back and I applaud the bravery, that i cant do I don want to be beat up or imprisoned for many years on trumped up Riot charges
I gave up trying to make peaceful change the very next day Trump took office I laid my camera down and headed to the woods I am as pissed as many of the protesters you see on twitter I'm fed up - so are they - I am beyond fed up - Its an APEX - Militant Violence is next
So a window is broken My heart is broken The window or statue doesn't break my heart
((BECAUSE))
The hate to other people sanctioned and approved by our corrupt capitalist 'racist; country makes me cry My heart hurts over how we treat immigrants My heart bleeds daily on our evil sick ICE laws to cage families and say we are a good people a proud nation(not)
I don't hurt over a broken statue
The irony and crazy world we live in is ruled by people who like /love property And could care less about people Its Property over People The police "protect property"
and THEN (also) beat people up or cage them in their HUGE prison system (But ...its their job so its OK!) (not)
This (rage in the streets) .... is the outcome due to this bad system
and it will get worse as we go
Mark My Words! I know more windows will be broken and thus more humans caged, [property over people]
You don't fix societies troubles with violence on people the first reaction to that will be ----> property will be ruined Its a no brainer
My heart is broken
Not by the revolution and the protesters. But by the establishment and brute authorities police protecting capitalism and its array of prisons, torture camps, ICE cages, and Walls of Hate.
sad days sad it has to get this low sad that violence on people will be used to try to contain the uprising sad that --> love and compassion and understanding...WILL NOT BE USED (repeat) NOT BE USED by police
sad that this administration will make no amends or change in its behavior (NONE) repeat (NONE)
sad that people will be hurt and killed
oh ya
sad that a window got broken
I dont mean to be smart ass about it the revolution has been afoot for a decade the fact it has not gotten better for ANY SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUE has caused RAGE in the streets
i FULLY understand it i FULLY see why it happens I FULLY see how it could be changed
but it wont the resistance will be met with guns and violence on their bodies the human bodies of resister will be shot, beat and chained, they will receive LIFE sentences for rioting{?}
the human bodies who stand defiantly for change --- will BE BEAT DOWN the humans who want to confront this corrupt system head on WILL BE MET WITH ARMED GANGS and cheered on as they are dragged across the cement ...tearing at their skin...tossed into a cell to ... let their human body ROT in a cement cell with ""RIOT charges""
that human skin will rot off his human bone in that cell
... and meanwhile the WINDOW WILL BE REPLACED....
the beat goes on get the bad guy stop the protest don't break window let the skin rot build bigger cages
alas ....I'm going camping for 10 days on Oct 17th my heart will be crying...... but not over a toppled statue or broken glass
LOVE YOU GUYS DEARLY Peace and Resistance Better Days Ahead
Joe Anybody (the guy who gave up) 
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:44 AM PDT
Updated: Monday, 12 October 2020 11:53 AM PDT
Saturday, 3 October 2020
Down is the New Up/ The New World (TRUMPed)
Mood:
don't ask
Now Playing: Chandler/ X and whats his name
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Down is the New Up/ The New World Chandler/ X
Honest to goodness The bars weren't open this morning They must have been voting for a new president of something
Under the Bush administration I spent about 300 days a year doing nothing but making George W Bush Joke But under Trump, I have barely mentioned his name.
At first I did not want to add to the noise out there... (and there is a lot of NOISE out there!) then I didn't want to go off half cocked... then I wasn't sure which direction to fire because bullets ricochet in funny directions when you live in a bubble. That is floating like the ghosts of Joe Hill, Harriet Tubman, Eugene Debbs, Mother Jones and Caesar Chavez
Do you have a quarter? I said, "Yes", because I did Honest to goodness, the tears have been falling All over this country's face It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name This was supposed to be the new world It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name This was supposed to be the new world
and this got me to thinking... If a ghost can walk through walls - Why doesn't he fall through the floor? At that point I realized I was on the edge of something really big... standing upon a giant precipice. And that is probably not a good time to put your best foot forward... I mean. I've always liked the metaphor of hell being beneath us... 'Cause Sometimes... Ya gotta go through hell... Don't we know it! Aren't we all goin through hell these days? but sometimes ya gotta go through hell Sometimes... Ya gotta get down there and wrestle 'dem demons Hell,... Sometimes... Ya gotta get down there and jello wrestle 'dem demons - but when yer goin' through hell, like we're all goin' through right now - what ya gotta do is keep going - 'cause the world is round and if you keep goin throuh hell, and you keep goin' you're gone' come out on the other side - wondering why everyone is speaking in Australian accent.
It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name
In the Trump Era,
This was supposed to be the new world
down is the new up
It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name
"Make America Great Again"
This was supposed to be the new world
and "America First"
It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name
are contradictory statements -
This was supposed to be the new world
America will be great again, when she sees herself IN the world not AS the world.
America will be great again when she treats her neighbors like she would herself.
She will be great again when she realizes that " America First" implies that there is a race ... in which one could be or become first in - in the first place. Not America First... Earth First...
Flint Ford Auto Mobile, Alabama Windshield Wiper Buffalo, New York Gary, Indiana Don't forget the Motor City Washington, D.C Now is not all we need.
What he is proposing is The wall building, The Trade wars is Nationalism... Pure and simple... and the infrastructure spending, that is being proposed is well... socialism... it is in fact - a word that I don't like to use that often because I think it waters it down... but there is no way around it - it is in fact, by by definition.. National Socialism. so if WE are looking for a way forward... and I think we are all looking for a way forward... let us grab every crow bar, every monkey wrench, every guitar, every paintbrush Every Ballot and use them as a tool to to pry the socialism away from the nationalism.
It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name This was supposed to be the new world It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name This was supposed to be the new world
... this Cabinet of Billionaires and I want you to mention this to your conservative friends and family, because i know you've got them... The rich that are in power could really care less about any of this whako conservative agenda… But as long as there is something resembling a government, the rich need large numbers of people to support them. So they will say or do anything to stay in office. (hear this!) they don't actually care of these social issues. They don't NEED to care. They don't LIVE in society. They have their own school systems, their own hospitals. They have their own police force. Soon they will have their own military. I am not afraid of Iran getting the bomb. I am afraid of Exxon getting the bomb.
It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name This was supposed to be the new world It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name This was supposed to be the new world
Oh sure, they will give money to the church to show they "Care" about social issues. But, we all know giving money to the church doesn't make you a good person any more than buying tickets to the game makes you a third-baseman.
What the church offers to the rich is people. The one thing the 1% does not have is people - 99% of us to be exact.
All we need is money Just give us what you can spare Twenty or thirty pounds of potatoes Or twenty or thirty beers
But wait a second... within the 99% a whole lotta working class folks voted for Trump! and are planning on voting for him again. Poor people. MY people! What did we do SO wrong to allow your average red neck to believe a billionaire descending from the Heavens on a gold plated escalator in a Manhattan skyscraper has their interests at heart? To make the world GREAT again, we WE have to burst our own bubbles! We have to go out there and yes, befriend a red neck. DO NOT UNFRIEND THEM! befriend them (us) Because regardless of how this election goes, we are still a divided nation. But, if each and every one of us goes out and befriends, and turns around! one Trump Supporter we could make America Great again... and THAT America maybe (just maybe) COULD help make the world great again. It was better before, before they voted for What's-His-Name This was supposed to be the new world
Walk softly and carry a big carrot.
Because like I've always said - if you think there is a cutting edge , than you ain't on it.
Which is why I don't think this is that "edgy" of a thought...
...if the rich can cross the lines between right and wrong like ghosts walk through walls - maybe it is time they also fell through the floor.
And maybe (just maybe) they will all go straight to hell -
This was supposed to be the new world
and frankly, that's the problem... the rich have never been to hell.
This was supposed to be the new world
They have never known suffering, want or need.
This was supposed to be the new world
so maybe, if they spent an hour experiencing the hell that you and I go through on a daily basis,
they would understand what hell really is and remember that the world is round. and maybe, they would keep going until We all come out on the other side.
wondering why everybody is speaking with an Australian accent.
and this COULD be the new world
*******
I wanna subscribe to Chandler's You Tube Channel! Click Here or paste: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSOeQauM6Y0UM4OT4lQwdIA?view_as=subscriber
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 1:06 PM PDT
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
The Poor are the ones preyed upon by big corporations and Governemnt
Mood:
sharp
Now Playing: Tax the poor, Steal from the poor, Jail the poor .... and more
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks Published on Thursday, May 17, 2012 by TomDispatch.com https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/17-4 by Barbara Ehrenreich Individually the poor are not too tempting to thieves, for obvious reasons. Mug a banker and you might score a wallet containing a month’s rent. Mug a janitor and you will be lucky to get away with bus fare to flee the crime scene. But as Business Week helpfully pointed out in 2007, the poor in aggregate provide a juicy target for anyone depraved enough to make a business of stealing from them The trick is to rob them in ways that are systematic, impersonal, and almost impossible to trace to individual perpetrators. Employers, for example, can simply program their computers to shave a few dollars off each paycheck, or they can require workers to show up 30 minutes or more before the time clock starts ticking.Lenders, including major credit companies as well as payday lenders, have taken over the traditional role of the street-corner loan shark, charging the poor insanely high rates of interest. When supplemented with late fees (themselves subject to interest), the resulting effective interest rate can be as high as 600% a year, which is perfectly legal in many states.It’s not just the private sector that’s preying on the poor. Local governments are discovering that they can partially make up for declining tax revenues through fines, fees, and other costs imposed on indigent defendants, often for crimes no more dastardly than driving with a suspended license. And if that seems like an inefficient way to make money, given the high cost of locking people up, a growing number of jurisdictions have taken to charging defendants for their court costs and even the price of occupying a jail cell.The poster case for government persecution of the down-and-out would have to be Edwina Nowlin, a homeless Michigan woman who was jailed in 2009 for failing to pay $104 a month to cover the room-and-board charges for her 16-year-old son’s incarceration. When she received a back paycheck, she thought it would allow her to pay for her son’s jail stay. Instead, it was confiscated and applied to the cost of her own incarceration.Government Joins the Looters of the PoorYou might think that policymakers would take a keen interest in the amounts that are stolen, coerced, or extorted from the poor, but there are no official efforts to track such figures. Instead, we have to turn to independent investigators, like Kim Bobo, author of Wage Theft in America, who estimates that wage theft nets employers at least $100 billion a year and possibly twice that. As for the profits extracted by the lending industry, Gary Rivlin, who wrote Broke USA: From Pawnshops to Poverty, Inc. -- How the Working Poor Became Big Business, says the poor pay an effective surcharge of about $30 billion a year for the financial products they consume and more than twice that if you include subprime credit cards, subprime auto loans, and subprime mortgages.These are not, of course, trivial amounts. They are on the same order of magnitude as major public programs for the poor. The government distributes about $55 billion a year, for example, through the largest single cash-transfer program for the poor, the Earned Income Tax Credit; at the same time, employers are siphoning off twice that amount, if not more, through wage theft. And while government generally turns a blind eye to the tens of billions of dollars in exorbitant interest that businesses charge the poor, it is notably chary with public benefits for the poor. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, for example, our sole remaining nationwide welfare program, gets only $26 billion a year in state and federal funds. The impression is left of a public sector that’s gone totally schizoid: on the one hand, offering safety-net programs for the poor; on the other, enabling large-scale private sector theft from the very people it is supposedly trying to help. At the local level though, government is increasingly opting to join in the looting. In 2009, a year into the Great Recession, I first started hearing complaints from community organizers about ever more aggressive levels of law enforcement in low-income areas. Flick a cigarette butt and get arrested for littering; empty your pockets for an officer conducting a stop-and-frisk operation and get cuffed for a few flakes of marijuana. Each of these offenses can result, at a minimum, in a three-figure fine. And the number of possible criminal offenses leading to jail and/or fines has been multiplying recklessly. All across the country -- from California and Texas to Pennsylvania -- counties and municipalities have been toughening laws against truancy and ratcheting up enforcement, sometimes going so far as to handcuff children found on the streets during school hours. In New York City, it’s now a crime to put your feet up on a subway seat, even if the rest of the car is empty, and a South Carolina woman spent six days in jail when she was unable to pay a $480 fine for the crime of having a “messy yard.” Some cities -- most recently, Houston and Philadelphia -- have made it a crime to share food with indigent people in public places.Being poor itself is not yet a crime, but in at least a third of the states, being in debt can now land you in jail. If a creditor like a landlord or credit card company has a court summons issued for you and you fail to show up on your appointed court date, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. And it is easy enough to miss a court summons, which may have been delivered to the wrong address or, in the case of some bottom-feeding bill collectors, simply tossed in the garbage -- a practice so common that the industry even has a term for it: “sewer service.” In a sequence that National Public Radio reports is “increasingly common,” a person is stopped for some minor traffic offense -- having a noisy muffler, say, or broken brake light -- at which point the officer discovers the warrant and the unwitting offender is whisked off to jail. Local Governments as Predators Each of these crimes, neo-crimes, and pseudo-crimes carries financial penalties as well as the threat of jail time, but the amount of money thus extracted from the poor is fiendishly hard to pin down. No central agency tracks law enforcement at the local level, and local records can be almost willfully sketchy.According to one of the few recent nationwide estimates, from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 10.5 million misdemeanors were committed in 2006. No one would risk estimating the average financial penalty for a misdemeanor, although the experts I interviewed all affirmed that the amount is typically in the “hundreds of dollars.” If we take an extremely lowball $200 per misdemeanor, and bear in mind that 80%-90% of criminal offenses are committed by people who are officially indigent, then local governments are using law enforcement to extract, or attempt to extract, at least $2 billion a year from the poor. And that is only a small fraction of what governments would like to collect from the poor. Katherine Beckett, a sociologist at the University of Washington, estimates that “deadbeat dads” (and moms) owe $105 billion in back child-support payments, about half of which is owed to state governments as reimbursement for prior welfare payments made to the children. Yes, parents have a moral obligation to their children, but the great majority of child-support debtors are indigent. Attempts to collect from the already-poor can be vicious and often, one would think, self-defeating. Most states confiscate the drivers’ licenses of people owing child support, virtually guaranteeing that they will not be able to work. Michigan just started suspending the drivers’ licenses of people who owe money for parking tickets. Las Cruces, New Mexico, just passed a law that punishes people who owe overdue traffic fines by cutting off their water, gas, and sewage. Once a person falls into the clutches of the criminal justice system, we encounter the kind of slapstick sadism familiar to viewers of Wipeout. Many courts impose fees without any determination of whether the offender is able to pay, and the privilege of having a payment plan will itself cost money.In a study of 15 states, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University found 14 of them contained jurisdictions that charge a lump-sum “poverty penalty” of up to $300 for those who cannot pay their fees and fines, plus late fees and “collection fees” for those who need to pay over time. If any jail time is imposed, that too may cost money, as the hapless Edwina Nowlin discovered, and the costs of parole and probation are increasingly being passed along to the offender.The predatory activities of local governments give new meaning to that tired phrase “the cycle of poverty.” Poor people are more far more likely than the affluent to get into trouble with the law, either by failing to pay parking fines or by incurring the wrath of a private-sector creditor like a landlord or a hospital. Once you have been deemed a criminal, you can pretty much kiss your remaining assets goodbye. Not only will you face the aforementioned court costs, but you’ll have a hard time ever finding a job again once you’ve acquired a criminal record. And then of course, the poorer you become, the more likely you are to get in fresh trouble with the law, making this less like a “cycle” and more like the waterslide to hell. The further you descend, the faster you fall -- until you eventually end up on the streets and get busted for an offense like urinating in public or sleeping on a sidewalk.I could propose all kinds of policies to curb the ongoing predation on the poor. Limits on usury should be reinstated. Theft should be taken seriously even when it’s committed by millionaire employers. No one should be incarcerated for debt or squeezed for money they have no chance of getting their hands on. These are no-brainers, and should take precedence over any long term talk about generating jobs or strengthening the safety net. Before we can “do something” for the poor, there are some things we need to stop doing to them. © 2012 Barbara Ehrenreich
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 23 September 2012 3:08 PM PDT
Sunday, 15 January 2012
Drug War Anaylsis by Lew Rockwell
Mood:
d'oh
Now Playing: Americas Longest Ongoing War: The Race War on Drugs
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/americas-longest-ongoing-war-race-war.html "The drug war is not to protect the children, save the babies, shield the neighborhoods, or preserve the rain forests. The drug war is a violent campaign against black men and by extension the black family, among many others." ~ Wilton D. Alston, " How Can Anyone Not Realize the War on (Some) Drugs Is Racist?" LewRockwell.com (June 24, 2011) John W. Whitehead Lew RockwellAfter more than 40 years and at least $1 trillion, America’s so-called "war on drugs" ranks as the longest-running, most expensive and least effective war effort by the American government. Four decades after Richard Nixon declared that "America’s public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse," drug use continues unabated, the prison population has increased six fold to over two million inmates (half a million of whom are there for nonviolent drug offenses), SWAT team raids for minor drug offenses have become more common, and in the process, billions of tax dollars have been squandered. Just consider – every 19 seconds, someone in the U.S. is arrested for violating a drug law. Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. is arrested for violating a marijuana law, making it the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States. Approximately 1,313,673 individuals were arrested for drug-related offenses in 2011. Police arrested an estimated 858,408 persons for marijuana violations in 2009. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent were charged with possession only. Since 1971, more than 40 million individuals have been arrested due to drug-related offenses. Moreover, since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year, with about 25 percent sentenced for drug law violations. The foot soldiers in the government’s increasingly fanatical war on drugs, particularly marijuana, are state and local police officers dressed in SWAT gear and armed to the hilt. These SWAT teams carry out roughly 50,000 no-knock raids every year in search of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. As author and journalist Radley Balko reports, "The vast majority of these raids are to serve routine drug warrants, many times for crimes no more serious than possession of marijuana... Police have broken down doors, screamed obscenities, and held innocent people at gunpoint only to discover that what they thought were marijuana plants were really sunflowers, hibiscus, ragweed, tomatoes, or elderberry bushes. (It’s happened with all five.)" No wonder America’s war on drugs has increasingly become an issue of concern on and off the campaign trail. Back in 1976, Jimmy Carter campaigned for president on a platform that included decriminalizing marijuana and ending federal criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of the drug. Thirty-six years later, the topic is once again up for debate, especially among Republican presidential contenders whose stances vary widely, from Ron Paul who has called for an end to the drug war, to Govs. Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman who have said that states should be allowed to legalize medical marijuana without federal interference, to Rick Santorum who has admitted to using marijuana while in college but remains adamantly opposed to its legalization.
Americans are showing themselves to be increasingly receptive to a change in the nation’s drug policy, with a Gallup poll showing a record-high 50% of Americans favoring legalizing marijuana use, nearly half of all Americans favor legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use, 70% favoring legalizing it for medical purposes, and a 2008 Zogby poll which found that three in four Americans believe the war on drugs to be a failure. "As an active duty jail superintendent, I've seen how the drug war doesn't do anything to reduce drug abuse but does cause a host of other problems, from prison overcrowding to a violent black market controlled by gangs and cartels," said Richard Van Wickler, the serving corrections superintendent in Cheshire County, N.H. "For a long time this issue has been treated like a third rail by politicians, but polls now show that voters overwhelmingly agree that the drug war is a failure and that a new direction is sorely needed."
A growing number of law enforcement officials and national organizations are also calling for an end to the drug wars, including the US Conference of Mayors, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former US Secretary of State George Schultz, and former presidents of Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil, and the NAACP. In fact, at their national convention in July 2011, the NAACP voiced their concern over the striking disparity in incarceration between whites and blacks, particularly when it comes to drug-related offenses.
In terms of its racial impact, the U.S. government’s war on drugs also constitutes one of the most racially discriminatory policies being pushed by the government in recent decades, with African-Americans constituting its greatest casualties. As the ACLU has reported, "Despite the fact that whites engage in drug offenses at a higher rate than African-Americans, African-Americans are incarcerated for drug offenses at a rate that is 10 times greater than that of whites." Indeed, blacks – who make up 13% of the population – account for 40% of federal prisoners and 45% of state prisoners convicted of drug offenses.
Moreover, a November 2011 study by researchers at Duke University found that young blacks are arrested for drug crimes ten times more often than whites. Likewise, a 2008 study by the ACLU concluded that blacks in New York City were five times more likely to be arrested than their white counterparts for simple marijuana possession. Latinos were three times more likely to be arrested. The Drug Policy Alliance and California NAACP released a report claiming that between 2006 and 2008 "police in 25 of California's major cities arrested blacks at four, five, six, seven, and even 12 times the rate of whites."
This disproportionate approach to prosecuting those found in possession of marijuana is particularly evident in California, where black marijuana offenders were imprisoned 13 times as much as non-blacks in 2011. In fact, between 1990 and 2010, there was a 300% surge in arrests for marijuana possession for nonwhites. As the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice concluded, "California’s criminal justice system can be divided into two categories with respect to marijuana: one system for African-Americans, another for all other races."
Thus, while the government’s war on drugs itself may not be an explicit attempt to subjugate minority groups, the policy has a racist effect in that it disproportionately impacts minority communities. Moreover, the origins of drug prohibition have explicitly racial justifications. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, prohibitionists clamoring to make drugs illegal tapped into common racial prejudices to convince others of the benefits of drug prohibition. For example, opium imports to America peaked in the 1840s, with 70,000 pounds imported annually, but Chinese immigrants did not arrive in large numbers until after the 1850s. Thus, Americans were using opium in copious amounts before Chinese immigrants arrived. Once they arrived however, they became convenient scapegoats for those interested in making opium illegal. Prohibitionists portrayed opium smoking as a habit below the respectability of "white" men. In a similar manner, marijuana was later associated with blacks, Latinos, and jazz culture, making marijuana an easy target for prohibition.
Yet despite 40 years of military funding to eradicate foreign drug supplies, increased incarceration rates, and more aggressive narcotics policing, the war on drugs has done nothing to resolve the issue of drug addiction. Consumption of cocaine and marijuana has been relatively stable over the past four decades, with a spike in use during the 1970s and 80s. And a European Union Commission study determined that "global drug production and use remained largely unchanged from 1998 through 2007." In fact, the only things that have changed are that drugs are cheaper and more potent, there are more people in prison, and the government is spending more taxpayer money.
So what’s the solution?
As Professor John McWhorter contends, problems of addiction should be treated like the medical problems they are – in other words, drug addiction is a health problem, not a police problem. At the very least, marijuana, which has been widely recognized as medically beneficial, should be legalized. As a society, we would be far better off investing the copious amounts of money currently spent on law enforcement in prevention and treatment programs. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t want marijuana legalized, fearing it might cut into its profit margins. However, as California has shown, it could be a boon for struggling state economies. Marijuana is California’s biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales. Were California to legalize the drug (it legalized medical marijuana in 1996) and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale, tax collectors estimate it could bring in $1.3 billion in revenue. Prior to the Obama administration’s crackdown on the state’s medical marijuana dispensaries, which has cost the state thousands of jobs, lost income and lost tax revenue, California had been raking in $100 million in taxes from the dispensaries alone.
As Neill Franklin, the executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who worked on narcotics policing for the Maryland State Police and Baltimore Police Department for over 30 years, remarked in the New York Times:
In an earlier era it may have been a smart move for politicians to act "tough on drugs" and stay far away from legalization. But today, many voters recognize that our prohibition laws don’t do anything to reduce drug use but do create a black market where cartels and gangs use violence to protect their profits.
While some fear that legalization would lead to increased use, those who want to use marijuana are probably already doing so under our ineffective prohibition laws. And when we stop wasting so many resources on locking people up, perhaps we can fund real public education and health efforts of the sort that have led to dramatic reductions in tobacco use over the last few decades – all without having to put handcuffs on anyone.
I have spent my entire adult life fighting the war on drugs as a police officer on the front lines. I have experienced the loss of friends and comrades who fought this war alongside me, and every year tens of thousands of other people are murdered by gangs battling over drug turf in American cities, Canada and Mexico. It is time to reduce violence by taking away a vital funding source from organized crime just as we did by ending alcohol prohibition almost 80 years ago.
The goals of reducing crime, disease, death and addiction have not been met by the "drug war" that was declared by President Nixon 40 years ago and ramped up by each president since.
The public has waked up to the fact that we need to change our marijuana laws. Savvy politicians would do well to catch up. Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:44 AM PST
Friday, 16 December 2011
Obama allows the congres to call America a battlefield
Mood:
blue
Now Playing: Obama: Principles in favor of Politics
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Obama and his loss of Principles in favor of Politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/politics-over-principle.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
December 15, 2011 Politics Over PrincipleThe trauma of Sept. 11, 2001, gave rise to a dangerous myth that, to be safe, America had to give up basic rights and restructure its legal system. The United States was now in a perpetual state of war, the argument went, and the criminal approach to fighting terrorism — and the due process that goes along with it — wasn’t tough enough. President George W. Bush used this insidious formula to claim that his office had the inherent power to detain anyone he chose, for as long as he chose, without a trial; to authorize the torture of prisoners; and to spy on Americans without a warrant. President Obama came into office pledging his dedication to the rule of law and to reversing the Bush-era policies. He has fallen far short. Mr. Obama refused to entertain any investigation of the abuses of power under his predecessor, and he has been far too willing to adopt Mr. Bush’s extravagant claims of national secrets to prevent any courthouse accountability for those abuses. This week, he is poised to sign into law terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law. The measures, contained in the annual military budget bill, will strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military, which has made clear that it doesn’t want the job. The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial. The bill, championed by Republicans in the House and Senate, was attached to the military budget bill to make it harder for Mr. Obama to veto it. Nearly every top American official with knowledge and experience spoke out against the provisions, including the attorney general, the defense secretary, the chief of the F.B.I., the secretary of state, and the leaders of intelligence agencies. And, for weeks, the White House vowed that Mr. Obama would veto the military budget if the provisions were left in. On Wednesday, the White House reversed field, declaring that the bill had been improved enough for the president to sign it now that it had passed the Senate. This is a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency. To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary. Civilian prosecutors and federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists, while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen. And the modifications are nowhere near enough. Mr. Obama, his spokesman said, is prepared to sign this law because it allows the executive to grant a waiver for a particular prisoner to be brought to trial in a civilian court. But the legislation’s ban on spending any money for civilian trials for any accused terrorist would make that waiver largely meaningless. The bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all. Among the worst: It leaves open the possibility of subjecting American citizens to military detention and trial by a military court. It will make it impossible to shut the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. And it includes an unneeded expansion of the authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan to include indefinite detention of anyone suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda or an amorphous group of “associated forces” that could cover just about anyone arrested anywhere in the world. There is no doubt. This bill will make it harder to fight terrorism and do more harm to the country’s international reputation. The White House said that if implementing it jeopardizes the rule of law, it expects Congress to work “quickly and tirelessly” to undo the damage. The White House will have to make that happen. After it abdicated its responsibility this week, we’re not convinced it will.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:37 AM PST
Updated: Friday, 23 December 2011 11:47 AM PST
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Liberating America From Wall Street and Big Banks
Mood:
energetic
Now Playing: This sound worthwhile & possible - "Dump Wall Street"
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Six Ways to Liberate America From Wall Street RuleWednesday 20 July 2011  New York Stock Exchange, Wall Street. (Photo: kainet) How is it that our nation is awash in money, but too broke to provide jobs and services? David Korten introduces a landmark new report, "How to Liberate America from Wall Street Rule." The dominant story of the current political debate is that the government is broke. We can’t afford to pay for public services, put people to work, or service the public debt. Yet as a nation, we are awash in money. A defective system of money, banking, and finance just puts it in the wrong places. Raising taxes on the rich and implementing financial reforms are essential elements of the solution to our seemingly intractable fiscal and economic crisis. Yet proposals currently on the table fall far short of the need. A newly released report of the New Economy Working Group, coordinated by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, goes beyond the current debate to call for a deep restructuring of the institutions to which we as a society give the power to create and allocate money. How to Liberate America from Wall Street Rule spells out the steps required to rebuild a system of community-based and accountable institutions devoted to financing productive activities that create good jobs for Americans and generate real community wealth. Despite the financial crash of 2008, the financial assets of America’s billionaires and the idle cash of the most profitable corporations are now at historic highs. Their biggest challenge is figuring out where to park all their cash.Over the past 30 years, virtually all the benefit of U.S. economic growth has gone to the richest 1 percent of Americans. Effective tax rates for the very rich are at historic lows and many of the most profitable corporations pay no taxes at all. Corporations are using their stores of cash primarily to buy back their own stock, acquire control of other companies, invest in off-shoring yet more American jobs, and pay generous dividends to shareholders and outsized bonuses to management.Unfortunately, most of those who hold the cash and the corporations they control have lost interest in long-term investments that build and expand strong enterprises. The substantial majority of trades in financial markets are made by high-speed computers in securities held for fractions of a second. Business pundits still refer to this trading as investment. It bears no resemblance, however, to the investment required to put people to work rebuilding a strong America. Help fight ignorance. Click here for daily Truthout email updates. It was not always so. In response to the Great Depression, our country enacted financial reforms that put in place a system of money, banking, and investment based on community banks, mutual savings and loans, and credit unions. These institutions provided financial services to local Main Street economies that employed Americans to produce and trade real goods and services in response to community needs and opportunities. This system, which Wall Street interests dismiss as quaint and antiquated, financed the U.S. victory in World War II, the creation of a strong American middle class, an unprecedented period of economic stability and prosperity, and the investments that made America the world’s undisputed industrial and technological leader. The consequences include the erosion of the middle class, an extreme concentration of wealth and power, a costly financial collapse, persistent high unemployment, housing foreclosures, collapsing environmental systems, the hollowing out of U.S. industrial, technological, and research capacity, huge public and international trade deficits, and the corruption of our political institutions.In the 1970’s Wall Street interests began pushing a deregulation agenda that led to a transfer of financial power from Main Street to Wall Street. Wall Street’s mega-banks lost interest in real investment and developed a new business model. They now specialize in charging excessive fees and usurious interest rates, providing leverage to speculators, speculating for their own accounts, luring the unwary into mortgages they cannot afford, bundling junk mortgages to sell them as triple-A securities, betting against the clients to whom they sell the overrated securities, extracting subsidies and bailouts from government, laundering money from drug and arms traders, and offshoring their profits to avoid taxes. Wall Street profited at every step and declared its experiment with deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy a great success. It now argues for extending the same measures even further. How to Liberate America from Wall Street Rule spells out details of a six-part policy agenda to rebuild a sensible system of community-based and accountable financial services institutions. - Break up the mega-banks and implement tax and regulatory policies that favor community financial institutions, with a preference for those organized as cooperatives or as for-profits owned by nonprofit foundations.
- Establish state-owned partnership banks in each of the 50 states, patterned after the Bank of North Dakota. These would serve as depositories for state financial assets to use in partnership with community financial institutions to fund local farms and businesses.
- Restructure the Federal Reserve to function under strict standards of transparency and public scrutiny, with General Accounting Office audits and Congressional oversight.
- Direct all new money created by the Federal Reserve to a Federal Recovery and Reconstruction Bank rather than the current practice of directing it as a subsidy to Wall Street banks. The FRRB would have a mandate to fund essential green infrastructure projects as designated by Congress.
- Rewrite international trade and investment rules to support national ownership, economic self-reliance, and economic self-determination.
- Implement appropriate regulatory and fiscal measures to secure the integrity of financial markets and the money/banking system.
How to Liberate America from Wall Street Rule is the product of extended discussions among representatives of a diverse group of organizations committed to deepening and reframing the conversation on financial reform to focus attention on the serious financial system restructuring required to build a strong new American economy adequate to the social and environmental challenges of the 21st century. It may be freely shared, reproduced and distributed with appropriate citations. Click here to read the report.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:37 PM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 21 July 2011 12:50 PM PDT
Monday, 13 June 2011
Whistle Blowers, Bradley Manning and Government Coverups
Mood:
irritated
Now Playing: Governement protects its own - mo accountability
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
People who leak state crimes are always insiders who have no other way to find justice for the crimes the state is committing. The state is not going to prosecute itself, the state is going to try to protect itself and insulate itself from liability and seek immunity for war crimes. The same is true for corporations and any powerful entity. It is near impossible to correct corruption from the inside if the entire branch or department or entire entity is operating from the grounds of corruption, often corrupt leaders at the tops. These people can only take the case to the public through journalists and publishers because complaints to superiors can lead to a dangerous dead end. This kind of leak is what we refer to as whistle blowing. Just like it sounds, the person is blowing the whistle and asking for intervention by the public, the media, and any interested parties or organizations. http://www.presstorm.com/2011/06/fair-trial-for-bradley-manning-not-likely/
Published By Venus On Saturday, June 4th 2011 Written by: Venus on June 4, 2011.
There is a big difference between leaking state secrets and leaking state crimes. Those who leak state secrets are usually going after monetary gain, character assassination, or any number of self serving interests. These are people like Scooter Libby and Karl Rove who leaked the identity of a US spy, Valerie Plame, because her husband made a comment against the war in Iraq (although Libby nor Rove were never charged with this crime). In this case, those who leaked her identity were not fully prosecuted because US officials don’t prosecute themselves. The journalist apparently did not know she was a spy and faced no charges, but did cooperate in the so called investigation. See original article Novak wrote here. When criminal justice failed, the Plame’s filed civil suit against Libby, Rove, Cheney, and Armitage (who took public credit for her ousting) but that case was dismissed. Bradley Manning is accused of transferring classified material to Wikileaks for publishing. What may have been what we know as the Collateral Murder video in which 2 Reuters journalists were gunned down and killed by helicopter fire in Iraq, among others. This was the first initial accusation that was believed to have been leaked by Manning. The material here is not at all sensitive in the sense that military operations are time sensitive. Therefore, this video really never belonged in classified status anyway. (military secrets are kept before and during an operation- not after it is over) Furthermore, it illustrates quite clearly state crimes. If you are not familiar with the rules of engagement in battle for US soldiers see it here. This means Bradley Manning leaked state crimes, not state secrets. People who leak state crimes are always insiders who have no other way to find justice for the crimes the state is committing. The state is not going to prosecute itself, the state is going to try to protect itself and insulate itself from liability and seek immunity for war crimes. The same is true for corporations and any powerful entity. It is near impossible to correct corruption from the inside if the entire branch or department or entire entity is operating from the grounds of corruption, often corrupt leaders at the tops. These people can only take the case to the public through journalists and publishers because complaints to superiors can lead to a dangerous dead end. This kind of leak is what we refer to as whistle blowing. Just like it sounds, the person is blowing the whistle and asking for intervention by the public, the media, and any interested parties or organizations. This case became entangled in public prosecution and pre-trial media guilty verdicts when alleged chats between Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo were made public. We cannot authenticate these chats, but they do something very dangerous in this case. These alleged chats would attach Manning to the leaking of the State Dept. Cables. The problem is people are treating the chat logs as if they are legitimate when we don’t know anything about them, other than they were produced by former hacker Adrian Lamo. Wired, the Washington Post, and Adrian Lamo refuse to release the chat logs in full to the public, leading some to question journalistic integrity. See more about the chats here. See more about Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com criticism of those who possess the chat logs in full here. As if this were not bad enough, prominent public figures actually called for Manning to be executed long before the accused faced a court room. (House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers, former Gov. of Arkansas Mike Huckabee) The leaking of the State Department Diplomatic Cables is another matter entirely, which legally could fall under state secrets. Like it or not, these people schmooze with officials in other nations in an effort to collect information and form some kind of relationship. Even if those leaders are horrible dictators. As a journalist, these are an excellent source for the whole world to benefit from, and it is in the public interest to publish these and bring understanding to them. We appreciate the valuable work of diplomats. There are a few that border upon state crimes. If any diplomat was committing crimes then we go back to Manning as a whistle blower. This makes the task of delving into the cables and identifying state crimes extremely important, at least for the defense. With President Barack Obama along with everyone else in official capacity beating the drum of his guilt, there will be no fair trial. Julian Assange said fairly accurately: “we cannot stop publishing because someone takes a hostage,”
in his PBS interview. I agree. Bradley Manning is a whistle blower, and should be treated as such. Instead of impeaching fraudulent officials and charging them with war crimes, the state has decided to make an example out of a single soldier of conscience.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:31 AM PDT
Updated: Monday, 13 June 2011 12:05 PM PDT
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
FBI want to join with Portland Police - Listen about FBI spying on Antiwar-Peace groups
Mood:
incredulous
Now Playing: Tom Burghardt expains how FBI
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2011/02/405926.shtml
American Police State: FBI Abuses Reveals Contempt for Political Rights, Civil Liberties As mass revolt spreads across Egypt and the Middle East and citizens there demand jobs, civil liberties and an end to police state abuses from repressive, U.S.-backed torture regimes, the Obama administration and their congressional allies aim to expand one right here at home. Last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF) released an explosive new report documenting the lawless, constitutional-free zone under construction in America for nearly a decade. That report, "Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001-2008," reveals that the domestic political intelligence apparat spearheaded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, continues to systematically violate the rights of American citizens and legal residents. A rather ironic state of affairs considering the free passes handed out by U.S. securocrats to actual terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, as both WikiLeaks and FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds disclosed last week. Although illegal practices and violations were reported by the FBI to the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) after an unexplained two-and-a-half-year delay, a further violation of lawful guidelines, lawbreaking continued unabated; in fact, it accelerated as the Bureau was given a green light to do so by successive U.S. administrations. The IOB is a largely toothless body created in 1976 by the Ford administration in the wake of disclosures of widespread spying and infiltration of political groups by America's secret state agencies during the sixties and seventies. Reeling from revelations uncovered by Congress, investigative journalists and citizen activists in the wake of the Watergate scandal, Ford's caretaker government was forced to call a halt to the more egregious practices employed by the FBI to keep the lid on and crafted guidelines governing intelligence and surveillance operations. In fact, the Attorney General's Guidelines regulating both FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection ( NSIG) stipulate that "all government intelligence operations occur with sufficient oversight and within the bounds of the Constitution and other federal laws." While it can rightly be argued these protocols were largely ineffective, and had been breeched more often than not by the 1980s under President Reagan, as revealed during the Iran-Contra scandal, and that antiwar, environmental and solidarity groups continue to be spied upon and destabilized by agents provocateurs and right-wing corporate scum, they were thrown overboard entirely by the Bush regime in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Today the "looking forward, not backward" Obama administration has whole-heartedly embraced Bushist lawlessness while charting an even more sinister course of their own, now asserting they have the authority to assassinate American citizens the Executive Branch designate as "terrorists" anywhere on earth without benefit of due process or court review. According to EFF, more than 2,500 documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that: * From 2001 to 2008, the FBI reported to the IOB approximately 800 violations of laws, Executive Orders, or other regulations governing intelligence investigations, although this number likely significantly under-represents the number of violations that actually occurred. * From 2001 to 2008, the FBI investigated, at minimum, 7000 potential violations of laws, Executive Orders, or other regulations governing intelligence investigations. * Based on the proportion of violations reported to the IOB and the FBI's own statements regarding the number of NSL [National Security Letter] violations that occurred, the actual number of violations that may have occurred from 2001 to 2008 could approach 40,000 possible violations of law, Executive Order, or other regulations governing intelligence investigations. (Electronic Frontier Foundation, Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001-2008, January 30, 2011) But FBI lawbreaking didn't stop there. Citing internal documents, EFF revealed that the Bureau also "engaged in a number of flagrant legal violations" that included, "submitting false or inaccurate declarations to courts," "using improper evidence to obtain federal grand jury subpoenas" and "accessing password protected documents without a warrant." In other words, in order to illegally spy on Americans and haul political dissidents before Star Chamber-style grand juries, the FBI routinely committed perjury and did so with absolute impunity. Reviewing the more than 2,500 documents EFF analysts averred that they had "uncovered alarming trends in the Bureau's intelligence investigation practices" and that the "documents suggest the FBI's intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed." According to EFF, the "documents show that the FBI most frequently committed three types of intelligence violations--violations of internal oversight guidelines for conducting investigations; violations stemming from the abuse of National Security Letters; and violations of the Fourth Amendment, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and other laws governing intelligence investigations." "Based on statements made by government officials and the proportion of violations occurring in the released reports," EFF estimates that "the FBI may have committed as many as 40,000 intelligence investigation violations over the past ten years." The civil liberties' watchdogs revealed that the type of violation occurring most frequently involved the Bureau's abuse of National Security Letters (NSLs), onerous lettres de cachet, secretive administrative subpoenas with built-in gag orders used by the FBI to seize records from third-parties without any judicial review whatsoever. Although National Security Letters have been employed by investigators since the 1970s, after 9/11 Congress passed the repressive USA PATRIOT Act which "greatly expanded the intelligence community's authority to issue NSLs." "During the course of a terrorism or counterintelligence investigation," EFF writes, "NSLs can be used to obtain just three types of records: (1) subscriber and 'toll billing information' from telephone companies and 'electronic communications services;' (2) financial records from banks and other financial institutions; and (3) consumer identifying information and the identity of financial institutions from credit bureaus." Abuses have been well-documented by the Justice Department's own Office of the Inspector General. In their 2008 report, the OIG disclosed that the FBI issued some 200,000 requests and that almost 60% were for investigations of U.S. citizens and legal residents. Given the symbiosis amongst American secret state agencies and grifting corporations, EFF discovered that "the frequency with which companies [received] NSLs--phone companies, internet providers, banks, or credit bureaus--contributed to the FBI’s NSL abuse." "In over half of all NSL violations reviewed by EFF, the private entity receiving the NSL either provided more information than requested or turned over information without receiving a valid legal justification from the FBI." In fact, "companies were all too willing to comply with the FBI's requests, and--in many cases--the Bureau readily incorporated the over-produced information into its investigatory databases." This too is hardly surprising, given the enormous profits generated by the surveillance state for their corporate beneficiaries. As The Washington Post revealed in their investigative series, Top Secret America, more than 800,000 corporate employees have been issued top secret and above security clearances. Beholden to their employers and not the public who foots the bill and is the victim of their excesses, accountability is a fiction and oversight a contemptible fraud. In a follow-up piece, Monitoring America, investigative journalists Dana Priest and William M. Arkin revealed that the FBI "is building a database with the names and certain personal information, such as employment history, of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents whom a local police officer or a fellow citizen believed to be acting suspiciously." In other words, in order to "keep us safe" unaccountable securocrats are constructing a Stasi-like political intelligence system that has overthrown the traditional legal concept of probable cause in favor of a regime rooted in fear and suspicion; one where innocent activities such as taking a photograph or attending an antiwar rally now serves as a pretext for opening a national security investigation. According to Priest and Arkin, the Bureau database "is accessible to an increasing number of local law enforcement and military criminal investigators, increasing concerns that it could somehow end up in the public domain," and used by employers to terminate political dissidents or other "undesirable" citizens merely on the basis of allegations emanating from who knows where. As Antifascist Calling reported in October, "predictive behavior" security firms, generously funded by the CIA's venture capitalist arm, In-Q-Tel, have increasingly turned to monitoring social media sites such as Blogger, Facebook, Flickr, Twitter and YouTube and are exploiting powerful computer algorithms for their clients--your boss--thereby transforming private communications into "actionable intelligence" that just might get you fired. In one case, EFF discovered that the FBI "requested email header information for two email addresses used by a U.S. person." In response, researchers averred "the email service provider returned two CDs containing the full content of all emails in the accounts. The FBI eventually (and properly) sequestered the CDs, notified the email provider of the overproduction, and re-issued an NSL for the originally requested header information; but, in response to the second NSL, the email provider again provided the FBI with the full content of all emails in the accounts." To make matters worse, "third-parties not only willingly cooperated with FBI NSLs when the legal justification was unclear, however: they responded to NSLs without any legal justification at all." In conclusion, EFF wrote that "while the reports documenting the FBI's abuse of the Constitution, FISA, and other intelligence laws are troubling, EFF's analysis is necessarily incomplete: it is impossible to know the severity of the FBI's legal violations until the Bureau stops concealing its most serious violations behind a wall of arbitrary secrecy." This sordid state of affairs is likely to continue given Congress's utter lack of interest in protecting Americans' constitutionally-protected right to privacy, free speech and assembly. With new moves afoot in Congress to pass a data retention law that requires internet service providers to retain records of users' online activity or, as in the repressive Egyptian U.S. client state, handing the Executive Branch a "kill-switch" that would disconnect the American people from the internet in the event of a "national emergency," the U.S. oligarchy is planning for the future. As the World Socialist Web Site points out, "The US government is well aware that the Internet provides a forum for rapid communication and organization, as demonstrated by the events in Egypt this week. In an attempt to block communication within Egypt and with the external world, US-backed dictator Hosni Mubarak cut off the country's access to the Internet altogether." "Similarly," left-wing journalist Patrick Zimmerman writes, "the fundamental goal of the US government in its attempts to gain control of the Internet and monitor user activity has nothing to do with the 'war on terror' or prosecuting criminals. Under conditions of growing social inequality, government austerity, and expanding war abroad, the government anticipates the growth of social opposition in the United States." The Bush regime's "preemptive war" doctrine has been fully incorporated into the Obama administration's "homeland security" paradigm. The formidable police state apparatus that accompanies America's imperial adventures abroad are now deployed at home where they have devastating effects on an already dysfunctional democracy sliding ever-closer towards an authoritarian abyss. Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read onDissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century. |
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 9:14 PM PST
Monday, 13 December 2010
WikiLeaks and the (sic) Espionage Act
Mood:
irritated
Now Playing: WikiLeaks could be vulnerable to Espionage Act
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025430-281.html?tag=nl.e703 CNET: WikiLeaks could be vulnerable to Espionage Act If WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange is indicted by the U.S. government for disseminating classified information, as even his own lawyer now expects, his defense is likely to face long legal odds. The 1917 Espionage Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress during World War I, has been a mainstay of national security prosecutions ever since. And it's been upheld as constitutional by every court that has examined whether its invocation in a criminal prosecution complies with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. A CNET review of Espionage Act cases shows that judges have generally favored the government and, in a 1985 case, even allowed an extraterritorial prosecution of a non-U.S. citizen. In the 1978 case of U.S. v. Dedeyan, the Fourth Circuit upheld the Act against arguments that it was vague and overly broad. A year later, in U.S. v. Boyce, the Ninth Circuit ruled it was "constitutionally sufficient." "We find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1941. "The language employed appears sufficiently definite to apprise the public of prohibited activities and is consonant with due process." The Pentagon's criminal investigation of WikiLeaks--especially Assange, its frontman and spokesman--began over the summer after the Web site published thousands of military dispatches from Afghanistan. By August, the FBI had been drawn in, and after last month's recent leaks of confidential Iraq and State Department communications, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed that the probe is ongoing. Some of the more hawkish members of Congress have egged him on. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the incoming head of the House Intelligence Committee, asked Holder to charge Assange under the Espionage Act, as did Senate Intelligence Committee chiefs Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Kit Bond (R-Miss.). Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) has been publicly wondering why an indictment and extradition "hasn't happened yet." It's true that prosecuting Assange, who is in a London facing an extradition hearing tomorrow on unrelated charges lodged in Sweden, is engaging in something that's closer to informational activism and not what most people would think of as spying. The actual text of the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793(e), is nevertheless breathtakingly broad. It says that anyone who has "unauthorized possession" of documents "relating to the national defense" and publishes them, believing they "could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation," is guilty of a federal felony. (This is narrower than a version proposed by President Wilson, which would have given the executive branch the power to censor information "of such character that it is or might be useful to the enemy.") On Fox News over the weekend, Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey called the law "an oldie but goodie." He said that there's no question in his mind that a prosecution against Assange, an Australian citizen, could proceed "because the First Amendment doesn't protect speech that causes certain prescribed--certain defined injury." In the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, a 6-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a prior restraint prohibiting the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing classified documents on the Vietnam war. But even the justices in the majority acknowledged at the time that criminal prosecutions after publication would still be possible. "If a criminal prosecution is instituted, it will be the responsibility of the courts to decide the applicability of the criminal law under which the charge is brought," wrote Justice Potter Stewart. And Justice Byron White added that the drafters of the Espionage Act "appeared to have little doubt that newspapers would be subject to criminal prosecution if they insisted on publishing information of the type Congress had itself determined should not be revealed." Rep. King told Fox Business News over the weekend that Assange could be prosecuted because "the Pentagon Papers case was limited to prior restraint" before publication. The full contours of what limits the First Amendment places on the Espionage Act have never been outlined by a court. In part, that's likely because the Justice Department has not been eager to learn the answer: no criminal charges were lodged against either newspaper in the Pentagon Papers case. And prosecutions since then have typically targeted leakers, not publishers or journalists. This is hardly a universal view. Civil libertarians have already taken up the defense of WikiLeaks' First Amendment rights. White collar defense attorney Baruch Weiss suggests any prosecution of Assange "will not be easy." Writer Naomi Wolf has even called for Americans to "rise up and insist on repeal of the Espionage Act." A review of Espionage Act cases shows that judges have tended to chip away at obstacles for government prosecutors. In a 2007 conspiracy case, for instance, a court ruled that the Justice Department did not need to prove that the information disclosed was closely held and damaging to national security. In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled there did not have to be "bad intent" for someone to be convicted of disclosing information covered by the Espionage Act. What was important, the court concluded, was "the conscious choice to communicate covered information." (Assange would presumably claim to be acting out of the best of intentions; his an op-ed in The Australian last week said WikiLeaks is "fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.") Nearly six decades ago, in what may have been the most famous Cold War prosecution, the Second Circuit allowed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to be executed. "We think the statute valid under the First Amendment," the court concluded. "The communication to a foreign government of secret material connected with the national defense can by no far-fetched reasoning be included within the area of First Amendment protected free speech." Even an unsuccessful attempt to pass on "national defense" information is illegal. In the 1958 U.S. v. Abel case, the Second Circuit acknowledged "there is no evidence" that the defendant and his co-conspirators "ever succeeded in gathering or in transmitting any unlawful information." But "the conspirators' lack of success, if indeed they were unsuccessful, does not lessen the criminality of their activities." The phrase "information relating to the national defense" isn't actually defined in the Espionage Act. A federal judge in Connecticut, however, ruled last year in U.S. v. Abu-Jihaad that it was a "generic concept of broad connotations, referring to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness," as long as the information was reasonably accurate and it was intended to be kept secret. WikiLeaks has disclosed more than 75,000 confidential files related to the war in Afghanistan, nearly 400,000 classified documents from Iraq, and about 1,300 of 250,000 State Department cables so far. Perhaps the closest legal parallel with WikiLeaks arose when two employees of the AIPAC pro-Israel lobbying group were charged with violating the Espionage Act. They weren't government employees themselves -- they were more akin to WikiLeaks, or the media, because they obtained sensitive information through a leak. (The Obama administration dropped the case last year.) "Both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense," Judge T.S. Ellis wrote in 2006 in the AIPAC case. He noted that with the lone exception of Justice Hugo Black, eight of the Pentagon Papers justices indicated "that they would have upheld a criminal prosecution of the newspapers." . Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025430-281.html#ixzz181JWBjUk
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:10 AM PST
Newer | Latest | Older
|
« |
September 2023 |
» |
 |
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|