Thursday, March 08, 2012

It's International Women's Day - Will the Blue Bra Girl Be Forgotten?

Stringer/Reuters/Landov
An Egyptian army soldier stomps on the chest of a female protester
after she was beaten at Tahrir Square in Cairo on Dec. 17, 2011.
by Anna Manzo

It's International Women's Day.

A year ago, on this day, Egyptian women in Tahrir Square were sexually and physically assaulted as they demonstrated for representation in their government after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak,  a U.S.-supported dictator. 

In December, during mass demonstrations over the military council's resistance to relinquish power and hold elections, women were again out on the streets with their male counterparts. Many were chased by the military and brutally beaten – largely unseen and unheard for the rest of the world, as are so many atrocities.

This time, however, an amateur video of the brutal treatment of two women, one stripped to her a blue bra and the second in a red jacket, went viral and brought international outrage. Egyptian activists started a Twitter feed, the #bluebra, which drew hundreds demanding an end to military rule.

Though what happened to the Blue Bra Girl is still unknown, a heartbreaking CNN video of the woman in the red jacket surfaced of her from her the hospital bed still wanting speak out to the media. She is a daughter of a general, and eventually recovered from her injuries.
 
Several journalists expressed my thoughts and concerns about violence toward women in the global movements over economic and social injustice:
  • On my blog that day, I wrote:  "I am not Egyptian, but I am a Woman. I do not know who she is, but she is my sister, she is my mother, she is my daughter, she has someone who loves her."
     
  • NPR's Kainaz Amaria on the  Girl in the Blue Bra:
    Canada's National Post reported Egyptian blogger Fatenn Mostafa tweeting, "The blue bra is unforgettable and we all become 'the blue bra' girl one way or another."  
  • As Anushay Hossain in Ms. Magazine writes: "There is a reason why Time magazine picked The Protester as its Person of the Year–and there is a reason why the protester on that Time cover is a woman. Throughout the Arab Spring, from Iran to Saudi Arabia to Egypt, women have been on the frontlines of the protests, demanding more rights, as well as behind the scenes, shaping their countries’ revolutions." 
  • The Independent/UK's  Laurie Penny who writes, "That's Enough Politeness: Time to Rise Up in Anger":
    "A huge cultural change is taking place all over the world right now. Over the past year, from the Arab Spring uprisings to the global anti-corporate occupations, young people and workers have realised that they were flogged a false dream of prosperity in return for quiet obedience, exhausting, precarious jobs and perpetual debt – most of it shouldered by women, whose low-status, low-paid and unpaid work has driven the expansion of exploitative markets across the world. Equality, like prosperity, was supposed to trickle down, but not a lot can trickle down through a glass ceiling."
  •  Syndicated columnist Connie Schultz in a column on equal rights for women:
    "The recent wave of anti-choice legislation in my state and across the country has made me keenly aware of attacks on women in America. Perhaps that is why I was so drawn to the Times’ stunning chronicle of women’s lives. I still can be astonished by how regularly the target of masculine rage is women."   
Schultz was writing before the latest controversies over Virginia's bill that mandated transvaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion, and Rush Limbaugh's "slut" and "prostitute" slurs about Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke's testimony during a congressional hearing on contraception.

Now I hear from Democratic Party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman that there are some 450 birth control and anti-abortion bills in state legislatures across the country.

Some colleagues have pointed out that such "culture wars" over reproductive rights in the U.S. are a distracting sideshow to the real troubles, such as the threat of another war that will further bankrupt our nation.

But I beg to differ. These events emanate from one and the same. Schultz noted women are often the targets of masculine rage. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Egypt's female protesters also faced "virginity" tests at the hands of the military, a military backed by the U.S.

It's the same masculine rage that wants to control women's bodies, and that beats the drums to war in the Middle East. This rage is keeping our country locked in a war economy, as the world's largest exporter of weapons and a military budget that is nearly equal to the rest of the world's.

This masculine rage protected and controlled access to territory and resources for millennia with ever-increasing armies and weapons of mass destruction. This rage required homicidal energy, ingenuity and power – a psychosis if you will – to defeat its competitors and provide for its own offspring. It was an enduring responsibility that grew ever more complex over the centuries, as tribes became nation-states and those nation-states in turn formed alliances with ever more superior weapons of mass destruction and nuclear and biochemical technology.

Cultural norms and religious ideologies supplemented those violent and overt means of control – after all, whose progeny would have access to those hard-won "scarce resources:"? The easiest way to control populations before birth control was developed was to control the minds and bodies of their counterparts – the "weaker sex".

Without a doubt, this masculine rage over the millennia eventually resulted in a collective standard of living our ancestors never had.

But it left behind unresolved turmoil and trauma.

And now in a 21st century where technology is rapidly replacing human labor as a means to gain access to the basic necessities of life, this rage is imbalanced, still in hyperdrive.

It's manifesting in over-competitiveness, driving these leaders to the brink: from excessive executive pay and bonuses on Wall Street to the latest absurdities erupting out of the GOP presidential primaries. For instance, enormous amounts of money by a donor who's pledged up to $100 million to his candidate, Newt Gingrich, who has stated he wants to put a 51st state on the moon (rather than use those resources to create a more sustainable global economy). Or, the potential running mate who would've proudly signed a transvaginal ultrasound mandate into law (rather than fund birth control, sex education or abortion).

But there are other issues that fall under the radar and should not be forgotten, such as the deficit reduction standoff favoring austerity cuts to social services and public sector employees ... this in a time where average working people are trying to recover from a global economic crash caused by excessive greed. Underlying all that is the unspoken "race to the bottom" where technology and outsourcing is replacing human labor while the cost of living never decreases.

Women in developed nations have thought they spent the last century struggling to win major victories of independence,  such as voting, equality in the workplace and reproductive rights.

Yet, in the wake of a global economic crisis, there are now millions of American and European women leading the same quiet lives of desperation as their counterparts in less developed nations struggling to meet their basic needs for clean water, food, and shelter.

The feminine principles of nurturing and compassion allow cooler heads to prevail. Remember who taught us diplomacy and cooperation when we were kids first learning how to play with others? To stop fighting and learn how to share? Remember who was there when we were hungry or sick?

This is the 21st century. Men in power can learn to stop wars by learning to control their fear and aggression.

 It's time to recalibrate and rebalance.

It's time for women to get busy.

We've had enough of hunger and insecurity in the world.

The Blue Bra Girl is still alive in all of us – men, women and children of the future.

She must not be silenced.

She must not be forgotten.

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Super Tuesday, Super PACs and Citizens United - Under-reported news

As super PACs and the Republican and Democratic parties gear up to set new records in campaign spending – expected to surpass 2010's $4 billion – as a result of the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, 70 Vermont towns passed resolutions to get money out of politics. Earlier in the week, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) introduced a bill requiring the super PACs to disclose their donors and spending every 24 hours on the Web. Plus, TV ads would have disclose the top 5 donors and have a photo of their PAC's chief's face in the ad.

Here's some under-reported news and views to think about:

Super Tuesday's Big Winner is Already Settled, by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation and Washington Post
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/06-2

Over 70 Vermont Towns Want Corporate Personhood Amendment, CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/06-4


Super Tuesday for Super-Pacs, Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20120304_Inquirer_Editorial__Super_Tuesday_for_super-PACs.html

In case you missed it, here's my previous blog, "Restoring Balance to a Broken Political and Economic System."

It's heartening to see how quickly Vermont is mobilizing. What's going on in your state?

– Anna Manzo
@BTLRadioNews

Facebook.com/BetweenTheLinesRadioNewsmagazine

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Restoring Balance to a Broken Political and Economic System


 By Anna Manzo

Just when I began to feel that "the little guy" is being overpowered by an unsurmountable status quo,  several political developments have given me some hope. A former working group for Occupy Wall Street has sent out a press release about a National General Assembly that will convene with 876 delegates during the week of July 4 to ratify and sign a petition to the government for a redress of grievances. 

It sounds somewhat promising, considering these onerous legal happenings and protests over the last two months:
  • President Obama signed into law indefinite detention for U.S. citizens accused of a "belligerent act" or suspected of terrorism, just two weeks before a global Occupy Wall Street movement rededicated itself to Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolent fight for economic justice; 
  • mass protests on Jan. 21 sprang up at courthouses all around the country to challenge the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling  allowing "corporate personhood" and unlimited donations to election campaigns; 
  • mass online protests Jan. 18 have delayed House and Senate bills aimed at stopping online piracy, which the tech industry feared would result in Internet censorship. However, an international treaty widely protested in Europe, has already been signed by Obama;
  • on Feb. 15, $25 billion has been settled in the mortgage fraud abuse, but the big banks are off the hook so far for all but robo-signing. The settlement only offers $2,000 to those who have lost their home
Even if one can't be among active delegates or policy makers, it's still important to work on getting statements and resolutions passed in your towns, cities, counties and states on the particular laws that need repeal, because generally, changes will need two-thirds ratification by congressional members and three-quarters of states.

In other words, if municipalities are making waves in your state, its congressional members are sure to notice.

1) A former Occupy Wall Street working group will convene a National General Assembly with  delegates in Philadelphia the week of July 4, according to a 99% Declaration press release.


"A final version of the PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, is to be written and ratified solely by the elected Delegates, and may or may not include the following grievances and solutions currently suggested by the 99% Declaration Working Group. 
  1. Elimination of the Corporate State.
  2. Overturning the “Citizens United” Case.
  3. Elimination of All Private Benefits to Public Servants.
  4. Term Limits.
  5. A Fair Tax Code.
  6. Health Care for All.
  7. Protection of the Planet.
  8. Debt Reduction.
  9. Jobs for All Americans.
  10. Student Loan Debt Refinancing.
  11. Ending Perpetual War for Profit.
  12. Emergency Reform of Public Education.
  13. End Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation.
  14. Banking and Securities Reform.
  15. Foreclosure Moratorium, Mortgage Refinancing and Principle Write Downs.
  16. Review and Reform of the Federal Reserve Banking System.
  17. Ending the Electoral College and Enactment of Uniform Federal Election Rules.
  18. Ending the War in Afghanistan and Care of Veterans.
  19. No Censorship of the Internet.
  20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights Including the Repeal of the NDAA.
  21. Curtailing the Private Prison Industrial Complex.
According to the group's website at The99Declaration.org, "We are drafting a historic document together and we're glad you've decided to be a part of it." A visitor to the site can become a delegate, vote for delegates, or contribute monetarily to the effort.

This step gives me hope that at least for the meantime, opportunities to come to positive, more peaceful changes are more possible in society. Unfortunately, I also fear that a certain percentage of the population may be unraveling and becoming more desperate, judging from some of the Twitter correspondence I've had with individuals that are more libertarian and militia-affiliated....

2) Indefinite military detention for American citizens suspected of terrorism becomes a threat to civil liberties as President Obama quietly signs the National Defense Authorization Act into law New Year's Eve with controversial provisions Section 1021 and 1022.  (GovTrack.us)



Obama stated that he would never use his authority to do so while he was in office.

Yet, some activists, journalists and researchers have expressed concern that this law could be used against the nonviolent Occupy movement for economic justice, and politicians in office as well.

In fact, the City of London Police has included Occupy London on a list of "terrorist" threats to city businesses, as reported in UK Yahoo News on Dec. 11, 2011.

Occupy Portland has created a resources Wikipage, Citizens Against the National Defense Authorization Act. Included is a Facebook page with a schedule of grassroots protests that began on Feb. 3, and calls for continued protests at congressional offices and public spaces on the first Friday and Saturday of each month until the NDAA 2012 is repealed.

It may be no coincidence that this law came to a vote after mayors conferenced about militarized police actions in the wake of Occupy Oakland's violent crackdown on protesters, and an Iraq War veteran was seriously injured.

View a list to see how your senators or House representatives voted on this bill, known as HR 1540, via GovTrack.us.

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has a People's Campaign for the Constitution at Constitutioncampaign.org/campaigns/dueprocess and has "drafted a resolution that gives any city or town the opportunity to raise its voice in defense of due process and the right to trial. Cities, counties, and even states across America have already begun mobilizing, and the first resolution opposing the NDAA has already passed in El Paso County, CO, home of the US Air Force Academy. Could your city or town be next?"

3) The Global Occupy Wall Street movement rededicated itself to Rev. Martin Luther King's nonviolent economic justice mission, on Jan. 15, 2012

Two weeks after the NDAA was signed into law,  the Occupy Wall Street NYC and Occupy the Dream coalitioned with other Occupy groups internationally for a rededication to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight for economic justice. The service was held at Riverside Church, where Dr. King had given his "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" speech on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before he was slain in Memphis, Tenn. He was there to support a municipal workers' strike. According to Ben Chavis, King's speech on the Vietnam War preached against racism, excessive materialism and militarism.

4) On Jan. 21,  2012 the second anniversary of "corporate personhood" and the Supreme Court ruling Citizens' United v. Federal Election Commission brought protesters to courthouses, but organizing efforts for a constitutional amendment are also underway

Background information from our Between The Lines' interview in January 2010:
In a precedent-shattering ruling on Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned seven previous decisions by removing all limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. In the 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the majority removed restrictions on campaign expenditures for corporations, labor unions and non-profit groups, declaring these limits violated the First Amendment's free speech principles.
Several grassroots efforts are underway to get money out of politics:
5)  With the backing of Hollywood movie studios, book publishers and the music industry, the U.S. Senate’s proposed “Protect Intellectual Property Act” and House legislation dubbed "Stop Online Piracy Act,” looked like they were headed for easy passage. But the tech industry and grassroots opposition has delayed the bills for now; FreePress.net is keeping track of what's happening. Obama has already signed an international treaty, ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which still needs to be ratified by the European Union Parliament.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Ignoring the cities

By Reginald Johnson


City dailies like the Connecticut Post and New Haven Register for years have been backing away from covering issues in the cities where they’re based, focusing instead on topics of interest to residents in wealthier suburban enclaves.

The trend has been driven in large part by a business mindset at papers, where newspaper owners have tried to please advertisers, who are trying to attract an “upscale audience” and who really don’t care too much about the less affluent folk residing in urban areas.

The result has been that publications like the Post, Register and even the Hartford Courant -- once a very strong daily -- have fewer and fewer stories of interest to the urban reader. And even those pieces dealing with a subject that’s important to city residents are often written so that suburban voices are featured, not city folk.

This journalistic disrespect for city residents was on display again last week when a major legal settlement between large banks and federal and state officials concerning fraudulent foreclosure practices was announced. The result of the settlement will see some $25 billion spread among many states, including Connecticut, to settle the claims that the banks had illegally handled thousands of foreclosures, through the practice of robo-signing documents.

Connecticut will get $190 million out of the pot, with the money earmarked for helping homeowners win loan modifications and get refinancing to avoid foreclosure.

There's been a fair amount of criticism about just how much good this new program will do and whether the banks are really being punished for their behavior.

Nonetheless, any story about a new effort to combat foreclosures is going to be of keen interest to hundreds if not thousands of people in Connecticut’s cities, who are struggling to pay their mortgage and in some cases are on the verge of being forced from their homes. In Bridgeport alone, there’s more than 500 people in the foreclosure process. In New Haven and Hartford, there’s hundreds more such cases.

But here’s how the state’s three biggest dailies treated the story. The Post ran stories over two days, prominently featured, with good information. Only one problem, they didn’t interview anyone in Bridgeport for a reaction. The reporters talked with a nice gentleman from Stratford on his problems trying to negotiate a better loan deal with a bank. His story sounded legitimate. But that was it for homeowner quotes.

Ironically, the Post did quote the city’s senior manager of Office of Grants and Community Development, who said money from the settlement might help homeowners in Bridgeport, which she described as “one of the ‘crisis cities’ in the state with regard to foreclosure.”

So why didn’t the Post get a comment from a foreclosure victim in a "crisis city?"

The Hartford Courant ran a decent front-page piece on the settlement and its implications, but, like the Post, couldn’t bring itself to get comments from a city resident struggling with bank payments or facing foreclosure. It really wouldn’t have been hard. Just pick up the phone and call a neighborhood group or even a housing advocate and you could get plenty of names.

Instead the reporter/paper chose to quote a man from Bloomfield, a suburb of Hartford, who’s been fighting with Bank of America to make the terms of his loan more favorable.

If the Post and Courant added voices from their cities to their coverage, they would have made the stories more meaningful for city residents. But these papers don’t seem to care what urban residents feel, at least not much.

The New Haven Register blew off the bank settlement story altogether, not even bothering to run a wire piece. This is really a disgrace given the potential ramifications of the settlement on so many people in New Haven.

It should be noted that both the Register and Courant have had significant staff cuts in recent years, with officials often complaining about financial ills. But the Register is still able to send people out to cover shootings, court cases and accidents. It seems to me that if you can do that, you can certainly do a local story about a major foreclosure prevention program that could impact hundreds of local residents.

It’s really a question of priorities. It seems that the three papers mentioned so far -- as well as, I’m afraid, many other papers around the country -- prefer to devote their resources to covering crime and disaster, suburban subjects, and superficial celebrity and sports stories, instead of the deeper social, economic and governmental issues affecting people living in their cities.

By the way, I should mention I worked for a number of years at the Post and for a short time at the Register as well.

I can say that there are many fine people at both these papers, and left alone, they can do a good job both editing and reporting.

But the priorities set by owners and publishers in recent years -- the direction they’ve set for these publications -- is the real problem.

Ignoring the needs of the center cities is not only a disservice to the people who live there, but antithetical to good journalism.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Did the Obama Administration Let Mortgage Abusers Off the Hook?



By Anna Manzo

Here's a collection of stories with updates on the housing/mortgage crisis and holding banks accountable, in case you missed them:

Forty-nine of 50 State Attorneys General Settle with 5 Major Banks on Mortgage Agreement, Feb. 9, 2012 

After years of what appeared to be reluctance by the Obama administration to investigate or prosecute those responsible for the abusive home mortgage practices that led to the nation's economic crash, 49 of 50 state attorneys announced Feb. 9 that the five largest U.S. banks have agreed to a $25 billion settlement to end lawsuits related to the mortgage scandal.

On Feb. 10, a WNYC interview with HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan also discussed reducing principals on underwater mortgages. However, it's possible that only a small percentage of those who have already lost their homes are likely to even get cash payments of $1500 to $2000. Donovan mentioned a new website that has been set up: NationalMortgageSettlement.com.

A National People's Action and The New Bottom Line proposal in September 2011, "The Win-Win Solution: How Fixing the Housing Crisis will Create 1 Million Jobs," discussed how "lowering the principal balance on all underwater mortgages to their current market value, over $70 billion per year, would be pumped back into our economy, and millions of families would be able to stay in their homes, and over 1 million jobs would be created."

Here's an excerpt of the
response from those two organizations on the Obama administration's announcement:  
"The mortgage fraud settlement being announced today is a tiny drop in a big bucket.  It does not do justice for the millions of homeowners who lost their homes or hold the banks fully accountable for their crimes.   For homeowners who were defrauded and lost their homes, $2,000 is too little, too late. It is a paltry down payment toward full relief for homeowners."
National People's Action (npa-us.org) is a network of grassroots organizations with a  reputation for direct action from across the country that work to advance a national economic and racial justice agenda.

New Bottom Line (newbottomline.com) is a campaign organized by a coalition of community, faith-based and labor organizing groups working together to challenge established big bank interests on behalf of struggling and middle-class communities.


To keep the pressure on the president, The National People's Action has its urgent message here:
   "We need to make sure that President Obama:
  • Uses the new mortgage fraud task force to conduct a robust and far-reaching investigation that ultimately leads to at least $300 billion in reduced principal on underwater mortgages and $50 billion in restitution for affected homeowners
  • Replaces the leadership at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has obstructed efforts to reduce principal that would save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
  • Makes sure there is a strong, robust enforcement mechanism in the deal announced today, with swift and severe consequences for banks that fail to live up to the terms of the settlement"

Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi speaks with Sam Seder on Current TV's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," on this bailout:


Meanwhile, if you want to know whether your home mortgage is underwater, here's a good article: "How to Find out if Your Home Mortgage is Underwater," by eHow.com.

Sources and related links:

Saturday, January 14, 2012

2012: Apocalypse or Beginning of a Better World?




By Anna Manzo

(Blogger's note: Our program's executive producer, Scott Harris, posted a hopeful blog entry on Dec. 30 about the possibility of a new chapter in human history. Turns out, he wrote the day before President Obama quietly – secretively – signed into law the controversial, but little-known National Defense Authorization Act.)

I've been watching for some hopeful signs since the turn of the new year to "2012", that oft-cited end of the Mayan calendar and prophesied "end times" linked to apocalyptic doom or positive transformation.

According to a Wikipedia entry:
The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs according to which cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on December 21, 2012.[1][2][3][4] This date is regarded as the end-date of a 5,125-year-long cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Various astronomical alignments and numerological formulae have been proposed as pertaining to this date, though none have been accepted by mainstream scholarship.
While astronomical events may not align in the heavens precisely on December 21, 2012, one thing is certain: transformative events are aligning on the earth.

During this 5,125-year cycle of the Mayan calendar, humanity has never been as interconnected as it is today – and certainly not since the beginning of our collective human history some 100,000 years ago with the evolution of Homo Sapiens.

I purposely use the word "humanity" because I am referring to the totality of our human experience and spirit, the common denominator of what unites us throughout the world despite language, religious and cultural differences.

Our basic human needs have not changed: the need for clean air, water/sanitation, healthful food, shelter, education, healthcare, and the means to support ourselves and our loved ones while making positive contributions to our communities and the world at large.

We all have the ability to recognize a wide range of emotions: love and hate, fear and joy, vengeance and compassion since the day an early hominid first felt sorrow and guilt over killing one of its own.

What has changed is our technological ability not only to meet those needs and avert the worst scenarios of scarcity, but to recognize the potential to improve our collective human experience on a much grander scale – by embracing a world that values allowing all to reach our truest human potential.

In short, we have the technology now not just to survive on this planet, but to allow our collective human spirit and ingenuity to thrive and truly create the safer, more peaceful world our ancestors have never had.

This past year, because of handheld cellphones, computers and the Internet, we saw an Arab Spring/Jasmine revolution where repressive dictatorships were toppled in the name of human rights and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness – in essence, democracy. In western democracies,  we saw indignados and occupiers protesting against injustice in a globalized economy, where wealth has become concentrated in a very small portion of the population.

A better world is within our grasp.

Yet, in the country that inspired an American Revolution for democracy, a country that should be a positive role model for all, we now see our leaders taking profound steps backward, assaulting basic constitutional rights and civil liberties with President Obama's almost secretive signing of the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year's Eve, an act that was passed by most members in the House of Representatives, and nearly unanimously by the Senate.

The law has a provision which allows the military to indefinitely detain, without due process, American citizens suspected of terrorism. Some activists, journalists and researchers have expressed concern that this law could be used in the Occupy movement against economic injustice, as a growing number of Americans become more aware of the depth of the conflict between rich and poor.

Hardly a great start to 2012.

Civil liberties advocate and columnist Naomi Wolff finds the NDAA more extreme than the Patriot Act, putting even elected officials at risk, as history has done in the past.

Giving several examples in history where the military turned on unions, journalists and editors, she also states that elected officials had given too much power to the military:
"US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide — and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass — sadly but inevitably, its very first targets." 
The new law also imposes new economic sanctions on Iran, increasing the possibilities of yet another war.

Here are the interviews for this week's Between The Lines' program on challenges to our constitutional rights and grassroots organizing around protecting those rights: overturning the NDAA, national protests on the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling on "corporate personhood," and an update on the lawsuit over warrantless surveillance.

Yes, 2012 will be a decisive period, marking apocalypse or positive transformation.

It's all up to the people now.

More forthcoming in "Solutions" of our Between The Lines Occupy Resources page.

Let's get to work.

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Obama's Assault on the Constitution

By Reginald Johnson

Like a lot of writers, I often feel torn about how to approach sensitive issues. I’ll get worked up about a certain subject and just want to ‘let it rip’ and write with passion about how I feel. But more often than not, I take a step back and say, ‘I better be discreet here, and write a little more cautiously. It might come out wrong.’

This time, I haven’t lapsed into a discreet mood yet. I’m going to write what I feel.

Barack Obama is a fraud and should be impeached.

On Dec. 31, 2011 --- as most people were distracted and celebrating the onset of the new year --- President Obama signed into law one of the most disgraceful and damaging pieces of legislation to ever cross a president’s desk.

The bill was the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was the outline of the military spending plan for the coming year. What was shocking about this bill was not the size of the defense spending plan (everybody knows it’s excessive). It was the inclusion in the measure wording that will allow the military to scoop up American citizens, throw them in jail and hold them there indefinitely without charge or trial, just on the suspicion of terrorism.

Allegedly this provision was put in to help prosecute the supposed still-vital ‘War on Terror,’ and is aimed at getting after al-Qaeda sympathizers, who might happen to be American citizens. The new statute will give the military the flexibility to get after foreign terrorists or their supporters at home as well as abroad.

I don’t believe this was the reason for the bill, but more about that in a minute.

This provision, developed in secret in the U.S. Senate with the backing of the White House, makes a mockery of the most fundamental provisions of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The arbitrary detention law violates the Fifth Amendment’s provision that people can’t be locked up without due process; the Sixth Amendment’s right of all people facing incarceration to know the charges they face and have a speedy and public trial; and the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that people be free from unreasonable seizure.

There’s serious question also as to whether the right of habeas corpus will apply to those citizens picked up and jailed. Habeas corpus, a fundamental right in American law that traces its origins back 800 years in England, allows a person detained to ask a judge or magistrate to review their case and determine if there are legal grounds for their detention.

Habeas corpus is enshrined in Section 9, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it.”

It is incredible that a person who is both a lawyer and a former professor of constitutional law, would sign onto this bill, but Obama did. The President maintained that he was concerned about the law’s wording on detention, and added a signing statement.

“I want to clarify, my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens…My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war and all other applicable law.

This statement (which actually sounds rather contradictory) was done purely for public relations. Obama knows that signing statements don’t have the force of law ---- statutes do. The new law clearly says the military can now lock up American citizens indefinitely, and Obama signed on.

If he was truly concerned about the legality of this provision, he could have easily vetoed the bill, or sent it back to Congress saying that ‘I’m ready to approve a defense authorization bill, but not with language allowing the military to arbitrarily arrest people. Drop this wording.’

If he had done that, he would have gotten solid support from the American people.

The truth is, the White House wanted this bill and was dishonest in its public statements. After it came out publicly that the detention provision was being discussed in the Senate as part of the defense bill, many liberals and even a few conservatives protested.

Obama came out and said he too, was concerned, and might veto the bill. Subsequently, there was debate over wording and a possible softening of the language on detention of citizens was considered. But it was a charade. U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who worked on the bill with Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, disclosed on the floor of the Senate that the White House specifically said that language exempting American citizens from possible indefinite detention should not be removed.
The new law gives official legitimacy to military arrests and detention of citizens, something which the Bush administration had previously carried out after 911 and was roundly criticized for.

The statute allowing the military to take action domestically in the U.S is a sharp departure from standing U.S. law. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, prohibits the use of the military domestically.

I don’t agree with some who’ve said that politics was the chief reason for the detention bill --- you know, the idea that Republicans and Democrats and the President are trying to look ‘tough on terror.’ This is more than ten years after 911, al-Qaeda is decimated and the Taliban is talking peace in Afghanistan. Where are the terrorists? Yes, there are some isolated acts of terrorism --- usually perpetrated by someone psychologically disturbed --- but this is really a law enforcement and intelligence issue. The idea that we have to give the military sweeping new powers to pick up U.S. citizens to stop terrorism is wholly unwarranted.

Unless, of course you’re worried about something else --- problems at home. There is ferment at home --- economic ferment --- and I believe the elites are worried about this.

When you look at how fast the Occupy Wall Street movement swept the nation as well as the Tea Party protests before that, it’s clear there’s a tremendous amount of discontent in our country. People see their standard of living slipping away, foreclosures are everywhere, layoffs abound and quality jobs are increasingly hard to find.

Meanwhile people look around, and they see a small group of the population living very well with huge incomes. Many of these people are at the top of big banks and investment firms that caused the economic problems that we are now in. And they see a morally corrupt Congress and Executive branch doing the bidding of the financial elites, providing massive taxpayer-funded bailouts, tax giveaways for the rich while at the same time slashing social benefit programs in the name of cutting the national debt.

So yes, there is anger in the land, and I believe people at the top in the business world, Congress, the White House and the Pentagon see this unrest as a threat. The detention law is aimed at scaring people and blunting a genuine populist movement.

Kevin Zeese, an attorney and activist with the Occupy Wall Street movement, said that the wording of the detention amendment may provide a legal basis for rounding up protesters. While the law says people, including American citizens linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban can be picked up, it also says targets could be “associated forces” or people “engaged in hostilities” “in aid of a …organization or person.”

“There is a lot of flexibility in those words and when they apply --- no need for probable cause, a trial, jury verdict or sentencing --- just on suspicion, you get indefinite military detention,” Zeese wrote in a piece for Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28188)

Already, Homeland Security had established that certain activists could be classed as terrorists. In 2004 Homeland Security had “defined several categories of potential ‘conspirators’ or ‘suspected terrorists’ including ‘foreign (Islamic) terrorists,’ ‘domestic radical groups,’ (anti-war and civil rights groups) and disgruntled employees’ (labor and union activists)….,” wrote Professor Michel Chossudovsky, also in a piece in Global Research about the detention law entitled, “The Inauguration of Police State USA, 2012,” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28441)

The signing of the detention bill is the latest assault on the Constitution and international law by the Obama administration. Previous to this, you had the administration fighting legal challenges to the government’s use of warrantless wiretapping, which began under Bush and clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.

The President has allowed for extra-judicial killings of Americans suspected of terrorism abroad, in violation of due process guarantees and the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Obama has authorized bombing attacks on sovereign countries that have not attacked the U.S., including Libya and Pakistan. These attacks constitute war crimes under international law.

When you look at the last three years, Obama’s record on the Constitution and international law has been --- astoundingly --- no better than George W. Bush’s record. A number of liberals and progressive groups, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, called for Bush’s impeachment citing, in part, his backing for illegal wiretapping and use of indefinite detentions.

Where’s the accounting for Obama?

When taking the oath of office every President swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Obama has not done that.

Although there has been harsh criticism of the detention law by progressives in blogs and on radio shows, most liberal pundits in the mainstream media, both in print and on television, have been silent on this issue. They seem to be more interested in covering the Republican Party nomination circus than covering the loss of fundamental rights for all Americans --- rights established more than 200 years ago by the nation’s founders. If they were doing their jobs as journalists, they’d be waking people up about what’s going on.

Military detention of citizens without charge or trial is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies.

Are we sleepwalking our way to fascism? It seems so.

As David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild put it, “For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist --- the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that’s combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don’t think we’re there yet, but I do see that we’re going in that direction.” He added, “I think the (detention) act is a significant step in that direction.” (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/30-8)