Casey J Porter

“We have an entire generation of people in their twenties and thirties who have never gone through a war…the media and government have gotten so good at the creation of messages, people don’t know the reality” – Casey J. Porter

Army Sergeant Casey J. Porter has many battles to fight, and unlike the dramatizations of politicians and media commentators, his battles are concrete, real, and hard fought. During his time as an enlisted soldier deployed in Iraq, Casey has undergone an evolutionary process, one that has taken him from warrior to peace activist. His talent and passion for filmmaking have given him the perfect medium for his personal expression. Utilizing his current circumstances and natural talent as a filmmaker to speak out against the war, Casey’s films have turned the heads of people like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and filmmaker Michael Moore.

Read more…

“Strategic Alliance” ~ US and Iraq

In spite of the Bush Administrations attempts to keep up the appearance that the Iraqi Government welcomes the continued presence of US troops indefinitely, members of the Iraqi Parliament have made numerous attempts to assert the independence of Iraq. Never has this been more obvious than in recent months where Iraqi leaders have made both public and written statements opposing the continued US presence in their country.

Iraqi’s themselves have long been opposed the presence of US troops, largely because they are seen as a destabilizing factor. According to a recent BBC/ABC poll, 69% of Iraqis believe that the security situation in Baghdad will improve or at least stay the same with the withdraw of US troops.

After the discovery of a secret plan to continue the US military presence in Iraq indefinitely, numerous Iraqi lawmakers have attempted with little success to make their wishes known to American lawmakers and the American public. Although the majority of corporate media sources refuse to give voice to the Iraqi’s themselves, the information can be found through alternative sources. For example, “On Tuesday, Democracy Now! spoke to visiting Iraqi lawmakers…in New York. Iraqi parliament member Khalaf Al-Ulayyan criticized the US proposals” stating,

“I believe the parliament will not ratify the treaty in its current form, because it harms Iraqi sovereignty. Based on the details that have been leaked to the media, it seems that the deal will make Iraq not just an occupied country but an actual part of the US.”

And, in a recent letter to the American Congress and Senate, Iraqi lawmakers pointed out that any deal signed solely by the Executive branch, would be both “unconstitutional and illegal” under the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. According to the Iraqi Constitution Article 61 Section Four, the Iraqi government’s legislative power retains exclusive rights to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Representing the majority of the two-hundred and seventy five members of the Iraqi Parliament, the letter goes on to state,

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment, or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanism that obligate the occupying military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and with leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives is looking to ratify agreements that end every form of American intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs and restore Iraq’s independence and sovereignty over its land.

According to The Independent, in response to the resistance met by Iraqi lawmakers, United States negotiators “are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal…The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…” These funds continue to grow as the price of oil climbs, furthering the pressure on Iraqi Lawmakers to accept the deal. This hold on these funds also inhibits the ability of Iraq’s rebuilding efforts as these funds, which under the UN mandate, are specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq including “the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program, the electricity and oil infrastructure programs, equipment for Iraqis security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations.”

As Americans continue to debate the continued military presence in Iraq, what seems to elude them is the absolute hypocrisy of claims made by the Bush Administration both in regards to Iraq’s sovereignty and “The War on Terror.” in which he claims, “The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.” Considering that Bush’s solution to terrorism is the establishment of a “free and self-governing Iraq” one would think this issue would be moot. Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people have shown with little doubt they wish us to leave.

It leaves one to wonder, when will we listen?

Convenient Crises

Think of it as the true test of the Western humanitarian impulse: The international effort that went into coordinating relief after the 2004 tsunami has to be repeated, but in much harsher, trickier, uglier political circumstances. Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

~Anne Applebaum

The situation facing the Burmese and the Chinese in the face of natural disaster is in dire need of attention. Some reports and media outlets are offering figures as high as 125,000 dead and 2.4 million at risk due to starvation and disease. The numbers in Burma alone are staggering. In fact, the amount of suffering civilians has led lawmakers including President George Bush to respond swiftly.

In response to these combined natural disasters, the United States has come forward with close to 20 million dollars in aid and the international community has “responded by offering over 100 million

It seems as if the United States and indeed the world at large has taken the advice of Applebaum. Swift action in the face of “irrational leaders” will save lives and reduce the suffering of victims.

Sadly, Western media outlets fail to compare this humanitarian crisis to the US created crisis taking place daily in the Middle East, namely in Iraq, where over 4 million have been displaced and are living in squalid conditions. This humanitarian crisis has been named the largest humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world, and goes on largely unnoticed.

In a recently released report published by Refugees International, (Uprooted and Unstable, 2008) “the needs of the displaced are not adequately addressed by the Government of Iraq or the international community.”

Indeed, when compared to the billions of dollars (most recently 165 billion) President George Bush requests from US taxpayers to pay for the continued military presence in Iraq annually, a mere 35 million in humanitarian aid was requested for the fiscal year 2008. The report goes on to note, “This vacuum is quickly being filled by militias and other armed groups, who engage in hearts and minds campaigns and provide assistance as a means of building support for their political and military goals.”

The Iraqi government fragmented and corrupt has done little to assist their own people in providing basic services and aid, according to Refugees International, “It is unable and unwilling to use its important resources to respond appropriately to the humanitarian crisis.” However, in sharp contrast, as reported by Democracy Now! the Iraqi government “has now become one of the largest purchasers of US arms” worldwide.

Yet, in spite of the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq, the continued hypocrisies and politicization of convenient crises, and the obvious blunder of pushing Iraqi civilians towards militias and radical groups, Western media and politicians will continue to distract voters from the real issues underlying continued destabilization of Iraq…the deliberate denial of Iraq’s humanitarian crisis.

One can easily take the words of Applebaum and make them apply to Iraq, “Yes, we should help the Iraqis, even against the will of irrational leaders like George Bush. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

You can do something…here

MEND-The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta

The oppressive and repressive activities of the oil companies and the Nigerian State [sic] impact women first and foremost. During military occupation of communities, the women suffer psychologically, emotionally, and physically. They are raped and maimed. They suffer as their sons get arrested and killed…and feel it most when their brothers, husbands and lovers are tortured maimed and killed. The military and armed police have brutalized and sacked whole communities, assaulting and beating indiscriminately. The objective is to humiliate, intimidate, and eliminate all those who resist oil exploitation activities.

~Emem J Okan

On November 10, 1995, a small group of ten human rights activists including Ken Saro-Wiwa was led to a prison yard to face punishment for their crimes. Ken Saro Wiwa was executed by hanging. The Nigerian military wanted to make an example of individuals who might consider further protest of the destruction of their land, the poisoning of their air and water, and the theft of their natural resources, namely oil.

In September of 1999, a group of journalists with the Essential Action and Global Exchange spent ten days in the Niger Delta meeting with community leaders, residents, and state and local officials. According to the report that subsequently followed released on January 5, 2000, “There is a long and terrible record of environmental destruction and human rights violations in the oil-producing regions of Nigeria. The gross level of environmental degradation caused by oil exploration and extraction in the Niger Delta has gone unchecked for the past 30 years.” However, in spite of the atrocities committed by the Nigerian government, Shell, and other multi-national companies, the murder of Wiwa, environmental degradation, and civil unrest caused by oil exploration and drilling went unnoticed by Western audiences. Stories of celebrity drama continue to hold the attention of the American people, even as they pay close to three-dollars and fifty cents for one gallon of gas.

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, or MEND, has claimed responsibility for several bombings that have taken place in recent weeks that have forced oil conglomerates to shut down operations and have removed close to 164,000 barrels of oil a day from world markets. According to a recent article in the Tehran Times, “The latest wave of attacks and an eight-day strike by senior oil workers at U.S. energy giant Exxon Mobil which ended on Thursday, had slashed Nigeria’s output by 50 percent, helping to push oil prices to new records.”

In an electronic communication released this week, the group stated, “The MEND command is seriously considering a temporary ceasefire appeal by Senator Barack Obama. Obama is someone we respect and hold in high esteem,”

In sharp contrast and in spite of the pleas of organizations and authors like Emem J, Okan, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International, Amnesty International, and the Council of Ijaw Associations Abroad, the administration of Bill Clinton continued to allow the use of private military contractors in the Niger Delta. Regardless of the fact that the use of private military personal has become the focus of recent US attention, Mother Jones Magazine points out, “The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration.” Part of this escalation took place in the Niger Delta where companies like Shell and Chevron hired private military for ‘security’.

To further the power of multi-national corporations and military contractors, Clinton joined with these companies to overturn laws that allow states to use “selective purchasing” power. According to Corp Watch, “Selective-purchasing laws are designed to force companies to choose between continuing to do business with repressive foreign governments and bidding on often-lucrative state or local government contracts.”

Most recently in a press release dated February 2008, the Clinton campaign has said about military contractors in Iraq, “From this war’s very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable… We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command,” However, prior to Clinton’s most recent statement and in spite of sitting on Armed Services Committee no legislation has been presented by Clinton. When questioned about this contradiction, Clinton claimed she did not know about this problem, “Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it.” This in spite of well-documented human rights abuses around the world by the very contractors who contribute regularly to her campaign.

Juxtaposed with Clinton rhetoric is bill S.674: Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Act of 2007, submitted by Barack Obama in February of 07. According to the Obama campaign website, the bill would “require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes. The act would clarify the legal status of contractors, subjecting them to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) to ensure that all contractors working in war zones – regardless of contracting agency would be held accountable under U.S. law. Passed in 2000, MEJA says that contractors for the armed forces can be prosecuted under US law for crimes committed overseas.”

The potential for the United States to regain the respect and admiration of the world is within our grasp. As some elder statesmen have pointed out, as long as the United States continues to build relationships with foreign nations whose records on the democratic process are abysmal, we will continue to pay the price. A price paid at the gas pump and in innocent blood.

Four More Years

The illegality, immorality, and blunderings of the Bush Administration has, for the past seven years, angered a nation, shocked the world, and trumped the rules of law and justice like no other presidency in US history.

 

One of many illegal actions, the detention of “enemy combatants” including US citizens without legal representation, the denial of Habeas Corpus, the use of evidence obtained through torture and the denial of transparency during Military Tribunals where the defendant is not allowed to see evidence against him and in some cases not made aware of the charges brought against him. These trials have become reminiscent of the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692, where one more time a sentence of death can be handed down with little or no means to defend oneself. These practices violate international law and numerous treaties of which we are signatory to. Violation of these treaties denigrates the Constitution itself as it states in Article VI, Clause 2, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

 

Further violations of the constitution have come in the form of illegal wiretapping, the illegal monitoring of US citizen calls both within and out of the United States (all with no burden of proof for probable cause), and in the collection of personal data by private corporations, which is then used for domestic spying.

 

Remarkable to this administration is its continued references to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and justice, when these ideals are hardly promoted in US foreign policies. For instance, the claims of stability, freedom, and democracy for the Iraqi people while systematically displacing millions and killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands brings new depth to the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

 

Even more alarming during the next few months the Bush administration will continue to thumb its nose at the rule of law, the balance of power, and the Constitution, while the world watches in an almost helpless stupor. Included in this power grab will likely be another preemptive attack on a nation accused of coveting WMD’s, Iran. Which, if carried out with the intent of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and any facility that may have nuclear knowledge (including universities), will lead to a “collateral damage” figure of 2.8 million deaths. This is of course, if the administration chooses the course of restrain, as these figures are for the bombing of only half of the suspected sites.

 

If one were to examine the Bush Administration closely, one could easily make the connection that the fundamental problem lies with its continued abuse of The Constitution. In fact, every illegal, immoral, and thoughtless action this administration has perpetrated on its citizens and the world can be traced back to its contempt for this document.

 

As Americans look forward to 2009, hopes of a collective sigh of relief are everywhere. The Democratic Party and Progressive Politics are swooning Independent and Republican voters with a sweet songs filled with change. Hopes for the restoration of Constitutional Law, elevated status in world opinion, and a time when we can enjoy freedom from corporate control are driving Americans to the polls this year.

 

Yet in spite of this passion and renewed hope, a close primary race, and calls for a change to the status quo, Americans continue to follow corporate media, never giving themselves enough time to digest what is happening in political arenas. Recently, The Nation reported, “Illinois Senator Barack Obama has finally signed the American Freedom Pledge, joining his fellow Democratic presidential candidates in encouraging the restoration of basic Constitutional principles after the battering they have taken during the Bush-Cheney era.

All the Democrats, that is, except New York Senator Hillary Clinton.”

One can only wonder, how with the experience of a tramped upon constitutional document, the one Democratic presidential hopeful who will not make a commitment to its restoration is even close to taking the White house. Perhaps, after four more years of the shredding of this document Americans will finally wake up to the powers at be, and realize our country’s two party system is preparing, one more time, to sell us, the world, and our freedom to the highest bidder.

We Must Remain Vigilant

I, like so many other Americans, was sadly lulled into a state of complacency during the eighties and early nineties. All seemed well in America, the economy was “strong”, the civil rights movement was fizzling out, the women’s rights movement appeared to have been appeased, and the deaths of millions around the globe due to our foreign policy was shielded from out eyes by a complicit media, eager to place it’s corporate agenda before its responsibilities to journalism and democracy. Yes, those were the good old days, when Americans had no clue how little our government actually represented us and how much it represented the desires of big corporations. The Cold War was over, and now the world was safe from Communism and tyranny.

 

I remember being at an event called Sol-Fest about six months before the 2004 election. I was deeply concerned that Kerry might loose because I was certain he would change the direction of this country. At such a progressive event, I assumed many Kerry supporters would be there. This was perhaps the beginning of my awakening, looking back now, I see how truly complacent I was.

 

I overheard a woman speaking to some workers at a Democratic booth. “Quite frankly, I am not sure who I am voting for, John Kerry is just as bad as Bush. I am not happy about the prospects of either one.” My ear perked up and I wondered what she meant. Before I could discover more, she had moved on to the next booth, but I kept her statement filed away in my brain.

The 2004 election came and went, and despite serious voting discrepancies, John Kerry and the Democratic Party rolled over like a beaten dog. Considering the mess that Iraq was and the photos coming out of Abu Ghraib, I was astonished that the election was stolen and subsequently given away one more time. However, more troubling to me was the very real fact that after the release of these photos, the re-election of George Bush would let the Iraqi people themselves know that we, as Americans, cared little for democracy, the rights of humans, and least of all, them.

 

The more involved in politics I became, the more I was able to research and uncover the very real fact that the invasion of Iraq, the rise of the Taliban, and the funding and support of bin Laden did not occur in a vacuum, but rather with the assistance of my very own government. Even more alarming was the knowledge that this was not the first, nor would it be the last time, that members of my government would sell people around the globe and me down the river in order to pursue an agenda that usually led to the deaths, torture, imprisonment, and suffering of millions. From Iran to Chile US foreign policies have been the bane of modern man’s existence. In fact, after September 11, 2001 many historians and scholars surmised that the terrorists might have been from South America rather than the Middle East. The date September 11, 1973 the date the US backed coup put Pinochet in power was the main factor turning eyes to the south.

 

With the primary elections underway, my ability to write and participate has diminished greatly. What is it that we, as Americans, do not understand about our government? For all the voices, expressing discontent with the status quo support does not waive for those who will simply continue our horrid policies. Furthering anti-American sentiment around the globe, continuing to oppress and exploit those too poor to fight, we continually sell our democratic ideals and ourselves down the river by settling for a candidate rather than picking someone who actually represents the democratic ideals we claim to love and care for so much. We condemn the likes of Ralph Nader for “splitting the democratic vote” or support Hillary Clinton “because she is a woman.” While we never really acknowledge the fact that our past is catching up with us in the form of 9/11, the mortgage crisis, the loss of independent media, the huge influx of immigrants (Mexican economic refugees due to NAFTA), sky rocketing health care, and the stagnant wages of the Middle Class.

 

Sadly and the main reason for my silence, is that for all the facts presented, Americans will lazily continue to assume this is a partisan problem. When in reality it is the fact that our democracy has been lost to us and in its place, we are now seeing a fascist corporate agenda shaping our foreign and domestic policies, and due to our lack of vigilance, it will simply get worse.

 

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if this is exactly what we need in America, a taste of reality and some humility. Perhaps if we learn what it feels like to be them, we will learn what it is like to fight for democracy. As evidenced by the support I have been witness to for candidates the media continues to tell us to vote for, we have a long way to go.

 

For more blogs on the state of politics, please visit

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

and HERE…

 

Voices From Gaza

The dream they had dreamt of being free and separate people, with their own right to self –determination in their own national state in southern Africa was the ideal to which I myself had clung until I finally concluded, after a long process of deep introspection, that, if pursued, it would bring disaster to all the peoples of our country, including my own.

 

~F.W. DeClerk

 

Ideas of nationalism and racism have long been ingrained in the very essence of humanity. History has shown us the horrors created when one ethnic or religious group claims themselves to be in some way superior or more righteous than another. Across the globe, indigenous people fight for basic necessities, equality, and the right to freedom. As this historical story repeats itself and unfolds, the voices that speak for justice are the strongest, yet they are rarely heard.

This horrific story of oppression and violent resistance is repeating itself now in Gaza where day to day control of Gazan borders belongs to the Israeli government (Human Rights Watch 2008). Control of these borders has left Gazan residents impoverished as the ability to export and import goods and services has been severely limited. These limitations have led to 80% of Gazan residents dependent on aid from the United Nations, 79% of the population living in poverty, and to the collapse of 90% of Gazan businesses, simply furthering hardships for civilians. Human Rights Watch has condemned the Israeli Government citing numerous violations of the Geneva Conventions and calls Israel’s actions collective punishment. In combination with this condemnation, Human Rights Watch has warned militants that the relentless rocket attacks raining down on Israeli civilians are in clear violation of international law. However, in sharp contrast to 10 Israeli injuries, over 40 Palestinian deaths have been reported in the past few days alone.

As these populations live in fear of retribution and continued violence, the situation is deteriorating. One Gaza resident recently wrote, “As anyone living under military occupation at any time I am awaiting my death, any time maybe the helicopter can bomb any place, I don’t know it…” and yet in spite of this fear, he goes on to recognize that living side by side with those he is at war with is the answer, “The best thing is for there [sic] to be one multinational state…and to let the people live in peace, far from all things political [sic]…believe me, Palestinians and Israelis want to live in peace.”  And as the situation in Gaza becomes more unstable, so does civil strife. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans crossed the Egyptian border last week in an attempt to restock essential food and fuel supplies constituting almost half of the entire population of Gaza.

Regardless of the continued violence there are many who speak for reconciliation and peace; however, these voices continue to be marginalized by mainstream media and those who seek to profit from war. In a recent interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, members of the group Combatants for Peace described in detail their reason for seeking reconciliation through non-violence. As former fighters for both the Israeli military and the militant faction of Fatah, members of this group have come to understand how their continued violence against each other has only resulted in more violence with both sides losing life and freedom. In an open letter written by Yonatan Shapira, he, along with other Israeli soldiers, expressed their refusal to participate in what they considered to be war crimes. The expression of this sentiment has joined forces with the non-violent Palestinian movement creating a viable option for peaceful resolution.

Sadly, these voices, which represent the majority of Israeli’s and Palestinians who wish to live in peace are continually stifled. Yonatan Shapipra states, “I don’t think you have to be a military expert or have a Ph.D. in political science and to be one of these fancy scholars in Washington institutions to know that the results of this scientific experiment that we have in Gaza, for example, locking millions of people-million and a half people without food, electricity, medicine-no one can go out, no one can go in…It’s obvious that you’re going to have people resist. And I grew up, you know, learning the history of my people and how they resisted in Warsaw Ghetto, where they didn’t have any choice…I’m against what Hamas is doing…people are getting killed…all of us in our group are against that. But what can you expect from people when you treat them like that, in such a brutal occupation, such a brutal situation. What do you want them to do?”

Apparently the answer to the question of how the Palestinians living in Gaza should respond to occupation will remain elusive, especially as long as the word terrorist is equated to Palestinian, and violence is seen as the only solution. Sadly, as noted by F.W. DeClerk this can only lead to the destruction of both.

The Integrity of Hillary Clinton

Inּtegּri|ty n. 3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity

 

The meaning and definition of the word integrity seems simple and straightforward, but in the world of American Politics, it is perhaps the most misused, abused, and elusive word spoken. However, the majority of Americans believe, that among desirable personality characteristics in those running for and holding political office, it is by far the most desired.

If there is one particular trait missing from the Hillary Clinton campaign, it is indeed, integrity. On both national and international issues, Clinton is simply one more piece to the Bush/Clinton political sandwich that has destroyed the majority of American ideals. Clearly calculating and career driven, Clinton is obviously not the candidate who will restore America’s reputation in the world as the beacon of freedom, humanity, and all that is right but will rather lead this nation down its continued path to Imperialism through Corporatism.

For any American genuinely concerned about these issues to hear support for the Clinton campaign based on Clinton’s sex is truly concerning. In spite of her voting record, continued elusive language in terms of the occupation of Iraq, the shrinking middle class, the value of the dollar, increasing power for corporations, illegal detention and torture of detainees, repeated violations of the Constitution, and her position on energy independence, she continues to enjoy broad support among some in the Progressive Movement. One only need look closely at Clinton’s choice of language to determine that she continues to address these issues in a rather superficial way, lacking the integrity that America so badly needs.

Immediately before the primaries in New Hampshire, American media outlets focused the world’s attention on the fact that Clinton showed some emotion during a question and answer period.

Reminiscent of the absurd question asked during the Democratic debate in Nevada, where a young college student inquired as to whether Hillary preferred pearls or diamonds, a woman in New Hampshire asked, “As a woman, I know it’s hard to get out of the house and to get ready… and my question is very personal: how do you do it? How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?” To this, Clinton answered, “It’s not easy, and I could not do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do…I have had so many opportunities from this country – I just don’t want us to fall back. This is very personal for me … it is not just political… I see what’s happening… we have to reverse it.”

Sadly missing from any emotion Clinton has ever shown are tears for fallen soldiers or their families, the destruction of the entire society and nation of Iraq, which has killed thousands, and made millions homeless and impoverished,  and the continued assault on American civil liberties.

In fact, it is on these very important issues that Clinton continues to lead the American people towards the Bush doctrine. This is evidenced by her support of Imperialistic Bush policies to date, including the Iraq War, a possible attack on Iran and The Patriot Act. Even those who approve of Clinton’s stance on these issues or those finding themselves forgiving of her apparent Bushesque blunderings, an alarm should sound at the clear contradiction between her words and actions.

In her victory speech, Clinton showed a real lack of integrity when she spoke of all that ails America, “The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you. I intend to be that president, to be a president who puts you first, your lives, your families, your children, your futures.”

Nowhere, does Clinton acknowledge that the very corporations she criticizes here are funding her campaign. A short list includes; 18.36 million (representing the largest contributions) from the financial sector, 14.3 million from lawyers and lobbyists representing oil, insurance, pharmaceutical, and lending companies, over 8 hundred thousand from the energy industry, and close to 2.2 million from the military industrial complex and construction companies combined, many of whom are currently operating in Iraq.  

If the staggering numbers alone are not sounding the alarm bells enough for Americans to realize Clinton plans on using her power to enrich the elite in this country further, perhaps a look at Clintons funding in comparison to other presidential hopefuls will. Clinton willingly accepts funds from the defense industry where only John McCain outranks her. In the Oil and Gas industry, Clinton enjoys another cool second place, from lobbyists however; she takes first place leaving all other candidates behind with second in line taking close to half of the funds she has received to date.

Clearly, Clinton’s actions and words do not match, leaving this writer to wonder how any one who wishes the direction of this country to change does not recognize these obvious warning signs. Perhaps the last seven years have left Americans so desperate and dumbfounded; they have decided lies from the mouth of a woman are perhaps easier to swallow, especially if they are followed by a shot of tears.

Cowardly or Complicit?

I remain hopeful that Americans can still rouse themselves to save our democracy. But the time in which to head of financial and moral bankruptcy is growing short.

~ Chalmers Johnson

With the Democratic Congresses approval rating at an all time low, one must wonder, “What are they thinking?” If the Democrats were holding to any kind of democratic philosophy, their direction in government should be clear. The House Speaker herself has stated on many occasions that the Democrats were given a mandate in 2006…to end the Iraq occupation. We should all keep in mind that this mandate includes the cessation of spending like a bunch of drunken sailors on holiday leave.

Yet their contempt for “the will of the people” continues to stand. Americans are no better off than they were under a Republican held majority. These circumstances beg the question, are the Democrats cowardly or complicit? In order to answer this question one must only look to some of the driving forces behind the continued failed policy in Iraq, namely that of private American defense contractors. This particular industry has exploded in recent years, in not only profits, but also the power it wields in politics. During the 2006 election cycle, defense contributions (totaling 17, 923, 5552 dollars) and lobbying efforts (over 40, 000, 000 dollars) has reached an all time high, this number shows a sharp contrast to figures collected as early as 1990 where total contributions equaled 7,069,584 dollars. As the rhetoric continues, around the Iraq debate, the developing pattern is quite clear; as defense spending has risen so have the contributions to candidates.

Interestingly, it appears from current figures the defense industry carries with it one more asset…a crystal ball. In both the “Defense” and “Miscellaneous Defense” categories, lobbying efforts and contributions have shown clear favorability towards Republican candidates. However, this is no longer true. For the 2006 election cycle Republicans acquired approximately 65% of contributions where as Democrats received only 34%. Already for the 2008 election cycle, Democrats are gaining strength in this sector. As of today, December 29, 2007, Democrats have received 52% of the contributions from defense contractors. In contrast, the Republicans have only received 48%.

Perhaps we can surmise that Democrats are neither cowardly nor powerless as so many would have us believe. With a majority in both house’s, and more members of the Republican Party recognizing support for this endless war is political suicide, clearly a solution exists. Just as money and greed are justifying the continuance of the Occupation of Iraq, it can end it as well. Democrats have the ability to end this occupation; it appears they simply lack the will to do so. With the presidential election around the corner, it would behoove all of us who wish to see this war end to examine the candidates and their loyalty to defense contractor profits. To date, every candidate both Republican and Democrat have accepted money in the thousands from this industry. That is every candidate save two: Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

As evidenced in recent years, money wields greater power than the will of the American people, however, the people continue to hold the power of the vote, perhaps it is time we used it wisely.

The Torture Question

“Funston’s example has bred many imitators, and many ghastly additions to our history: the torturing of Filipinos by the awful ‘water- cure,’ for instance, to make them confess — what? Truth? Or lies? How can one know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his evidence is worthless.”

~Mark Twain

“The Army exists, not just to win America’s wars, but to defend America’s values. The policy and practice of torture without accountability has jeopardized both.”

~David R. Irvine
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) USA

Defined by Theodore Roosevelt as “an old Filipino method of mild torture” the debate about the use of waterboarding continues in this modern age. Seen by most as a brutal form of torture and intimidation the question of its use and legality is now an issue that is openly debated in American politics. It should be noted however, that the current debate shares its roots in a long and shameful history of US policies based in imperial desires and blatant racism dating back as far as 1898.

As Americans approach the 110 the anniversary of the “water cure” being used by US interrogators, a glance at 18 U.S.C 2340 2(a) which clearly defines torture as, the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering, shows us that the use of waterboarding is indeed considered torture. Notably, in a letter written by a US soldier deployed in the Philippines, he had used the water cure on 160 people and only 26 had survived. In a report released by Human Rights First, documentation of over 100 murders of detainees in US custody have occurred. However, these numbers alone cannot be entirely trusted because most autopsy reports of detainees are kept classified by the CIA where any agents may be implicated in the murder investigation. Regardless of this secrecy, investigations into the murders of several detainees reveal the role of water in the victims death. In light of these deaths, both present and past, the argument that waterboarding is not torture looses significant ground.

 

As recently as 2002 the Department of Justice stated that physical pain had to be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death to constitute torture. By this logic, forced digit removal, broken limbs, and beatings would not be considered torture. The DOJ itself has since denounced this memo, yet the debate surrounding the use of torture and waterboarding continues.

One would think that a look at recent US history could settle this question for us as well. Remarkably, the United States convicted Axis officers of war crimes for organizing and participating in military tribunals that relied on evidence obtained by torture.

As noted by the ACLU, fifty years later, it ill-suits this country to conduct war crimes trials of Guantanamo detainees under rules structured to allow admission of the same type of evidence.

« Older entries