Honduras : Talks Ramp Up as Repression Gets Bloody

Top, Zelaya supporter with sign saying “Honduras, this is your president,” outside the U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa, Oct. 7, 2009. Photo by Rodrigo Abd / AP. Below, riot policemen stand guard as Zelaya supporters protest in Hato De En Medio neighborhood in Tegucigalpa, Oct. 10. Photo by Henry Romero / Reuters.

More bloody repression in Honduras
As negotiations enter new stage

By David Holmes Morris / The Rag Blog / October 10, 2009

See ‘Zelaya stakes out his position’ by Arturo Cano, and late-breaking story on new media crackdown, Below.

As determined protests and bloody repression continue in the streets outside, representatives of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the de facto government led by Roberto Micheletti have been meeting with Latin American diplomats in a hotel in Tegucigalpa since October 7 in an effort to resolve the crisis the country has been living through since June 28.

Optimists say the talks, sponsored by the Organization of American States, are already producing results, but skeptics counter that the coup government will never budge from its hidden agenda of stalling until the November elections which, the golpistas hope, will restore legitimacy to the Honduran government and will spell defeat for those struggling for change.

Journalist Arturo Cano wrote the following from Tegucigalpa where he is covering the crisis for the Mexican daily newspaper La Jornada.

Zelaya stakes out his position:
A return to power before the 15th or no elections

Micheletti warns that nothing short of an invasion will prevent November 29 vote while Insulza says the basis of dialogue must include all provisions of San José Accord.

By Arturo Cano / October 8, 2009

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Luz Ernestina Mejía, Miss Honduras of 1980, former Partido Liberal congresswoman and an organizer of the “white marches” against the reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya to the presidency, is furious with the foreign ministers.

“Why should we approve of Zelaya’s capricious return to power through legal means? No restitution, no tercería (a third person in the presidency), nothing. I am a radical,” she says.

“So what is this dialogue for?” she asks. “They (the zelayistas) are lucky I’m not one of the negotiators.”

But they are not that lucky: hours later, when presented with arguments by diplomatic representatives of several countries, the de facto president becomes exasperated and says he’s been tricked.

“We thought you had come in good faith to tell us you accept a Honduran solution, but the speeches you have made are totally different. They say we have to return Mr. Zelaya to power,” Micheletti thunders, although, in truth, he is not as radical as Miss Honduras.

He does accept a third person in the presidency. “I will step aside but this gentleman who has done so much harm to the economy and to Honduras must also step aside.”

Micheletti gives a report on his government, chastizes the ministers for their deafness and waxes apocalyptic. “The elections will be held on November 29! Only if we are attacked and invaded will they not be held!”

’Not a single death,’ he presumes to claim

He takes pleasure in his verbal retaliation: “You neither know the whole truth nor at times do you want to hear the whole truth.” And Micheletti’s truth is that “there has not been a single death at the hands of the army or the police,” there has not been a state of siege, but merely the suspension of “some” rights and the closing down of two media, thanks to which acts “the population has experienced the most peaceful of days.”

And in passing, Micheletti informs José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States, the foreign ministers of six countries and several other diplomatic representatives, of the cost of feeding Manuel Zelaya’s horse and of his groom’s salary.

In the morning, Insulza had stated the OAS position: the Honduran dialogue should have as a basis “all the points” of the San José Accord, proposed more than two months ago by Óscar Arias. One of those points is Zelaya’s restitution to office. Insulza adds to that the formation of a “national unity” government and Zelaya’s renouncing any act leading to the rewriting of the constitution.

A couple of days ago, Micheletti let slip a mention of the possibility of reinstating the president. Now, with the ministers as a captive audience, he returns to the position he had held since the coup d’état.

“To continue in a situation like this one, in which President Zelaya is not reinstated, poses a considerable risk that the results of the election will not be recognized,” says Rodolfo Gil, Argentine representative to the OAS.

Along the same line, Brazilian representative Ruy Casaes cites the example of President Fernando Collor de Mello, “deposed by absolutely legal means.”

The remaining representatives are less direct, so the Brazilian is the only one Micheletti interrupts. He greets the Mexican foreign minister, Patricia Espinosa, with a kiss.

Honduras’ ousted President Manuel Zelaya gestures after a meeting with negotiators at the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2009. Photo by Esteban Felix / AP.

One day in office and ‘he’ll twist it all around’

“Treat me right because I’m going to be interior minister again,” Víctor Meza would say in the first days of August, when he was predicting “good news soon.” Two months later, Meza heads a group of three who represent Zelaya in the talks with the de facto government. So the “good news” never came.

Only Zelaya’s secret return to his country on Monday, September 21, turned the situation around and made the international community tighten some screws, particularly one manufactured in Brazil, and brought about this day: the first day that union leader Juan Barahona is not in a march but in a great hall with carpets and chandeliers, a proletarian in a sea of suits, in blue jeans and his baseball cap. And to be sure, Barahona and Zelaya’s Labor Minister Mayra Mejía are left alone on the left of the first row; none of the businessmen or politicians, unanimous in their support of the coup, wants to sit next to them.

First to speak at the opening ceremony of the dialogue is José Miguel Insulza, who brings to the table the San José Accord and asks the participants to negotiate “their hidden intentions.” When he finishes, the businessmen, the hard-line of the coup, respond with a timid boo.

“Once again they’ve come to impose their agenda, their formula,” says businessman Santiago Ruiz, one of those who booed and one of those convinced that Zelaya should never be reinstated. “One day in office and he’ll twist it all around.”

Zelaya began the day with a statement on the radio: “We warn you that if the president is not returned to office before October 15, then automatically, for lack of validity, credibility and the confidence of the national and international communities, the electoral calendar will be null and void until the San José Accord is signed and the president is reinstated.”

The elections are the battle horse of the de facto government, the political parties, the businessmen, the “civil society” marching in their white t-shirts, and the churches.

They don’t want a dialogue, they want to stall until the elections which, to their way of thinking, will magically make the world’s governments recognize that there was a “presidential succession” and not a coup d’état.

’Hypocritical maneuvering’ will be exposed

“President Zelaya will be back in the capitol this month, the president will return to the office to which he was elected,” says Víctor Meza shortly after his presentation to the international delegation and before his closed meeting with the de facto government’s negotiators.

In his speech Meza apologizes for being late, which resulted from Zelaya’s representatives not being allowed to see the president in the Brazilian embassy until eight o’clock this morning.

Shortly before the assembly was convened, perhaps in order to present the OAS mission with a luxurious reception, the police broke up a zelayista demonstration at the United States Embassy. They then also attacked groups of students demonstrating at the National University.

Meza denounces these actions and forsees a scenario that the zelayistas consider likely:

“This dialogue has virtues and possibilities and when we understand it as a medium for calculated retreats and tactical delays, the dialogue has the advantage of exposing that hypocritical maneuvering.”

Leaving stridency aside, Meza calls for a speedy exit from the “dark tunnel” Honduras has entered after “allowing the barbaric to overcome the civilized.”

Interestingly, some of the public, including some among the press, applaud him.

Source / La Jornada

Breaking story:
Honduras imposes media restrictions

October 11, 2009

Honduras’s government has imposed a new law limiting media freedoms in the country, amid a political standoff between Roberto Micheletti, the de facto leader, and Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president.

Talks between the rival factions entered a three-day pause on Saturday, prolonging uncertainty over a possible resolution to the almost four-month old crisis.

The new legislation gives Micheletti’s government the power to close down radio and television stations that incite “social anarchy” or “national hatred”.

Oscar Matute, the interior minister, denied the measures amounted to controlling the media, saying the government was was applying rules allowed under international law.

“It doesn’t represent any kind of control of the media,” he was quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying.

“No journalist, no media outlet, can act as an apologist for hatred and violence in society.”

Media crackdown

The government has not fulfilled an earlier promise to lift emergency measures that closed Radio Globo and Canal 36 last month, which had supported Zelaya.

The two stations were among the only media in Honduras that reported on the protests in favour of restoring Zelaya to power.

Michelletti’s government accused the stations of encouraging vandalism and insurrection for announcing demonstrations.

Honduras has experienced near daily protests since the military-backed coup in June, which came after Zelaya pressed ahead with plans for a referendum on changing the constitution despite a Supreme Court order ruling the vote illegal.

The interim government accuses Zelaya of trying to amend the constitution to annul one-term presidential limit.

Zelaya denies the allegation.

Negotiations suspended

Since sneaking back into Honduras late last month, Zelaya has been taking refuge, with dozens of supporters, in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital.

The international community has been pressuring the interim government to allow Zelaya’s return to power ahead of the November 29 presidential election, which was scheduled before the coup.

Representatives from the rival factions said that recent face-to-face talks have yielded agreement on 60 per cent of the issues under an international plan to resolve the crisis.

But Juan Barahona, Zelaya’s negotiator, said no agreement had been reached on the fundamental issue of whether the ousted leader could return to serve out the remaining months of his term.

They planned to discuss the issues within their own factions over the three-day pause and resume negotiations on Tuesday, two days before the October 15 deadline given by the Zelaya camp for his unconditional restitution.

Source / Al Jazeera

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

BOOKS / Speak English! by Mike Palecek


Sci-fi, conspiracy theories and politics merge:
Speak English! is a wild journey

By Joan Wile / The Rag Blog / October 10, 2009

[Speak English! by Mike Palecek. Trade paperback, 322 pp. Published by CWG Press; to be released November, 2009.]

Speak English, by Michael Palecek, speaks the truth, and in English.

Combination road story, sci-fi mystery, philosophical consideration, and political castigation of just about everything, Mr. Palecek’s book is a must-read for all who seek justice, peace, accountability of elected officials, and penetration of the myths that cloud our political vista.

With unique and dazzling style, Mr. Palecek takes us with him on a cross-country book tour during which we encounter many of the gutsy anti-establishment heroes and heroines of our times.

This account is book-ended by an intriguing tale of country boys engaging with aliens and flying saucers.

The seeming disparity between the extra-terrestrial yarn and the contemplative trek across the United States is resolved, finally, in a surprising twist which leaves the reader awestruck yet satisfied.

The author is obsessed with his beliefs that the 9-11 tragedy was caused by George Bush and his cronies, and that President Kennedy’s assassination did not occur as the official investigation findings claim.

He is also heartbroken about Paul Wellstone’s death in an airplane crash and suspicious that it, too, was a politically-motivated killing.

One comes to believe, while reading the book, that these are not necessarily crackpot conspiracy theories but rather enigmas deserving of much deeper probing.

Speak English contains many varied elements — poetry combined with funny yokel dialogue, for instance; inspiring quotes from eminent writers and statespeople; questions upon questions with startling answers.

Just as the book’s protagonist encounters many adventures on his book tour, we, the readers, encounter twists and turns from paragraph to paragraph and page to page that make our perusal of his book one big adventure. It is difficult to adequately describe its immense sweep and broad diversity of style and subject.

This is a page-turner. Curl up in a comfortable chair with a healthy dose of cynicism and open-mindedness for an enlightening and entertaining trip through America’s (no-)heartland and the author’s unique, inquiring sensibility.

[Joan Wile is the author of Grandmothers Against the War; Getting off Our Fannies and Standing up for Peace (Citadel Press, ’08).]

Go here to find Speak English! by Mike Palecek.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Carl R. Hultberg :
How They Busted Hippie Hill

They found dope in Dick’s Store and then they took down Hippie Hill.

hippie hill - dick's store

Dick’s Store in Danbury, NH — near Hippie Hill — shown after Dick got busted Sunday, Oct. 4. Photo by Ken Williams / Concord Monitor.

As far as I know Hippie Hill had never really bothered many of the local townspeople. All that changed last year…

By Carl R. Hultberg | The Rag Blog | October 10, 2009

HIPPIE HILL, NH — The town of Danbury, New Hampshire, where I live, is also home to a local landmark known as Hippie Hill. Of course, this being New Hampshire, we have to remember that here the term “hippie” does not connote any particular point of view regarding war, peace, ecology, racial equality or women’s liberation. What hippie means in NH is long hair and a predilection for the consumption of large quantities of marijuana (and beer).

In many ways hippie is the same as biker (motorcyclist) in New Hampshire. So it is at Hippie Hill where local bikers and others who like to ride their motorcycles (without noise restricting mufflers) on Rte 4 congregate in downtown Danbury to throw horseshoes, drink beer and defiantly smoke (mostly homegrown) pot on a little knoll (railroad embankment) across the road from Dick’s Store.
Continue reading

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 15 Comments

Nobel Screams : ‘Out of Afghanistan’

Nobel Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland. Obama has a lot to live up to.

Nobel Prize is mandate to exit Afghanistan,
Build a green-powered, nuke-free earth

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / October 10, 2009

Above the din, the Nobel message screams: “U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, GO FOR SOLARTOPIA!”

It’s now up to US to use that Nobel to win that dual prize.

This award never went to two of the most critical peacemakers of the 20th Century: Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered the successful use of mass non-violence; and Eleanor Roosevelt, feminist godmother of the New Deal’s social programs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It has not gone to Cesar Chavez, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Thich Nhat Hanh, Paul XIII and so many more.

But yes it did to Barack Obama. Why?

Right now we have no choice but to defer to the committee that took the plunge. Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland explained that “It could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now we have an opportunity to respond — all of us.”

Respond to what?

“We couldn’t get around these deep changes that are taking place” under Obama.

ARE taking place? Or WILL take place? Or MIGHT take place if somebody plays this card right.

Say you’re a committee member desperate for peace and a solution to climate chaos.

Maybe you’re a gambler. You remember giving the Prize to Desmond Tutu for fighting apartheid before it was abolished.

You say: “This new kid talks a great game. He’s made a green and peaceful feint or two. But the generals and fossil/nukers are at his throat.

“Let’s box him in. Let’s hang this Nobel around his neck… and over his head. Let’s DARE him to do right.”

Or, as Jagland has actually put it, the award will give Obama “encouragement” and “support in producing concrete results” for the “vision of a nuclear-free world” among other things.

Now let’s say you’re an American activist. You’re desperate to stop the worst mistake America could make since Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 escalation of the Vietnam War — that is, a murderous, suicidal escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

We all know this would shred the last fiber of a failing society, utterly decimating any chance for an American moral, ecological or economic recovery.

But the long knives of Pentagon junta are out in force.

We also know without a massive Solartopian push for renewables and efficiency, the global climate is doomed. Nuclear power must be excluded and fossil fuels phased out.

Now this glib young prez, who must stand up to the generals and King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes, Gas) is given — or shall we say, stuck with — the Nobel Prize.

Pasted to his back now are the words of Alfred Nobel lauding “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

Obama rightly says he does not deserve “to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”

But the Committee, which cited Afghanistan, climate change and nuclear disarmament in its decision, is clearly betting this marker might help him — FORCE him — to get there.

Obama could, of course, use it as cover — Henry Kissinger style — to do the wrong things.

But this gift is not to Obama. It’s to US, as a tool to MAKE him go where we must.

The spotlight has now been amped. The focus is on Aghanistan and a green-powered, nuke-free Earth.

The Nobel is a mandate — a sacred trust — to push this president into the pantheon with Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, not to mention Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi.

Ready or not, we have our opening to make Barack Obama rise to their standard.

[Harvey Wasserman’s Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth is at www.solartopia.org.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Rabbi Arthur Waskow : Let’s Help Obama EARN that Nobel


The Nobel Prize, Obama, and Afghanistan
(And especially its women)

By Rabbi Arthur Waskow / The Rag Blog / October 9, 2009

The first person I told this morning that Obama had won the Nobel Prize for Peace said, “For what?”

So — if I may give a new spin to a saying of the last remarkable presidential candidate before him, Bobby Kennedy:

Some people, shown a piece of work not yet completed, say, ‘How come?’

But I, facing that same piece of work not yet completed, say, ‘The time is now!’

And that is what I would urge us all to say to the President today, and next week:

”Congratulations! And the time is NOW to fulfill this honor — end the Afghan War!”

To help stop the war, we invite you to act now by clicking here to send a letter to your Senator (or Vice-President Biden if as a DC resident you have none)

The war could and should have begun by tackling Al Qaeda as criminals, not as if they were a country that was at war with the U.S. The minimum amount of force necessary to apprehend them, including deadly force if necessary. That’s it. Capturing cop-killers without burning down the neighborhood.

Yes, the Taliban are disgusting. Oppressive. But there are a myriad ways of encouraging reform in other countries. The one that does NOT work is trying to install democracy at the point of a bayonet. Or, even worse, Predator Drones which massacre wedding parties from the sky and turn the survivors into furious enemies.

In a minute I will suggest a couple of ways of thinking outside the Afghan box. Maybe those or other ideas they stimulate should be the way to go. Continuing this war is not. We can already see that we have walked into another quagmire — an endless war in a country that for centuries has hated all occupations with a burning fury.

And that war would undermine all plans for social reform at home — exactly what happened to Lyndon Johnson when Vietnam swept away the Great Society.

The moment has come to correct the mistake. President Obama has been told that the warpath “forward” means 500,000 US troops for five years. Many dead, maimed of body, mind, and soul. Forget about health care. Forget education. Forget healing our wounded, choking planet. And he is — it seems — thinking twice.

But the mindless pressures of military habit are still pressing. The American people — surveys show a majority oppose this war — must act to end it. The other path — friendship with Islam; economic aid at the grass-roots, micro-loan level; empowering women; drawing on the healing of wind and solar energy instead of addiction to oil — will do far more to protect America.

As Code Pink, the U.S. women’s peace organization, has reported after recent meetings with Afghan women, and as my dear friend Barbara Bick, whose memory is a blessing, and who spent years in Afghanistan working with Afghan women, also reported before her death this year, Afghan women want to be empowered — but they do not believe American bombs will do it.

Two ideas way outside the box:

  1. Send five women U.S. Senators to negotiate with Afghan women and all male Afghan factional leaders (including the varied Taliban factions) with two promises: that any governance agreement unanimously agreed to will be backed up by billions in U.S. economic aid, delivered in suitcases, if necessary. All U.S.military presence and aid ends at once. If no such agreement is reached, all U.S. involvement in Afghanistan ends.
  2. Call a conference of the independent women’s organizations in Afghanistan. Offer micro-loans for grass-roots economic development to any group of ten women who apply as a group (loans ranging from $1,000 to $5,000), plus offer ten revolvers and 100 bullets to each group of women: one gun and 50 bullets for each woman for target practice, 50 for defense against anyone who comes to assail them for being uppity. Then — the U.S. leaves, except for continuing contact with the micro-loan organizations.

Whether you like these ideas or not, the US war in Afghanistan should end — for their sake and for ours.

Again — we invite you to act now by clicking here to send a letter to your Senator (or Vice-President Biden).

Thanks and blessings that the effort you bring for peace and healing flows back into peace and healing in your own life.

Shalom, salaam, shantih, peace —

Arthur

[Rabbi Arthur Waskow is director of The Shalom Center. He can be reached at awaskow@shalomctr.org.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 22 Comments

Stephanie Smith : E. Coli and the Killer Burger

Escherichia coli (known as “E. Coli” to its friends).

E. coli nearly killed Stephanie Smith:
All-beef patty can be big-time trouble

By Carl R. Hultberg / The Rag Blog / October 9, 2009

Stephanie Smith was pretty much committed to vegetarianism. But after her mother insisted she get a little protein from a traditional meal, she broke down and let her mother (Sharon) cook her a burger. Sharon slapped a Sam’s Club beef patty in the frying pan and they had their American style meal.

When Stephanie got sick, her mother was sure she knew what had caused it. It had to be the spinach. What neither of them knew was that the meat industry poisons people all the time. That’s why it rarely makes the news. Stephanie went into seizures and had to be put into a coma to save her life. Today she is recovering, but she will probably never walk again.

The story of the burger that poisoned her is a complex one. No, as you probably have already guessed, the cows (as opposed to steers) who supplied the meat for that burger were not raised on a family farm. If the cows had been raised in this traditional manner, they would have been grass fed, allowed to exercise and slaughtered in a clean environment.

As it was the killer burger came from multiple sources. To maximize profits, Cargill purchased cow meat from here and there, high intensity feedlots where cattle are penned in and pumped full of the high protein food (soy) that makes their meat attractive on the plate. After feeding out in these filthy crowded lots, the animals are brought in to be slaughtered in an assembly line process. Although there are safety rules, greed and the sheer impossibility of keeping feces off the future meat products make food safety in this environment extremely difficult to achieve.

No one knows exactly where the E. coli tainted meat came from. Could be Omaha. Could be Uruguay. All the different sources make it easy for the companies to blame each other, while they speed up production and hire illegal immigrants at lower wages. The American Meat Institute says it is doing what it can to slow down the rate of E. coli poisoning.

Cook your burger all the way through and you will kill the pathogens, diseased tissue and possibly some of the hormones and antibiotics. Then you will have a wholesome American style meal. Medium rare could quite possibly kill you. Meat promoters point to the need for total irradiation of meat products. Just another part of a mouth watering American food experience, I guess, but obviously another workplace hazard for the largely immigrant workforce.

Are there other options? Aside from the obvious vegetarian diet that feeds the world 15X over compared to meat eating? The vegetable diet that is better for your health? The diet that does more to stop global warming than driving an electric car, riding a bicycle and recycling 100% of your trash? The diet that allows humanity to live at peace with animals and each other? Not that diet?

Okay, the other alternative is to go to your butcher and have him (or her) cut and grind up a piece of animal flesh for you to eat. It won’t cost $1 a pound and come in a pre formed patty, but it will put you in a safer and more morally honest position as a meat eater.

Bon appetit!

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

McChrystal Clear : More Boots on the Ground

Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Repeating the cliches.

Do the numbers:
500,000 troops for Pashtunistan?

McChrystal repeats the clichés of classic counterinsurgency… American generals used the same vintage phrases in Vietnam, where efforts to ‘protect the population’ led to forcing rural peasants into fortified ‘strategic hamlets.’

By Steve Weissman / October 8, 2009

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, talks of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. He sees the need to get beyond standard military thinking and understand the political, religious, social and economic context. He also knows that kicking down doors, destroying homes and killing civilians turns the Afghans against us and creates more insurgents than we could ever kill.

“If the people are against us, we cannot be successful,” McChrystal told CBS’s “60 Minutes.” “If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can’t be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically.”

In his report to President Obama and in endless interviews, the four-star general talks about persuading the Afghans, protecting them and making them secure from the Taliban. “Our every action must help secure, mobilize and support the Afghan people and their government to defeat the insurgency and establish effective governance.”

How to “establish effective government” in a country that has never known one, McChrystal does not say. Nor does he tell us how he would do it with an Afghan leadership made up of war lords, drug barons and a president — Hamid Karzai — who won re-election by creating hundreds of phony polling stations and stuffing ballot boxes in wholesale fashion.

Undaunted, McChrystal repeats the clichés of classic counterinsurgency, or COIN, as refurbished by his boss, Gen. David Petraeus, head of Central Command. American generals used the same vintage phrases in Vietnam, where efforts to “protect the population” led to forcing rural peasants into fortified “strategic hamlets.”

With only slight variations of emphasis, French generals spoke the same lingo earlier in Vietnam and Algeria, while British generals became the gurus of counterinsurgency from Malaya to Kenya to Cypress. In these conflicts, one problem stands out: The counterinsurgents most often lost, as did earlier invaders in Afghanistan, from Alexander the Great to the British Raj to the former Soviet Union.

But why let all this history get in the way? “Each historical moment is different,” the learned Obama warned us with a flourish from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. “You never step into the same river twice.”

Forget history, then, and stick with military thinking. The new counterinsurgency manual that General Petraeus produced calls for “a range of 20 to 25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 residents” in the area of operations. Afghanistan has a population of some 30 million, which would require 600,000 to 750,000 counterinsurgents, including American, allied and Afghan troops.

Frederick Kagan, the neo-conservative military strategist who advises both Petraeus and McChrystal, talks of limiting our counterinsurgency to the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan, leaving the Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and other of the country’s ethnic minorities to fend for themselves. Kagan estimates a Pashtun population of some 16 million, which would bring the counterinsurgent troops needed down to somewhere between 320,000 and 400,000.

Either way, having enough troops in no way guarantees victory. But, according to Pentagon doctrine, having too few would make it almost impossible to subdue a determined insurgency, especially in Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain.

America now has some 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. Obama has already authorized another 21,000, and General McChrystal is asking for 40,000 more. This would bring the American commitment to 129,000. Allied troops number 35,000, and the Afghans currently have 88,000 soldiers and 82,000 police. This would bring the total to 334,000, if McChrystal counts on the Afghan forces, which most experts do not. Washington is asking for more troops from our reluctant allies, while McChrystal plans to increase the Afghan total to 400,000 by 2014.

Would this be enough to win? Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is reportedly having second thoughts. “Even 40,000 more [American] troops don’t give you enough boots on the ground to protect the Afghans if the north and west continue to deteriorate,” one official told The Wall Street Journal. “That may argue for a different approach.”

Gates has previous voiced the fear that too many foreign boots on the ground will only encourage more Afghans to join the insurgents, as the Soviet learned.

Others, like Sen. Russell Feingold, fear that foreign boots in the Pashtun area of Afghanistan will force more of the insurgents into the tribal areas of Pakistan, where they would meld into a population of over 25 million Pashtuns. How many more troops would General McChrystal need then?

[A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts,Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. A former senior editor at Truthout, he now lives and works in France. For previous articles by Steve Weissman on The Rag Blog, go here.]

Source / truthout

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Supremes Hear Challenge to Mojave Cross

Eight foot high cross on Sunrise Mountain in the Mojave National Preserve. Below, cross is covered during court fight. Lower photo by Eric Reed.

Veterans’ memorial at Mojave National Preserve:
Supreme Court hears challenge to eight-foot cross

The ACLU argued that the cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and should not be treated as a single, favored religious symbol.

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / October 8, 2009

An 8 foot cross has stood atop Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve since 1934. It was supposedly erected to honor America’s soldiers in World War I. But is it really proper to erect a religious symbol in a National Preserve or Park, especially since the Park Service turned down a request to erect a Buddhist monument nearby?

That is the question that was being discussed by the United States Supreme Court yesterday. A former National Park Service employee felt it was inappropriate for the National Preserve to favor one religion over others, and took the matter to court. A federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the display was unconstitutional, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama administration supports leaving the cross in the park. As much as I respect President Obama, I have to disagree with him on this one. I have no problem with a memorial honoring World War I soldiers being in the preserve, but why does it have to be a christian symbol (and the cross is recognized worldwide as a christian symbol).

Christians would be opposed to the memorial being a religious symbol from any other religion, so I really don’t understand why they think it’s OK to force their own symbol on Americans who believe in other religions. Personally, as an atheist, I don’t believe symbols of any religion should be placed on government land.

In an attempt to do an end run around the Constitution, the National Preserve has transferred ownership of the cross and the bit of land underneath it to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). This is not real ownership, because the VFW can’t sell the land and if they remove or fail to provide upkeep on the cross, the land will revert back to the National Preserve.

The ACLU argued that the cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and should not be treated as a single, favored religious symbol. Judge Scalia tried to argue that the cross didn’t just represent christian soldiers, but was a “common symbol” to honor war dead.

That’s a ridiculous argument. One look at national cemeteries for war dead shows that crosses are used for Christian dead, while other symbols are used for those of a different faith. There is even a designated symbol for atheists.

No matter how long the cross has stood in the Mojave National Preserve, it should be removed. Allowing only a Christian symbol amounts to government designating a favorite or “official” religion, and that is unconstitutional.

Americans practice many faiths, and many practice no religion at all. Their tax money helps support the National Park System, and they should not be forced to support someone else’s religion.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Freeland: Banking Goes Broadway


Pay Pals: Getting Big Bucks from Banks
By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / October 7, 2009

As MegaBank’s CFO, I’ve prepared the following guidelines for the upcoming meeting of the executive compensation committee.

(I say “upcoming” but, of course, I mean “long past.” It seems notice of this year’s meeting was once again sent late and as a result none of you were here. Don’t be concerned. It went off without a hitch. Simply sign below to confirm receipt of this back-dated mandatory communication.)

Item 1: Hello and Goodbye

First, let me welcome all of the newcomers — which is to say, all of you. As you are aware, committee members are replaced annually to promote the bank’s goal of presenting policies that are always fresh — at least to each of you.

The benefit in all of this is that there is little need for you to be concerned about details you’re likely to forget by the end of the meeting anyway. We apologize in advance if the new amenity we’ve added to the gathering creates a distraction. As I’m sure you know, access to an open bar during all the deliberations has recently become a widely accepted practice in our industry. What’s more, should you have any other needs that require attention (either here or in an adjoining room), feel free to consult the friendly companion who has been assigned to you for that purpose.

Item 2. Newly Strengthened Standards

In light of the recent financial crisis (or as we prefer to call it, “opportunity”), the time of business as usual is long past. Time was when hard work and political connections were all you needed to succeed in this business. Not anymore. Today we have a new partner: the federal government. As a result we are now free to move beyond merely rewarding success. In this new age we can concentrate exclusively on the rewards themselves.

Which means that the work of this committee can assume a sharply different focus. Having become really too big to fail also means we are now big enough to accept the rewards of this new status. Which is why this year’s bonus package, while it may appear exorbitant to others who have not achieved our level of systemic threat, we believe is simply too big to forego.

Item 3: Short-Term vs. Long Term Goals

If there is one thing this new realty has taught us it is that we need to focus more on long-term stability rather than short-term gain. This will require raising our sights above today’s quick profit and becoming more concerned with projecting earnings much further out. Say, a month or two — at least. In this context, we hereby dedicate ourselves to the long-term goal of a minimum of two booms before every bust.

But this kind if discipline comes at a price. Which, of course, brings us again to the compensation committee. Long-term perspective merits long-term pay. Therefore, we will be proposing the industry’s first “better than life” lifetime pay. The checks keep coming as long as we (or our beneficiaries) keep cashing them.

Item 4. New Levels of Accountability

We have all grown up to respect the importance of the work ethic. In recent years that has meant the grinding demands of working from ten to four for a solid three days a week with only a two-hour break for lunch. But in this new age of bailouts and corporate consolidations, we call for a new definition of the term “work” itself. Who anymore really believes that this requires time actually spent at a desk. Or for that matter, even at the office.

No, work can now assume a new existential dimension. Now the new definition of “executive performance” can be inextricably joined to “executive existence” itself. We no longer merely do our jobs. We are our jobs. Recognizing this new reality, however, presents a unique challenge to the compensation committee.

Existence obviously requires a 24-hour commitment. And as a “24-hour executive,” our compensation must be similarly comprehensive. We exist around the clock. We should be paid around the clock. Seen from this perspective, executive pay that was once considered outrageous is now merely au currant.

And given what we’ve been through over these last months, that seems the least we can do for ourselves.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Iran and the Geneva Talks

Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili expressed Tehran’s readiness to cooperate with the international community in all areas, saying he entered the talks with six powers in Geneva with “good will.” Photo: Al Alam.

Real Progress With Iran
By Gary Sick / October 4, 2009

The Geneva nuclear talks were just baby steps along a long and perilous path. Still, this was a historic moment after 30 years of mutual recriminations and hyperbole.

If you have any doubt that the Geneva meetings with Iran were surprisingly productive, just go back and look at the commentary the day before they began. Even allowing for the fact that the United States and its negotiating partners (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany–the P5+1–plus European Union negotiator Javier Solana) were trying to lower expectations to the political equivalent of absolute zero, it was still difficult to find anyone who anticipated anything like real progress. Yet that is what happened.

Iran had issued a bland five-page document that scarcely mentioned the nuclear issue. They insisted that the newly discovered Qom enrichment site was not only perfectly legal but utterly routine. They let it be known that they had no intention of discussing their own nuclear program in these talks. Yet, from the accounts we have so far, it appears that Iran came prepared to make concessions about Qom, permitting IAEA inspections to begin within the next two weeks or so. As for their nuclear program, almost nothing else seems to have been discussed.

The United States blustered that it was preparing “crippling sanctions” to be imposed on Iran if they did not “come clean” about their nuclear activities. In the end, it appears that sanctions were not a significant topic, and the Western side was prepared to make some significant concessions of its own.

By all accounts, instead of being a food fight leading to a total breakdown, the Geneva talks were serious, businesslike, and even cordial. The top U.S. negotiator, Undersecretary of State William Burns, had a one-on-one meeting with Iranian top negotiator Saeed Jalili, in which they reportedly talked substantive issues. That is something that had not happened in thirty years. During the latter years of the Clinton presidency, Iranian officials conducted desperate evasive maneuvers to avoid any direct contact with American officials, and during the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, American officials did the same with their Iranian diplomatic counterparts. The orders on both sides to avoid official contact at risk of one’s professional career seem to have been relaxed, at least for this occasion.

What did this meeting actually produce? Iran agreed to permit inspections of its new site. The Western negotiators came up with a clever ploy to permit Iranian low-enriched uranium (LEU) to be sent to Russia for further enrichment, probably from about 5 percent to about 20 percent, and then transported to France to be fabricated into fuel rods to feed the Iranian research reactor (ironically given to Iran by the United States in an earlier day), which is used to produce isotopes used for medical purposes. This had many dimensions. First, it reduced the Iranian LEU stock below the level required to produce a nuclear device. Second, it established the principle that Iranian enrichment could be conducted outside the country. But third, it promised to provide Iran with uranium enriched well above the level required for nuclear power reactors (but not yet at the level required for bomb-building). And lastly, it tacitly acknowledged Iran’s right to produce enriched uranium. Nothing in the reports we have seen to date indicate that the Western interlocutors insisted on the previous red line that Iran should abandon its enrichment program.

Finally, the two sides agreed to meet again later this month. At a minimum, that suggests that they believed there was more to be discussed.

Both sides evidently came prepared to behave civilly, to make some small but important concessions, and to initiate a process of negotiation that has been on ice almost since the moment that George W. Bush decided, for arcane reasons of his own, to declare Iran (which had just finished working closely with the United States to establish a new civil government in Afghanistan) a charter member of the Axis of Evil.

One swallow does not a summer make, and it would be a mistake to think that the results of the Geneva meetings were anything more than the first baby steps along a perilous and unpredictable path. Those perils were unmistakable in the words of President Obama in his brief remarks immediately following the talks. In carefully chosen words, he remarked that “today’s meeting was a constructive beginning, but it must be followed by constructive action by the Iranian government.” His emphasis was almost exclusively on our demands on Iran and what remained to be done, rather than on what had been accomplished.

Obama’s speech was clearly directed to his domestic constituency, and particularly the right wings of both the Democratic and the Republican parties who had openly hoped or expected that the meetings would lead to early, severe sanctions against Iran. It was also no doubt intended to maintain the pressure on the Iranian side and to demonstrate that we would not settle for a few welcome, even unexpected, gestures of cooperation. That skeptical tone may have been dictated by negotiating strategy and political necessity, but I wonder if we will be as understanding when the Iranian leadership makes similarly dismissive remarks.

Still, this was a historic moment after 30 years of mutual recriminations and hyperbole. Under the circumstances, even simple civility was remarkable. Both sides behaved themselves almost as grownups, when it would have been easier to descend into a school yard rumpus.

We can hope that the Western negotiators keep their eye on the fundamental objectives of these talks. Instead of drawing new red lines, which are typically ignored by the Iranians and which have proved both futile and counterproductive, we need to pursue two clear goals. First, we need to insist on maximum inspection and monitoring of all aspects of Iran’s nuclear activities. Secondly, we should attempt to minimize Iran’s development of the precursors of a nuclear weapon. In other words, we should install an early warning system that will tell us with some confidence if Iran decides to depart from its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and build a bomb; and we should seek to maximize the time between such a decision and the moment when Iran could actually produce a deliverable weapon.

Those are realistic goals and they are consistent with Iran’s own statements and past practice. But they will not easily be achieved in a negotiating climate of hostility and mistrust. This meeting offered the prospect that the “wall of mistrust,” as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami described it, is not necessarily impermeable.

The process that has been started is going to be neither short nor serene. It is, however, the only game in town. And it is off to a better start than any of us had a right to expect.

Source / Axis of Logic

Thanks to Deva Wood / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Losing Our Humor Over Guantanamo


On Guantánamo, Lawmakers Reveal They Are Still Dick Cheney’s Pawns
By Andy Worthington / October 6, 2009

I like to believe that, despite studying Guantánamo for four years, I still have a sense of humor, but last Thursday I lost it, after 258 members of the House of Representatives (including 88 members of President Obama’s own party) voted for an idiotic, paranoid and unjust motion proposed by Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ken.), which was designed to “Prohibit the transfer of GITMO prisoners, period” (those were his exact words). Just 163 Representatives voted against the motion, which, as JURIST described it, also supports “adding Guantánamo detainees to the federal ‘no fly’ list, and adopting Senate language forbidding the release of photos showing detainee abuse.”

Just in case there was any doubt about the motion, Rep. Rogers, in his inimitable style, explained that he was concerned with “protecting the American people from all threats … including the warped intentions of terrorists and radical extremists,” and proceeded to explain that “This motion strengthens the House bill’s current restrictions on Guantánamo Bay detainees by ensuring their names have been put on the No Fly list and by clearly prohibiting their transfer to the United States — for whatever reason.”

After lambasting the Obama administration for having “No plan” for how to close Guantánamo, Rep. Rogers explained that “this motion prohibits the granting of any immigration benefit for any reason. Without such a benefit, there is no legal way to bring these terrorists to American soil and in our constituents’ backyards. And, that means these terrorists cannot be granted the same constitutional rights as American citizens.”

He added, “After all, these detainees are enemy combatants, caught on the battlefield. They are NOT common criminals and they should not be granted legal standing in our criminal courts by bringing them onto US soil. From my point of view, we cannot waver on this issue, nor can we be weak. There is no reason these terrorists, who pose a serious and documented threat to our nation, cannot be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba. And, I certainly think that is where the American people stand on this issue — they don’t want these terrorists in their hometowns, inciting fellow prisoners, abusing our legal system, and terrorizing their communities.”

This, then, is the reason that I have lost my sense of humor. In May, members of the US Senate voted by 90-6 to approve an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, eliminating $80 million from planned legislation intended to fund the closure of Guantánamo, and specifically prohibiting the use of any funding to “transfer, relocate, or incarcerate Guantánamo Bay detainees to or within the United States.” Defending the amendment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), speaking for himself and his spineless colleagues who had bowed to a Republican fearmongering campaign, said, “This is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this. Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.”

In June, the House of Representatives followed up by passing a spending bill turning down the administration’s request for $60 million to close Guantánamo, which, as JURIST described it, “placed limits on the government’s ability to transfer detainees to the US and release detainees to foreign countries.” Approved by a vote of 259-157, the bill also prohibited funds from being used to release detainees from Guantánamo into the United States. In JURIST’s words, “The legislation [requires] the president to submit to Congress a detailed plan documenting the costs and risks of transferring a detainee to the US for trial or detention at least two months before the detainee is to be transferred. Additionally, the president [has] to notify the governor and legislature of the state to which the detainee is to be transferred at least 30 days before the transfer and must show that the detainee does not pose a security risk. The bill also requires that the president submit a report to Congress before releasing a detainee into his country of origin or last habitual residence unless that country is the US.

Last Thursday’s vote was for a non-binding motion to instruct conferees to follow Rep. Rogers’ motion (see an explanation here) rather than binding legislation, but, at the very least, it signals that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are determined to scupper Barack Obama’s pledge to close Guantánamo by January 22, 2010, for two indefensible reasons.

The first is the NIMBY card (Not In My Back Yard), in which lawmakers wail, as Rep. Rogers put it, that “the American people … don’t want these terrorists in their hometowns, inciting fellow prisoners, abusing our legal system, and terrorizing their communities.” This requires everyone involved to conveniently forget that America’s Supermax prisons are the envy of prison-lovers the world over, that convicted mass-murdering criminals — including some convicted of terrorism — are safely locked away in these prisons, and that the rest of the world is looking on and laughing at the lawmakers’ feeble paranoia.

However, the second reason for my despair is rather more fundamental. To hear Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, use the word “terrorists” when referring to the Guantánamo prisoners, and to hear this same word repeated ad infinitum by Rep. Rogers, and by those many members of the Senate and the House who have persistently voted to prevent the closure of Guantánamo, is to step back into those dark months after the 9/11 attacks, when former Vice President Dick Cheney and his closest advisors were hatching their plans to hold anyone who ended up in US custody as an “enemy combatant” — in other words, neither as a criminal nor as a prisoner of war, but as a whole new category of non-being without rights.

It involves stepping back to a time when Cheney and his associates were hatching their plans to hand out bounty payments, averaging $5,000 a head, to the US military’s Afghan and Pakistani allies, who seized at least 86 percent of the men who ended up in Guantánamo, the majority of whom were not “caught on the battlefield,” as Rep. Rogers cla.

It also involves stepping back to when these same men — and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld — were hatching their plans to prevent the military from conducting competent tribunals under Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions.

Pioneered by the US, and conducted during every war from Vietnam onwards, competent tribunals were designed to separate soldiers from civilians, in situations in which enemy soldiers did not wear uniforms, by holding tribunals close to the time and place of capture, in which these men could call witnesses to establish their credentials. In the first Gulf War, these tribunals led to nearly three-quarters of 1,200 men being released, but in Afghanistan the administration’s decision not to proceed with the tribunals (which was dictated from the highest levels of government) not only contributed to the filling of Guantánamo with people who were neither soldiers nor terrorists, but also led the administration to conclude that the humane standards of treatment required by the Geneva Conventions for all prisoners (whether uniformed personnel or not) did not apply to “enemy combatants.”

This was just the beginning. Voting to prevent the Obama administration from bringing Guantánamo prisoners to the US for any reason — even for federal court trials — endorses the notion that, having randomly rounded up hundreds of prisoners, and having refused to screen them, it was then justifiable to deprive them of the protections of the Geneva Conventions and to transport them to Guantánamo, where they continued to be held without rights, and where, if the lawmakers had their way, they would remain in that perpetual limbo.

What the nation’s lawmakers seem to be forgetting is that the legal black hole of Guantánamo’s early years was only maintained until June 2004, when no less a body than the US Supreme Court was required to intervene. The Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of granting the prisoners habeas corpus rights because, although some of them may well have been soldiers, who should have been held as prisoners of war, or terrorists, who should have been prosecuted as criminals, the Bush administration’s decision to hold them as “enemy combatants” without rights meant that those who claimed that they were innocent men seized by mistake — perhaps in connection with those bounty payments mentioned above — had no way whatsoever of challenging the basis of their detention. Without the intervention of the Supreme Court, they could have been held for the rest of their lives without ever having been screened adequately to determine whether they were, in fact, terrorists, soldiers or innocent men seized by mistake or sold for money.

Even then, this miserable story was far from over, as lawmakers should recall. In an attempt to ignore the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Bush administration introduced one-sided military tribunals to evaluate the prisoners’ cases, relying on supposed evidence that in fact consisted largely of “confessions” extracted from other prisoners, either through torture or coercion, or through bribery (the promise of better living conditions, or the false promise of freedom), and persuaded Congress (including many of the same cowardly propagandists responsible for the votes in May, June and last Thursday) to pass two hideously flawed pieces of legislation — the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 — which purported to strip the prisoners of the habeas rights granted by the Supreme Court.

Last June, the Supreme Court rose up again, this time granting the prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights, and setting in motion a process of reviews that, to date, has led to District Court judges examining the government’s supposed evidence in 38 cases, and ruling that, in 30 of these cases (in other words, in 79 percent of the cases), the government failed to establish that the men in question were members of, or supported al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban. If the lawmakers cared to read the rulings, they would discover that this was largely because the judges concluded that the government was relying on supposed evidence that in fact consisted largely of “confessions” extracted from other prisoners, either through torture or coercion, or through bribery (the promise of better living conditions, or the false promise of freedom).

Fortunately, the lawmakers are no longer able to prevent these cases from taking place — as no doubt, if they were able, they would yet again cast the remaining prisoners into a lawless abyss — but by making such sweeping generalizations about the “terrorists” in Guantánamo, and about preventing the government from transferring any of these “terrorists” to the US mainland to be imprisoned and to face trials, they are committing a number of grievous errors.

They are preventing justice from being delivered in the cases of the small number of prisoners actually accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks and other acts of international terrorism, and they are shamelessly, ridiculously, and unforgivably tarring everyone held at Guantánamo as a “terrorist,” even though the majority of the men have never been charged with any crime, even though the lack of screening and the bounty payments that I mentioned above have been assiduously chronicled by lawyers and writers — myself included — who have not succumbed to a witless parroting of Dick Cheney’s hollow propaganda, and even though judges in US courts continue to demonstrate that, behind the hype and hyperbole, the majority of these men are not “terrorists” at all.

My sense of humor will return (you don’t deal with Guantánamo day in and day out without having a sense of humor, however dark), but my despair at the spinelessness and stupidity of the majority of the nation’s lawmakers will only dissipate when these men and women can be bothered to examine the facts, rather than letting themselves remain infected by the lies and paranoia of the most disgraceful Vice President in American history.

[Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK).]

Source / Andy Worthington

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Sen. Al Franken : The Internet is the Town Square

This may be the clearest, most useful exposition on Net Neutrality that I have yet seen.

Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog

The Internet:
It’s not a truck, It’s a town square

The Internet is a platform for speech, debate, creativity. And it is neutral. And government has a role to play in making sure it stays that way.

By Senator Al Franken / October 7, 2009

As you know, I got to the Senate a bit late.

But I didn’t get here too late. Because we’re debating issues of major consequence right now — health care, the economy, the course of the war in Afghanistan. And one of the issues you don’t hear about as much — but one that will impact our lives, our economy and, yes, the future of music — is Net Neutrality.

Several years ago, in the middle-to-late 90s, I went and gave a speech to the folks at DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. I remember asking what cool things they were working on.

One guy took me aside and told me he was working on an unmanned aerial vehicle the size of an insect. I was really excited about that, though I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen. But they did succeed in creating the ARPA-net forty years ago. And the ARPA-net grew into the Internet… which is almost as cool.

And today, the Internet is the town square. Thomas Jefferson famously said that given a choice between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he “would not hesitate to prefer the latter.” If he were here today, I think he’d see the Internet in much the same light.

Now, fortunately, we don’t have to make that choice because the Internet is a platform for speech, debate, creativity. And it is neutral.

And government has a role to play in making sure it stays that way. Let me add that this is the fundamental political philosophy that I bring as a senator to so many of our national challenges. It’s not government’s job to make sure that everyone gets to the finish line, but government does have a role to play in making sure everyone can at least get to the starting line.

That’s how the Internet developed. The FCC treated the Web as a common carrier similar to the phone – meaning that anyone had the right to access it however they wanted so long as they weren’t breaking the law.

But as high-speed Internet became available, the cable and telecom industries convinced the FCC to change the rules — to give corporate Internet service providers the power to use “network management” as code for “finding ways to squeeze more cash out of their networks.” As a result, the freedom and openness that are the Internet’s hallmarks are being seriously challenged.

Moving at the same speed

Right now, a blog loads just as quickly as a corporate Web page. An e-mail from your mother comes through just as smoothly as a bill notification from your bank. An independent bookstore can process your order as quickly as Barnes & Noble. A garage band can stream its songs just as easily as a multi-platinum superband like REM can.

But recently, business executives from top ISPs have declared their interest in offering “prioritized” Internet service to companies that can pay for it. In other words, a company like Microsoft or Amazon could pay for its content to be delivered over a high-speed network — relegating a blogger or a mom-and-pop business to the slow lane.

That would transform the Internet from a free, open and competitive playing field into a “pay-for-play” arena in which citizen bloggers, nonprofits and small businesses are simply muscled out by major media conglomerates. That would transform the World Wide Web into a system of separate and unequal networks.

Censoring the Net

And it raises two major issues, as I see it.

First, it raises the issue of censorship. Once service providers are in the business of deciding what kind of content moves at what speed, they come very close to deciding what kind of content moves at all.

Second, this is about entrepreneurship and innovation. Great innovations only take place on an even playing field, where the little guys can go head-to-head with the big guys. If we change the rules of the game to benefit the big guys, innovation will suffer.

So the issue here isn’t only what might be blocked, but what might never be developed in the first place. Let me talk for a minute about each.

First, censorship. Take a look at Iran. In Iran, every Internet provider uses filters to control the Web sites and e-mails that users can access. They use a technology called “Deep Packet Inspection” to filter every e-mail, Facebook post and Tweet that anyone sends, and –- in real time – block content that’s deemed objectionable.

You might say, “Well, that’s a terrible situation, but it’s happening in Iran, and we are not Iran.” No, we’re not Iran, but that isn’t stopping several companies from taking the same or similar technology for a test drive.

First, you may remember that in 2007, Verizon refused to allow the pro-choice group NARAL to send text messages to its supporters – even though they had signed up to receive them. Verizon’s explanation was that it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” messages. Like, for example, that a woman should have control of her reproductive system.

A second example: Comcast has used Deep Packet Inspection to block lawful peer-to-peer applications.

And you may remember that during a live Webcast of a 2007 Pearl Jam concert, AT&T killed the audio for a few beats. Turns out the missing lyrics were critical of President Bush.

ISPs want to profit from a closed Net

Stifling openness on the Internet isn’t always about censorship. In the future, it could simply be a product of business at work – of ISPs turning a profit. The chief technology officer for BellSouth recently said, “I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first class ticket… I can get two-day air or six-day ground.” He asserted that the Internet should be the same way.

The CEO of Verizon made the same point when he said, “We need to make sure there is the right economic model… we need to pay for the pipe.” And one provider proposed a system where consumers could pay a cheap monthly rate for light Internet use, a higher fee for heavier use… but with an exception for people who accessed only the content created by that network provider.

That’s a business motive, but it has the effect of limiting speech, and as far as I’m concerned, free speech limited — or free speech delayed — is the same as free speech denied. Because the truth is that the Internet is the town hall of the 21st century.

In the 1997 decision Reno v. ACLU, Justice Stevens wrote:

“Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.”

I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and on my fourth day in the Senate — my first hearing on that committee — we were dealing with the nomination of Judge (now Justice) Sonia Sotomayor.

I asked her specifically about whether she thought the American public has a compelling First Amendment interest in ensuring the Internet stays open and accessible. And if I could paraphrase her answer, it was “yes.” As noisy and messy as it may be, the Internet is a democracy. And because of that, it is a critical part of our democracy. But without strong legislation prohibiting ISPs from regulating content, that may not always be the case.

Let me add that among the people who would be hurt the most are rural users, who, like many in my home state of Minnesota, often only have access to a single ISP. If that rural ISP decides to favor or cut special deals with big companies — or with the companies that ISP also owns –- then rural users would only receive the viewpoints that the ISP favors. ISP profit margins should never come at the cost of a free and open Internet.

The economic future of our country

While ISPs may benefit from a closed Internet, we all lose. And it’s not just the material that could be slowed or censored. It’s innovation itself.

In America, we think that an individual with a big idea is just as worthy of competing as a company with a big market share. But the loss of a neutral Internet means that the market is no longer competitive. It’s no longer a meritocracy.

Consider the case of YouTube. YouTube was founded in 2005 above a pizzeria in San Mateo, California. At the time, the most popular video application was something called Google Video — an app that most people came to realize was slow and clunky.

Because it was so well designed, YouTube quickly gained a user base, and gradually overcame Google Video. As we know, Google actually bought YouTube and retired Google Video.

This all happened because YouTube and Google Video competed on the same playing field, accessed the same Internet, and, in a meritocratic system, consumers saw that YouTube was better. But in a world where Google could pay an ISP for “premium” access, Google Video could have secured priority status, leaving YouTube on a second-tier track. YouTube would have loaded too slowly to win viewers. We’d be stuck with Google Video.

Again, what’s at stake here isn’t just what could be taken away. It’s what could never be created in the first place.

The Internet has been a tremendous platform for innovation and entrepreneurship. Guaranteeing its continued success isn’t just about giving consumers better apps; it’s about the economic future of our country.

The FCC takes on Net Neutrality

Now, I know many of you in the music and entertainment industry are concerned about where Net Neutrality fits in with your efforts against piracy. Having spent much of my life as a writer and entertainer, I own copyrights, too, and I share your concerns.

But Net Neutrality is and must be explicitly a matter of protecting lawful content, applications and usage. Whether we do it through statute or regulation, ISPs must and will retain the right to combat unlawful usage of the Internet.

Now, how we do that technologically is an enormous question. You may remember when Sen. Ted Stevens insightfully pointed out that the Internet “is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a truck. It’s a series of tubes.”

In making that statement, I think Sen. Stevens illustrated why some members of Congress might not be the right people to answer this technological question. That’s why it is good news that the FCC is now taking the lead on this battle.

Recently, Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that the commission would be issuing pro-Net Neutrality regulations. The commission rules will emphasize nondiscrimination –- barring ISPs from favoring or disfavoring particular Internet content or applications –- and transparency, requiring ISPs to be open about their network management practices. And Genachowski’s right.

An ISP should not be able to prioritize certain traffic over other traffic. A company cannot pay to have a “fast track” over the Internet.

And we need to be serious about transparency. ISPs should have to disclose to consumers any practices that may affect communications between a user and an application, content or service provider. This ensures that when ISPs do take actions that slow down one content provider and speed up another, users will find out.

We also need to acknowledge that sometimes, it is citizens, and not the government, that are in the best position to protect the Internet. We need to empower Internet users to file complaints directly with the FCC, and to allow them to recover damages in certain cases.

Finally, and I think the FCC will agree with me on this one, we need to give the experts at the FCC the flexibility they need to solve this complicated problem.

So rest assured, even though Sen. Stevens is no longer here to lend us his “tube” expertise, I will be standing ready to work with knowledgeable leaders in Congress — Sen. Dorgan, Sen. Snowe, Congressman Markey, and Congresswoman Eshoo — to make sure we get it right.

For the first time, it looks like we might actually do this. The FCC is on board, and so are critical leaders in Congress.

Obama on Net Neutrality

In addition, President Obama has consistently voiced support for Net Neutrality. Recently, he put Net Neutrality at the top of his national innovation agenda. So although previous efforts to pass Net Neutrality have failed, we now have both a president and an FCC chairman who strongly support the cause.

This is not to say that this debate is over and won. Some of my colleagues have already introduced legislation to block Net Neutrality efforts. And just last week, a Washington Post editorial declared that “federal regulators should not be telling Internet service providers how to run their businesses,” and that Net Neutrality will “micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace.”

Ignore for a moment the irony that a leading newspaper would come out against a bill whose purpose includes protection of free speech, and let me say that Net Neutrality is not a matter of needless government intervention. It is a necessary response to verifiable instances of ISPs discriminating against users based on the applications they use or the content they access, and of ISPs voicing their support for a separate and unequal Internet.

It is a 21st-century reiteration of one of our most important constitutional rights –- the right to free speech. And it doesn’t interfere with the free market. It protects the free market.

A century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt wrote, “Above all else, we must strive to keep the highways of commerce open to all on equal terms.”

He may have been writing in a different time, and addressing different technology, but his purpose is just as relevant today.

[From a speech delivered by Sen. Franken at the Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.]

Sen. Al Franken on keeping a neutral net

Source / Save The Internet / freepress

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment