The Rag Blog

They’re a very frail people and I was surprised it had taken that long for one of ‘em to die in our custody. —Pfc. Damien Corsetti, Military Intelligence, Bagram

If the FBI had felt that there was a case to answer for, they wouldn’t have taken me into Bagram where I was held, heard the sounds of a woman screaming next door, had me hogtied and threatened to send me to Egypt in order to get me to sign this. —Moazzam Begg, Now 2006 July 28

25/02/08 ” PopMatters” — — In December 2002, a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar was picked up and delivered to the Bagram Air Force Base prison. Five days later, he was dead. Sgt. Thomas Curtis, one of the Military Police at Bagram, remembers, “There was definitely a sense of concern because he was the second one. You wonder, was it something we did?”

As detailed in Alex Gibney’s devastating documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, Dilawar’s demise was officially termed a homicide, like the first detainee to die at Bagram, Habibullah. Captured by a warlord and handed over to the U.S. just days before Dilawar, Habibullah as deemed “an important prisoner,” hooded, shackled, and isolated, periodically beaten for “noncompliance.” Autopsies showed that Dilawar and Habibullah suffered similar abuses, including deep bruises all over their bodies; according to the Army coroner, Dilawar suffered “massive tissue damage to his legs… his legs had been pulpified.” And yet, despite initial concerns among the guards and interrogators at Bagram over an investigation, instead, the officer in charge of interrogation at the prison, Captain Carolyn Wood, was awarded a Bronze Star for Valor and, following the Iraq invasion in 2003, she and her unit were sent to Abu Ghraib.

Methodically, relentlessly, Gibney’s Oscar-nominated film assembles stories, evidence, and testimony from witnesses and experts (its deliberate structure recalls that of Charles Ferguson’s No End in Sight, both films suggesting that, if the Bush Administration had not already put in place legal protections, more than one member might be subject to criminal charges). The many decisions and oversights that produced the “enhanced interrogation techniques” that would be used at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and other sites have several points of departure, each chilling in its own way. Not least among these is the pronouncement by Dick Cheney that motivates Taxi‘s title, made during an appearance on Meet the Press during the week after 9/11. Describing imminent changes in interrogation policies, the vice president asserted,

We have to work sort of the dark side, if you will, spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods available to our intelligence agencies, if we’re going to be successful. That’s the world these folks operate in. It’ll be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.

26/02/08 “Counterpunch” — – A psychiatrist who has treated former military personnel at Guantánamo prison camp is telling a story of prisoner torture and guard suicide there, recounted to him by a National Guardsman who worked at Guantánamo just after it opened.

Dr. John R. Smith, 75, is a Oklahoma City psychiatrist who has done worked at military posts during the past few years. He is also a consultant for the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Services, and is affiliated with the Veteran’s Affairs Administration Hospital in Oklahoma City. The court-appointed psychiatric examination of Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in 1995, was conducted by Smith. A few years ago, he became a contract physician, treating active duty members of the US military in need of psychotherapy.

Smith spoke on February 22, 2008, at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, held in Washington DC. His presentation dealt with the psychological impact on guards of working at Guantánamo . He focused on a chilling case history, of a patient he called “Mr. H.”
.
Smith described Mr. H as a blue-collar Latino in his 40s who had done routine service in the National Guard for years before being called up to Kuwait. Then, shortly after 9/11, he was diverted from Kuwait to Guantánamo . The detention camp had just opened. Mr. H was deployed there to work as a guard.

Untrained for the job, Mr. H was taken aback by the detainees. They threw feces and urine on him, said Smith, and tried to get him to sneak letters out, telling him that if he didn’t, “they would see to it that his family suffered the consequences.” The prisoners also mocked Mr. H, that his being in the military made him “a traitor” to Latinos and other minorities. Mr. H was confused and terrified.

Meanwhile, according to Smith, “this good Catholic man with a family who had pretty much always followed the rules” was called on to participate in torture. One of his jobs was “to take detainees to certain places and see that they were handcuffed in difficult positions, usually naked, in anticipation of interrogation.” Mr. H often watched the questioning. He saw prisoners pushed until they fell down, then cut. They responded to the torture with “defecation, vomiting, urinating,” and “psychotic reactions: bizarre screaming and crying.”

Smith noted that Mr. H said he was “required to handcuff and push to the ground detainees who were naked.” The prisoners were also made to “remain on sharp stones on their knees.” Detainees, Mr. H told Smith, would try to avoid interrogation by rubbing their knees until they bled in order be taken to the prison hospital.

According to Smith, Mr. H’s comment about these events “was poignant and simple: ‘It was wrong what we did.'” While still at Guantánamo , he responded to being a participant in torture “with guilt, crying and tears. But of course it was forbidden to talk with anyone about what he was experiencing.” He “became more and more depressed.” Apparently, so did other military personnel. Smith said Mr. H told him that in the first month he was at Guantánamo , two guards committed suicide.

Smith said that by the time he saw Mr. H, he “had become very ill. He was suicidal, terribly depressed, anxious,” and “riddled with insomnia and horrible dreams and flashbacks.” He had already seen two military therapists and not improved. But those therapists “were active duty and he didn’t dare tell them” what had happened at Guantánamo . Smith was not active duty, and after two or three sessions Mr. H opened up. With medication and psychotherapy, he became less suicidal but was still too sick to do any more military service.

Three years later after treating Mr. H, Smith got three new patients who were guards at Guantánamo on later tours. They said conditions were much improved –“they loved it at Guantánamo and went swimming in the Caribbean.” Still, one guard was having problems directly related to his work there. He “described having to cut down a detainee” who tried to hang himself after chewing through an artery in his own arm. There was blood everywhere. When the guard left Guantánamo , he was suffering from “anxiety attacks, panic attacks.”

Smith said his presentation at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting was the first time he’d ever spoken publicly about his Guantánamo patients. He decided to talk, he said, because he is concerned that veterans are generally ineligible for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) disability benefits if the condition is not caused by combat. He considers the guards of Guantánamo “an overlooked group of victims.” But in making that case, Smith stepped into a unique role. Heretofore, almost all accounts of torture at Guantánamo have come from non-governmental human rights groups or detainees and their defense lawyers. The FBI accounts in 2004 were contradictory. Smith, a prestigious physician, relayed accounts from inside the military.

VICTORIA — The government of British Columbia moved yesterday to the forefront of the battle against climate change by introducing what may be the greenest budget ever seen in North America.

Finance Minister Carole Taylor said the budget – which has a new, sweeping carbon tax as its centrepiece – is a historic turning point for the province, although critics pointed out it also contains incentives for oil and gas development and funding for new highways.

“It has been a dramatic turn, I think, for this province with this budget to say we’re not just going to be talking about climate action. We are acting. We are putting in place the financial foundation that will make it possible,” Ms. Taylor said in a budget briefing session as she focused on the carbon-tax initiative.

She said the strategy is to “tax something that we know is bad for us,” and use the revenue to stimulate wide social change by providing incentives for people and businesses to become more energy efficient.

Wearing an impeccable green suit, Ms. Taylor said the B.C. government aims to raise $1.8-billion over the next three years by applying a carbon tax to virtually all fossil fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane and home-heating fuel.

She said the carbon tax will be revenue neutral because all of the money raised will be returned to businesses and individuals through an annual “climate action credit,” which will provide lower-income British Columbians with a payment of $100 per adult and $30 per child, and through a range of tax cuts.

Ministry officials said they have not been able to find a carbon-tax scheme of similar scope anywhere else in North America and they doubted few jurisdictions globally could surpass it for its broad reach.

“This is an important turning point for British Columbia and we think for Canada because we are out in front on this. We don’t want to wait until we get a consensus. We think it is important to take the first steps,” Ms. Taylor said.

She said her business-friendly government is striving for a balanced approach as it tries to make progress on the environmental front without hurting the economy.

“It is an interesting challenge to say that we are going to take dramatic action on the climate-change problems that the world is facing, but at the same time insist that we are going to work to strengthen our economy,” she said.

The carbon tax, which takes effect on July 1, will be phased in starting at a rate based on $10 per tonne for carbon emissions, rising to $30 per tonne by 2012.

The price of gasoline will increase by 2.41 cents a litre this year, rising to 7.24 cents a litre by 2012. The cost for diesel and home-heating oil will increase 2.76 cents a litre this year, increasing to 8.27 cents a litre in five years.

Ms. Taylor said that over the next three years the carbon tax should reduce carbon emissions by three million tonnes.

B.C.’s goal is to reduce carbon emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 – a target that clearly won’t be met by the carbon tax alone.

Ms. Taylor said the carbon tax is “just one piece of the puzzle” and more initiatives, including a cap and trade system expected this fall, will be needed.

She said it will be up to future governments to decide whether the carbon tax should rise above the $30-per-tonne rate.

Asked why B.C. wasn’t waiting for a federal plan to emerge, Ms. Taylor said the province has set “very aggressive” carbon-emission targets, and simply couldn’t wait to act.

“It is our decision as a province that we must start now,” she said.
Ian Bruce, climate-change specialist with the David Suzuki Foundation, described the carbon tax as “a landmark decision” that puts B.C. in a leadership role in North America.

“The government is using the most powerful tool it has at its disposal to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,” he said.

“Global warming is a big problem and it requires big solutions. So there is going to be more that we need to do into the future. But today I think the government showed some real leadership,” Mr. Bruce said.

Chloe O’Loughlin, of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and Gwen Barlee, of Western Canada Wilderness Committee, praised the carbon-tax initiative, but said the budget fails to recognize that climate change is already having, and will continue to have, an impact on the environment.

“I think the government has done a very good job on fighting carbon emissions, but there’s nothing on the other leg of climate change, which is adaptation. There’s nothing in the budget to protect biodiversity,” Ms. O’Loughlin said.

“This isn’t necessarily a green budget – it’s a greenhouse-gas budget,” Ms. Barlee said.

Will Horter of the Dogwood Initiative said the budget contains some serious contradictions in that it provides subsidies for oil and gas exploration, and supports highway and pipeline building, while trying to reduce carbon emissions.

Ten environmental groups issued a budget report card that gave the government three A’s – for carbon pricing, spending on transit, and incentives for citizens and businesses to become more energy efficient. But the government got an F for consistency, because it increases oil and gas subsidies, and a D for failing to protect biodiversity.

John Winter of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce said the carbon tax may be easier on those in urban environments than those in rural areas who have limited transportation options.

And he said it will be hard on some “high-intensity energy users,” such as some mines.

“But generally speaking it’s good. We were prepared to be aggressively negative … so I think we find ourselves surprisingly encouraged by the balance of the budget,” Mr. Winter said.

Maureen Bader, B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, was critical of the budget.

25/02/08 “ICH” — – “The SEC probe of the securitization of subprime mortgages into collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), announced last summer, has yielded no official enforcement cases….SEC chief, Christopher Cox, along with other top-level administration officials, has cautioned against quick-fire regulatory or enforcement responses to the worsening credit crisis, noting that the market instead should be left to work it out.” Nicholas Rummel, “SEC Drift Said to Prevent Action on Credit Crunch”, Financial Week

That’s right. The biggest economic scandal in the last half century, the subprime fiasco, and the “business friendly” stooges at the SEC are still sitting on their hands reciting passages from Milton Friedman instead of dragging crooked banksters off to the hoosegow in leg-irons. Go figure? SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox, has come under withering attack from Senator Christopher Dodd who chairs the Banking Committee and who accuses the SEC of being “asleep at the switch”.

Dodd said the SEC “needs to help restore investor confidence in the markets by more vigorous enforcement, by more comprehensive regulation of credit rating agencies, and increased accountability and transparency of publicly traded companies.” (Financial Week)

“Accountability…transparency” in Bushworld? Nice try, Dodd, but its a losing cause. The Bush administration is not just philosophically opposed to oversight; they’ve handed over the entire financial system to a cabal of banking scalawags who’ve turned it into their personal fiefdom. This same cast of fraudsters engineered the subprime swindle and ripped off trillions of dollars from investors around the world. And, don’t kid yourself; Bush is proud of the damage he’s done by taking a wrecking ball the SEC. For him, it’s like a good day at the races. He has no intention of reigning in the crooks or restoring the publics’ confidence.

New York Governor Elliot Spitzer has joined Dodd in criticizing the so-called “regulatory agencies” for failing to determine whether any securities laws were broken. In a Washington Post article, Spitzer blasted the SEC’s inaction saying that the Bush Administration would be judged by history as a “willing accomplice” to the subprime collapse.

But Spitzer and Dodd are wasting their breath. The culture of corruption from 7 years of Bush misrule has spread like Kudzu to every jag and eddy in Washington. If we were really a nation of laws rather than nincompoops, federal agents would be busy rounding up every investment banker and hedge fund sharpie on Wall Street so they could get to the bottom of the subprime boondoggle. Regulators still haven’t even decided whether it was a case of overzealous marketing of dodgy securities or downright fraud. That should be “job one” for the SEC.

The reason all this talk about “regulation” is so important now is that the same banking giants who cooked up the subprime scam have just presented the Bush administration with a $739 billion bailout package they plan to unload on the American taxpayer. According to Sunday’s New York Times:

“As losses from bad mortgages and mortgage-backed securities climb past $200 billion, talk among banking executives for an epic government rescue plan is suddenly coming into fashion. A confidential proposal that Bank of America circulated to members of Congress this month provides a stunning glimpse of how quickly the industry has reversed its laissez-faire disdain for second-guessing by the government — now that it is in trouble. The proposal warns that up to $739 billion in mortgages are at “moderate to high risk” of defaulting over the next five years and that millions of families could lose their homes. To prevent that, Bank of America suggested creating a Federal Homeowner Preservation Corporation that would buy up billions of dollars in troubled mortgages at a deep discount, forgive debt above the current market value of the homes and use federal loan guarantees to refinance the borrowers at lower rates.”

What Bank of America is proposing is that the US government guarantee the shoddy mortgages that the banks issued to “unemployed shoe-clerks with bad credit” so they could peddle them as Triple A “securities” to unsuspecting investors. Now that subprimes are blowing up at a record pace, the banks need a government bailout before their balance sheets are reduced to cinders.

But what does the poor taxpayer get out of the deal besides soaring inflation, bulging fiscal deficits, and the “warm and fuzzy” feeling that he’s helped some tasseled-shoed charlatan keep his larder in the Hamptons full of Dom Perignon and crab cakes?

The reason we’re in this mess is because financial innovation and deregulation have driven the markets off a cliff. And that started with the bankers. Financial innovation has nothing to do with the efficient deployment of capital for productive activity. No way. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The financial innovations of the last decade have primarily focused on transforming the liabilities of dubious mortgage applicants into complex debt-instruments which are enhanced with massive amounts of leverage and exotically-named derivatives. The investments banks and brokerage houses fought hard to establish the present system which they call “structured finance”. They spent over $100,000 million lobbying congress to remove the legislative firewall which kept investment and commercial banks separate. Those laws, particularly Glass Steagall, made sure that the public was protected from the Ponzi-scams which proliferated just prior to the Great Depression. But, now, 30 years later, the same scams are back with a vengeance. The cult of free market orthodoxy and Reagan-era flim-flam has put us on track for another stock market crash ala 1929. That’s why Bank of America and their buddies in the industry have turned to the administration for a way out. Their flagging balance sheets can’t take another year of rising foreclosures and dwindling assets. They need Big Brother to cover their debts and rebuild their capital-base. Otherwise its curtains.

Other versions of the so-called “Rescue Bill” have been floating around Washington for the last three weeks, but they all follow the same basic guidelines. Under one of the plans, 600,000 subprime mortgage-holders, many of whom are already delinquent on their payments or in some stage of foreclosure, would be able to refinance their loans under the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) which would federally guarantee the mortgage in the event of default.

Great idea, eh? So, now the taxpayer is going to have to pay for the people who lied on their applications (and who really can’t afford the homes they’re in) so the banks can recoup their losses. This plan doesn’t make sense.

Why on earth would the taxpayer want to buy 600,000 subprime mortgages at “current value” when housing prices are falling, inventory is soaring, sales are sagging, foreclosures are at historic highs, and millions of homeowners are expected to simply “walkaway” from their loans?

No thanks. Let the banks go under. They created this mess. Besides, all we’re doing is rewarding the people who deliberately destroyed the system. They can fend for themselves. The first order of business should be to restore public confidence; not bail out crooks. “Credibility” matters in a market-based system; especially one that relies so heavily on the hocus-pocus of fractional banking. When trust is lost; the system crashes. End of story. That means it’s time to clean house at the SEC. Give everyone a pink slip, two weeks pay and send them home. Then scour the countryside like Diogenes for a few honest men.

Second, people in positions of authority have to be held accountable for their crimes. Millions of investors have lost their life savings or retirement in the subprime/securitzation debacle. Someone’s got to go to jail. Apologies just don’t cut it. So far, not one CEO has been led off to the Paddy-wagon in handcuffs. It has all been swept under the rug by an administration that has filled every regulatory position in Washington with industry lobbyists, business-friendly tycoons and corporate “yes-men”. The results are just what any sane person would expect; disaster. The financial markets are completely unsupervised; the SEC is just a subsidiary of the multi-national corporations. It has no teeth. If it was really independent; then Cox and his goons would be storming the investment banks with tasers and truncheons. Instead, he spends most his time explaining why he won’t enforce the laws and prosecute cases.

And there should be no doubt about who is really responsible for the subprime woes. The investment banks employ some of the country’s “best and brightest”. These are sharp guys who have studied at some of our finest colleges and universities. Does anyone really believe that a Harvard MBA—who understands all the fine-points of high-finance–really thought that ignoring all of the standard criteria for prudent lending, and issuing trillions of dollars in loans to applicants who had no job, no collateral, bad credit, and were unable to come up with a few thousand dollars for a down-payment—was a great idea?

Of course not. It was a swindle from the get-go. The reason the banks looked the other way and issued these shaky mortgages was because they didn’t really think there was any risk involved. After all, it wasn’t their money. They simply repackaged the loans into bonds and sold them off to someone else. No worries. But, does that make them any less guilty?

Consider this: If the banks didn’t know that the mortgages were bogus, than why are all the various types of mortgages; including Alt-As, piggybacks, home equity loans, ARMs, prime, and “interest only”—defaulting at the same time? It is not just subprime mortgages that are failing; it runs the gamut.

The reason is obvious; it’s because the banks were making windfall profits and didn’t want to rock the boat. They knew they were peddling garbage. How could they not know? The banker’s primary task in life is to figure out who can pay him back “with interest”. And they’re pretty good at it, too. So why did they start handing out hundreds of billions of dollars to anyone who could fog a mirror? In fact, it got so out-of-hand that (according to The New York State Commission of Investigation) “a homeless woman earning $10 an hour was recently approved for a $470,000 adjustable rate mortgage”. In a similar incident, two Hispanic migrant workers in Bakersfield, California, who made roughly $45,000 in combined income, were approved for a mortgage on a home valued at $725,000.

These aren’t innocent mistakes. They’re part of a broader pattern to fudge the paperwork so unqualified “high-risk” loan applicants would look like J. Paul Getty and secure a mortgage. That way, the banks could continue to rake in lavish origination fees and maximize their profits.

But then the plan hit a rough patch and the Gravy-train tipped over into the ditch. When the credit storm hit the markets in August, the mortgage securitization went into deep freeze and the easy money from Wall Street dried up. The banks got stuck holding billions of their own bad paper. Now every foreclosure eats into their capital so, they’ve turned to the government for a handout. Of course, they don’t want the public to know what’s really going on so they’ve asked the Bush administration to help them pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. According to the New York Times one banking official summed it up like this:

“We believe that any intervention by the federal government will be acceptable only if it is not perceived as a bailout of the bond market.”

Really? So, on top of everything else, the banks want the Bush administration to organize a public relations campaign that will make the multi-billion bailout look like it was designed to help struggling homeowners instead of crafty bankers. Unbelievable. No doubt Team Bush will do whatever they can to help out.

Bank of America’s proposed $739 billion bailout is just the first of many hyper-inflationary, economy-busting trial-balloons we can expect to see in the near future. The banking system is in terminal distress; collapsing from hundreds of billions in worthless assets, bad bets, and poor decision-making. Their capital impairment problems were all brought on by themselves. And they should be forced to pay the consequences, whatever that may be. They managed to take a simple, revenue-generating activity like mortgage lending, and turn it into a textbook case of grand larceny. It’s pathetic.

25/02/08 “HaitiAnalysis” — – The way Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported on Haiti and Venezuela in its 2008 World Report reveals an underlying assumption that the US and its allies have the right to overthrow democratic governments.[1]

It is a matter of public record that the US funded groups who were involved in the coup of 2002 and continued to do so after the coup took place, but rather than denounce or even acknowledge US destabilization efforts in Venezuela, HRW continues to complain about the non-renewal of RCTV’s public broadcasting license. [2] RCTV was one of big television networks that aided and abetted the coup. HRW objects that RCTV’s involvement in the coup “was not proven in a proceeding in which RCTV had an opportunity to present a defense.” It is impossible to imagine a non-farcical proceeding that would conclude otherwise, especially when the coup’s perpetrators thanked the private media, of which RCTV was a major part, for its help. Before the coup was reversed Vice-Admiral Ramirez Perez told a Venezuelan reporter:

“We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you.”

Judging by its reports, HRW is completely uninterested in whether the broadcaster that replaced RCTV on the public airwaves, TVes, offers viewers a wider variety of views. [3]”Freedom of the Press Barons” to perpetrate coups appears to be HRW’s concern, not freedom of expression. It is worth remembering that HRW’s response to the coup in Venezuela was appalling. Al Giordano summed their response up well in an exchange with an HRW intern:

“They recognized an illegitimate ‘authority’ as legitimate. They failed to call for the removal of that dictatorial regime. They failed to call on other nations and the OAS to refuse to recognize it. They failed to call for invoking the OAS Democratic Charter for the one event it was intended to prevent.”[4]

Giordano’s words could also be used to summarize how HRW responded to the US backed coup in Haiti in 2004.

HRW used the 2008 World Report to criticize, yet again, a judicial reform law that was passed by the Chavez administration in 2004. In contrast, HRW’s summary about Haiti said nothing about the coup that ousted Jean Bertrand Aristide’s democratic government in 2004; nothing about the subsequent murder of thousands of people who supported Aristide’s Lavalas movement (the word “Lavalas” does not even appear in the summary); nothing about the fact that Haiti’s police and judiciary remain stacked with appointees from the dictatorship of 2004-2006; nothing about Father Gerard Jean Juste, the most prominent political prisoner of that period, who continues to be hounded by Haiti’s legal system. [5]

Even if HRW’s criticism of Venezuela’s judicial reform law of 2004 were reasonable (and it isn’t) it cannot deserve more attention than the coup in Haiti that led to a human rights catastrophe. [6]

On a positive note, the 2008 World Report belatedly gave some attention to the disappearance of Lovinsky Pierre Antoine, a prominent Haitian human rights worker and opponent of the 2004 coup. HRW stated:

“In August 2007 a well known human rights advocate, Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine, was abducted. At this writing his whereabouts remain unknown.”

Again, the absence of the word “Lavalas” is telling. Pierre-Antoine disappeared days after he had announced that he would run for the Haitian senate as a Fanmi Lavalas Party candidate. The goal of the 2004 coup and the bloodbath that followed was to eliminate the Lavalas movement – the same goal with basically the same perpetrators as during the 1991-1994 period about which HRW reported extensively. [7]

At first glance, the 2008 World Report seems to provide courageous and much needed criticism of powerful countries like the US. HRW is willing to contradict the Bush Administration on some important matters. For example, in a press conference about the 2008 World Report, HRW director Ken Roth refused to label Venezuela as a “closed country”. However, Roth went on to say that human rights “trends were negative in Venezuela”. That conclusion is justified only if one assumes that perpetrating coups and other acts of sabotage against a democratic government should have no legal repercussions at all. Meanwhile, in Haiti, when human rights trends really were disastrously negative thanks to a coup backed by the US and its allies, HRW displayed a chilling indifference.[8]

An important lesson to learn from the coups that took place in Haiti and Venezuela is that US imperialism cannot succeed through the efforts of Neocons alone. It needs the help of other countries, and it needs the help of NGOs like Human Rights Watch. [9]

NOTES

[1] See Human Rights Watch. World Report. 2008. hrw.org/wr2k8/pdfs/wr2k8_web.pdf

[2] See Eva Gollinger’s “The Chavez Code” for details on US funding of groups that participated in the coup.

[3] There is good reason to believe that freedom of expression on the public airwaves has been improved by replacing RCTV with TVES James Jordan notes “The new broadcasting license is being given to a public station, TVes-Venezuela Social Television, which will run shows produced mainly by independent parties. The station will be controlled not by the government, but by a foundation of community members, with one chair reserved for a government representative. ” Source For more specifics about RCTV’s involvement in the coup see this.

[4] Al Giodano’s exchange with the HRW intern can be read here.

[5] for more about the coup and Haiti and its consequences see Kolbe and Hudson. Lancet Study. 2006, Source (PDF format). See also this.

[6] The judicial reform law broke the stranglehold of Venezuelan elite on the judiciary. For extensive discussion of the reform law and HRW’s objections see note 3.

[7]For more discussion of how HRW responded to the 1991 and 2004 coups in Haiti see this.

[8] See this.

Hope mongering has been working much better than experience mongering. Now, the rest of the story….

As befits American culture, politics is all about slick selling to the masses. Hillary Clinton is selling Day-1 help to victims and sufferers. Barack Obama is selling effervescent hope to yes-we-can dreamers. This media hyped horse race is like a fight between diet Coke and diet Pepsi, artificially sweetened candidates devoid of real nourishment.

The least educated, least sophisticated and least wealthy along with Hispanics are sipping Clinton’s fizzled-out drink. The most educated, most privileged, and most financially successful along with African-Americans are gulping down Obama’s charismatic pick-me-up.

As to who is buying what, consider these data: Clinton won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts, 54 points in Arkansas, and 11 points in New Jersey. In a Pew Research national survey, Obama led among people with college degrees by 22 points. In Connecticut, Obama beat Clinton among college graduates by 17 points and in New Jersey by 11 points. And note this: 39 percent of Virginia and 41 percent of Maryland Democratic primary voters reported incomes of $100,000 or more – clearly well educated people that would favor Obama.

A simplistic conclusion is that the dumber you are the more likely you prefer the first woman president because you believe this experience-selling status quo, corporate candidate. And the smarter you are the more likely you prefer the first black president because you embrace the change-promises and platitudes from the more authentic, inspirational candidate with the short resume. Clinton supporters appreciate the 10-point-plan-for-every-problem political pragmatist. Obamatons swoon over the big-picture, unity-promising political messiah.

Working-class Clinton supporters are like weary shoppers seeking decent food at low prices at Safeway and good coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts. Obama yes-we-can-happy-facers gladly pay exorbitant prices for the Whole Foods experience and Starbucks shtick.

Here are some realities that neither group wants to face:

Both candidates are establishment insiders.

Both are corporate-state politicians. Note that Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, a major banking company, has raised more than $1 million for the Obama campaign. Large sources of Obama money are law firms, investment houses, and real estate companies, and 80 percent of his donors are affiliated with business, compared to 85 percent for Clinton.

Neither are true progressives or populists, like Kucinich and Edwards.

Both Clinton the fighter and Obama the talker will sell out once they confront presidential realities. Why? Because plutocracies know how to retain power AFTER elections. After two years it will be clear that the new president will have failed to extract the US from Iraq, will have failed to deliver universal health care, will have failed to address illegal immigration, will have done nothing to get a new and serious 9/11 investigation, will have done nothing to stop middle-class-killing globalization, and will have utterly disappointed the vast majority of Americans. The president’s most pressing priorities will be lowering expectations and getting reelected, despite raising taxes. The only people truly surprised at all this will be those lacking what the Greeks thought is a virtue: cynicism.

Finally, for those seeking serious political system reforms, it is troubling that neither Clinton nor, especially, Obama have the courage to advocate needed constitutional amendments, such as replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president, getting all private money out of politics, making universal health care a right, and preventing presidential signing statements that undermine laws.

22/02/08 “Canwest News” — — Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

“It’s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,” said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

“Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?” he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. “We don’t know the answers because the government doesn’t want to even announce the plan,” he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is “benign” and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

“But there’s no agreement to allow troops to come in,” he said. “It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The ‘allow’ piece is entirely up to the two governments.”

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a “North American union” where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

“Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!” notes one website. “The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,’ don’t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember – Canadian military aren’t bound by posse comitatus.”

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn’t been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.