SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (79954)5/6/2010 3:07:51 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Respond to of 89467
 
Cold Irons Bound: All Together on the Road to Ruin
WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD
THURSDAY, 06 MAY 2010 14:27
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings." -- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." -- Homer Simpson
chris-floyd.com
Our text today is from Tom Englehardt, who is on the case with yet another ignored atrocity by our super-duper Special Ops boys in the goodest good war of them all out in Afghanistan. (See the original for the many links):

"Afghan lawmaker says relative killed after U.S. soldiers raided her home." ...

[H]ere it is in a nutshell: there was a U.S. night raid somewhere near the Afghan city of Jalalabad. American forces (Special Operations forces, undoubtedly), supposedly searching for a "Taliban facilitator," came across a man they claimed was armed in a country in which the unarmed man is evidently like the proverbial needle in a haystack. They shot him down. His name was Amanullah. He was a 30-year-old auto mechanic and the father of five. As it happened, he was also the brother-in-law of Safia Siddiqi, a sitting member of the Afghan Parliament. He had, as she explained, called her in a panic, thinking that brigands were attacking his home compound.

And here was the nice touch for those U.S. Special Operations guys, who seem to have learning abilities somewhat lower than those of a hungry mouse in a maze when it comes to hearts-and-minds-style counterinsurgency warfare. True, in this case they didn’t shoot two pregnant mothers and a teenage girl, dig the bullets out of the bodies, and claim they had stumbled across "honor killings," as Special Operations troops did in a village near Gardez in eastern Afghanistan in March; nor did they handcuff seven schoolboys and a shepherd and execute them, as evidently happened in Kunar Province in late December 2009; nor had they shot a popular imam in his car with his seven-year-old son in the backseat, as a passing NATO convoy did in Kabul, the Afghan capital, back in January; nor had they shadowed a three-vehicle convoy by helicopter on a road near the city of Kandahar and killed 21 while wounding 13 via rocket fire, as U.S. Special Forces troops did in February. They didn’t wipe out a wedding party – a common enough occurrence in our Afghan War — or a funeral, or a baby-naming ceremony (as they did in Paktia Province, also in February), or shoot up any one of a number of cars, trucks, and buses loaded with innocent civilians at a checkpoint.

In this case, they killed only one man, who was unfortunately — from their point of view — reasonably well connected. Then, having shot him, they reportedly forced the 15 inhabitants in his family compound out, handcuffed and blindfolded them (including the women and children), and here was that nice touch: they sent in the dogs, animals considered unclean in Islamic society, undoubtedly to sniff out explosives. Brilliant! "They disgraced our pride and our religion by letting their dogs sniff the holy Koran, our food, and the kitchen," Ms. Siddiqi said angrily. And then, the American military began to lie about what had happened, which is par for the course. After the angry legislator let them have it ("…no one in Afghanistan is safe — not even parliamentarians and the president himself") and the locals began to protest, blocking the main road out of Jalalabad and chanting "Death to America!," they finally launched an investigation. Yawn.

If I had a few bucks for every "investigation" the U.S. military launched in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years after some civilian or set of civilians died under questionable circumstances, I might be on vacation year around.

The U.S. military can, however, count on one crucial factor in its repetitive war-making: kill some pregnant mothers, kill some schoolboys, gun down a good Samaritan with two children in his car trying to transport Iraqis wounded in an Apache helicopter attack to a hospital, loose a whirlwind that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths — and still Americans at home largely don’t care. After all, for all intents and purposes, it’s as if some other country were doing this on another planet entirely, and "for our safety" at that.

In that sense, the American public licenses its soldiers to kill civilians repetitively in distant frontier wars. As a people — with the exception of relatively small numbers of Americans directly connected to the hundreds of thousands of American troops abroad — we couldn’t be more detached from "our" wars.

This is a theme, a reality, that is emerging more clearly as the years of the never-ending Terror War drag on: by and large, the American people do not care about the innocent people being killed, in their names, all over the world. They don't care about "the children’s limbs hanging in trees," as war's eyewitness John Pilger puts it.

They don't care -- even as the inevitable, predictable blowback from these murderous polices comes home to roost on their own streets, the icy voice of revenge that says: "You come to our countries and kill our people; we will come to your country and kill yours." The former is considered a high and noble calling; the latter an act of unspeakable evil. That violence is not the answer -- that it only perpetuates the endless cycle of murder and vengeance that has marked our humankind since our mutation out of apehood -- is of no moment to those who see their loved ones shredded to death unjustly before their eyes.

What would I do if I came home from an ordinary day at work to find my children dead beneath the ruins of my drone-struck house? What would I do if saw my ailing father muscled from his home by masked goons who beat him and humiliate him then drag him off, bleeding, dying, to some iron-fronted dungeon? I hope I would have the strength to hold onto my belief in non-violence as the only hope to one day evolve our natures, and our cultures, beyond their deep-dyed savagery. But how likely is it that I would be that extraordinary, that I would have the extra measure of wisdom and spiritual fibre it would take to hold back the natural and understandable craving for violent retribution?

Not very likely; not in my case, nor in that of most others. Yet every day -- day in, day out, week after week, month after month, year after year -- atrocities like those described above are being carried out, in the name of the American people, in the name of civilization, in the name of our "way of life." Every day, day after day, some father or mother finds their children's limbs hanging in the trees, some child finds his parent's broken bodies smoking in the rubble, some ordinary, innocent human being sees their loved ones beaten, chained, abused and killed. Every day, day after day.

Only a fool -- a bloody-minded, arrogant, puffed-up, pig-ignorant fool -- could not see the horrific harvest of hate and destruction that will spring from such evil seeds. Only a fool -- or an elitist so wadded in wealth and privilege that he believes these monstrous fruits will never touch him personally, and doesn't care what happens to the rabble below, as long as his profits -- and his primitive, psychosexual lust for forcible dominion -- remain safe.

We are ruled today by just such fools, together with just such cold, deadened, malevolent spirits. But we seem to be content with this. Indeed, the most vociferous, active dissent we see these days comes from those who feel the system is not cruel enough -- who rage at the very thought that tax money might be spent to help someone in need, or that the borders have not yet been laced with radioactive razor-wire, or that accused criminals still have their rights read to them, or that Iran has not been destroyed, or that the power of Big Money might in any way be hedged with light restrictions.

These things bring thousands out in anger: but murder, aggression, torture, atrocity, and corruption on a scale unseen and hitherto unimaginable in human history -- these leave them cold ... as cold as the malevolent spirits who with their useful fools accelerate our degradation.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (79954)5/6/2010 3:17:58 PM
From: Broken_Clock1 Recommendation  Respond to of 89467
 
Censorship alive and well at the NYT....Imagine that!

===
counterpunch.org
May 6, 2010

Downplaying a Catastrophe

A Gusher From the Newspaper of Record

By RICHARD WARD

A small example of what passes for journalism at our paper of record. A couple of days ago I sent a comment in response to an article written by John M. Broder and Tom Zeller Jr. (“Gulf Oil Spill is Bad, but How Bad?” 5/3/10) that sounded like it could have come from the BP public relations department, downplaying the effects of the blowout in The Gulf of Mexico. Arguably the worst part of the article was a gross factual error stating that the Iraqis fleeing Kuwait in 1991 released 36 billion gallons of crude into the Persian Gulf. My comment: “Whoa! The Iraqis released nowhere near 36 billion gallons of crude in the Persian Gulf. The highest estimates are 500 million gallons. Somebody needs to activate the NYT’s fact checker. This is a real gusher. What’s going on here?”

The Times did not print this. A few hours later I tried again. Same comment, same result. Either they chose not to publish it or it wasn’t getting through. The next day I tried again, a sort of experiment, commenting on another article about the blowout, this time adopting a decidedly different tone: “Let's all calm down and get a grip. In three weeks all this will be a memory. The best minds in the business are dealing with this. Relax people. Kudos to the Times for presenting us with a balanced point of view.” Not only did they print the comment, they put it in their highlight section, “a selection of the most interesting and thoughtful comments that represent a range of views.”

The New York Times has been downplaying the seriousness of the BP blowout. No correction has been offered concerning the 36 billion figure. The Times has consistently supported Obama’s offshore drilling proposal. Recent headlines sound like a public relations barrage from the oil industry: “The Spill vs. a Need to Drill,” “Tax on Oil May Help Pay for Cleanup,” “New Technique Holds Hope for Oil Spill Cleanup,” “Seafood Industry Fights Public Perception.”

That the Times insists on euphemistically referring to the catastrophe in the Gulf as a “spill” and not a blowout or gusher is consistent with its soft-peddling of the crisis. Is it possible that BP, one of the world’s largest corporations and most lavish contributors to politicians, including Obama and Mary Landrieu, has some influence with the Sulzberger family? Is it possible BP CEOs have ever had a jolly drink or two with Carlos Slim, the paper’s largest shareholder and richest person in the world, with his well-documented interests in the offshore oil industry? Just asking.

It’s long since been news that the news that’s fit is only the news that fits the class and political bias of the newspaper of record. It’s the Sulzbergers’ and Slim’s paper and they can say whatever the hell they want. Too bad it gets away with 36 billion-gallon gushers on a regular basis while gullible liberals drink it down like carrot juice.

Richard Ward lives in New Mexico. He can be reached at: r.ward47@gmail.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (79954)5/6/2010 3:37:28 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Respond to of 89467
 
Some wonder why we can't change the system from the inside...

May 6, 2010
counterpunch.org
An Appeal for an Old Friend

Pardon the Troublemaker

By CHRISTOPHER KETCHAM

My friend John Kennedy O’Hara, of Brooklyn, NY, has been called a “political street-fighter,” a “mad dog,” a “dissident.” Among the incumbents who he tried to unseat in Brooklyn he was considered a troublemaker and a fool. He was also, it was said, a felon. When the district attorney called for his arrest as a “criminal voter” in 1996, O’Hara dismissed the charges as a joke. When he surrendered to the DA’s detectives, they cuffed him and hauled him into central booking in his suit and tie – O’Hara was a lawyer at the time running for a seat in the New York State legislature – and walked him into a room of peeling plaster. They listed for him seven felony counts: O’Hara had allegedly voted from a sham address seven times in the early ‘90s, and only now, years after the fact, the cops were fingerprinting him with an old worn-out ink pad. Then they flashbulbed him for the mug-shot, and took him to a holding cell where the black kids who are central booking’s main customers laughed when O’Hara told them the charge. “Lookit,” the kids marveled, “they’re lockin’ everybody up.”

If voting was the crime, O’Hara, 36 years old at the time, was a true recidivist. He was a “prime voter,” in the electoral parlance, one of those citizens who votes not just in the big races for mayor and president but in primary elections and special elections and in obscure local elections for school boards and the like. He’d probably voted 50 times since he came of voting age, he was proud of the fact, and he was sure he’d never done it illegally. The courts concluded otherwise: He would end up with the honor of being only the second person in New York State history to have been convicted on criminal charges for the act of voting. To my knowledge, the only other New Yorker to achieve this status was Susan B. Anthony, in 1872.

There was nothing much special about the guy, except for a lunatic love of politics. He grew up in a working-class neighborhood of row-houses in Brooklyn, in the run-down part of Bay Ridge, his mother a homemaker, his father a beer salesman for Ballantine raising a family of five kids. O’Hara’s family left Brooklyn when he was 15, in a long-planned move to Manhattan’s Upper East Side. The change was intolerable to O’Hara – he didn’t like the noise, the crowds, the strange accents. Brooklyn was his home. Having persisted in his complaints, O’Hara at age 15 found himself living on his own in a Bay Ridge apartment that his parents said they would pay for so long as he finished high school. He worked as a dishwasher at a steakhouse, where the gap-toothed cooks gave him leftovers. He lived, as he tells it, a liberated existence, while his classmates in school were having dates with mother surveilling from the kitchen. “This was the 1970s, the best decade in New York history, drinking age was 18 but no one cared. No DWIs, no seatbelt laws. Girls were all over the place. There was the pill, and no AIDS, and women’s lib was fun back then. People lived it up, they were freer, they weren’t so uptight about the money thing. Everyone was poor – in Brooklyn anyway – and no one knew it. Rents were nothing. It was a different time.”

Getting laid and drinking all night was great, of course, but what mattered was politics. At age 11, O’Hara was working the Bay Ridge storefront for the doomed George McGovern campaign in 1972, handing out fliers. At age 16, he was muckraking for his school newspaper and eventually got the principal of his high school fired for not having a principal’s license. At 18, he was running for the local school board (he lost). He later got his law degree, after failing the bar five times, and then, in the 1990s, he sought higher office: the city council, the state senate, the state assembly. He had a manic indifference to loss, and, for the most part, he lost big. When he himself failed to make the ballot, he was busy running other candidates, driving petitions through the byzantine approval process and fielding insurgents to oppose the candidates favored by the county Democratic machine. “You don’t have democracy,” he said, “if you don’t have an opposition.” The cost to his opponents was cash and time, and not a little portion of their dignity, forced as they were to participate in the democracy – debate, shake hands, make promises, talk to constituents, answer questions about laws they’d passed, votes they’d missed, tax dollars they’d spent. These were burdens no smart incumbent need endure, and O’Hara’s enemies, naturally, wanted him “muzzled and shot” (as one observer put it to me).

So the Brooklyn district attorney, one Charles “Joe” Hynes, looked for anything and everything he could to indict O’Hara, examining his bank accounts and credit card slips and his rent leases and his auto registrations and his phone records and interrogating his neighbors and friends and his postman and his mother. The DA emerged from this fishing expedition with one of the strangest prosecutions in the history of Brooklyn law. Very simply, it was discovered that in 1992 O’Hara registered to vote from the second of two apartments he maintained in Brooklyn. Under New York State election law, tortuously construed – there’s no other way to construe it in New York – the second apartment appeared not to fit the parameters of what the election law defines as a “fixed, permanent and principal home to which [the voter], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return.” This specific statute in the election law had never before been applied criminally with any success, and the vagueness of its language in an age of voter mobility was such that it had been determined unconstitutional in at least one federal lawsuit. (How to deal with kids in dorm rooms who vote? And the homeless? And those among the very rich who maintain three, four, five homes – which of them principal and permanent?) The irony was that in O’Hara’s case the statute was being leveled against a man who’d never settled more than a mile from where he was born. Arrested in 1996, convicted in criminal court in 1997, O’Hara was nonetheless told, to his shock, that he had registered from a “sham” address. Perhaps the judge in the case – who blithely stood by as the prosecution lied, distorted facts, intimidated witnesses – was a little too close with the people who wanted O’Hara muzzled and shot. The sentence was dispensed accordingly: O’Hara got five years probation, was fined $20,000, ordered to complete 1,500 hours of community service, stripped of his right to vote, disbarred as an attorney, and forced to quit the law firm where he worked as an associate. The fine, in addition to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, left him broke, heading toward bankruptcy. For his community service he was dispatched to clean garbage in parks where he used to campaign.

That was 14 years ago. Three trials, four appeals, millions of tax dollars were dedicated to his ruin – all in pursuit of the charge of illegal voting. It’s been a stirring success, though from what the record showed, O’Hara did nothing wrong. I ended up writing about his case for Harper’s magazine, and we became friends. We drank late at night at cheap bars that served quiet old men. Around 5 a.m., after too much Budweiser, O’Hara liked to philosophize. We were talking about the Rehnquist bench and the case of Bush v. Gore. “People think that judges are like priests: pure,” he told me. “But they’re not pure. Look at Brooklyn’s courts – look at America’s courts! How different was the Rehnquist decision in 2000 – a 5-4 decision, an election hijacked by partisanship – from the bought-off, paid-down, buttoned-up decision of a Brooklyn judge watching out for his man? The difference is the level of office, but the principle is the same. It’s the court system that keeps us civilized. It’s in the courts that we expect the fair settlement of our disputes. When the courts fail, society fails. It may take 20 or 30 years, but society will fail. A corrupt court system produces – think about it – terrorists. The aggrieved parties get shafted again and again in a system they’re told again and again is fair. That’s where, if you’re a rebel, rebellion starts. That’s where, if you’re a psychopath, terrorism starts. But most people do neither: they drop out, they retreat, they go underground, they stop participating, they become non-citizens. And society fails.”

When in 2003 he filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal court, he took to quoting Sandra Day O’Connor on the sanctity of the habeas in England, where the statute was conceived in the 1600s. Habeas was “a beacon of individual liberty against the gloom of tyrannical government,” said O’Connor, and when it leapt the ocean to the New World, where “royal governors were known to lock up ‘troublemakers,’” the local courts “were known to issue writs of habeas corpus to release those troublemakers.” Now O’Hara is seeking a similar kind of writ in the form of a pardon from the governor of New York State. Last year, after more than a decade in purgatory and with no livelihood, he was reinstated to practice law, following the conclusions of a review committee for the state bar that reported “grave doubts Mr. O’Hara did anything that justified his criminal prosecution.” The report from the committee also noted that “being an attorney in good standing will help him continue to assist those he believes have been treated unjustly by the legal system.” Being an attorney with a felony conviction presents its own obstacles, given that a client released on bail or on probation or parole who consults with O’Hara violates the conditions of release – after all, they’re consorting with another felon. I happen to think we need more attorneys like him, who know firsthand what it means to be shafted by the courts. For his part, O’Hara wants his name cleared at last. A pardon is the only remedy left to him to do that.

You can find John O’Hara’s petition to New York State governor David Paterson at www.freejohnohara.com.

Christopher Ketcham, a freelance writer in Brooklyn, NY, is writing a book about secession movements. Contact him at cketcham99@mindspring.com