Statement on Police and FBI Harassment of Silent Sam Defendant

It's Goin Down - Wed, 09/19/2018 - 02:27

The post Statement on Police and FBI Harassment of Silent Sam Defendant appeared first on It's Going Down.

A statement on recent FBI and police harassment in North Carolina.

On Tuesday, September 4th, at 5:37 pm, I was contacted by a Captain of my local police department in Western NC. He expressed that he had received a call from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (agent name not specified), in which they requested he set up a time for them to meet with me.

I expressed that as the FBI had no warrant or subpoena for me, I would not be meeting or cooperating with them, and directed all further inquiries to my attorney.

For context, I am one of the folks arrested in connection with the toppling of Silent Sam on August 20th, 2018. The Captain expressed to me that my name had come up regarding that arrest, but that the FBI agent did not disclose the nature of the questions they wished to ask me.

Several days later, my attorney was able to speak with a FBI agent, who claimed the reason for the attempted meeting was due to my pistol purchase permit. The exact claim of the agent was that when an individual is arrested, and immediately applies for a PPP, it sets off an algorithm of sorts that makes the FBI set up a meeting, to ascertain that the individual was not attempting to purchase the pistol with nefarious intent. As a note of clarification, I did not, in fact, apply for the PPP after my arrest, but the day before. It was in “pending” status on 8/20/18.

While it is easy to speculate that the whole incident is related to silent Sam coming down, we don’t have any concrete evidence of that at the moment. It is important to remember that the FBI is less interested in the specifics of any one protest than curbing the movement against white supremacy and state violence that have rapidly been growing and intensifying over the past few years.

Regardless, it is a good time to refresh your knowledge on what to do if you are approached by federal or state agents, or local cops. I reaffirm my commitment to not talking to or working with any authorities, and hope everyone reading this will do the same. For a quick primer on what to do if you are approached by the so called “authorities”, check out: Knock on the Front Door: Preparing for Repression.

Love and rage,
A WNC Comrade

Categories: News

US military given more authority to launch first-strike cyberattacks

Citizens for Legitimate Government - Wed, 09/19/2018 - 00:44

US military given more authority to launch first-strike cyberattacks | 18 Sept 2018 | The US military is taking a more aggressive stance against foreign government hackers who are targeting the US and is being granted more authority to launch preventative first-strike cyberstrikes, according to a summary of the Department of Defense's new Cyber Strategy. The Pentagon is referring to the new stance as "defend forward," and the strategy will allow the US military "to disrupt or halt malicious cyber activity at its source, including activity that falls below the level of armed conflict." The new military strategy, signed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, also emphasizes an intention to "build a more lethal force" of first-strike hackers.

Categories: News

It's a Sin to Kill a Mockingbird: writings on Scout Schultz, Queer Anarchist Killed by Georgia Tech Police

Anarchist News - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 23:59

On Friday, September 16 2017, 21-year old Scout Schultz was shot and killed by police at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Scout was active in campus LGBT groups and identified as intersex. Scout was a part of local organized antifascist initiatives and was an anarchist. When news spread of their death, friends, family, and classmates near and far began scrambling to understand the events. In video surfacing online, it is possible to watch Scout scream at officers to “shoot me,” which they thoughtlessly do. In the coming days, a flurry of statements, rationalizations, and arrests are unleashed after mourners set fire to a police cruiser and clash with cops following a vigil on campus.

In the wake of the repression as well as the suffocating culture on campus, wherein students, faculty, and cowards of all stripes came out to defend the shooting, or to oppose those who sought proportional response to it, Scout’s former partner Dallas took their own life. Following a series of arrests and detentions, a friend and comrade of Scout’s, Kirby Jackson, took their own life as well.

As of this publication, the arrestees from the night of the riot have either had charges reduced or dropped and none are set to serve jail time. No one has been convicted for vandalizing squad cars or burning the police cruiser. The officer who killed Scout, Tyler Beck, is still on duty.

The legacy of this tragic sequence is in your hands now, dear reader. For Scout, for Dallas, for Kirby, and for the rest of us: be fierce, be swift, be cruel.

The Contemporaries Project is an organ of the Atlanta commune. Under other names, and sometimes under none at all, we have produced posters, leaflets, reports, and a newsletter. We operate in the autonomous areas of life and revolt, where control breaks down, where representation is routed, and where worlds are in formation. This pamphlet has been produced to respond to a general need among many comrades for greater historical perspective. As the global sequence of events have rushed forward with greater and greater frequency since the late 90s, and especially since 2011 - from the riots against globalization in Seattle and Genoa to the explosions in Ferguson, Istanbul and beyond - it has become difficult to transmit historical lessons to the newer comrades at a time when it is most desperately needed. This pamphlet is one of many contributions to the situation, responding to sensible needs and not to ideological reflex.




Tags: atlantaLGBTAmericaKiller copspolicegeorgiamental healthcategory: Essays
Categories: News

Kavanaugh, Ford invited to Senate Judiciary hearing; Thursday vote delayed, sources say

Citizens for Legitimate Government - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 19:42

Kavanaugh, Ford invited to Senate Judiciary hearing; Thursday vote delayed, sources say | 17 Sept 2018 | The Senate Judiciary Committee invited Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford to a public hearing next week after decades-old sexual assault allegations surfaced. Multiple sources have told Fox News Thursday's committee confirmation vote has been postponed. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the hearing will "give these recent allegations a full airing." Kavanaugh has forcefully denied the sexual assault accusations Ford alleged took place while the two were in high school.

Categories: News

Kite Line: Reasons to Fight; Life Inside South Carolina Prisons

It's Goin Down - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 18:59

The post Kite Line: Reasons to Fight; Life Inside South Carolina Prisons appeared first on It's Going Down.

Long running anti-prison podcast and radio show Kite Line speaks to a prisoner about conditions inside the South Carolina prison system.

Listen and Download HERE

This week, we are sharing the words from a prisoner who contacted us from inside the South Carolina prison system. In addition to his thoughts on the recent National Prison Strike, of which news still continues to trickle in, he talks about what prisoners are experiencing every day.

From severe medical neglect, inedible food, and poor treatment by guards, to improper training of corrections officers, lack of support for prisoners facing mental health crises, lack of education opportunities, and much more in terms of dishonest and inhumane treatment that prisoners receive at the hands of prison officials. Speaking from a facility currently on lock down, he describes a prisoner having a heart attack in a nearby cell, and the inattentiveness of guards to this situation.

We will have more insight on the prison strike next week, as more word makes its way out to us. We do know that prisoners around the country are facing lockdowns and repression in the wake of the National Prison Strike, and therefore it’s also important to note that the prisoners have been striking for a reason- and that the impacts of the strike are continuing, as our guest says, those on the inside need people to understand what is happening to them within the prison walls on a daily basis.

Categories: News

The Solar Observatory That Closed Has Reopened and They Still Haven’t Explained

The Organic Prepper - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 17:53

The solar observatory that was dramatically closed down last week has reopened, but they still haven’t really explained what happened despite the release of a lengthy statement.

Who else has … Read the rest

The post The Solar Observatory That Closed Has Reopened and They Still Haven’t Explained appeared first on The Organic Prepper.

Categories: News

Final Straw: Conflict Resolution and Disaster Relief

It's Goin Down - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 17:41

The post Final Straw: Conflict Resolution and Disaster Relief appeared first on It's Going Down.

The Final Straw anarchist radio and podcast show presents their latest episode on a recent workshop at a recent gathering as well as updates on disaster relief efforts.

Listen and Download HERE

This week we are presenting audio from the Callisto Collective, which is a local collective “addressing conflict, abuse, assault and everything in between” by utilizing autonomous models of resolution, especially in closer knit communities of affinity. This workshop is called “Conflict Resolution for folks who do Anti-State Organizing.”

In this workshop, they talk about many things, including anarchist critiques of Non-Violent Communication, which is a developed process in use mostly by leftist organizers, possible tools for dealing with conflict, and also some discussions on yogurt (stay tuned…). This workshop was originally presented at the 2018 Asheville Anarchist Bookfair at Firestorm Books.

If you would like to write with the Callisto Collective, you can email them at!

This was an extremely interactive workshop, and to protect the anonymity of participants I had to cut a bunch of material out. This sometimes makes the audio a bit disjointed to listen to, but I hope you’ll enjoy it all the same.

Before the workshop tho, we want to plug certain hurricane relief efforts going on in town. As you are probably aware, the coasts of North/South Carolina and Georgia as well as many regions off the coasts are being hit right now with a quite sizeable hurricane. Appalachian Medical Solidarity is helping coordinate disaster relief efforts, running supplies inland to the coast and supporting those who are doing on the ground relief efforts. Donations of supplies can be sent to Firestorm Books at 610 Haywood Road in West Asheville.

Things which are needed include:

  1. Pop top canned foods which are high in calories that people can eat cold and without utensils
  2. Wool socks
  3. Anti-fungal spray
  4. First aid supplies
  5. Any and all baby supplies
  6. Adult diapers
  7. Toilet paper
  8. Flashlights and batteries
  9. Travel size personal toiletries
  10. Hand soap
  11. Charged battery packs for cell phones and cell phone chargers
  12. Gasoline

If you would like to help but cannot send supplies, you can donate to relief efforts in Asheville by going to:

If you are going into affected areas as a relief worker, it’s very important to be networked with local efforts and to foreground the work of locals and directly affected populations. If people are interested in reading further about cultural competency in disaster work, we would suggest further reading by the Mutual Aid Disaster Network, which is available on any social media platform. You can contact Appalachian Medical Solidarity through their Facebook page, and they are coordinating efforts on behalf of those affected by hurricane flooding both on the coast and in Asheville.

Finally, we would also like to plug a phone zap on behalf of Jason Renard Walker, a Texas inmate associated with the 2016 prison strike and who contributed to the Fire Inside zine. He has been subject to an increasingly intense campaign of harassment from staff at the Telford Unit, who first issued him with a fake case for threatening a member of staff, and then sent him to lockup, preventing him from even being able to attend his own hearing for the so called case. The prison strike timeline has officially ended, but repression related to the strike is only just ramping up. For a full article on this case you can visit the full article here.

The music which we used in the intro is the instrumental version of the track “7” by Frank Waln, who is a Sicagnu Lakota rapper and hip hop artist. His work is very searchable on any streaming media platform.

Categories: News

Portland, OR: Report Back from Prison Strike March

It's Goin Down - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 17:28

The post Portland, OR: Report Back from Prison Strike March appeared first on It's Going Down.

Femmes Strike Back PDX reports from Portland about a recent march in solidarity with the prison strike that was brutally repressed by local police.

Photo via NW RASH and Femmes Strike Back PDX

The march against prison slavery last Thursday, September 13th, was small. No more than 50 people, in total. We expected a fairly low-key action with just three speakers and a short march around South Waterfront. The event, hosted by Direct Action Alliance, Occupy ICE PDX, Portland Democratic Socialists of America, and Femmes Strike Back PDX kicked off just after 6 PM with a few words from our speakers: Jacob Bureros, Olivia Katbi Smith, and Alyssa Pariah.

And we're marching!#PrisonStrike #pdx #femmesstrikebackpdx

— Femmes Strike Back PDX (@FemmesStrikeBac) September 14, 2018

We had gathered together that day to draw attention to OHSU’s practice of using prison labor through Oregon Corrections Enterprises. OCE is an established, semi-independent state agency that uses local prisons to do labor like build furniture, run call centers, and provide laundry services. They pay prisoners between $0.05 to $0.49 per hour for their work and force prisoners doing the laundry service to handle biohazards without appropriate precautions.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = ''; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Posted by Femmes Strike Bac PDX on Thursday, September 13, 2018

Just a little before 7 PM, we started marching.

We marched south along the park and stopped for a quick visit at the nearby ICE building, where the first Occupy ICE PDX camp was located. By the time we were circling back toward the park, we noticed a pair of pigtails — cop cars creeping along behind us. Whenever marchers spilled off the sidewalk even a little, police used the speaker system to barrate us. “Stay on the sidewalk. If you block traffic you will be subject to arrest.”

Finally, we walked past the stairs to the Gibbs Pedestrian bridge, where comrades had dropped a beautiful banner.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = ''; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Posted by Direct Action Alliance on Friday, September 14, 2018

Our pigtails then stopped their cars in the street to yell at us not to block traffic. A civilian car approached, and immediately protesters on both sides of the street cheered and heckled. The cops had to get back in their cars and move the cars out of the way to let traffic through. That’s when Sergeant Jeff Niiya then walked towards a few other cops and started whispering. They casually walked around our banner, surrounded Jacob Bureros (an organizer with Direct Action Alliance) and said, “Jacob, you’re under arrest.”

As they put his hands behind his back, Bureros asked, “What am I being arrested for?” He asked it over and over again. Cops surrounded him as the small crowd echoed his question. “What is he being arrested for?!” It’s obvious even from the video that he was doing nothing before the arrest to instigate this escalation. Up until this moment, none of the organizers anticipated arrests or injuries. We didn’t even feel the need to have more than one street medic present from our local collective.

Once Bureros was in the car, the conflict continued. Cops shouted at protestors to get back from the street. A few people were just off the curb of the sidewalk. After several minutes of this back and forth. Niiya once again instigated a violent arrest out of nowhere. He grabbed one protester while a different cop grabbed another. In the video Niiya can be seen wrenching on one of the protester’s legs like a she’s a wishbone.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = ''; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

A snippet of the police violence yesterday. Portland police attacked a peaceful mobilization against OHSU’s use of prison slavery.

Posted by Direct Action Alliance on Friday, September 14, 2018

Then the cops pepper-sprayed the whole crowd. The arrestees, along with about 10 other individuals in the crowd, got a full face of pepper spray gel. Panicked chaos erupted. People were screaming, pleas of, “Medic!” could be heard in every direction. There was only one medic on hand ready with the mixed antacid and water in a bottle but several others stepped in and helped flush eyes using their own water bottles.

The arrestees were only given a little saline to flush their eyes and the skin covered in pepper spray wasn’t treated at all. The cops left pepper-spray to burn as they waited to be processed. After enduring this for seven hours, they were finally let out in the early hours of the morning. Later that day, when they arrived for court, they were given “no complaint,” on all charges. They were free to go. Bureros was charged with harassment for incidents that allegedly occurred on June 3rd. Prosecutors requested Bureros be barred from protesting — claiming the real issue isn’t harassment but that he’s stolen items at rallies — and asked that he be required to check in weekly. The judge threw out both.

March Against Prison Slavery in PDX last night. The police arrested three people for no apparent reason. Another handful were pepper sprayed. @PortlandDSA @FemmesStrikeBac @OccupyICEPDX @PNWYLF

— Kimberly Kimble (@KimberlyKimbley) September 14, 2018

This isn’t the first time the Portland Police Bureau has used this tactic to attempt to keep a well-respected activist from protests. In April of 2017, PPD charged another activist with second degree felony robbery and coercion with a $25,000 bail for removing a man’s glasses during a disagreement and immediately giving them to a nearby security guard. The charges were eventually dropped.

Categories: News

Is a Grand Solar Minimum Something We Should Worry About? Is Another “Little Ice Age” Approaching?

The Organic Prepper - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 17:13

You may have recently heard the term grand solar minimum and Maunder minimum bandied around by the media lately, but what the heck are they talking about? Well, there are … Read the rest

The post Is a Grand Solar Minimum Something We Should Worry About? Is Another “Little Ice Age” Approaching? appeared first on The Organic Prepper.

Categories: News

Social Enterprise: Proceed, with Caution

Grassroots Economic Survival - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 16:16
Link: Social Enterprise: Proceed, with Caution

In a burst of entrepreneurial spirit, the workforce development field is showing new enthusiasm for an old idea: creating “social enterprises” to employ low income jobseekers.

The theory is enormously appealing. We can create good jobs for constituents who have a hard time finding work elsewhere and the profits will help fund our nonprofit organizations. The reality, however, is far more complicated.

[full screen]


Go to the GEO front page

Categories: News

Historic federal legislation embeds support for employee-ownership within the SBA

Grassroots Economic Survival - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 16:12
Link: Historic federal legislation embeds support for employee-ownership within the SBA

Employee-owned businesses offer a vital solution for the survival and success of small businesses. This legislation improves small business loan programs for employee-owned business concerns through the Small Business Administration.

The first federal level bipartisan legislation that highlights worker cooperatives, the Main Street Employee Ownership Act has just been signed into law. Driven by the efforts of U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the Senate and Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez in the House of Representatives, this legislation will support small businesses that save jobs and invest in their workers and communities by transitioning to an employee-owned business form such as a cooperative (co-op) or an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).

The Democracy at Work Institute, along with its affiliated organization the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives, played an educational role to inform the creation and development of this legislation, and is pleased to see the expansion of federal support for broad-based worker ownership.

Read the rest at the Democracy At Work Institute


Go to the GEO front page

Categories: News

What If You Prepare for a Disaster and Nothing Happens?

The Organic Prepper - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 15:28
by Daisy Luther

For the people of North Carolina and South Carolina, Hurricane Florence was an epic disaster that is still going on. But for those who were feverishly preparing … Read the rest

The post What If You Prepare for a Disaster and Nothing Happens? appeared first on The Organic Prepper.

Categories: News

Senate Ignored Federal Court Employees Willing to Testify Against Kavanaugh

Truth Out - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 15:24

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley has announced that the committee will hold another hearing on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh next Monday in light of accusations that he attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl at a party while he was in high school. Both Kavanaugh and his accuser, professor Christine Blasey Ford, will testify under oath. As the allegations against Kavanaugh gain steam, a new report from Ryan Grim for The Intercept has revealed that attorney Cyrus Sanai multiple times tried to reach out to Senators Charles Grassley and Dianne Feinstein on behalf of federal court employees also willing to speak out against Kavanaugh. The employees wanted to talk about Kavanaugh’s work as a clerk for disgraced former Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who resigned in 2017 after being accused by at least 15 women of sexual misconduct. But Sinai never heard back. Kavanaugh has said repeatedly that he did not witness Kozinski behave in a sexually inappropriate way. We speak with Ryan Grim, Washington, DC bureau chief for The Intercept. His latest piece is headlined “Attorney Sent Letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein Claiming Federal Court Employees Willing to Speak About Brett Kavanaugh.”


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!,, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’m Juan González. Welcome to all of our listeners and viewers around the country and around the world. Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley has announced the committee will hold another hearing on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh next Monday following the accusations he attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl at a party while he was in high school. Both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, will testify under oath.

Ford told The Washington Post that Kavanaugh and his friend pushed her into a bedroom during a party and that Kavanaugh then forcibly pinned her down on a bed and tried to pull off her clothes. She says she tried to scream, but that Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth to silence her. On Monday, her attorney Debra Katz called the incident an attempted rape. She spoke on CNN.

DEBRA KATZ: She clearly considers this an attempted rape. She believes that if it were not for the severe intoxication of Brett Kavanaugh, she would have been raped.

AMY GOODMAN: — denied the accusation and issued a new statement Monday that “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes, to her or to anyone. Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday,” Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Blasey Ford identified Kavanaugh’s friend as the conservative writer Mark Judge. Judge once wrote a book about his high school days titled, Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk. The book describes being an alcoholic in high school and even features a cameo by someone he calls “Bart O’Kavanaugh” who vomited in someone’s car and passed out on his way back from a party.

On Monday, Republican Senator Susan Collins welcomed the additional hearing and said if Kavanaugh lied about what happened, that would be “disqualifying.”

SUSAN COLLINS: It is important that there be a very thorough interview and that we see both individuals respond to the allegations. There are an awful lot of questions, inconsistencies, gaps and that is why, to be fair to both, we need to know what happened. Obviously, if Judge Kavanaugh has lied about what happened, that would be disqualifying.

AMY GOODMAN: The accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, is a professor at Palo Alto University in California who teaches in a consortium with Stanford University, training graduate students in clinical psychology. Monday’s hearing comes just 50 days before midterm elections. Meanwhile, Democrats have called for the FBI to re-open Kavanaugh’s background check investigation. Senator Richard Blumenthal told The Washington Post,
“If there’s a hearing before that investigation, the committee is going to be shooting in the dark with questions.”

For more, we are joined here in our New York studio by Ryan Grim, Washington, DC bureau chief for The Intercept. Last week, he was the first to report that Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein had a secret letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman in high school, and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues. His new piece is headlined “Attorney Sent Letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein Claiming Federal Court Employees Willing to Speak About Brett Kavanaugh.” Ryan, welcome back to Democracy Now! Let’s start with the tick-tock, if you will, of how all this was revealed. You were the one who broke the story of this secret letter.

RYAN GRIM: Right. And if you kind of piece together my reporting with Ronan Farrow’s reporting, who has done some very interesting work on this too, you find on July 6th, she first sent a letter to Anna Eshoo, her local congresswoman.

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re saying “her” because she was anonymous at the time.

RYAN GRIM: At this time, she was anonymous. She told her friends, we now know, from a Mercury News story around that time — she warned them. She said, “I’ve reached out to a Washington Post tip line. I’ve also reached out to my congresswoman and I plan to reach out to my senator. And the world is going to come down on me. I’m willing to take the plunge. This is a decision that I’ve made.” So this was July.

Dianne Feinstein says that she can’t recall if she spoke with Dr. Blasey Ford after getting the letter. Her office says that Feinstein did speak to her. In any event, as August unfolded, she witnessed the way that Kavanaugh’s nomination was marching forward and for some reason, decided to walk back. Ronan Farrow has reported that Feinstein wanted to make the kind of legal argument against Kavanaugh rather than a personal argument against him. So in all of this context she decided, “OK, you know what? Maybe this isn’t the right time. Why destroy my life if Democrats are just going to roll over and she’s [sic] just going to be confirmed anyway?” So the last week or so —

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And meanwhile, during this time, did Feinstein notify any of the other members of the committee about what she had?

RYAN GRIM: No. Somehow word leaked out to some other members of the committee in the last week or two, and they came to her and said, “We appreciate the role of confidentiality, we respect victims’ rights here but we don’t necessarily want you to unilaterally make the decision on whether or not this letter should be sent to federal authorities, whether there should be further investigation, whether we can speak to the victim and talk to her about coming forward.” And she refused. She said, “No.”

AMY GOODMAN: This is Dr. Christine —

RYAN GRIM: No, this is Feinstein. She said, “No, I’m not going to share the letter.” And so once you have a dispute among Democrats on the committee like that, it is only a matter of time until it gets into the press. So I had sources telling me about this dispute, that there were Democrats on the committee who wanted to privately view the letter. Not that they wanted to out the victim, not that they wanted her to release the letter even but that they wanted to just view the letter privately to see what these allegations were, to see whether or not there needed to be a ratcheting up of this situation. So after my story came out, there was a meeting of the committee Democrats, and they pressured her. They said, “You’ve got to do something.” And so at that point —

AMY GOODMAN: What could be her logic for not sharing it with the other members of the committee? Not saying she’s going to raise it, but —

RYAN GRIM: Not to get in her head, but she has taken a much more conservative approach to this nomination, where her fellow committee members were disrupting the hearing. Cory Booker famously released private documents, which turned out not to be private. But you know, there is been a lot of theater. And so perhaps —

AMY GOODMAN: Facing expulsion from the Senate.

RYAN GRIM: Right. He said, “Bring it on.” And so perhaps she worried that if she shared it — although she could have redacted it — but if she shared it, that it would eventually leak out. And to be sure, once other committee members did find out about it, it did get out into the press, so she would be correct about that.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What would be the rationale for not at least notifying the FBI that there was other information they may have to look into, into Kavanaugh’s background?

RYAN GRIM: The rationale there would be once you notify the FBI, the FBI puts that document in his background file, and that background file is accessible to other committee members. And once it is accessible to other committee members, it may leak out into the public.

AMY GOODMAN: So then Senator Feinstein, though, it sounds like — at least according to Dr. Blasey’s lawyer, who felt that it was Senator Feinstein who did the right thing, and she was somewhat appalled that it got out, apparently.


AMY GOODMAN: I mean, then Senator Feinstein is stopping even the FBIinvestigating a possible crime.

RYAN GRIM: Right. And so what’s also interesting is that we — and we’re going to learn more about this over the years and decades to come — did Feinstein ultimately get permission to send it to the FBI last Thursday? She has been saying that since July, she did not turn it over on principle. Did she cave on that principle because she was under pressure from her Democratic colleagues, or did she reach out? Her attorney says that Feinstein had not reached out, so we will see about that. But she made the judgment that it became untenable to hold it back.

It has had the effect of, in some respect, discrediting the allegations, because now Republicans are saying, “Oh, this looks like a last-minute thing, that you’re just throwing everything against the wall. Why didn’t we hear about this before? You had all these opportunities.”

AMY GOODMAN: And the minority leader of this committee that was weighing Kavanaugh did not think, perhaps — I mean, it has the suggestion of — this was worthy enough to investigate.

RYAN GRIM: Right. And in some ways, Dr. Ford was failed by that in the sense that she did not come at the last minute. Before he was even nominated — he was only on the shortlist — and she was telling friends about this before he was even on this list of 10 or so approved nominees.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I want to ask you about your second piece, because this piece suggests that there could be other people who have information about Judge Kavanaugh that has not come forward. Could you talk about that piece? And also, who is Cyrus Sanai?

RYAN GRIM: He is an attorney in California who is the whistleblower who first called out Judge Alex Kozinski. He was the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Court who in December of 2017, was finally brought down by a series of Washington Post articles about his sexual harassment in the workplace over decades. He came out in 2008 and made these allegations publicly, filed complaints against him.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Sanai, the attorney.

RYAN GRIM: This is Sanai — and has consistently since then. The Ninth Circuit judges are the ones who police themselves, so Alex Kozinski stayed on the court until the combination of the media reports and the #MeToo movement took him down.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this is the famously liberal Ninth Circuit Court.

RYAN GRIM: Exactly. That’s right. And so because of that, he has become the person that you speak to about issues related to the Ninth Circuit Court. If you are an employee within the federal branch, that is who you would logically reach out to to talk about blowing the whistle because he is already persona non grata among these judges and you know he’s going to protect your confidence.

So after my original story came out, he reached out to me and said, “I also sent a letter to Chuck Grassley and Feinstein in July saying that there are members of the federal court, employees of the federal court, who knew and worked with Kavanaugh and can testify under the right circumstances, if they are protected, that Kavanaugh is lying about what he knew about the judge’s behavior.” Kavanaugh had said he was shocked and saddened and appalled.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, explain Kavanaugh’s relationship with Judge Kozinski.

RYAN GRIM: It’s very tight. Not only was he his clerk in the early 90s, he became close friends with him afterwards, and he and Kozinski vetted the clerks that went to Anthony Kennedy in the Supreme Court, which is one of the most powerful positions in the legal world — to vet Supreme Court justices. Kavanaugh’s own clerk last year was Kozinski’s middle son. So these are very close people.

AMY GOODMAN: And Kavanaugh was recommended to be Anthony’s clerk, which he was, by Judge Kozinski.

RYAN GRIM: Yes. And then Kennedy recommended to Trump that Kavanaugh be his replacement. Without Kozinski, you don’t have Kavanaugh. He has distanced himself in testimony and in public statements from Kozinski’s behavior. Interestingly, Mazie Hirono followed up to him in written questions —

AMY GOODMAN: The senator from Hawaii.

RYAN GRIM: Senator Mazie Hirono said, “Please search your email and check to see if you got any sexually inappropriate emails from Kozinski, because to know him for 20 years like this and to not have, is very strange.” Instead of the wall of denial that he gave in his testimony, his reply to that was “I do not remember receiving any sexually inappropriate emails.” And that’s the end of his written reply.

And so now, according to Sanai, there are employers who would say, “That’s nonsense. I know firsthand that Kavanaugh was a witness to…” — not that Kavanaugh approved of the behavior, but that he is lying about this. And his credibility is now central to the accusation of the attempted rape.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I want to get back to the claims of Dr. Blasey Ford in terms of there was supposedly another person in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted Professor Blasey Ford, a guy by the name of Mark Judge. Could you talk about Mark Judge, who he is?

RYAN GRIM: Yeah. He’s a known quantity in Washington. When he was brought out as the character witness for Judge Kavanaugh, that should have been setting off alarm bells for everyone. It is like bringing out the worst guy in your crew as the one that you send to The New York Times to vouch for your character. If Mark judge is the best you can do, that is deeply alarming.

People can just Google Mark Judge and find some of his past writings, stuff that is racist, that’s misogynist. He has said, “It’s nice that feminists say yes means yes and no means no, but there’s a middle ground.” Like he has written these words in print. Not in Facebook posts, not in tweets, but like in published articles.

So if this is the person who was brought out to deny that he would ever do such a thing — and then it was not surprising to find out that he was the accomplice named by Dr. Blasey Ford as physically, literally, in the room. And now Kavanaugh is saying that he wasn’t at this party, which is an odd denial because she has not specified what the date was or what the address was, so that also raises red flags. How do you deny being at a party that hasn’t been specified which party it was?

AMY GOODMAN: So what happens on Monday? Yesterday we had an extended discussion about this on Democracy Now!, but it brings us back, of course, to Anita Hill.

RYAN GRIM: Right. And so now, as Susan Collins said in the sound you played earlier, the question moves from, “Is this behavior disqualifying?” Because there are a number of Republicans who are coming out and saying, “Boys will be boys. We should forgive behavior like this by a 17-year-old.” What Collins has done is move it to, “Is he being truthful about whether or not he did it?” So a lot of it will come down, unfortunately, to how credible the witness appears. And from everything I’ve been able to gather about her, she is an extremely formidable woman. She has passed a lie detector test. She has therapist notes from six years ago. She has other friends that she has confided in. She also is somebody who just exudes credibility. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has demonstrably perjured himself in front of the committee already about whether or not he had exploited stolen documents back in the 2000s.

AMY GOODMAN: Back when he worked for President George W. Bush around the issue of judicial nominations.

RYAN GRIM: Right. He has said that he did not use these stolen documents, and that is a lie. There are emails that prove that he did it. One of the subject lines in one of the emails said like “Here’s spy documents.” He has been caught red-handed lying about that particular issue.

AMY GOODMAN: That goes to the issue of perjury because he was asked about it again.

RYAN GRIM: And he also has said that he knows nothing about Alex Kozinski’s behavior, which other employees will say, “That’s absolutely absurd. This was going on for decades.”

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What about the issue though that — obviously, in the Anita Hill case, she was alleging conduct by Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court nominee, while they were working together. It was harassment, she claimed, by him, on the job. We’re talking here about an incident that happened, as people have said, when one person was 15 and one was 17, if it did happen. What about the differences in terms of the situations involved here?

RYAN GRIM: I think one of the interesting differences — I’d be curious for your take on this too — is that in 1991, the behavior that she was describing — not the specific actions, but the general behavior of men harassing women in the workplace — was almost universal. It was so widespread. And so the “There but for the grace of God go I” attitude of men was much more pronounced and out in the open. Like, they were much less ashamed to say, “Well, maybe we need to change the culture, but the culture today is what it is.”

There are some men who are hinting that same thing about attempted rape, but it is much more difficult to publicly say, “Who amongst us hasn’t tried to rape a woman?” People are making that claim in public, but many fewer, and they’re being called out — and say, “Are you listing to yourself? Do you hear what you’re saying?” So that, I think, is a key difference — that the behavior was criticized but broadly accepted in 1991, what Clarence Thomas was doing, whereas nobody can, with a straight face, say that, “Well, who hasn’t committed a rape here or there as a teenager?”

AMY GOODMAN: And your response to Trump’s response to all of this, saying go ahead with the hearings and the delay.

RYAN GRIM: Right. I think a lot of people are just going to ignore what Trump’s position is on this. Trump stood by Roy Moore through multiple credible allegations of molesting young girls. He stood by Rob Porter even after we published photos of the physical abuse he had committed towards his first wife. He has himself posted of his penchant for sexual assault. So if Mark Judge and Donald Trump are your character witnesses here, you’re in trouble.

AMY GOODMAN: Ryan Grim, we want to thank you for being with us, Washington, DC, bureau chief for The Intercept. We will link to his new piece “Attorney Sent Letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein Claiming Federal Court Employees Willing to Speak About Brett Kavanaugh.” He broke the story that Senator Dianne Feinstein had a secret letter from an anonymous woman who was accusing Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape when they were both in high school. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.

The post Senate Ignored Federal Court Employees Willing to Testify Against Kavanaugh appeared first on Truthout.

Categories: News

Immigrants Seeking Shelter Fear Deportation as FEMA Shifts Funds to ICE

Truth Out - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 15:24

While the worst of Hurricane Florence is over, officials say the most dangerous flooding is yet to come for residents of the Carolinas and Virginia, as thousands have been ordered to evacuate their homes and hundreds more have sought rescue from rising floodwaters. But undocumented immigrants have expressed concern they will encounter immigration enforcement if they seek help. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has reallocated nearly $10 million from FEMA’s budget to ICE to pay for detention space and deportations. We speak with Laura Garduño Garcia, a DACA recipient and Greensboro-based organizer with Siembra NC and the American Friends Service Committee; and with Mary Small, policy director for Detention Watch Network.

Please check back later for full transcript.

The post Immigrants Seeking Shelter Fear Deportation as FEMA Shifts Funds to ICE appeared first on Truthout.

Categories: News

Yemen’s Descent Into Hell: A Saudi-American War of Terror

Truth Out - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 14:57

It’s the war from hell, one that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, along with seven other Middle Eastern and North African states, have been waging in Yemen since March 2015, with fulsome support from the Pentagon and American weapons galore. It has produced dead children in the dozens, a never-ending air campaign that pays scant heed to civilians, famine, cholera, you name it. No wonder it’s facing mounting criticism in Congress and from human rights groups. Still, ever since President Donald Trump (like Barack Obama before him) embraced the Saudi-led coalition as this country’s righteous knight errant in the Middle East, the fight against impoverished Yemen’s Houthi rebels — who have, in turn, been typecast as Iran’s cats-paw — has only grown fiercer. Meanwhile, the al-Qaeda affiliate there continues to expand.

For years now, a relentless Saudi air campaign (quite literally fueled by the US military) has hit endless civilian targets, using American smart bombs and missiles, without a peep of protest or complaint from Washington. Only a highly publicized, completely over-the-top slaughter recently forced the Pentagon to finally do a little mild finger wagging. On August 7th, an airstrike hit a school bus — with a laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin — in northern Yemen, killing 51 people, 40 of them schoolchildren. Seventy-nine others were wounded, including 56 children. Soon after, a UN Security Council-appointed group of experts issued a report detailing numerous other egregious attacks on Yemeni civilians, including people attending weddings and funerals. Perhaps the worst among them killed 137 people and wounded 695 others at a funeral in Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, this April.

The attack on those schoolchildren and the UN report amplified a growing global outcry against the carnage in Yemen. In response, on August 28th, Secretary of Defense James Mattis let it be known that the Trump administration’s support for the Persian Gulf potentates’ military campaign should not be considered unreserved, that the Saudis and their allies must do “everything humanly possible to avoid any innocent loss of life.” Considering that they haven’t come close to meeting such a standard since the war started nearly five years ago and that the Trump administration clearly has no intention of reducing its support for the Saudis or their war, Mattis’s new yardstick amounted to a cruel joke — at the expense of Yemeni civilians.

The Statistics of Suffering

Some appalling numbers document the anguish Yemenis have endured. Saudi and Emirati warplanes officially have killed — and it’s considered a conservative estimate — 6,475 civilians and wounded more than 10,000 others since 2015. Targets struck have included farms, homes, marketplaces, hospitals, schools, and mosques, as well as ancient historic sites in Sana’a. And such incidents haven’t been one-off attacks. They have happened repeatedly.

By April 2018, the Saudi-led coalition had conducted 17,243 airstrikes across Yemen, hitting 386 farms, 212 schools, 183 markets, and 44 mosques. Such statistics make laughable the repeated claims of the Saudis and their allies that such “incidents” should be chalked up to understandable errors and that they take every reasonable precaution to protect innocents. Statistics compiled by the independent Yemen Data Project make it clear that the Gulf monarchs don’t lie awake at night lamenting the deaths of Yemeni civilians.

Saudi Arabia and its partners have accused the Houthis, the rebels with whom they have been in such a deadly struggle, of also attacking Yemeni civilians, a charge Human Rights Watch has validated. Yet such a they-do-it-too defense hardly excuses the relentless bombing of non-military sites by a coalition that has overwhelming superiority in firepower. Houthi crimes pale by comparison.

And when it comes to the destruction of civilian lives and livelihoods, believe it or not, that may be the least of it. Take the naval blockade of the country by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that cut the number of ships docking in the Houthi-controlled port of Hodeida from 129 between January and August 2014 to 21 in the same months of 2017. The result: far less food and medicine entered the country, creating a disaster for Yemenis.

That country, the Arab world’s poorest, has long relied on imports for a staggering 85% of its food, fuel, and medicine, so when prices soared, famine spread, while hunger and malnutrition skyrocketed. Nearly 18 million Yemenis now rely on emergency food aid to survive: that’s an unbelievable 80% of the population. According to the World Bank, “8.4 million more are on the brink of famine.” In December 2017, following a barrage of bad publicity, the Saudi-Emirati blockade was eased marginally, but it had already set in motion a spiral of death.

The blockade also contributed to a cholera epidemic, which the shortage of medicines only exacerbated. According to a World Health Organization report,between April 2017 and July 2018, there were more than 1.1 million cholera cases there. At least 2,310 people died from the disease, most of them children. It is believed to be the worst cholera outbreak since statistics began to be compiled in 1949. At 800,000 cases between 2010 and 2017, Haiti held the previous record, one that the Yemenis surpassed within half a year of the first cases appearing. The prime contributors to the epidemic: drinking water contaminated by rotting garbage (uncollected because of the war), devastated sewage systems, and water filtration plants that stopped running due to lack of fuel — all the result of the horrendous bombing campaign.

Wartime economic blockades starve and sicken civilians and soldiers alike and so amount to a war crime. The Saudi-Emirati claim that the blockade’s sole purpose is to stanch the flow of Iranian arms to the Houthis is nonsense, nor can it be considered a legitimate act of self-defense, even though it was instituted after the Houthis fired ballistic missiles at the airport in the Saudi capital and the residence of that country’s monarch. (Both were shot down by Saudi air defenses and were clear responses to coalition airstrikes on Houthi-held territory that killed 136 civilians.) By the standards of international humanitarian law or simply common sense, choking off Yemen’s imports was a disproportionate response, and clairvoyance wasn’t required to foresee the calamitous consequences to follow.

True to form, President Trump’s UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, echoed Saudi charges that the Houthi missiles were Iranian-supplied Qiam-1s and condemned that country’s interference in Yemen. Given the scale of destruction by a foreign coalition using armaments and technical assistance provided by the United States (and Britain), her comments, in less grim circumstances, would have been laughable.

Those American-supplied weapons have included cluster munitions, which pose a particular hazard to civilians because, when dropped from a plane, their devastating bomblets often disperse over enormous areas. (Such bombs are banned under a 2008 treaty signed by 120 countries that neither Riyadh nor Washington has joined.) In May 2016, the Obama White House confirmed that it had stopped sending such weapons to Saudi Arabia, which then continued to use Brazilian-made variants. However, other American arms have continued to flow to Saudi Arabia, while its warplanes rely on US Air Force tankers for mid-air refueling (88 million pounds of fuel as of this January according to a Central Command spokeswoman), while the Saudi military has received regular intelligence information and targeting advice from the Pentagon since the war began. And with the advent of Donald Trump, such military involvement has only deepened: US Special Operations forces are now on the Saudi-Yemen border, helping to find and attack Houthi redoubts.

In June 2018, ignoring US opposition, the Saudi coalition heightened the risk to Yemeni civilians yet more by launching an offensive (“Golden Victory”) to capture the port of Hodeida. (So much for the Pentagon’s standard claim that supporting the war gives the US influence over how it is waged and so limits civilian casualties.) Saudi and Emirati airpower and warships supported Emirati and Sudanese troops on the ground joined by allied Yemeni militias. The advance, however, quickly stalled in the face of Houthi resistance, though only after at least 50,000 families had fled Hodeida and basic services for the remaining 350,000 were disrupted, creating fears of a new outbreak of cholera.

The Roots of War

Yemen’s progression to its present state of perdition began as the Arab Spring’s gales swept through the Middle East in 2011, uprooting or shaking regimes from Tunisia to Syria. Street demonstrations grew against Yemen’s strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and only gathered strength as he attempted to quell them. In response, he allied ever more strongly with Saudi Arabia and the United States, alienating the Houthis, whose main bastion, the governate of Saada, abuts the Saudi border. Adherents of Zaydi Islam, the Houthis played a pivotal role in creating a political movement, Ansar Allah, in 1992 to assert the interests of their community against the country’s Sunni majority. In an effort to undercut them, the Saudis have long promoted radical Sunni religious leaders in Yemen’s north, while intermittently raiding Houthi territories.

As a Houthi rebellion began, Saleh tried to make himself an even more indispensable ally of Washington in its post-9/11 anti-terrorist campaigns, notably against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a growing local franchise of al-Qaeda. For good measure, he joined the Saudis in painting the Houthis little more than tools of an Iran that Washington and Riyadh both loathed. When those powers nonetheless came to see the Yemeni autocrat as a political liability, they helped oust him and transfer power to his deputy, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Such moves failed to calm the waters, as the country started to disintegrate and Saudi-US efforts to consolidate the transition from Saleh to Hadi unraveled.

Meanwhile, regular American drone strikes against AQAP angered many Yemenis. In their eyes, not only did the attacks violate Yemen’s sovereignty, they intermittently killed civilians. Hadi’s praise for the drone campaign only discredited him further. AQAP’s power continued to grow, resentment in southern Yemen rose, and criminal gangs and warlords began to operate with impunity in its cities, highlighting the Hadi government’s ineffectuality. Neoliberal economic reforms only further enriched a clutch of families that had long controlled much of Yemen’s wealth, while the economic plight of most Yemenis worsened radically. The unemployment rate was nearly 14% in 2017 (and exceeded 25% for young people), while the poverty rate rose precipitously, as did inflation.

It was a formula for disaster and when Hadi proposed a plan to create a federal system for Yemen, the Houthis were infuriated. New boundaries would, among other things, have cut their homeland off from the Red Sea coast. So they gave up on his government and girded for battle. Soon, their forces were advancing southward. In September 2014, they captured the capital, Sana’a, and proclaimed a new national government. The following March, they occupied Aden in southern Yemen and Hadi, whose government had moved there, promptly fled across the border to Riyadh. The first Saudi airstrikes against Sana’a were launched in March 2015 and Yemen’s descent to hell began.

The American Role

The commonplace rendition of the war in Yemen pits a US-backed Saudi coalition against the Houthis, cast as agents of Iran and evidence of its increasing influence in the Middle East. Combatting terrorism and countering Iran became the basis for Washington’s support of the Saudi-led war. Predictably, as this cartoonish portrayal of a complicated civil war gained ground in the mainstream American media and among Beltway pundits (as well, of course, as in the Pentagon and White House), inconvenient facts were shunted aside.

Still, all these years and all those dead later, it’s worth considering some of those facts. There are, for instance, significant differences between the Houthis’ Zaydi variant of Shia Islam and the Twelver Shiism dominant in Iran — and some similarities between Zaydis and Sunnis — which makes the ubiquitous claims about a Iran-Houthi faith-based pact shaky. Moreover, Iran did not jump into the fray during the violent 2004-2010 clashes between Saleh and the Houthis and did not have longstanding ties to them either. In addition, contrary to the prevailing view in Washington, Iran is unlikely to be their main source of weaponry and support. Sheer distance and the Saudi coalition’s naval blockade have made it next to impossible for Iran to supply arms to the Houthis in the volume alleged. Besides, having pillaged various military bases during their march toward Aden, the Houthis do not lack for weaponry. Iran’s influence in Yemen has undoubtedly increased since 2015, but reducing the intricacies of that country’s internal crisis to Iranian meddling and a Tehran-led Shiite bloc expanding from Syria to the Arabian Peninsula amounts to, at best, a massive oversimplification.

The obsession of Trump and his key advisers with Iran (a remarkable number of them are Iranophobes) and The Donald’s obsession with plugging American arms makers and hawking their wares helps explain their embrace of the House of Saud and continuing support for its never-ending assault on Yemen. (Jared Kushner’s bromance with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman undoubtedly played a part as well.) None of that, however, explains the full-scale American backing for the Saudi-led intervention there in the Obama years. Even as his administration denounced Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter of Syrian civilians, his officials seemed unmoved by the suffering war was inflicting on Yemenis. In fact, the Obama administration offered $115 billion worth of weaponry to Riyadh, including a $1.15 billion package finalized in August 2016, when the scale of Yemen’s catastrophe was already all too obvious.

In recent years, opposition to the war in Congress has been on the rise, with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna playing prominent roles in mobilizing it. But such congressional critics had no effect on Obama’s war policy and are unlikely to sway Trump’s. They face formidable barriers. The mainstream narrative on the war remains powerful, while the Gulf monarchies continue to buy vast quantities of American weaponry. And don’t forget the impressive, money-is-no-object Saudi-Emirati lobbying operation in Washington.

That, then, is the context for the Pentagon’s gentle warning about the limits of US support for the bombing campaign in Yemen and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s subsequent certification, as required by Congress, that the Saudis and Emiratis were taking perfectly credible action to lower civilian casualties — without which the US military could not continue refueling their planes. (Mattis “endorsed and fully supported” Pompeo’s statement.) As the fifth anniversary of this appalling war approaches, American-made arms and logistical aid remain essential to it. Consider President Trump’s much-ballyhooed arms sales to the Saudis, even if they don’t total $100 billion (as he claimed): Why then would the Saudi and Emirati monarchs worry that the White House might actually do something like cutting off those lucrative sales or terminating the back-end support for their bombing campaign?

One thing is obvious: US policy in Yemen won’t achieve its declared goals of defeating terrorism and rolling back Iran. After all, its drone strikes began there in 2002 under George W. Bush. Under Obama, as in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, drones became Washington’s anti-terrorist weapon of choice. There were 154 drone strikes in Yemen during the Obama years according to the most reliable high-end estimates, and civilian casualties ranged between 83 and 101. Under Trump they soared quickly, from 21 in 2016 to 131 in 2017.

The reliance on drone attacks has bolstered al-Qaeda’s narrative that the American war on terror amounts to a war on Muslims, whose lives are deemed expendable. And so many years later, in the chaos of Yemen, the group’s power and reach is only growing. The US-backed, Saudi-led intervention is also likely to prove not just self-defeating but self-prophetic. It seems to be cementing an alliance between Iran and the Houthis who, though they have been pushed out of Aden, still control a big chunk of Yemen. Meanwhile, in a move that could make the war even deadlier, the Emiratis appear to be striking out on their own, supporting secession in southern Yemen. There’s not much to show on the anti-terrorism front either. Indeed, the Saudi coalition’s airstrikes and US drone attacks may be moving Yemenis, enraged by the destruction of their homes and livelihoods and the deaths of loved ones, toward AQAP. In short, a war on terror has turned into a war of and for terror.

In Yemen, the United States backs a grim military intervention for which — unless you are a weapons company — it is hard to find any justification, practical or moral. Unfortunately, it is even harder to imagine President Trump or the Pentagon reaching such a conclusion and changing course.

The post Yemen’s Descent Into Hell: A Saudi-American War of Terror appeared first on Truthout.

Categories: News

An International Court Is Investigating Mass Expulsion of Indigenous Islanders

Truth Out - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 14:55

Can you imagine being forced out of your home, your land, shipped to an unknown territory with no job and none of your belongings except the clothes on your back?

That is the story of the Chagossian people. They are the little-known victims of two colonial powers, the UK and the United States, whose governments manipulated diplomatic rules and colluded to remove the Chagossians from their Indian Ocean homeland to create a major US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The two governments have gotten away with this injustice for the past 50 years despite the Chagossians’ valiant efforts to return home.

For the first time, this month, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is examining the deportation of the Chagossians and Britain’s 1965 decision to separate the people’s Chagos Archipelago from colonial Mauritius in preparation for the expulsion. The case could have significant implications for the US military, for Mauritius, which is challenging UK sovereignty over the British Empire’s last-created colony, as well as for this long-ignored group of refugees.

The Chagossians and their African and Indian ancestors had lived on the beautiful tropical islands of the Chagos Archipelago since the late 18th century. They lived there until the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the US and UK governments uprooted them from their homes and separated them from almost all their possessions and their livelihoods. The governments removed the Chagossians to build what has become a major US military base, which has played key roles in the 1991 and 2003 US-led Gulf Wars in Iraq and the US war in Afghanistan.

The case before the ICJ in The Hague has been brought by the former UK colony of Mauritius, which is challenging Britain’s decision in 1965 to separate the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius as Mauritius was gaining its independence. In June 2017, the UN General Assembly ruled overwhelmingly — despite UK and US opposition — to send the case to the International Court.

Few people in the United States or elsewhere know the story. Upon learning about the Chagossians, many reply: How is that possible? I can’t believe I haven’t heard about them.

Once we learned what the Chagossians and their supporters do every day to claim their right to return home, we began to wonder why media outlets aren’t speaking about this human rights violation more frequently.

In order to understand the hushed nature of the story, it’s important to look back on how the two governments agreed on the construction of the US military base on Diego Garcia.

In 1965, the UK used its colonial power over Mauritius to “exclude” the Chagos Archipelago from the Mauritian territory — disregarding UN conventions. This allowed the British government to keep control over the archipelago. In turn, US officials conspired with their British counterparts to remove approximately 1,500 Chagossians. In a 1971 memo, US Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt gave the definitive order that would condemn Chagossians to exile: “Absolutely must go.”

The price tag of this secret negotiation cost the US government $14 million to relocate the Chagossians to Mauritius and the Seychelles. The two governments withheld the Chagossians’ expulsion from Congress, Parliament, the UN, and the media.

This pattern of keeping the truth about the Chagossian exile in the dark continues today. If the media remains silent, they become accomplices to the crimes these two world powers are committing against the Chagossians.

Let us not overlook our society’s tendency to forget in the face of tragedy. The Chagos Archipelago sits some hundred miles away from the UK and some thousand miles away from the US, which makes it easy to remove any element of humanity from the exile. This insensitive perspective allows the British bureaucracy to treat them as a minor hindrance and for the US to avoid their responsibility in this crime.

Consider, as well, that the Chagossians have decided to play within the judicial realm of the two governments. But when the rules are dictated by those in power, the outcome is already set. By staying quiet, the media has played into this game of the powerful, a game that dehumanizes those involved. After all, shouldn’t the media be a tool to uncover the injustice and tip the balance in favor of the marginalized?

After 50 years of protests, strikes, and legal battles, some Chagossians have only received: negligible and inadequate compensation, short trips to restore the cemetery where their loved ones rest, and repeated dismissals in court proceedings.

In the US, few people know about this crime that their government has been perpetrating for 50 years because the Chagossian struggle has received little media coverage: a feature in 60 Minutes (2003), an article in The Washington Post (2007), a story on NPR (2015), and a handful of op-eds. Are there too few Chagossians for their exile to be considered a tragedy? Is their homeland too far away from the US that they do not deserve massive outrage? Are the colonialist voices more important than the colonized?

It is time for us to think about what is newsworthy in this country. While major media outlets in the US are covering the government’s role in other international affairs, they are ignoring the fact that for the last 50 years the US and the UK governments have been the perpetrators of an ongoing human rights violation.

With the case before the International Court of Justice, an opportunity arises for the Chagossians to get justice and for the world to know about the crimes committed against them. A victory for Mauritius would demonstrate the illegitimate nature of UK’s sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and would offer further proof of the unlawful deal between the British and US governments.

Although the Court’s opinion is non-binding, it is an opportunity for the international community and all of us to show our solidarity with the thousands of displaced Chagossians and take a stand against continuing human rights violations sponsored by modern colonialist practices. Chagossians demand the right to return home. Being silent is not an option in the face of this injustice.

The post An International Court Is Investigating Mass Expulsion of Indigenous Islanders appeared first on Truthout.

Categories: News

In Affront to Those Fleeing US-Backed Wars, Trump Slams Door on Refugees

Truth Out - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 14:52

Launching yet another bigotry-driven attack on those fleeing wars and humanitarian crises in which the US is playing an active and deadly role, the Trump administration announced late Monday that it is reducing America’s refugee admission limit for 2019 to a record-low 30,000.

Eric Schwartz, president of Refugees International, called it an “appalling” announcement.

“At a time when the world is facing the largest displacement crisis in recorded history, it is unconscionable that the Trump administration would further dismantle the US Refugee Admissions Program by setting a cap of 30,000 refugee admissions for fiscal year 2019 — the lowest resettlement cap in the program’s history,” Win Without War director Stephen Miles said in a statement slamming the White House’s decision.

“What’s more,” Miles continued, “the US has a direct moral responsibility to open its doors, not slam them shut, given that our own nation is an active combatant in many of the very conflicts and humanitarian crises driving the global refugee crisis.”

We are experiencing the largest displacement crisis in recorded history with over 68 million displaced persons and 25 million refugees globally. Today the Trump administration lowered the US refugee cap to 30,000 people per year. Shameful. #RefugeesWelcome

— Win Without War (@WinWithoutWar) September 18, 2018

Unveiled by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday, the new “cap” of 30,000 refugees is 15,000 lower than the 2018 mark, making the new policy a major victory for top White House adviser and virulent racist Stephen Miller.

According to the New York Times, Miller joined forces with President Donald Trump’s chief of staff John Kelly to push for an even lower cap of 25,000 refugees, and Pompeo ultimately accepted Miller’s xenophobic push for a “deep cut.”

“This is the lowest goal in the history of the program, and compounded by this administration’s history of creating road block after road block for refugees to arrive, this must be perceived as an all-out attack against our country’s ability to resettle refugees both now and in the future,” Ryan Mace, grassroots advocacy and refugee specialist at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement.

“Today’s announcement demonstrates another undeniable political attack against people who have been forced to flee their homes,” Mace concluded. “There is absolutely no excuse for not accepting more refugees in the coming year.”

30,000 refugees. For a population of 320,000,000. Pathetic and shameful.

— Christian Christensen (@ChrChristensen) September 17, 2018

While the administration’s official cap represents the highest number of refugees the White House is willing to provide a safe haven from violence and persecution, it is far from a requirement.

Thanks in large part to its inhumanely restrictive border and asylum policies, the Trump administration admitted just 20,918 refugees in 2018, less than half of the White House’s 45,000-person cap.

But as the Trump administration has drastically restricted the number of refugees from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, Vox’s Dara Lind noted on Monday that the White House has not significantly curtailed European refugee admissions.

“While refugee arrivals from other parts of the world are down as much as 90 percent from Obama-era levels, resettlements from Europe — specifically, the former Soviet Union — have taken only a modest hit,” Lind observes, citing new government data. “In the rest of the world, the Trump administration isn’t going to come anywhere close to the ‘ceilings’ it set for the fiscal year ending September 30.”

“The Trump administration already accepted a historically low amount of refugees,” noted Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Monday in response to Pompeo’s announcement. “These new restrictions are outrageous. I came here at age 16 as an immigrant and today I am a congresswoman. Who could these refugees fleeing violence be if we gave them the chance?”

The post In Affront to Those Fleeing US-Backed Wars, Trump Slams Door on Refugees appeared first on Truthout.

Categories: News

Group Behind Kavanaugh Confirmation Has Spent Years Reshaping Judicial Benches

Truth Out - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 14:00

Who is behind the battle to quickly fill Justice Kennedy’s vacant seat on the Supreme Court? It is well reported that the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) has been the principal spender supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, shelling out nearly $3.1 million, triple the next biggest spender, according to Brennan Center data.

But what may be less known is that JCN is well-versed in these sorts of campaigns. For a dozen years, JCN has used multi-million-dollar infusions from shadowy donors to support putting conservative judges on state, local, and federal benches — and to prevent others from reaching the bench. And JCN has been remarkably successful at helping to tilt the judiciary to the right.

Established in 2004 as the Judicial Confirmation Network to promote President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, JCN is a 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization,” which says its mission is “strengthening liberty and justice in America.” In pursuit of that anodyne goal, JCN reportedly spent a staggering $7 million to block the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland and $10 million to back the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. More recently, JCN has run ads reportedly worth over $800,000, pressuring senators to confirm Trump’s federal judicial nominees for lower courts.

JCN’s Campaign to Remake State Courts

Since at least 2012, JCN has also funneled money into state supreme court races, spending millions directly and indirectly to ensure their preferred candidates reach the bench.

For example, in 2012, the 4-3 conservative majority of the Michigan Supreme Court was at stake. JCN spent between $600,000 and $1 million on an ad alleging that law professor Bridget McCormack “volunteered to free a terrorist,” to which the New York Times responded: “She didn’t.”

In 2013-14, JCN funded organizations that spent on state supreme court races in Wisconsin and Tennessee. The bulk of the money — $500,000 — went to the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which spent extensively to support conservative Justice Patience Roggensack’s successful reelection campaign.

In 2015-16, JCN upped the ante, raising and spending more money. They funneled nearly $2 million to conservative groups involved in state supreme court elections in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. JCN also spent nearly $600,000 on its own ads to successfully block Arkansas Justice Courtney Goodson’s bid for Chief Justice.

This year, Justice Goodson is up for reelection — and JCN is back at it. They’ve already spent nearly $1 million in connection with the race, including on ads accusing Goodson of ethical violations, which an independent group of retired Arkansas judges determined to be “false and misleading.” JCN even launched a website to promote their allegations: When Goodson sued to block TV stations from running the ads, one court issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking JCN ads in some parts of the state. That case is on appeal at the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

Following the Money

Because of lax disclosure laws, JCN, like other “social welfare organizations,” is generally not required to disclose its donors. What is known about JCN’s funding comes from publicly available tax filings and tends to generate more questions than answers.

JCN’s recent funding, for instance, can be traced only as far as a single opaque donor. In 2016, JCN’s primary financier was the Wellspring Committee, a conservative nonprofit that donated $23 million to JCN. Of Wellspring’s $32 million in receipts that year, $28.5 million came from a single, anonymous donor. Wellspring also funds the conservative law group the Federalist Society, whose executive vice president, Leonard Leo (currently on leave), has advised the Trump administration on judicial nominations.

At Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tried to connect the dots. “I’d be prepared to make a very substantial bet that there’s enormous overlap between the funders of the Judicial Crisis Network campaign for your confirmation and the Federalist Society donor group,” he said. Absent desperately needed transparency, Whitehouse’s guess is as good as anyone’s.

What Do JCN’s Donors Want?

While it may seem obvious how a seat on the US Supreme Court could attract millions of dollars in spending, why would JCN spend $1 million to oppose a single Arkansas Supreme Court justice or to prevent a Michigan law professor from reaching the bench? Perhaps some corporate interests in Arkansas are frustrated by Goodson’s ruling in a tort reform case that JCN’s counsel criticized two years ago, or maybe someone in Michigan or Arkansas didn’t want McCormack or Goodson to hear their pending cases. JCN’s critics say the organization has engaged in such manipulation before, such as pouring $1 million into a 2012 local race to unseat a Michigan County Circuit Court judge — which one analysis argued was likely done at the behest of one corporate donor who had received an unfavorable ruling from the incumbent judge. But since JCN refuses to disclose its donors, the public can only speculate.

What is clear is that JCN’s spending poses serious threats to the integrity and independence of judicial decision-making. Even if a judge is unaware of the sources of JCN’s funding, might a judge’s decision in a particular case be influenced by fear of becoming a JCN target? And JCN’s secret spending obscures potential conflicts of interests from judges themselves and makes it impossible for litigants to know when to ask judges to recuse themselves from a case involving a major campaign supporter or opponent.

JCN itself also winds up in federal court on occasion. If JCN appeared before the Supreme Court, would Justice Gorsuch or a future Justice Kavanaugh recuse themselves from a matter involving an organization that spent millions of dollars in support of their nominations?

JCN’s success reshaping the nation’s courts raises many questions, but don’t expect the group to reveal any answers.

The post Group Behind Kavanaugh Confirmation Has Spent Years Reshaping Judicial Benches appeared first on Truthout.

Categories: News

Nothing Will End if the US Continues to Support Saudi Arabia

Truth Out - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 13:55
Janine Jackson interviewed Shireen Al-Adeimi on Yemen reporting for the September 7, 2018, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Janine Jackson: It is disheartening that with tens of thousands of people killed, millions in need of assistance, at least a million affected by the largest cholera outbreak in history, and no clear end in sight to the violence behind it all, that the Washington Post would feel a need to run a piece headed “Five Reasons the Crisis in Yemen Matters.”

Coverage is better than silence, of course, but as the war on Yemen is in its third year now, one would hope that US media would be in the business of regularly illustrating why the crisis matters, and specifically why it should matter to people in the US, whose government continues to play an active, central role in the war.

That angle has not been corporate media’s approach, more typically represented by this Reuters piece that describes the peace talks set to begin as we record this show, September 6, as

aimed at getting the Saudi-backed government and the Iranian-aligned Houthi movement to work toward halting the fighting, removing foreign forces and establishing a unity government.

US citizens are poorly served by reporting that consigns our government’s role in conflict to the background, and Yemenis, certainly, even more so.

We’re joined now by Shireen Al-Adeimi. She’s been working to bring attention to the crisis in Yemen. She’s an assistant professor of education at Michigan State University. She joins us now by phone from East Lansing. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Shireen Al-Adeimi.

Shireen Al-Adeimi: Thanks for having me.

We spoke with you last December, and the tolls of death, of displacement, of illness have only gotten worse since then. But today, we hear maybe some conversations will be had in Geneva. In terms of bringing the war on and in Yemen to an end, what would you say has changed since we spoke last winter? I want to say I see more opposition, more acknowledgement of the US responsibility, but maybe I’m just thinking wishfully.

No, I think there’s definitely been more awareness, first and foremost, which has prompted, in return, more opposition to the US’s role specifically. I was surprised that I was turning on the channels and watched full coverage of the bus bombing on CNN, and that is not something that has been happening before, in any kind of consistency. And when we have had information about the war in Yemen, we have not really heard about the US’s role in the conflict, which of course is what’s keeping this conflict alive.

So I think there’s been some changes there, but unfortunately it took such a drastic turn for the worst. It took the murder of 44 schoolchildren on a school bus, coming back from a field trip, and they were bombed by the Saudi-led coalition using American weapons, and it took for that event to finally bring some kind of attention in the media, and some kind of scrutiny about the US role, but, you know, at least here we are.

Yes, CounterSpin had reported that MSNBC,which is sometimes looked to as the “resistance media,” had gone basically a year with silence on Yemen. But then there was a very affecting piece by Chris Hayes, after that school bus attack, that did point to the role of the US, in terms of saying, “Viewers who are watching this and are upset: There is something you can do, because it is our government that is playing such a key role in supporting the Saudi coalition there.” So not just the coverage, but the acknowledgment that there’s something for US citizens to do here.

Exactly, and Chris Hayes had me on his podcast, where wetalked for an hour about the roots of the conflict, and specifically the US’s role, so I think, again, this is encouraging, that they’re not just talking about the conflict now as some far-away thing that’s happening, without our support or consent. We’re speaking about it as we should, which is this is a US-backed, Saudi-led conflict.

Particularly in the wake of that August 9 attack, we did hear language about protecting civilians, but talk is cheap, notoriously. You and Sarah Lazare reported for In These Times on actual moves by Donald Trump, that show the real priority that he places on civilian lives. It kind of went under most media’s radar. Can you tell us about that?

Right. So Congress passed a Defense bill for 2019, the NDAA, and there were some senators and Congresspeople who had worked together to try to introduce some provisions into this Defense bill to ensure that US dollars are not spent toward refueling the Saudi-led coalition’s jets, because this is one of the main functions of the US in Yemen, trying to refuel Saudi air jets. I think the provisions were a good start. They were weak to begin with, because they included some loopholes; they mentioned that the secretary of State could just issue a waiver, and they said that mid-air refueling can continue to occur if the Saudis and Emirates are showing that they are trying to protect civilian life; this is very vague terminology, of course. The Saudis have just repeatedly said yeah, yeah, yeah, we’re not targeting civilians, and that’s been enough.

Nonetheless, there were some provisions that were there, and in his signing statement, Trump essentially said that these infringe on his rights as president, and he would just ignore them. So what is the point, then, of including something like this, if the president could just go on and say, “Well, I’ll do what I want. I can just ignore whatever provisions are there.”

Spain, I just heard, cancelled delivery of 400 bombs that Saudi Arabia had bought, and they’re giving their money back. It seems as though this kind of, oh, our hands are tied, all we can do is sort of vaguely wave at the idea of civilian casualties… There are concrete things that the US could be doing here, if the goal were to stop the violence.

One of the things that Congress has attempted twice, once in the House and once in the Senate, was introducing the War Powers Resolution, which basically is a bill which says, “Let’s vote on the US’s presence in Yemen,” and it would be binding if Congress voted for the US to stop supporting Saudi Arabia; it would be a binding bill. The one time it was introduced in the Senate, by Senator Sanders, they didn’t end up voting on the bill itself; they voted to table it. I think it was pretty close; 44 senators voted not to table it, but still. And when it was introduced in the House last year, it was stripped of its privileged status, which meant that it couldn’t even go to a vote. There wasn’t going to be a debate on it.

But actually, right this morning, about an hour ago, members of Congress, led by Adam Smith, have announced that they’re working toward another War Powers Resolution in September, and that they are trying to, again, get the US to end its support of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, acknowledging that there are all these civilian deaths, and that we are facilitating this war.

I think I’d just like to include again a message of empowerment, that this bill is being worked on now, to have people call their representatives in Congress, and urge them to support the bill.

What thoughts do you have about the potential for the peace talks that are meant to be starting today in Geneva?

It sounds like the Houthis have not arrived yet. I read something about them not being able to secure safe return by the UN, and other things that they had said they wanted that have not been met yet. So right now, you have the Saudi-led coalition’s representative, AKA the Yemeni government, in Geneva, waiting to have these talks.

I think if the Houthis make it there, I’m hopeful that this would lead to some kind of resolution, but like you said, there’s been so much misinformation about this war, and I think it’s intentional. There’s this “Iran-allied” vocabulary that’s just now fact. It’s difficult to tell people, well, Iran is not involved in this conflict, because they’ve just taking it as fact. So we’ll see what happens, we’ll see if people are actually serious about ending this war. Of course, nothing will end if the US continues to support the Saudi Arabians, and if Saudi Arabia continues its attack on what is a sovereign country and should be respected.

Being portrayed in the media as a “humanitarian disaster,” I think can spur some people to think, “Oh, what we need to do is get in there, is intervene.” And I know I asked you this back in December; I just would like to underscore it; Yemenis aren’t saying, “Please intervene. Please come save us.” That’s not the message out of Yemen.

It’s the complete opposite. It’s that we’ve only gotten to this point because of foreign intervention. This was a civil war back in 2015; it would have started as a civil war, ended as a civil war. Yemen has seen many civil wars, and we’ve gone through it, and we’ve continued to rebuild after that, and it’s never gotten to these levels of humanitarian crises. We’re talking about the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. If it remained in Yemen as a civil war, the ports wouldn’t have been blockaded. People wouldn’t be starving. Every ten minutes, a child diesin Yemen from starvation and disease. And so we’ve only gotten to this point because of foreign intervention. So I believe, and many Yemenis who are still fighting and resisting and waiting for all of this to be over in Yemen believe that, let Yemenis solve their own problems, and we’re not asking for any saviors. We’re asking for people to stop intervening in Yemen.

We’ve been speaking with Shireen Al-Adeimi, assistant professor of education at Michigan State University. Thank you so much, Shireen Al-Adeimi, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

The post Nothing Will End if the US Continues to Support Saudi Arabia appeared first on Truthout.

Categories: News

Kavanaugh’s Oath

Truth Out - Tue, 09/18/2018 - 13:52

The post Kavanaugh’s Oath appeared first on Truthout.

Categories: News