May 24, 2013

US housing distress deepens for renters

By Debra Watson 
23 May 2013

According to a report released last month by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) more than half of all renter households today pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing. This level is the portion of income allocated for housing considered the benchmark for affordability. The rate is double the rate in 1960, when one in four renters were considered cost-burdened.

Nearly 8 million households in the US pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Since these are mostly extremely low-income households, what is left over every month after housing costs are paid leaves little for food and other necessities. The total number of such cost-burdened households has increased by about 600,000 since 2010.

The NLIHC report , Out of Reach 2013 , takes note of the impossible situation facing elderly, disabled and low-income workers. The report exposes the shocking housing conditions in place or soon coming to communities across the US.

Eight million disabled and elderly individuals nationally receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), with a maximum federal monthly payment of $710 in 2013. On this income an SSI recipient can afford rent of only $213 a month. Among those reliant on SSI, there is not a single county in the US where even a modest efficiency apartment, priced according to the Fair Market Rent (FMR), is affordable.

Low-wage workers also face difficulties meeting housing costs. Paychecks for workers in the prime of life have fallen precipitously over the past 40 years, greatly affecting renters. Today’s minimum wage is 30 percent lower in real terms than it was in 1968. In 2011, 60 percent of all workers making less than $10 per hour were not teenagers living at home, but fell into the 25-64 age group. Only about half in the same age group made the equivalent wage in 1979.

There is not a single state in the US where a minimum wage worker, who works 40 hours a week, can afford even a one-bedroom rental apartment. The report states, “The number of full-time jobs that a household must work today at the prevailing state minimum wage to afford the average two-bedroom FMR ranges from 1.4 jobs (Puerto Rico) to 4.4 jobs (Hawaii).”

More than a third of all households in the country, 41 million, are renters. According the NLHIC report, the number of renter households in the US rose by 1 million in 2011. This is the single largest one-year increase since the early 1980s. This rise reflected the difficulties faced by American families in buying homes due to the increased requirements for down payments.

One in three renters live below the official US poverty level, a derisory income of $19,500 annually for a family of three or $11,500 for an individual living alone. Social scientists consider anyone below twice that income level to be low-income.

The report uses a measure of income defined as Extremely Low Income (ELI.) It denotes those with household incomes below 30 percent of the median income in cities, towns and rural communities to be ELI. The income cutoff for ELI households actually fell by $400 from 2012 to 2013 as median incomes for the general population fell.

Ten million households are ELI renters and for every 100 ELI renter households there are only 30 affordable rental units available at any one time. This shortage of affordable units is a widespread problem across the country. For example, between 2000 and 2010 the number of cost-burdened rural households grew by 10 percent, largely due to the lack of affordable housing even in rural areas.

The report cites several reasons for the growing housing distress nationally, including “increasing rents, stagnating wages, and a shortage of affordable housing.”

The report notes that “most newly constructed units are for high income households, while older units are being swiftly upgraded to serve a higher income market.” Landlords have benefited handsomely from the tight rental market, with 4.5 million affordable housing units needed to close the gap immediately.

The report notes, “Landlords also began to increase rents in 2012, raising prices an average of 3.8 percent from 2011.” They cite Harvard University’s annual Joint Center for Housing Study report for 2012, which shows that the overall return on investment for landlords hit 15 percent in 2011.

The destruction of 260,000 public housing units that have not been replaced since the mid-1990s has been a boon to landlords. Now only about 1.2 million people live in any form of public housing. Since the early 1970s low-income renters have been directed to voucher programs that pay a portion of the rent. The median wait time for these vouchers is two years.

The NLIHC notes: “For households trapped on waiting lists, many experience unstable housing situations, living ‘doubled up’ with family or friends (40 percent) or in the worst cases suffering bouts of homelessness as they bounce from one untenable housing situation to another (23 percent).”

An additional 140,000 families are expected to be cut from the already woefully inadequate federal housing voucher program this year due to budget cuts under the federal sequester.

Los Angeles: Newly-elected mayor promises more cuts and privatization

By Dan Conway 
24 May 2013

The City of Los Angeles concluded its 2013 mayoral election this Wednesday with Democratic former city council head Eric Garcetti comfortably defeating his rival, current city controller Wendy Greuel by a 54 to 46 percent margin. Much like outgoing mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the incoming mayor is committed to an austerity agenda.

The election was most notable for its extremely low turnout, with only 19 percent of registered voters taking part. Expressing the immense gulf that exists between the working class and the two parties of big business, the election was nonetheless the most expensive in Los Angeles history with $15 million spent between the two candidates.

Also notable were the claims made by the two Democratic candidates during the course of the run-off portion of the election and even before. Unencumbered by Republican opposition, they exercised completely free reign to express their commitment to austerity measures for the working class.

Often noting that President Obama was a “personal friend,” Garcetti in effect promised to deliver the president’s right wing agenda on a smaller, albeit more concentrated scale.

Garcetti made clear during his campaign that he would do nothing whatsoever to address unemployment and would instead provide tax windfalls to private enterprise and the wealthy. Said the new mayor, “LA needs leadership that doesn’t keep chasing yesterday’s long-lost jobs, but that brings tomorrow’s jobs here now.”

Elaborating on this theme, Garcetti said, “One of LA’s most significant problems is the gross receipts tax. Building on my successful work that eliminated the business tax for LA’s small businesses and that created targeted incentives for high-growth and highly-mobile sectors such as internet firms, entertainment businesses and car dealerships, I am now the leader in working to end the tax completely.”

On the problem of homelessness—Los Angeles has the largest homeless population of any American city—Garcetti made clear that he would follow in the footsteps of current Mayor Villaraigosa. Ostensibly, that means using the police department to identify homeless individuals and then provide them with newly-constructed supportive housing.

In actuality, existing and planned housing will only accommodate a tiny fraction of the homeless. Such cataloging will not be used to provide housing, food or medical care, but will be used to expand the policy of forcibly moving the homeless in order to gentrify certain portions of the city.

The media has dubbed Garcetti the “hip mayor” for driving hybrid electric cars and growing food in his own backyard, thereby completely satisfying the political expectations of wealthy Los Angeles and Hollywood liberals, who, along with the trade unions, provided the vast majority of the mayor’s campaign fund.

Workers will not be satisfied by these trivial lifestyle choices, however. Far more importantly the incoming mayor is pledged to thoroughly right wing policies, which he will pursue ruthlessly.

Garcetti, who shared massive trade union support with his rival throughout the course of the campaign, promised that he would continue working with unions to push through massive cuts on city workers. Responding to criticism from Republican candidate Kevin James during the March election that he enjoyed a too cozy relationship with city unions, Garcetti countered by explicitly stating that the unions had been instrumental tools in implementing unpaid furloughs and pension reform.

The mayor-elect has also pledged that he would work with the unions upon entering office to eliminate $50 million from the city’s budget to offset health care costs.

Despite these pledges, leading members of the SEIU—the largest city worker union—ranked both Garcetti and Greuel with an average pro-labor score of four out of five in a clear provocation to the working class.

On the question of education, Garcetti has fully lined up behind the policy of current mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. That is, the continued attack against public education and accelerated implementation of charter schools.

Furthermore, in a radio debate broadcast in early May, both candidates pledged to install more police officers on high school campuses, continue firing so-called low performing public school teachers and expressed regret that the district did not apply for the latest round of Obama’s Race to the Top program which would have cut more teachers amongst other educational “reforms.”

In spite of these commitments, the United Teachers of Los Angeles lent its full support to Garcetti’s campaign. “We look forward to working with Eric Garcetti as mayor,” said UTLA President Warren Fletcher. “He listens to teachers. He understands the importance of our expertise and our commitment to educating students.”

More revelations of Justice Department crackdown on the press

By Ed Hightower 
24 May 2013

According to a report Tuesday in the New Yorker, the Obama administration’s investigation into a State Department leak to James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent of Fox News, extends well beyond what was originally thought and includes seizing the phone records of the reporter’s parents and dozens of other individuals, including White House staffers and other Fox News reporters.

United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the prosecutor in the case of alleged leaker and former State Department weapons expert Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, has seized records associated with more than 30 different phone numbers.

Because the last four digits of all of the phone numbers have been redacted by court order, only the three-digit area codes and exchange codes are available. Five of these numbers have area codes and exchange codes registered to Fox News. Two of the numbers have area code 202 and exchange code 456, which belong to the White House, whose switchboard number is (202) 456-1414.

The US attorney also seized records which correspond to James Rosen’s personal cellular phone, and another set of records which may be from a number registered to Time magazine.

These revelations come to light after the Washington Post reported Monday that FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed an affidavit in support of a warrant request alleging that Rosen himself engaged in criminal activity in receiving classified information from Kim about North Korea. A judge granted the search warrant, and the Justice Department seized Rosen’s personal emails and phone records and tracked his movements.

Rosen was never charged with any crime, while Kim faces a possible 10-year prison term under the reactionary Espionage Act of 1917. Kim has filed a plea of not guilty.

The New Yorker report relied on a discovery document, in this case, a list of attached electronic documents related to the prosecution of Kim, filed in court on October 13, 2011. The document is a letter from US Attorney Machen to the attorneys defending Kim. It makes reference to 2,111 pages of unclassified information subpoenaed in the investigation, including several sets of bank and credit union records, several sets of Yahoo! Email records and one set of Gmail email records–the latter appearing to belong to Rosen–, IP address records and wireless phone records.

Also listed is surveillance video from the American Red Cross, other surveillance video and security badge information from Kim and media personnel, apparently including Rosen, though his name is not specified. The letter indicates that much more documentation of subpoenaed information, including classified information, will be forthcoming in the case.

The latest report reveals that the investigation into Kim’s supposed leak was even broader than was initially thought, and this too comes on top of last week’s reports that the DoJ seized phone records for some 21 phone lines registered to the Associated Press in an investigation of a leak of information on US intelligence operations in Yemen.

Last Tuesday, the director and legal defense directors of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press issued a protest letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General and copied Machen. The letter denounced the subpoena of AP phone records as being overly broad, secretive and illegal. Some 52 press organizations endorsed the letter, including CNN, Dow Jones and Company, Forbes Inc., The New York Times Company and Reuters America LLC.

The Department of Justice is engaged in at least two other leak investigations at present. One involves the leak of information to the New York Times about the infamous “Kill Lists” of targets for drone assassination reviewed by president Obama. The other concerns an attempt by the United States and Israel to infect the computer systems of Iranian nuclear facilities with the Stuxnet worm, information which was also leaked to the Times. The administration has indicted six current and former officials under the Espionage Act of 1917, more than all previous administrations combined.

While denunciations of Obama and the Department of Justice abound in editorials and blogs from news sources all over the political spectrum, the hostility they express to the president’s attack on the free press is by no means universally held.

Several commentators have come out in defense of “plugging leaks” by virtually any means.

Jack Shafer, writing an opinion column for Reuters, makes the case that perhaps Eric Holder was right, and the leak for which AP phone records were subpoenaed could really have been “very, very serious.”

Shafer wrote last Tuesday:

“Journalists gasp and growl whenever prosecutors issue lawful subpoenas ordering them to divulge their confidential sources or to turn over potential evidence, such as notes, video outtakes or other records. It’s an attack on the First Amendment, It’s an attack on the First Amendment, It’s an attack on the First Amendment, journalists and their lawyers chant.”

The Washington Post’s veteran national security writer, former CIA informant Walter Pincus, went so far as to state that whoever leaked the information around the AP story “not only broke the law but caused the abrupt end to a secret, joint U.S./Saudi/British operation in Yemen that offered valuable intelligence against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”

He says later, “It was inevitable that the leak to the AP would generate an FBI probe. Given past leak investigations in the Bush and Obama administrations, journalists at the AP and elsewhere know they could face scrutiny. Like it or not, they are part of a crime. The leaker or leakers had taken an oath under the threat of prosecution to protect the information.” (Italics added)

Most significantly, the New York Times on Monday lent space in its pages to a statement by three former Department of Justice officials: Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton; William P. Barr, attorney general from 1991 to 1993; and Kenneth L. Wainstain, assistant attorney general for national security from 2006 to 2008. The statement, titled “Stop the Leaks,” made a crude and legally untenable case for the actions of the Justice Department.

“As former Justice Department officials who served in the three administrations preceding President Obama’s, we are worried that the criticism of the decision to subpoena telephone toll records of A.P. journalists in an important leak investigation sends the wrong message to the government officials who are responsible for our national security.”

Apologizing for the Obama administration’s gross violations of the First Amendment, the authors continue:

“But after eight months of intensive effort, it appears that they still could not identify the leaker. It was only then—after pursuing ‘all reasonable alternative investigative steps,’ as required by the department’s regulations—that investigators proposed obtaining telephone toll records (logs of calls made and received) for about 20 phone lines that the leaker might have used in conversations with A.P. journalists. They limited the request to the two months when the leak most likely occurred, and did not propose more intrusive investigative steps.”

The authors do not address the requirement that the DoJ must first ask for the records in question from the media outlet itself before issuing a subpoena. They presume that the unsubstantiated assertion by attorney general Holder that asking for the records would have jeopardized the investigation: i.e., evidence would have been destroyed.

The letter is significant in its expression of a consensus within the ruling class that the methods of suppressing any leaks are beyond reproach. Journalists who would communicate leaks should likewise be prosecuted, if necessary to protect national security.

Apple’s tax dodge: The case for public ownership

24 May 2013

The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report Monday showing that electronics giant Apple Inc. uses offshore tax shelters to avoid taxes on the majority of its income and cheated the US government out of $9 billion in 2012 alone.

That same day, a tornado leveled the town of Moore, Oklahoma, killing 24 people, including seven children, who died huddled in hallways and bathrooms of their elementary school because officials lacked funds to build a storm shelter.

The juxtaposition of these two events speaks volumes about American society. Vital social needs of the people—like emergency services and decent schools—are ignored, because there is supposedly no money to pay for them. Yet the fact that one of the world’s largest corporations has systematically robbed the state of tens of billions of dollars is accepted with barely a protest by the political establishment. At a Senate hearing Tuesday on Apple’s tax evasion, none of the US senators called for a criminal investigation into the company, let alone demanded that any of the taxes it dodged be paid.

While putting questions to Apple CEO Tim Cook at the hearing, the senators prostrated themselves before his corporation. “I love Apple. I love Apple!” gasped Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill during her remarks. “Apple is a great company,” declared Democrat Carl Levin, the committee’s chairman.

Republican Rand Paul insisted, “What we need to do is apologize to Apple and compliment them for the job-creation they’re doing.”

Cook used his appearance before the Senate panel—nominally to respond to allegations of wrongdoing—to call for slashing the US corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 20 percent. But rather than denounce him for intolerable presumption, the Senators, Republican and Democratic alike, resoundingly agreed with Cook that the way to make companies like Apple pay their taxes is to lower the corporate tax rate. This is no surprise, since half of the members of this esteemed body are millionaires themselves.

Official political life in the United States is dominated by the constant refrain that every social need must be subordinated to the need to cut budget deficits without increasing taxes on the wealthy. In the name of combating this looming budget disaster, Congress and the White House signed into law $1.2 trillion in spending cuts this year, while Barack Obama has called for at least $500 billion more in cuts to Medicare and Social Security, which would impoverish millions of elderly people.

The growth of the supposed budget crisis has paralleled the effective ending of most taxation on corporations. In 1952, corporate taxes amounted for one third of tax revenue; now, they account for less than nine percent.

Meanwhile, an ever-growing burden of financing wars and corporate bailouts has been placed on workers. Payroll taxes, which are paid for overwhelmingly by working people, account for 41 percent of all tax income in the US—up from 9.7 percent in 1952.

The size of the tax breaks and loopholes extended to corporations is enormous: according to an estimate by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, if all of the “offshore” earnings of US corporations were taxed at the normal rate, it would raise $42 billion per year—half the cost of this year’s ‘sequester’ cuts that will furlough 1 million federal workers, shut down schools, and slash unemployment payments for hundreds of thousands of people.

Even the claim that untaxed corporate profits are kept outside the country is shallow fraud: while Apple’s subsidiaries are incorporated in Ireland, they hold their board meetings in California and keep their assets in New York banks. These tax loopholes are intentionally created by the big business politicians as a pretense to slash the actual amount of taxes paid by US corporations.

Yet far from using their enormous profits to hire workers, conduct research, and expand production, corporations are merely hoarding up their vast piles of cash. At the end of the fourth quarter of this year, US corporations were sitting on a $1.73 trillion cash hoard. A good chunk of this belongs to Apple: the company is holding $150 billion in cash, enough to pay for this year’s sequester budget cuts twice over.

Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people throughout the globe are out of work, and billions more labor in the types of sweatshop conditions that lead Apple’s suppliers to set up anti-suicide nets around the roofs of their factories in China.

The most pronounced attribute of contemporary society is the disparity between the vast, idle wealth piled up by the ruling class on one hand, and the misery, poverty and chronic joblessness among the working people whose labor creates the wealth of society.

Social inequality has exploded since the crash of 2008, which was used by the corporate and financial elite to escalate a program of social counter-revolution to destroy the achievements won by the working class through generations of struggle. Throughout the world, social opposition is growing, but the most important question is the building of a new leadership of the working class in opposition to the trade unions and pseudo-left organizations that want to keep workers tied to the corporate-controlled parties.

Nothing will be done to address this gaping disparity by a political establishment that replies to massive corporate tax evasion with calls to lower business taxes. The vast corporate looting operation will continue until the working class takes up the struggle to reorganize society.

This struggle must be animated by the socialist perspective, not merely of patching over of the existing society, but of reorganizing it on the basis of social need, not private profit.

Giant corporations like Apple must be put under the democratic control of the working class, and the vast cash hoards they have piled up must be seized and used to satisfy the needs of society: to build schools, roads and bridges, and provide all people with the right to housing, health care, education, and everything else needed to live decently. This is the program fought for by the Socialist Equality Party.

Andre Damon

May 23, 2013

What is the U.S. REALLY Doing in Syria?

By Stephen M. Walt 

May 23, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"Foreign Policy" - - Permit me to indulge today in a bit of speculation, for which I don't have a lot of hard evidence. As I read this article yesterday on Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian civil war, I began to wonder whether U.S. involvement in that conflict isn't more substantial than I have previously thought. And then I did a bit of web surfing and found this story, which seemed to confirm my suspicions. Here's my chain of reasoning:

1. The Syrian conflict has become a proxy fight between the opposition and its various allies (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Turkey, etc.) and Bashar al-Assad's regime and its various outsider supporters (Iran, Russia, Hezbollah).

2. For Washington, this war has become a golden opportunity to inflict a strategic defeat on Iran and its various local allies and thus shift the regional balance of power in a pro-American direction.

3. Israel's calculations are more complicated, given that it had a good working relationship with the Assad regime and is concerned about a failed state emerging next door. But on balance, a conflict that undermines Iran, further divides the Arab/Islamic world, and distracts people from the continued colonization of the West Bank is a net plus. So Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won't object if the United States gets more deeply engaged.

4. Consistent with its buck-passing instincts, Barack Obama's administration does not want to play a visible role in the conflict. This is partly because Americans are rightly tired of trying to govern war-torn countries, but also because America isn't very popular in the region and anyone who gets too close to the United States might actually lose popular support. So no boots on the ground, no "no-fly zones," and no big, highly visible shipments of U.S. arms. Instead, Washington can use Qatar and Saudi Arabia as its middlemen, roles they are all too happy to play for their own reasons.

5. Since taking office, Obama has shown a marked preference for covert actions that don't cost too much and don't attract much publicity, combined with energetic efforts to prosecute leakers. So an energetic covert effort in Syria would be consistent with past practice. Although there have been news reports that the CIA is involved in vetting and/or advising some opposition groups, we still don't know just how deeply involved the U.S. government is. (There has been a bit of speculation in the blogosphere that the attack on Benghazi involved "blowback" from the Syrian conflict, but I haven't seen any hard evidence to support this idea.)

6. In this scenario, the Obama administration may secretly welcome the repeated demands for direct U.S. involvement made by war hawks like Sen. John McCain. Rejecting the hawks' demands for airstrikes, "no-fly zones," or overt military aid makes it look like U.S. involvement is actually much smaller than it really is.

To repeat: The above analysis is mostly speculative on my part. I have no concrete evidence that the full scenario sketched above is correct, and I don't know what the level of U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war really is. But that's what troubles me: I don't like not knowing what my government is doing, allegedly to make me safer or to advance someone's idea of the "national interest." And if you're an American, neither should you. If the United States is now orchestrating a lot of arms shipments, trying to pick winners among the opposition, sending intelligence information to various militias, and generally meddling in a very complicated and uncertain conflict, don't you think the president owes us a more complete account of what America's public servants are or are not doing, and why?

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

US Government Admits Extrajudicial Murder of Four American Citizens

By RT

May 23, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"RT" - United States Attorney General Eric Holder has informed Congress that four American citizens have been killed in Yemen and Pakistan by US drones since 2009.

It has been widely reported but rarely acknowledged in Washington that three US citizens — Samir Khan, Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki — were executed in Yemen by missile-equipped drones in 2011. With Holder’s latest admission, however, a fourth American — Jude Kenan Mohammed — has also been officially named as another casualty in America’s continuing drone war.

“Since 2009, the United States, in the conduct of US counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, has specifically targeted and killed one US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki,” the letter reads in part. “The United States is further aware of three other US citizens who have been killed in such US counterterrorism operations over that same time period,” Holder said before naming the other victims.

“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” the attorney general wrote.

The news of the admission broke Wednesday afternoon when New York Times reporter Charlie Savage published the letter sent from Holder to congressional leaders in a clear attempt to counter critics who have challenged the White House for falling short of US President Barack Obama’s campaign plans of utmost transparency. Upon a growing number of executive branch scandals worsened by the Department of Justice’s recently disclosed investigation of Associated Press journalists, Holder wrote that coming clean is an effort to include the American public in a discussion all too often conducted in the shadows cast by the US intelligence community.

“The administration is determined to continue these extensive outreach efforts to communicate with the American people,” continued Holder. “To this end, the president has directed me to disclose certain information that until now has been properly classified. You and other members of your committee have on numerous occasions expressed a particular interest in the administration’s use of lethal force against US citizens. In light of this face, I am writing to disclose to you certain information about the number of US citizens who have been killed by US counterterrorism operations outside of areas of active hostilities.”

The letter, dated Wednesday, May 22, was addressed to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Drone strikes have become a signature counterterrorism tool used by the Obama administration and his predecessor, President George W. Bush, and have been attributed with killing roughly 5,000 persons abroad, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). But under the covert and protective umbrella of the Central Intelligence Agency, little has been formally acknowledged from Washington as to the details of these strikes.

As part of the vaguely defined ‘War on Terror,’ the US has reportedly waged drone strikes outside of Afghanistan where the Taliban once harbored al-Qaeda. In recent years, those strikes have targeted towns in neighboring Pakistan, as well as Yemen, Somalia and perhaps elsewhere.

But despite growing criticism over escalating use of drones, the president and his office has remained adamant about defending the operations.

“It’s important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash,” Obama said last January, adding that his administration does not conduct "a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly.”

Others have argued quite the opposite, though, and have opposed these drone strikes over the lack of due process involved and the habit of accidently executing civilians in the strikes. When researchers at Stanford University and New York University published their ‘Living Under Drones’ report last September, they found that roughly 2 percent of drone casualties are of top militant leaders. The Pakistani Interior Minister has said that around 80 percent of drone deaths in his country were suffered by civilians.

Earlier this year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) led a marathon filibuster on the floor of Congress to oppose the CIA’s drone program and demand the administration explain to elected lawmakers why the use of unmanned aerial vehicles is warranted in executing suspects, often killing innocent civilians as a result.

Of particular concern, Paul said, was whether or not the Obama administration would use the 2011 Yemen strike as justification to kill American citizens within the US. For 13 hours, he demanded the White House respond.

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA,” Sen. Paul said. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

One day after the filibuster, both Attorney General Holder and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reached out to Sen. Paul to say the president lacks the authority to issue such a strike within the US. With this week’s letter, however, Holder admits that at least four Americans have met their demise due to US drones. He also explains why the administration felt justified in using UAVs to execute its own people.

“Al-Awlaki repeatedly made clear his intent to attack US persons and his hope that these attacks would take American lives,” wrote Holder. “Based on this information, high-level US government officials appropriately concluded that al-Awlaki posed a continuing and imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

Later, Holder says the decision to strike al-Awlaki was “not taken lightly” and was first put into plan in early 2010. Additionally, Holder said the plan was “subjected to exceptionally rigorous interagency legal review” and that Justice Department lawyers and attorneys for other agencies agreed that it was the appropriate action to take.

According to Holder, the senior al-Awlaki and Mr. Khan were killed in the same September 2011 drone strike in Yemen. The following month, 16-year-old Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed in a strike in the same country. Mohammed, a North Carolina resident born in 1988, was killed by a drone likely in November 2011 within a tribal area of Pakistan. Mohammed was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2009 for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim and injure persons in a foreign country, and was considered armed and dangerous by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Both Khan and the older al-Awlaki were suspected members of al-Qaeda and were affiliated with the group’s magazine, Inspire.

Last February, friends of Mohammad told a North Carolina newspaper that they believed he was dead.

“Farhan Mohammed says he heard in November that his friend was killed in a drone strike,” Raleigh’s WRAL News reported in 2012. “Jude Mohammad’s pregnant wife was hysterical about her husband's death and called her mother-in-law in the Triangle to break the news, according to Sabra. The US government hasn't confirmed Mohammad’s death, but the people who knew him in North Carolina say it's probably true.”

Holder declined to explain why either Mohammad or the teenage al-Awlaki were killed. President Obama is expected to discuss America’s drone program at an address in Washington on Thursday.

Guatemala's Ríos Montt Genocide Conviction Omen for US Presidents and Their Hired Assassins

By Jay Janson

May 23, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - José Efraín Ríos Montt began the his political and military career as a young officer taking part in the bloody successful CIA-organized coup against the first democratically elected president in Guatemalan history that was ordered by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954. Two years earlier he had attended what peace activists call, the 'US School for Assassins,' namely, the long infamous School of the Americas. He ended his career a few days ago, convicted of genocide by the Guatemalan court he once controlled as president and dictator. 

Associate Press reported, 'The three-judge panel essentially concluded that the massacres followed the same pattern, showing they had been planned, something that would not be possible without the approval of the military command, which Rios Montt headed. In delivering the verdict, Presiding Judge Yassmin Barrios said, "he knew about everything that was going on and he did not stop it, despite having the power to stop it from being carried out." '

US President Ronald Reagan also had the power, greater power, to stop the massacres being perpetrated by dictator General and President Ríos Montt. Reagan must have been aware of them, known enough about them, and could have stopped those year-and-half-long massacres with far less effort than President Eisenhower had made in ordering the bloody and merciless overthrowing of a popularly elected president, a democratic president, who in making land reform, had gotten in the way of the massive United Fruit Company that owned more than half of Guatemala.[1] In the case of the President of Guatemala and in President Reagan's case, there was no room for sentiment. It was just business.

Prosecutors argued that Ríos Montt oversaw the massacres of Mayan Indians when he ruled Guatemala from March 1982 to August 1983. Ríos Montt held his great power as dictator of Guatemala for the financial and political and military backing he was receiving from US President Ronald Reagan's administration, and the administrations of US presidents before him, all of whom represented the interests of the financial consensus that really rules in America. 

Midway through the eighteen months of horrific massacres, December of 1982, President Ronald Reagan visited President-General Ríos Montt in Guatemala City and in a press release, praised the dictator, "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment....I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice." 

These were the first years of President Ronald Reagan's administration during which CIA was organizing, funding and overseeing the sickening terrorist attacks on rural areas of nearby Nicaragua from across the border of US ally Honduras, planning sabotage of industries and mining Nicaragua's ports (which brought a US conviction by the International Court of Justice when Nicaragua sued in 1984). Reagan had let it be known he didn't approve of the popular revolution that had overthrown a brutal thieving dictator whose father had been installed by the US Marines as they were ending their twenty-one year old occupation of Nicaragua ordered by President Woodrow Wilson.[2] In El Salvador, despite evidence that by 1984, 65,000 civilians had been murdered by the National Guard and right-wing paramilitary forces, President Reagan's national Bipartisan Commission on Central America justified massive military support.

As yet, there has never been a trial in the United States of US officials and their financial backers for bribery, for CIA crimes like assassinations, promoting massacres, arranging destabilizing violence, for armed intervention or the treat of armed intervention in a foreign nation in peace time. Investigations, yes, but to this writers knowledge never a prosecution. After a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the CIA in the 1974, a bill was passed forbidding (future) assassinations of government officials. (American school books cite Admiral Perry's 1854 ultimatum to the Japanese government to sign a treaty of commerce or see Yokohama reduces to ashes by his flotilla's cannons, as Perry's achievement 'The Opening up of Japan' .) 

Once the US is no longer omnipotent, and Americans no longer enjoy immunity as an exceptional race, their crimes against humanity will be prosecuted as was the genocide committed by Ríos Montt, a loutish butcher employed by who and what everyone knows. Everyone! If one of Al Capone's triggermen was on trial for murder, who was more importantly guilty, the triggerman, who was only one of the Mafia Don's many triggermen convicted, or Mafia don Al Capone himself? 

Eventually, if not sooner, given the fact that there is no time limitation on prosecution of genocide, and the coming inevitable restitution of logic and law in public affairs, one can expect prosecution of Americans, and not just Americans in high office serving that "financial element in the circles of power that has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson" as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt quipped to his friend Colonel House in 1932. [3] (One might also like to recall that at the time FDR, in confidence, noted his secondary importance to that "financial element," a tightly inclusive group of his of his friends and acquaintances and captains of industry and banking were, as a block, investing in the cheap labor of a financially prostate Nazi Germany and building its Wehrmacht up to number one military force in the world in full knowledge of Hitler's plan for the Soviet Union and European Jews.) 

If one confines oneself to researching the well published documentation of crimes against humanity during the administrations of the presidents that followed Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the last American president, who, as an aristocrat, had some influence among his wealthy peers, it becomes very clear why eminent historian Prof. Noam Chomsky of M.I.T. can say over and over again, without provoking much negative outcry, "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." Prof. Chomsky followed this statement with listing the crimes against humanity of each of these presidents he had condemned to the gallows, and has since occasionally updated the list to include subsequent new US presidents. A hard rain is going to fall in America one day.

But the conviction of Ríos Montt portends more immediate future prosecution of similar criminally traitorous servants of the last of the white world colonial powers that have overseen massacres and slower forms of death throughout the Americas and especially in Central America and Mexico. And they are innumerable, so great is the reach of the corporatist government of the US superpower run by automaton legal thieves incapable of factoring death and misery, even deaths of children, into their mindless calculator-machine-like adherence to capital accumulation by the commodification of planet and life on Earth. (Two popular American axioms come to mind: 'Business is business' and 'good guys don't win ball games.')

Those known for direct and immediate forms of genocide in the name of maintaining the maximum profitability of US and European predatory investments, are mentioned in encyclopedias and honest history books, e.g., Fulgencio Batista of Cuba, General Humberto Branco of Brazil, Raoul Cedras, Duvalier, Francois, Duvalier, Jean Claude of Haiti, Vinicio Cerezo and Ríos Montt of Guatemala, Roberto Suazo Cordova of Honduras, Alfredo Christiani of El Salvador, General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El Salvador, General Manuel Noriega of Panama, General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Anastasio Somoza Sr. and Anastasio Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua, General Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, General Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina, just to mention those who made themselves notorious by being responsible for mass murder. 

The list of thugs inflated in importance to infamous lethal monsters created by the United States and allied colonial powers in Africa and Asia is more than twice as long as the one for Latin America. For every one of these household names of horror from immediate genocide through the use of military or paramilitary, there are dozens of local presidents in the nations that make up the non-white majority mankind, that have arisen from the comprador class or military. They have represented their own people only nominally, while enforcing the infinitely broader in victims slow genocide of starvation and years of life lost from early death through malnutrition, treatable deceases, infant mortality and the mortality within all age groups, that results from populations having lost control natural resources needed to sustain life. The lands, natural resources and human resources of this majority of Mankind have for centuries belonged to the plundering speculating investors of the First World, by internationally recognized 'colonial law' enforced by firepower. 

Because the convictions of Presidents and Generals Ríos Montt, Pinochet, and Videla impact Latin Americans more, we can focus on how these convictions will spread consciousness of the slow genocide caused by the parasitical economic hegemony of the US over the nearly six hundred million human beings living south of the US-Mexican border. Mexico and Haiti, perhaps for proximity to the Yankee trader in lives of human beings, have suffered far and away the most from a merciless economic subjugation of their populations by the world's single superpower.

The most recent tragic and enormous loss of life in Haiti, a slow genocide, was recently officiously apologized for by ex-Presidetn Bill Clinton claiming he meant well in turning Haiti over to agro-exploitation by the US business world. As U.N. special envoy to Haiti - he publicly apologized for championing policies that destroyed Haiti's rice production. Clinton in the mid-1990s had 'encouraged' (read 'forced') the impoverished country to dramatically cut tariffs on imported U.S. rice. "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else." 

Mexicans suffered the third massive crime of the United States in history: invasion and appropriation of half of its country at the point of guns and cannons. And since then Mexicans have witnessed the remaining half of their country occupied and exploited by the American world of business, with the cooperation of Mexico's wealthy and managed elections. (The first being the enslavement and murder of Africans, the second, the murderous subjugation and theft of the lands of the Native nations of America.)

Quoting from a study made by a distinguished Mexican writer and journalist, Gustavo Esteva:

"For some time now the social fabric and soul of Mexico has been torn away. One third of Mexicans are actually living outside of the country –one of the greatest migrations in history. Since the signing of the NAFTA agreement, 20 million Mexican citizens have emigrated, the majority of them, to the United States and Canada, but some to countries as distant as Japan. Most of them are trying to escape from unbearable conditions in their place of origin or to support their families and communities from abroad. (The amount of remittances to Mexico, 22 billion dollars per year, is the second most important source of foreign income for Mexico, after oil).

Mexico no longer operates under a state of law. The violation of human rights, especially rights of some fifty ethnic groups, is a constant. There is also continual persecution of human rights activists, environmentalists, journalists, and particularly, those struggling for social change. There is a regression of democracy, a structural “deviation of power,” and the co-optation of the law by distinct corporatist factions. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights defined this as “the use of the powers of the State to persecute and hinder the civil rights of the people.” ... According to Amnesty International, the torture practiced by Mexican security forces is a “generalized and systematic” practice that in recent years has “reached scandalous levels.” Impunity for these sadistic acts of violence, or human rights violations is practically absolute.

More than 60 million Mexicans (of 115 million total) are living below the poverty line. 50 million live with food insecurity, 12 million can’t afford basic or essential foods, 28 million are suffering from hunger, and 3 million face famine. [statistics from documentation gathered by the People's Permanent Tribunal]

Policies that interfere the internal production of corn deteriorate the economy directly in the indigenous communities, and can be seen as one of the main factors determining migration. The attack on ancestral peasant farming systems, introduction of genetically altered variants and privatization of commons so crucial to native seeds devastates rural life and weakens communities. For the invasion of peasant and indigenous territory for mega projects, mining operations, privatization of water, monoculture plantations, deforestation, and the expropriation of territory via programs for the mercantilization of nature, agro-ecological balance is lost;

The government through dispossession is trying to “clear” people off their communal lands, already given in 50-years concessions to private corporations. These lands occupy more than 30% of Mexico. The owners of the lands, mainly indigenous people are resisting. The Zapatistas poetically embody this resistance. 

The pace of environmental destruction is unprecedented. Corrupt deregulation initiatives and massive land concessions handed over to private interests have greatly accelerated the environmental devastation, which in some cases, has resulted in irreversible damage. The air, water, soil/sub-soil, forests, beaches, rivers, lakes, and oceans, all have been subject to rape and degradation through the commodification of nature by corporations. 

In short, since the 1990’s, Mexico has adopted, in a systemic and institutionalized way, policies and strategies that have produced a progressive decline in the living conditions of the Mexican people and in their possibility to access legal protection when their rights are violated. The government alienates its citizens and marginalizes the rights of the people in the name of macro-economic stability and in order to serve corporate or private interests in larger part those of American speculative investment banking." 

Yours truly has many dear Mexican friends that describe this fearfulness of life in Mexico.

Convictions like that of Ríos Montt will help unmask the Washington-Wall Street domination of elections and hold over unscrupulous politicians not only to the degree of mass homicide, but a slower and greater genocide in Mexico and the many nations to its South.

Good people in general and activists in particular throughout the hemisphere recognize the economic occupation and terrorism by Uncle Sam and are calling for its prosecution as a crime against humanity. Cuba fought for, and got its freedom from economic occupation and slow genocide. Today Cubans enjoy a longevity even a bit higher than that in the US and a lower infant mortality rate than in US. 

Americans of good conscience must condemn their nations economic occupation and economic terror in neighboring Mexico and elsewhere. [seeProsecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now http://prosecuteuscrimesagainsthumanitynow.blogspot.com/ ]

Forty-seven years ago Martin Luther King Jr. cried out, “Look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the country. This is a role our nation has taken, … refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. This is not just.” ... The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government." King said "purveyor" not cause, for he held America, Americans, in anguish including himself, responsible, because the American people are capable of making their economic and military criminal aggression no longer acceptable and inoperable through non-participation, non-support, non-acquiescence and conscientious objection.

Jay janson, coordinator of the King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign and web historian for the entirely educational Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign, which features the pertinent laws, exhortations by Einstein, King and others, and a country by country history of US crimes and asks nothing at all from its viewers. http://prosecuteuscrimesagainsthumanitynow.blogspot.com/


End Notes

1 - United Fruit owned only some 42 percent of the land, but also railroads, a port, and with other US companies, the Guatemala's utilities.

2 - The Somoza family, who ruled Nicaragua as a family dictatorship from 1936 to 1979. Although they only held the presidency for 30 of those 43 years, they were the power behind the other presidents of the time through their control of the National Guard, created by the occupying US Marine Force. Their regime was overthrown by the Sandinista National Liberation Front during the Nicaraguan Revolution. Three of the Somozas served as President of Guatemala.

3 - Letter to Colonel Ed House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliot Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.

London 'Machete' Attack Woolwich Killer Footage

London 'Machete' Attack Woolwich Killer Footage

George Galloway: Woolwich Beheading Attack will be Repeated, EDL are 'Moral Dwarves'

By Gareth Platt

May 23, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"IB Times" - George Galloway has described the murder in Woolwich as an "indefensible crime" while defending his claim that Britain's involvement in Syria is equally reprehensible.

The Respect MP, speaking exclusively to IBTimes UK, also described the English Defence League (EDL) as "moral dwarves" and said the British people are "too sensible" to attack Muslim property, despite allegations that the Woolwich murder was motivated by terrorism.

Galloway caused controversy yesterday by tweeting that "this sickening atrocity in London is exactly what we are paying the same kind of people to do in Syria."

Today he defended his claim, telling IBTimes UK that the tweet "has the benefit of being undisputably true.

"We've given hundreds of millions of pounds to the Syrian rebels and demanded the EU ends the arms embargo so we can give them guns too.

"We've all seen, if we care to watch, not just innumerable snuff videos of the Syrian rebels cutting people's heads off but cutting off their hearts and eating their hearts on camera."

Galloway went on to claim that the sort of violence witnessed on a London street "will happen again, because we are at war with Muslims all over the world. It will happen again as long as we are, as a country, involved in spreading murder and mayhem across the Muslim world."

However Galloway was quick to demonstrate that he was in no way condoning the Woolwich murder, saying "yesterday was indefensible.

"The true disaster of 7/7, as yesterday, is that the crimes of guilty people are paid for by innocent people. Like on 7/7 the people getting people killed and maimed are not the people spreading murder and mayhem. That's why it's a crime to do what was done yesterday."

Galloway said that the retaliatory violence seen last night in Kent and Essex, where local mosques were attacked, won't be repeated on a national scale "because the number of people involved in that kind of thing are small and dwindling. The British people are not that kind of people."

He described the EDL as "a tiny rump of football hooligans, peddling a fascist ideology and declining fast.

"The British people are too sensible to follow these moral dwarves."

Terracide and the Terrarists

Destroying the Planet for Record Profits 

By Tom Engelhardt

May 23, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"Tom Dispatch" -- We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of the environment: ecocide. But we don’t have a word for the conscious act of destroying the planet we live on, the world as humanity had known it until, historically speaking, late last night. A possibility might be “terracide” from the Latin word for earth. It has the right ring, given its similarity to the commonplace danger word of our era: terrorist.

The truth is, whatever we call them, it’s time to talk bluntly about the terrarists of our world. Yes, I know, 9/11 was horrific. Almost 3,000 dead, massive towers down, apocalyptic scenes. And yes, when it comes to terror attacks, the Boston Marathon bombings weren’t pretty either. But in both cases, those who committed the acts paid for or will pay for their crimes.

In the case of the terrarists -- and here I’m referring in particular to the men who run what may be the most profitable corporations on the planet, giant energy companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell -- you’re the one who’s going to pay, especially your children and grandchildren. You can take one thing for granted: not a single terrarist will ever go to jail, and yet they certainly knew what they were doing.

It wasn’t that complicated. In recent years, the companies they run have been extracting fossil fuels from the Earth in ever more frenetic and ingenious ways. The burning of those fossil fuels, in turn, has put record amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Only this month, the CO2 level reached 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. A consensus of scientists has long concluded that the process was warming the world and that, if the average planetary temperature rose more than two degrees Celsius, all sorts of dangers could ensue, including seas rising high enough to inundate coastal cities, increasingly intense heat waves, droughts, floods, ever more extreme storm systems, and so on.

How to Make Staggering Amounts of Money and Do In the Planet

None of this was exactly a mystery. It’s in the scientific literature. NASA scientist James Hansen first publicized the reality of global warming to Congress in 1988. It took a while -- thanks in part to the terrarists -- but the news of what was happening increasingly made it into the mainstream. Anybody could learn about it.

Those who run the giant energy corporations knew perfectly well what was going on and could, of course, have read about it in the papers like the rest of us. And what did they do? They put their money into funding think tanks, politicians, foundations, and activists intent on emphasizing “doubts” about the science (since it couldn’t actually be refuted); they and their allies energetically promoted what came to be known as climate denialism. Then they sent their agents and lobbyists and money into the political system to ensure that their plundering ways would not be interfered with. And in the meantime, they redoubled their efforts to get ever tougher and sometimes “dirtier” energy out of the ground in ever tougher and dirtier ways.

The peak oil people hadn’t been wrong when they suggested years ago that we would soon hit a limit in oil production from which decline would follow. The problem was that they were focused on traditional or “conventional” liquid oil reserves obtained from large reservoirs in easy-to-reach locations on land or near to shore. Since then, the big energy companies have invested a remarkable amount of time, money, and (if I can use that word) energy in the development of techniques that would allow them to recover previously unrecoverable reserves (sometimes by processes that themselves burn striking amounts of fossil fuels): fracking, deep-water drilling, and tar-sands production, among others.

They also began to go after huge deposits of what energy expert Michael Klare calls “extreme” or “tough” energy -- oil and natural gas that can only be acquired through the application of extreme force or that requires extensive chemical treatment to be usable as a fuel. In many cases, moreover, the supplies being acquired like heavy oil and tar sands are more carbon-rich than other fuels and emit more greenhouse gases when consumed. These companies have even begun using climate change itself -- in the form of a melting Arctic -- to exploit enormous and previously unreachable energy supplies. With the imprimatur of the Obama administration, Royal Dutch Shell, for example, has been preparing to test out possible drilling techniques in the treacherous waters off Alaska. 

Call it irony, if you will, or call it a nightmare, but Big Oil evidently has no qualms about making its next set of profits directly off melting the planet. Its top executives continue to plan their futures (and so ours), knowing that their extremely profitable acts are destroying the very habitat, the very temperature range that for so long made life comfortable for humanity.

Their prior knowledge of the damage they are doing is what should make this a criminal activity. And there are corporate precedents for this, even if on a smaller scale. The lead industry, the asbestos industry, and the tobacco companies all knew the dangers of their products, made efforts to suppress the information or instill doubt about it even as they promoted the glories of what they made, and went right on producing and selling while others suffered and died.

And here’s another similarity: with all three industries, the negative results conveniently arrived years, sometimes decades, after exposure and so were hard to connect to it. Each of these industries knew that the relationship existed. Each used that time-disconnect as protection. One difference: if you were a tobacco, lead, or asbestos exec, you might be able to ensure that your children and grandchildren weren’t exposed to your product. In the long run, that’s not a choice when it comes to fossil fuels and CO2, as we all live on the same planet (though it's also true that the well-off in the temperate zones are unlikely to be the first to suffer).

If Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 plane hijackings or the Tsarnaev brothers’ homemade bombs constitute terror attacks, why shouldn’t what the energy companies are doing fall into a similar category (even if on a scale that leaves those events in the dust)? And if so, then where is the national security state when we really need it? Shouldn’t its job be to safeguard us from terrarists and terracide as well as terrorists and their destructive plots?

The Alternatives That Weren’t

It didn’t have to be this way.

On July 15, 1979, at a time when gas lines, sometimes blocks long, were a disturbing fixture of American life, President Jimmy Carterspoke directly to the American people on television for 32 minutes, calling for a concerted effort to end the country’s oil dependence on the Middle East. “To give us energy security,” he announced,


“I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun... Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20% of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.”

It’s true that, at a time when the science of climate change was in its infancy, Carter wouldn’t have known about the possibility of an overheating world, and his vision of “alternative energy” wasn’t exactly a fossil-fuel-free one. Even then, shades of today or possibly tomorrow, he was talking about having “more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias.” Still, it was a remarkably forward-looking speech. 

Had we invested massively in alternative energy R&D back then, who knows where we might be today? Instead, the media dubbed it the “malaise speech,” though the president never actually used that word, speaking instead of an American “crisis of confidence.” While the initial public reaction seemed positive, it didn’t last long. In the end, the president's energy proposals were essentially laughed out of the room and ignored for decades.

As a symbolic gesture, Carter had 32 solar panels installed on the White House. (“A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people: harnessing the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”) As it turned out, “a road not taken” was the accurate description. On entering the Oval Office in 1981, Ronald Reagan caught the mood of the era perfectly. One of his first acts was to order the removal of those panels and none were reinstalled for three decades, until Barack Obama was president.

Carter would, in fact, make his mark on U.S. energy policy, just not quite in the way he had imagined. Six months later, on January 23, 1980, in his last State of the Union Address, he would proclaim what came to be known as the Carter Doctrine: “Let our position be absolutely clear,” he said. “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

No one would laugh him out of the room for that. Instead, the Pentagon would fatefully begin organizing itself to protect U.S. (and oil) interests in the Persian Gulf on a new scale and America’s oil wars would follow soon enough. Not long after that address, it would start building up a Rapid Deployment Force in the Gulf that would in the end become U.S. Central Command. More than three decades later, ironies abound: thanks in part to those oil wars, whole swaths of the energy-rich Middle East are in crisis, if not chaos, while the big energy companies have put time and money into a staggeringly fossil-fuel version of Carter’s “alternative” North America. They’ve focused on shale oil, and on shale gas as well, and with new production methods, they are reputedly on the brink of turning the United States into a “new Saudi Arabia.”

If true, this would be the worst, not the best, of news. In a world where what used to pass for good news increasingly guarantees a nightmarish future, energy “independence” of this sort means the extraction of ever more extreme energy, ever more carbon dioxide heading skyward, and ever more planetary damage in our collective future. This was not the only path available to us, or even to Big Oil.

With their staggering profits, they could have decided anywhere along the line that the future they were ensuring was beyond dangerous. They could themselves have led the way with massive investments in genuine alternative energies (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, algal, and who knows what else), instead of the exceedingly small-scale ones they made, often for publicity purposes. They could have backed a widespread effort to search for other ways that might, in the decades to come, have offered something close to the energy levels fossil fuels now give us. They could have worked to keep the extreme-energy reserves that turn out to be surprisingly commonplace deep in the Earth.

And we might have had a different world (from which, by the way, they would undoubtedly have profited handsomely). Instead, what we’ve got is the equivalent of a tobacco company situation, but on a planetary scale. To complete the analogy, imagine for a moment that they were planning to produce even more prodigious quantities not of fossil fuels but of cigarettes, knowing what damage they would do to our health. Then imagine that, without exception, everyone on Earth was forced to smoke several packs of them a day.

If that isn’t a terrorist -- or terrarist -- attack of an almost unimaginable sort, what is? If the oil execs aren’t terrarists, then who is? And if that doesn’t make the big energy companies criminal enterprises, then how would you define that term?

To destroy our planet with malice aforethought, with only the most immediate profits on the brain, with only your own comfort and wellbeing (and those of your shareholders) in mind: Isn’t that the ultimate crime? Isn’t that terracide?

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book, co-authored with Nick Turse, isTerminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050.

[Note: Thanks go to my colleague and friend Nick Turse for coming up with the word "terracide."]

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook or Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.

Copyright 2013 Tom Engelhardt

Chris Hedges - Rise Up or Die!


Argentina’s ex-dictator Videla dead at 87

By Henry Allan 
23 May 2013

General Jorge Rafael Videla, who headed the bloody military junta that seized power in Argentina in 1976, died last Friday in a Marcos Paz prison cell. The coup that toppled the government of President Isabel Peron unleashed both economic devastation as well as mass repression against the working class for seven years (the “dirty war”) until it fell following the defeat of Argentina’s armed forces in the Malvinas War against Great Britain.

It is estimated that over 30,000 Argentines were murdered by the military government.

At his 1985 trial, General Videla and his codefendant, Admiral Emilio Massera, were found guilty of torture, murder and kidnapping. Videla was sentenced to life imprisonment, but served only five years before President Carlos Menem pardoned him and 30 other junta leaders. He was briefly returned to prison in 1998 after being convicted for kidnapping children, but then was released to house arrest for alleged health issues. In 2009, he was again sent to prison after a court cancelled the 1990 pardons, declaring them unconstitutional.

Videla never expressed remorse for the deaths of political prisoners and declared he was responsible for all military actions committed in fighting what he called “an internal war.” Videla also referred to today’s Peronist government of Cristina Fernandez Kirchner and that of her late husband Nestor Kirchner as “yesterday’s enemies [who] are in power and from there ... trying to establish a Marxist regime.”

In 2010, judges in the central Argentine city of Cordoba declared that Videla was “criminally responsible” for the torture and deaths of prisoners there and sentenced him to life in prison for crimes against humanity.

The military coup in Argentina followed a pattern that had begun in South America with the US-backed military overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Joao Goulart in Brazil in 1964. Nine years later, Salvador Allende was overthrown by the military in Chile. These dictatorships, evoking an ideology of anti-communism and “national security” promoted by Washington ruled by decree, violently suppressing all opposition, murdering, torturing and “disappearing” perceived enemies, freezing and cutting wages, arresting and killing trade unionists, reducing welfare assistance and raising food prices.

In Argentina, as in Chile, the military regimes carried out wholesale privatizations of the public sector, while attempting to develop the agrarian export sector and deregulating the banking industry to the benefit of the wealthy elites.

Opponents of these policies were branded as “terrorists” by Videla who declared in 1977, “One becomes a terrorist, not only by killing with a weapon or setting a bomb, but also by encouraging others through ideas that go against our Western and Christian civilization.” The hierarchy of the Catholic Church, including the current Pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, supported the repression against “communists” and “subversives”, offering consolation and forgiveness instead to the regime’s torturers and murderers who dumped their victims naked and bound into the sea from airplanes.

The political and military relationship between the United States and the military junta has been well-established and documented in recent years, especially through the release of secret archives by the US State Department in 2002. (See “US documents implicate Kissinger in Argentine atrocities”) These documents make clear the three administrations that dealt with the junta—those of Ford, Carter, and Reagan—were well-informed of the death squads, torture centers and atrocities being committed. Washington clearly understood that the repression was part and parcel of the defense of both its economic interests in Argentina as well as those of the native ruling class. What is equally illuminating are the ties demonstrated between the civilian leadership in the Argentine junta and the US financial elite.

Jose Alfredo Martìnez de Hoz, lobbyist and later CEO of Acindar, one of Argentina’s largest steel manufacturers, was appointed Minister of the Economy under President Videla in 1976. He had long-standing ties to the armed forces and used their services in bloodily suppressing workers at his steel plants in 1975, about three hundred of whom were abducted and most of them murdered for allegedly electing a “socialist” shop steward.

As Minister of the Economy, Martìnez de Hoz announced a plan to make the country more efficient and competitive internationally by opening the economy to more foreign investment by lowering trade barriers, slashing workers’ wages, and rescinding the inheritance tax. He was a personal friend of David Rockefeller who moved to get IMF [International Monetary Fund] and Chase Manhattan Bank to approve loans of almost $1 billion (US) to Argentina’s military junta. Banks were deregulated as well as financial markets and all bad loans in the private sector were transferred to the state which was charged with paying them off. Cheap imports into the country soared, resulting in local businesses failing and declaring bankruptcy. In addition, real wages for workers lost almost 40 percent of their purchasing power and resulted in a decline of consumer spending power.

In addition to de Hoz, the Central Bank of Argentina, was handed over to the control of Adolfo Diz, one of the so-called Chicago Boys of the Milton Friedman school of free market economics. Diz acted to limit domestic credit, enacted the Monetary Regulation Account Law of 1977 (this raised reserve requirements to 45 percent of deposits) and led to an inflation level of 175 percent.

Fearing social upheaval despite the repression, Martinez de Hoz implemented a currency devaluation of the official exchange rate between the Argentine peso and the US dollar. While this temporarily eased inflation, foreign credit and imported goods became cheaper, and by 1981, Argentina had a record $4 billion annual trade deficit. Flooded with imports, many domestic industries collapsed and the state, once again, absorbed private sector debts, including, those of Martinez de Hoz’s own businesses.

At the same time, speculation on the Argentine peso and banking Ponzi schemes damaged the economy in the long run. Martinez De Hoz even participated himself in the short-selling by insiders of the peso. By 1983, the public debt coupled with capital flight amounted to $43 billion (US). Under the free market, thousands of businesses collapsed and hundreds of thousands of workers faced unemployment. But all was not lost.

In 1988, Martinez de Hoz was arrested and indicted for his involvement in human rights abuses. He spent a total of 77 days in jail. Freed by President Carlos Menem in 1990, he returned to the corporate banking world. In 1992 he was convicted of operating a brokerage with a revoked license but became a member of the board of directors of the General Business Bank. This bank helped clients illegally wire almost $30 billion (US) out of the country before the outbreak of the 2001 financial crisis. When the Argentine courts revoked Menem’s pardons in 2007, de Hoz was rearrested for new murder, kidnapping and extortion charges. He remained under house arrest until his death in March 2013.

On a final note, the Argentine military junta was advised by its American friends to enlist the services of the New York headquartered marketing agency, Burson-Marsteller, to counteract the “bad publicity” over its murder, disappearance and torture of tens of thousands of Argentines. Burson-Marsteller is one of the largest public relations firms in the world and known for handling damage control.

In a telling statement, Burson-Marsteller CEO, Victor Emmanuel, stated that “violence was necessary to open up Argentina’s economy.” Investment securement would be impossible if a state of civil war existed, it was lamented. Admitting that “a lot of innocent people were probably killed,” he went on to declare that “given the situation, immense force was required.” Burson-Marsteller also carried out public relations campaigns for Facebook’s Google smear campaign, Philip Morris’ support of supposed anti-smoking laws, Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol disaster, Union Carbide and the Bhopal mass industrial homicide case in India, to name a few.