People Before Profit blog

US Forces Postponement of Security Council Vote on Darfur Crimes

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:15:00 +0000

3-30-05, 3:07 pm

A vote on a French resolution put before the UN Security Council to refer the crisis and war crimes in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was postponed today until Thursday.

The Bush administration strongly opposes the ICC and has worked over the last 4 years to weaken its powers and jurisdiction by seeking exemptions for US forces from the Court's reach.

The problem the Bush administration faces is that if it vetoes the French resolution, it will appear to be blocking justice for the millions of victims of mass killings, torture, and internal displacement in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

The Bush administration last year labeled the crimes committed by the Sudanese government-backed militia, known as the Janjaweed, genocide.

If it blocks what most human rights activists and international legal experts, including the American Bar Association, a large coalition of African-based human rights organizations, and most of the international community, describe as the best recourse for justice and prevention of future crimes – referral to the ICC – it will give the appearance of viewing its rigid ideological opposition to the court as more important than delivering a blow to genocidal crimes.

This conundrum comes on the heels of further evidence exposed by civil liberties and human rights groups based in the US of a widespread and systematic policy of torture adopted by the Bush administration and ordered by the Pentagon that violated Geneva Conventions.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the ACLU after a lawsuit last November showed that the policy expressed in the infamous Alberto Gonzales 'torture memo' was not confined to a few incidents at Abu Ghraib prison.

After the Abu Ghraib revelations in April of 2004, Bush administration officials attempted to convince the public and concerned international observers that torture and prisoner abuse were the activities of a few bad apples.

The November memos showed that prison facilities is Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and other parts of Iraq followed similar practices. (See related Political Affairs stories here or here or here.)

A memo just released yesterday by the ACLU reveals that in fact, US generals ordered the use of techniques that violated the Geneva Convention and were in line with the policy adopted by the Bush administration outlined in the Alberto Gonzales 'torture memo.' According to an ACLU statement, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, who signature appears on the September 2003 memo, and other high-ranking US military officials bear responsibility 'for the widespread abuse of prisoners and must be held accountable.

Donald Rumsfeld ordered these documents withheld from the public on national security grounds until a lawsuit against the Pentagon freed them for public scrutiny. Rumsfeld could not explain, an Agence France Presse story states, how national security would be harmed by publicizing documents that implicated high-ranking generals in what appear to be possible war crimes.

The interrogation techniques ordered by Sanchez were dropped in the months leading up to the public revelations of the Abu Ghraib atrocities, but well within the time period that the US government understood that it probably could not keep the lid on the Abu Ghraib scandal.

In other words, the techniques that the Bush administration outlined as OK to use, understanding fully that they probably violated the Geneva Conventions, and ordered by the Pentagon were changed when it became clear that the administration was about to be embarrassed by a major scandal.

An internal Pentagon report last month claimed that torture and abuse was not done as the result of a policy. So far only a handful of low-ranking enlisted military personnel have been investigated publicly and punished mildly for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

According to Human Rights First (HRF), the US currently holds as many as 11,000 prisoners in its detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. HRF suspects and is investigating the possibility that the secretiveness of most of these facilities has heightened the likelihood that prisoner abuse and mistreatment at those locations has continued.

Stinging from such a poor human rights record and presumably eager to get to the bottom of the torture scandal, one might expect that the Bush administration would be leap at the chance to adopt the International Criminal Court as the best tool for punishing and preventing war crimes.

So why the hesitation?

What is there to fear?

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

Bush's Social Security Crisis Rhetoric Falling Flat

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:07:00 +0000

3-30-05, 10:00 am

Opponents of Bush's Social Security privatization plan continue to wonder what crisis President Bush and the Republicans are talking about as they try to sell the president's plan to the public. Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund reported March 23 that without changes to address long-term financing problems, the trust fund would be able to pay full benefits until 2041, and there would still be sufficient money coming in to cover 74 percent of benefits thereafter. When asked about alternatives to Bush's idea, people widely support eliminating the $90,000 cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. Currently, individual income over $90,000 is not taxed. This means that the Social Security system is almost entirely and disproportionately funded by low- and middle-income working people.

People also strongly oppose raising the retirement age.

A more recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center points to growing opposition to Bush's plan among people under 30 years old. Less than half of this age group supports Bush plan, while almost two-thirds are said to have supported it a year ago. In this grouping, disapproval is greatest among those youth who also stated that they had 'heard a lot' about Bush's Social Security plan.

This turn around in public opinion has occurred in the midst of a high-powered, glitzy nationwide media blitz and cross-country campaign by Bush and several members of his administration to build support for his privatization plan.

Some congressional critics of Bush's plan point out that an important reform would be aimed at the spending habits of the US government rather than the program itself. A bill introduced by conservative Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore (KS) would order that money received from the Social Security payroll tax would be used solely for ensuring the solvency of the program and paying benefits, not shifted to other parts of the federal budget or to make the ballooning deficit appear smaller.

For those who oppose privatization on the principled grounds that our society must provide a safety net for retiring or disabled working people, Bush's privatization plan simply discards the social duty. According to the AFL-CIO, the leading umbrella organization of labor unions, which along with senior citizen organizations such as AARP, Bush's plan would replace Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with risky private accounts that would neither guarantee a better return nor individual control over one's finances.

The AFL-CIO has mobilized thousands of its members in opposition to Bush's plan. An e-mail and letter writing campaign targeting investment companies to withdraw from a pro-privatization coalition of businesses and business associations has led to some success. At least one member of the coalition has withdrawn under pressure.

The union has scheduled more public demonstrations at the West Shore, Tampa, Florida offices of investment firms Charles Schwab and Wachovia on March 31 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. A similar protest will be staged at the St. Petersburg, Florida Charles Schwab at the same time.

The Bush plan, the union says, would slash guaranteed benefits for young workers today by as much as $152,000 – even for those who did not choose private accounts and saddle our children with $4.9 trillion in new debt over the first 20 years.

Even worse, Bush's privatization plan would worsen Social Security’s financing problems. In a press conference on March 16, Bush admitted that his plan would not boost Social Security's financial situation. On the contrary, experts estimate that under Bush’s scheme Social Security will run out of surplus revenues in 2030, 11 years earlier than now projected, says the leading labor union.

As it stands Bush's plan looks less like a 'reform' than a means of dissolving Social Security altogether.

At stake is also the central question of racism. In a cynical attempt to convince some that Social Security needs 'reform,' Bush says that African Americans cannot fully benefit from the program because of low life expectancy rates and thus are hurt by it. Suddenly Bush is interested in the plight of African Americans?

Low life expectancy among African Americans has more to do with high infant mortality rates, lack of access to costly private health insurance, environmental racism, and a discriminatory criminal justice system that disproportionately hurts African American children and youth. When has Bush ever expressed an interest in tackling these serious problems?

Bush's maneuver angers Jarvis Tyner, a vice chair of the Communist Party USA, who, in a recent speech, called for stepping up the effort to block the Bush administration's attempts to dismantle civil rights. Tyner also challenged Bush's resistance to renewal of the Voting Rights Act, which is set to expire in 2007.

The People's Weekly World quoted Tyner: 'Bush’s phony Social Security ‘reform’ is more in-your-face racism,' Tyner said. 'How dare Bush use the mortality of Blacks to rationalize his effort to take their Social Security away? African Americans use and need Social Security more than any other group, as 11 percent of the work force but 18 percent of people using Social Security.'

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and may be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

Health and Safety and Labor's Great Debate

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:57:00 +0000

3-30-05, 9:50 am

From the print edition of Political Affairs, April 2005.

It’s no secret that today, a powerful debate rages in the labor movement. For most union members and supporters, notwithstanding the newspaper articles and discussions taking place in their union halls and work sites, there is probably more confusion than clarity. Everybody seems to be for or against the same things.

There is a great danger that the everyday health and safety of workers might become a casualty of this great debate. The purpose of this commentary is to not take sides with one group or the other. On the contrary, it is argue for the expansion of the historic mission of organized labor to protect workers from increasingly dangerous working conditions. Since the passage of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) law, labor has been able to reverse decades of corporate control over the workplace. Granted, the OSHA law has been stripped of many of its powers under Reagan and the two Bushes (and, Clinton didn’t help matters). But, abandoning safety and health in Congress and in state capitals to corporate power is a victory that the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Heritage Foundation could not have won themselves.

Let’s Get Real

Eliminating safety and health departments from unions and the AFL-CIO national office will not solve the problem of low union membership and inspire more organizing. And, the diversion money spent on safety and health to organizing will not significantly increase organizing budgets. There is simply no proof that either will happen: neither will net the results being trumpeted. Some activists worry that elimination of safety and health departments is actually a reaction by some union officials against an issue that they find hard to control. It is true that safety and health conditions are never fully resolved. That they often are used by rank-and-file activists to rally forces in insurgent election campaigns is probably true. But, here again, this is not the reason to try to sweep resolving safety and health conditions under the rug – they won’t go away.

So What Is the Answer?

Combining the power of an aggressive, union medical/scientific safety and health department with an organizing and political action department will attract tens of thousands of workers into labor unions. If it means larger union departments with subdivisions for health and safety, so be it. The problem with that approach is that with any organization, budget minded officials may cut corners and provide less financial support to the “super” department that health and safety resides in. Organizational behavior is organizational behavior. It makes much more sense for health and safety leaders to sit at the table when staff leadership meets and executive boards deliberate. Racist Edge

There is a racist edge to this issue. It is well known that employers hire “people of color” into the worst jobs in the plant. Nowadays that means immigrants from all over the world. That is the net result of employment discrimination. And, department, not plant-wide, seniority keeps people in their original departments. It is not a political stretch to postulate that closer attention to issues like employment discrimination and dangerous jobs might get lost under this downgrading of health and safety. It is an issue to keep track of.

In the meantime, as the debates continues, make sure that rank-and-file, staff and union leaders don’t negotiate out health and safety for workers for other important goals. The health and safety of workers is not negotiable, anywhere and anytime. They all fit into the new labor movement.

--Phil E. Benjamin writes a health column for Political Affairs.

Campaign to Renew Voting Rights Mobilizes

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:51:00 +0000

3-30-05, 9:44 am

Petition Drive Launched to Keep Voting Rights Act

From NNPA

BALTIMORE (NNPA) -- Representatives from several national organizations announced the goal of collecting 1 million signatures in a petition drive to encourage Congressional reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

At a press conference convened in the nation's capital, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, president of the Rainbow Push Coalition, discussed the petition as one of several strategies to ensure the reauthorization of the Act. ''There will be three critical parts of the Voting Rights Act to expire in 2007 unless reauthorized by Congress,'' said Jackson. ''We must be ever vigilant to protect our right to vote and not be swayed by media campaigns highlighting events that divert our attention [from] our mission.''

Jackson was joined by, among others: Major L. Jemison, president, Progressive National Baptist Convention Inc.; Barbara R. Arnwine, executive director, Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Laura W. Murphy, legislative director, American Civil Liberties Union; Stephanie Jones of the National Urban League; Richard Womack, AFL-CIO; T.J. Michaels, Service Employees International Union; Brenda Girton-Mitchell, National Council of Churches; Julie Fernandes, senior policy analyst, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Olga Vivies, vice president, National Organization for Women; Merwyn Scott, government relations, National Education Association; and Tanya M. Clay, deputy director, People For the American Way.

''The coming together of these major civil and justice organizations shows we are not being passive on this issue. This is a great moment. The result will be preservation of the Voting Rights Act,'' said Jemison.

Jemison is leader of one of the four major Baptist denominations that came together in a joint meeting in January to signal to the nation their common cause and launch a call for action. Commitment to ensuring the 1965 Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly accepted by the meeting's 14,000 participants.

Under the current Voting Rights Act provisions, Section 2 prohibits practices that deny or abridge the right to vote. It allows the attorney general or private plaintiffs to challenge discriminatory practices in areas of the country not covered by Section 5 of the act. Additionally, it is the only statutory recourse to challenge discriminatory voting practices that were enacted in ''covered'' (Section 5) jurisdictions prior to 1965.

Section 5 is an administrative or court procedure barring practices that have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote. Section 5 has limited geographical coverage and does not cover practices in these ''covered'' areas that were enacted prior to November 1, 1964.

Under Section 203 of the act, a community of one of the four covered language minority groups will qualify for bilingual voting assistance if more than five percent of the voting-age citizen population in a jurisdiction belong to a single-language minority community and have limited English proficiency. A community also qualifies where more than 10,000 voting-age citizens in a jurisdiction belong to a single-language minority community and are limited English proficient, and the illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority group is higher than the national illiteracy rate.

Attendees at the press conference made a call to defenders of civil and human rights. ''Unless we want to go back to the old days when we were not allowed to vote because of our gender, race, culture and spoken language, this law must stay intact,'' said Murphy.

Not only does the coalition plan to kick off the petition drive through the media, network interviews and college campuses, other plans have been set. They are organizing a massive march and rally on August 6 in Atlanta, Ga., to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the VRA and mobilize for its extension.

The coalition plans to engage students at the college level to become more vigilant about protecting their civil and human rights now and for the future.

''We were elated at the activism among college students and other youth groups in the 40th anniversary commemorating [the] March on Selma, Ala. We intend to develop that same spirit among our youth to engage them in this most vital process to ensure that our voting rights are protected,'' said Clay. Others agreed.

''We have launched a nationwide campaign to educate the general public, policymakers and the media on the importance of the Voting Rights Act to help them understand its current resonance, why it is meaningful today and why it is important that we preserve it in the future,'' said Fernandes.

''We hope to activate the people on and off campuses. We want to engage fraternities, sororities, HBCUs, people at the beauty salons and barbershops in this effort,'' said Fernandes.

Agent Orange research cancelled: 'A series of lies, deceit and blackmail'

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:46:00 +0000

3-30-05, 9:38 am

From The Guardian

The United States government has withdrawn from a commitment to joint research with Vietnam on the health consequences of Agent Orange, claiming that it had not received “the necessary co-operation from the Vietnamese government”. The following is a commentary on that development by US Professor Kenneth J Herrmann, which was published in the Vietnamese journal, Tuoi Tre, on March 22, 2005.

The cancellation of the US-funded project to research the connection between the use of Agent Orange during the war and the physical and emotional disabilities suffered by so many in Vietnam was decided by Dr Anne Sassaman of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). It was her decision to cancel the research funding as of January 1, 2005, but this was delayed until February 24 in order to give notice to those involved in America planning the project.

Dr Sassaman did not support the research in the beginning and seemed focused on finding reasons to end this co-operation. She and Dr Marie Sweeney at the US Embassy made repeated demands of the Vietnamese government officials involved that the project be performed only as the US officials required, a less than co-operative approach.

The original five-year project was cut to three years. The protocol was neither co-operative nor rationally geared toward achieving results with mutual cooperation. In fact, the behaviour of both Sassaman and Sweeney seemed geared toward sabotaging the project from the very beginning.

The US scientists involved were frustrated by the US officials’ behaviour, as, I am sure, were the Vietnamese officials who clearly wanted the research to proceed. Dr Sassaman also was very upset with Dr Phan Thi Phi Phi’s involvement in the recent Agent Orange class-action lawsuit.

Dr Phi Phi is a well-respected scientist who had the courage to visit America, share the pain of the Vietnamese victims with Americans, and stand up publicly for justice in the lawsuit [see Yet another atrocity]. The NIEHS, however, seemed to find this offensive.

Amid great publicity in 2001, the US government announced the beginning of an era of co-operation in researching the connection between Agent Orange and the millions of disabled in Vietnam.

This was quickly followed by a memorandum by the US Ambassador which ridiculed Vietnamese scientists; called the alleged Agent Orange disabilities mere propaganda by Vietnam with the purpose of getting US money; rejected all other research done by Vietnamese scientists or scientists from around the world as useless; and implied that US scientists involved in the research should find no connection between Agent Orange and disabilities in Vietnam.

Then, the research itself was delayed, as arrangements for it to begin became mired in establishing protocols. Eventually the potential research became little more than taking blood samples from the mothers of disabled children.

The time for the study was decreased from five to three years. Then, Dr Sassaman decided to end the funding all together for the research, leaving involved scientists both in the US and in Vietnam shocked and disappointed.

In fact, Dr Sassaman has privately told professionals in America that she will never again approve a project for US scientists to perform research in Vietnam. She even has gone to the point of threatening US universities that their future research funding on other projects will be harmed if they do not co-operate in stating they agree with her decision, even if they do not.

Bad political decision This history is not merely bad science; it is a series of lies, deceit, and blackmail. This was a bad political decision, not a scientific one. It is obvious that the pain of the disabled in Vietnam has been ignored and belittled even by those in the US government who are charged both with producing objective research and supporting co-operation between Vietnam and America. This condescending, demanding, and abrasive attitude has sabotaged any potential help from the US government for the horrors resulting from its use of Agent Orange during the war.

The research began only because of the outrage from many nations around the world. It was begun with denials and roadblocks from US officials and has ended with US officials foolishly blaming the Vietnamese government for its termination.

It is ironic that once again America is blaming the victims for their own pain. This is an insulting and ethically offensive decision by Washington. The burglar is blaming the homeowner for the intruder’s burglary. It makes no rational sense at all and should produce outrage around the world.

America continues to fund disability compensation for American war veterans who were briefly exposed to Agent Orange during the war. It denies any connection between Agent Orange and the millions in Vietnam who were repeatedly drenched in the 20,000,000 gallons of this toxic chemical and have lived in its aftermath for over 30 years, suffering the same and similar disabilities.

The court in America says there is no connection. The American government now ends research into the problem before it even begins. This is an intolerable violation of responsibility and human rights and deserves to be strongly condemned.

Those of us around the world who attempt to help Agent Orange victims in Vietnam and also advocate for their cause will find these two repugnant decisions incentives to escalate our services. They are not reasons to end our efforts but rather reasons to devote more time, energy, and resources to help a people and a nation to overcome the results of both the war crime and the insult of the criminal.

The incentive to work co-operatively is symbolised in the eyes of one small boy in Que Lam, Quang Nam Province whom I visited two months ago with Nguyen Thi My Hoa, our Program Administrator in Danang, and our SUNY Brockport students. Little Tung’s sister died from her disabilities caused by Agent Orange.

He might not be able to travel to America to talk with the US government. He might not be able to testify in court. He might not be able to perform scientific research, but he can tell the world through his pain, paralysis, seizures, and other disabilities that America must do everything possible to help him and the millions of others like him. His silence is a strong message to the world, which demands attention and help. His life is an example of courage.

My hope is that many others will understand his courage and will continue to do everything possible to improve the condition of those whose silence can become a shout heard around the world.

--Assoc. Prof. Kenneth J Herrmann is Director, SUNY Brockport Vietnam Program and Director, The Danang/Quang Nam Fund, Inc.

Chemotherapy for Cancer-Ridden Cows and Other Dark Adventures in Peace

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:38:00 +0000

3-30-05, 9:33 am

It’s a dark time for peace when pacifists are lunatics and pro-war means pro-life.

Listen:

On the recent second anniversary of the Iraq War, I was driving along Interstate 95 in the early afternoon, somewhere outside Bangor, Maine, when a cherry red SUV pulled into my lane. Looking down, I noticed a yellow bumper sticker in the shape of a ribbon. It read: “Support Our Troops.”

I felt guilty. It was a phrase that has haunted me for two years.

I started looking for similar stickers. And over the next few hours, I saw about 20 (inexplicably they were always on SUVs, Mini-Vans, and trucks – never on cars). I also saw a handful of Bush/Cheney stickers and Kerry/Edwards Stickers. Interestingly, I didn’t see a single anti-war bumper sticker.

Not one. The fellow looked angry. His chin went up, his chest went out. “So,” he barked, “you support the terrorists.” When he said “you,” his index finger jabbed at my button.

“Well, no, I mean, that’s silly,” I said. “Anyone who gasses his own people to death or knocks down buildings with airplanes is scum. But, you know, that said, violence doesn’t come in the humane and inhumane variety, right?” I kept smiling, hoping somehow to mollify my line-mate, and wondering why the line was moving so slowly.

“Typical liberal,” he said with disgust, “your kind just encourages more terrorism. You should take that pin off and keep your mouth shut.”

Did I open my mouth? I just wanted coffee.

The fellow shook his head and walked away, frustrated, no doubt, by my obvious support of the Axis of Evil.

That evening I called a childhood friend who lives outside of Boston. Politically, he had always been a moderate, often even liberal on some issues. So, during our conversation, I felt safe mentioning my little peace button and my conversation at the coffee shop.

My mistake.

“Frankly,” my friend said, “I don’t like these war protesters and their criticisms of America.” He complained about a “peace type” who brought his three-year old son to a protest march marking the first anniversary of the war. At the march, the “peace type” with the child was arrested. “Irresponsible!” my friend howled.

Needless to say, I didn’t mention having brought my four-year-old daughter to a similar protest march.

Then my friend related a story about another “peace group,” this one in Boston. They were “a bunch of crazed vegetarians,” he said, “raising money for chemotherapy – for a cancer-ridden cow!” His anger was rising. “My god,” he said, “these peace types are just crazy. They don’t support our troops in Iraq, but they want to save some stupid cow with cancer!”

The conversation ended. But his words stayed with me – in fact, they have stayed with me from that morning in the coffee shop until that day on Interstate 95. And I still feel guilty.

Why do I feel guilty?

Consider: the accusation of “not supporting the troops” is a foolproof means of undermining pacifism. It plays like the old Groucho Marx joke: “So, have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no.” No matter how you answer the question, you sound guilty.

Or in my case, you sound like the dupe of nefarious, woolly-minded, liberal peaceniks whose secret plan – if I understand the logic – is to support dictators, Islamic extremists, terrorists – and chemotherapy for cancer ridden cows. That is to say, pacifists are lunatics.

Meantime in Florida, Pro-Life protesters maintain a deathwatch outside the hospital of Terri Schiavo. They loudly demand that all Americans value each individual life – even to the point of subverting the law. Yet, ironically, they – and millions more who agree with them – vote overwhelmingly to support the continuing two-year, open-ended slaughter of Iraqis by the thousands: men, women, and children. That is to say, pro-war means pro-life.

So you tell me: who should feel guilty?

It’s a dark time for peace when pacifists are lunatics and pro-war means pro-life.

--Steven Laffoley is an American writer living in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. You may e-mail him at or steven_laffoley@yahoo.com.

Iraq's Election Still Under Review

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:31:00 +0000

3-30-05, 9:24 am

As controversy and in-fighting over naming various officials in the new National Assembly continue to slow the process toward writing and adopting a permanent constitution for Iraq, another controversy hidden below the flash bulbs and triumphs in the Janaury 30th election is still being sorted out.

A UN review mission completed last week questioned the competitiveness of the election, the absence of regulations on the sources of campaign funds or caps on spending, and the transparency or accountability of spending campaign resources.

Concerned election experts at the UN also pointed out that most of the 7,000 candidates had no means or time to publicize their platforms or becomes familiar to the voters. Social issues such as massive unemployment, security, and the atittudes about the US-led occupation were not at the forefront of the dominant campaigns.

Fareed Ayar, spokesman for the Supreme Electoral Commission of Iraq, told Chinese news agency Xinhua that he and other Iraqi election officials participated in these meetings with UN election epxerts to discuss concerns about the elections.

Ayar said there were points of weakness in the legal framework on which the electoral campaign was based, and that questions and complaints raised about the fairness of the process had legitimacy.

A major concern that the Iraq's election commission stipulated to was that there were no regulations to control the sources of the financial support of the candidates or to set the top spending budget for an electoral campaign, Ayaer admitted.

'Bad security conditions,' prevented 'the candidates [from] freely express[ing] their opinions and suggestions or that the voters can build their choices on knowledge,' the election official added.

He said that security issues had forced campaigns to postpone their activities until late in the process, and the three-day period set by the commission to review the complaints after the polls was not really enough.

Questions of media bias were not examined under this review process.

Overall, the UN's election assistance department concluded that irregularities were relatively few and were pleased with the process. More severe critics of Iraq's election process raised numerous questions and complaints that some voters were misled to choose a certain list or others were unable to go to voting centers due to threats from other parties.

Other irregularities reported during Iraq's Janaury 30th election by Tammuz Network for Election Monitoring - Iraq, a non-governmental organization that focuses on monitoring elections, were also not directly dealt with by the UN review.

Among the complaints were that at some polling places in Baghdad and Bakuba, campaigners with the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of parties and organizations closely affiliated with Ayatollah al-Sistani, which eventually won about 48 percent of the vote, provided their voters with several election cards rather than one. Some polling places were controlled by people affiliated with al-Sistani's group who were caught voting multiple times for their candidates.

At other polling sites in Kut, monitors said that supporters of al-Sistani's list used excessive electioneering near polling places including guiding voters on which list to vote for. Also in that town, a loudspeaker at a mosque urged voers to vote for al-Sistani's party.

At other places in the area, witnessed accused members of Iraq's national police force of supporting another party associated with former interim Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi and asking voters waiting in line who they planned to vote for.

In the Shatra district of Nasseriya, monitors reported an armed group forcing voters to cast their votes for al-Sistani's party.

In Arbil and Basrah, witnesses reported that some voters used moisturizer creams to remove the ink stain put on voters' index fingers to prevent them from voting more than once. Ballot boxes at at least on epolling site in Basrah contained marked ballots that had been inserted prior to the site being opened.

UN Commission on Human Rights Hears Testimony on Cuban Five

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:24:00 +0000

3-29-05, 12:18 pm

Geneva (Prensa Latina) The case of the five Cuban patriots imprisoned in the US for fighting terrorism caused emotions and gestures of solidarity among delegates to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission, despite the silence it has kept on the issue. Dozens of representatives of third world countries and friends of Olga Salanueva and Adriana Perez, wives of Rene Gonzalez and Gerardo Hernandez, gathered in front of the facility to support them.

The Mission against Terror documentary, showing the reasons for which the Cuban Five monitored stateside terrorist attacks against Havana, was screened. In the short-length feature, former CIA officer Philip Agee admitted that Washington maneuvers had turned the Island into a 'besieged country.'

Percy Alvarado, a Cuban intelligence operative infiltrated into Miami-sheltered counterrevolutionary groups, also appears in the documentary, denouncing the Cuban-American National Foundation plots to plant C-4 explosives in the internationally renowned Tropicana Nightclub, where dozens of people would have died.

Regarding the five anti-terrorist fighters´ long sentences and solitary confinement, defense attorney Leonard Weinglass said the prosecution clearly violated international law.

Cuban National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon made it clear that his government provided the White House with valuable information on criminal activities against Havana.

'They imprisoned the people who fought terrorism, instead of punishing those who engaged in it,' he contended.

The commission also witnessed the launching of the book 'Letters of Love and Hope,' containing messages sent by the Five, with prologue by US writer Alice Walker.

Olga Salanueva said the book was not a science fiction novel but a true portrait of human drama the unjustly-imprisoned Cubans and their families are facing.

In addition, Cuban representative to the UN Human Rights Commission Ivan Mora highly praised the importance of world solidarity for a cause that should be supported by all honest people.

African and Latin American delegates and members of solidarity organizations with the Cuban Five and their nation participated in the rally.

The wives of the five Cuban patriots also met with papal nuncio Silvano Tomasi, who promised to inform the US Episcopal Conference of their meeting, and Safir Syed, assistant to the Human Rights Commission special raporteur, who did not commit to anything but accepted that it met the requirements to be considered at the commission.

--From Prensa Latina

Inequality is a Law of Nature?

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:00:00 +0000

3-29-05, 8:54 am

Science and the Rich

New Scientist, the British science magazine more or less equivalent to Science News in the US, but a step down from Scientific American, has a wonderful article in its March 12-18 ‘05 issue. The article, by Jenny Hogan, is headed 'There’s one rule for the rich... Anyone trying to redistribute wealth in a market economy may be up against a law of nature.'

A law of nature? That would certainly make economic reform in favor of the poor a rather more difficult task than the left has envisioned. On the other hand, it favors those who want to abolish the market altogether.

What is Hogan talking about? A remarkable discovery has been made as a result of studying the US economy. Hold on to your hats, but scientists have found out that 'The rich are getting richer while the poor remain poor.' This astounding fact has emerged from a study of the US economy since 1979. In that year the income gap between the top one percent of the population and the bottom 20 percent was 33.1. By 2000 it was 88.5.

Hogan says that this gap will likely grow if the scientists (physicists) are correct with the new model of capitalism (the market economy) they are drawing up based on the laws of physics holds true.

A new science is in the making – a blend of physics and economics called 'econophysics' and Hogan’s article is a news account about the conference to be held this week in Kolkata, India, a first for the new science.

She quotes Sudhakar Yarlagadda from the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, which is located in Kolkata, who is concerned about 'understanding whether there is some kind of social injustice behind this skewed distribution' of wealth. Let’s hope not! If the US showed signs of social injustice what in the world would be going on in Calcutta, Bombay and New Delhi? India might have its own problems with 'skewed distribution.' But if this is all due to a law of nature what’s to be done?

Well, even if some people are confused about the 'injustice issue' others are not, or at least they think society is 'unfair.' Hogan quotes Robin Marris a retired economist from the University of London. He says, 'People on the whole have normally distributed attributes, talents and motivations, yet we finish up with wealth distributions that are much more unequal than that.'

How are we to explain all this? Hogan tells us that there is some sort of 'power law' (mathematical powers) at work that was discovered by Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) that explained why the rich people in Europe ended up with most of the wealth.

Who was Pareto? Excuse me for this small digression. He was an economic philosopher who came up with an idea now known as 'Pareto optimality' as a measure of the efficiency of an economic system. This, and not his 'power law,' is the real basis of his philosophy. That system is optimal when it can’t be changed in anyway so that to help a person B a person A will be hurt. So it is not efficient if, in order to abolish slavery, the slaves benefit at the expense of the masters. Any income redistribution would violate this optimality of the system.

Pareto’s system was very status quo. It favored free trade, economic elites (about three percent of the population as calculated by his 'power law'), and authoritarian governments. While Pareto lived in Switzerland and was apolitical, he had a big fan down in Italy by the name of Benito Mussolini who adopted many of his ideas and gave him many honors. But as one author says (Peter Winch), 'since he died after only one year of the fascist regime, his considered attitude to it must be a matter of conjecture.' Hmmm.

Now back to Hogan. She says that while the rich are governed by Pareto’s law (fascists and their friends will protect the 'efficiency' of the system for the benefit of the ruling class). The rest of us, including the poor, have been found to be subject to 'a completely different law.' We act like atoms in a gas.

How does this work? Hogan turns to a physicist at the University of Maryland, Victor Yakovenko, who after researching Internal Revenue Service statistics concluded that Pareto was correct about the upper crust three percent. His 'power law' rules this group (and limits it numbers – not four percent or ten percent – the rich are three percent – actually between two and three).

The rest of us, just as atoms in a gas exchange energy when they randomly collide with one another, are randomly interchanging economically with a host of other people – only we exchange money for services and goodies, etc. Just as the gas/atom system has the same amount of energy in it after all the random collisions (conservation of energy), so does the economy regulating the 97%. When the day is done and we are all back home after dealing with the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, and they are done with us, money has been redistributed but the amount of money is the same – just in different pockets. We are different from the elite because they are also creating wealth which trickles down to us. That is why we should not mess with them.

'This, along with research data from other countries,' Hogan concludes, 'suggests that there are two economic classes. In one, the rich grow richer while in the other the poor stay poor.' This is an amazing scientific discovery. Who would have thought of this? This should go a long way to increase the credibility of science with the Bush administration. Left wing malcontents are simply anti-scientific and refusing to except a law of nature.

The good news for millionaire wannabe’s is that because the system is random it is possible for a member of the masses to jump into the elite once in a while (the lotto factor). But, Yakovenko warns, any type of social policy designed to redistribute the wealth of society to help the poor would be ill-advised. His atom/gas model, plus Pareto’s theories indicate trying to transfer the goodies from one class to another (from rich to poor that means) 'will be very inefficient short of getting Stalin.' Yikes!

Well I’m glad that’s settled. There is no arguing with science. I just wonder if there is a mad scientist somewhere on the verge of discovering a system where the wealth is actually being transferred from the poor to the rich. What kind of system would that be like?

--Thomas Riggins is the book review editor for Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.

Iraqi Students Protest Attacks by Religious Extremists

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:56:00 +0000

3-29-05, 8:50 am

Students at Basrah and Shatt Al-Arab Universities struck in mid-March in protest of religious extremist violence aimed at women students and others who support equal gender relations and secular lifestyles. He added that he had sent the 'group of believers' to observe and photograph the students only. But when the militiamen saw them playing loud music, 'the kind they play in bars and discos,' and openly talking to female students, the 'believers had to straighten things out.'

Thousands of students protested after the violence shouting slogans such as 'No to political Islam,' 'No to the new tyranny,' and 'No to Sadr.' The police reportedly attacked the students during the strikes and protests in order to disperse the demonstrations.

In an attempt to appease the students, local officials publicly announced that they had met with Sadr and had resolved the matter peacefully. Sadr's representatives said they would punish the attackers in a special, private religious court.

Students condemned this action saying that local elected officials had handed jurisdiction of a civil case to a private individual, completely bypassing the rule of law. They pointed out the Basrah governor's close affiliation with the political coalition to which al-Sadr and his following belong as a possible motive for this course of action.

One student wrote on a blog, 'The Governor literally appointed Sadr’s office as judge, witness and law-enforcer. We might even say that the Sadrists were in fact rewarded for their vile act.'

This student compared the situation to a fascist-style tactic often used by the 'university security' authorities empowered under the Saddam Hussein dictatorship to seek out and destroy political opposition on university campuses.

Student organization in different parts of the country, including Baghdad, Arbil, and Suleimaniya condemned the attacks and sent statements of solidarity with the Basrah students.

Students in Suleimaniya have been subjected to violence as well. Four students were injured in Suleimaniya during the second week of demonstrations against privatization of educational institutions in the Kurdish region.

The Iraqi Democratic Youth Federation (IDYF) released a statement condemning the attacks on the Basrah students. 'While strongly condemning these blatant violations of human rights, we consider this attack a form of laying seeds threatening Iraq' future democratic schemes. We declare our full solidarity with the victims of the attack ... with all Iraqi youth and students, as they relentlessly strive for a better future of a new Iraq.'

The IDYF called on all students and youth to declare solidarity with the victims of the attack and to demand an end to 'any oppression and to attempts to use religion as cover for usurping the rights achieved by Iraqi people through their own sacrifices and struggle.'

The Basrah University branch of the General Union of Students in the Iraqi Republic protested the attacks and urged support for the student demonstrations, saying: 'We all aspire to a democratic Iraq that would have nothing to do with Saddam's regime and in no way resemble the movement of Taliban.'

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and may be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

Venezuela's Chavez: “Oil is a Geopolitical Weapon”

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:45:00 +0000

3-29-05, 8:39 am

From Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Over the past few weeks there have been some signs that Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez has backed down from his earlier confrontational posture towards Washington. According to the Venezuelan foreign minister, Chavez has no intention of reducing oil exports to the United States. The economic importance of oil in terms of Venezuelan-U.S. relations cannot be overstated. Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter in the world and the fourth largest supplier of oil to the United States after Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Last year, Venezuela’s state owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa) accounted for 11.8% (1.52-million barrels a day) of U.S. imports.

Tensions have been bristling between the two nations ever since April 2002 when Chavez, the democratically elected president, was briefly removed from power in a coup. Chavez, a firebrand politician and former paratrooper, accused (not without merit) Washington of sponsoring the attempted overthrow as well as supporting a devastating oil lockout in 2002-3. Never one to soften his language, Chavez bluntly referred to U.S. president George Bush with an expletive and the United States as “an imperialist power.” What is more, according to Chavez, Bush had plans to see him assassinated. In a further barb, Chavez declared that if he were killed the United States could “forget Venezuelan oil.'

For a time it seemed that their bilateral relations could sink no lower. Though there are many reasons for the deterioration in relations (including Chavez's ties with Washington’s anathema, Cuban President Fidel Castro, the Venezuelan president’s criticism of U.S.-led efforts for a free trade zone in the Americas and Chavez’s opposition to the war in Iraq) oil was surely of paramount importance. When he took office in 1998 Chavez launched a reform of Venezuela's oil policy, seeking to reestablish a predominant role for the presidency in the design and implementation of an oil strategy through the Ministry of Energy and Mining. This move challenged vested interests in Pdvsa, a powerful, almost autonomous, company with total assets estimated at $100 billion. The company’s executives, who earned between $100,000 and $4,000,000 a year, had grown accustomed to taking the lead in defining the oil policy of their virtual fiefdom. While Chavez did not deny the role of the private sector in the oil industry, his reform process aimed at curbing the trend toward the privatization of Pdvsa. On the international front, Chavez worked to achieve a higher price for oil through OPEC, the oil cartel of which Venezuela was a founding member. He also worked to increase the profile and power of OPEC world wide. Chavez additionally sought to guarantee that the state collected a greater share of oil revenues. He imposed royalties on oil output which was applied on foreign producers operating in the country, chief among them U.S. giant Exxon-Mobil. Last year, Venezuela raised royalty taxes on heavy crude projects in the Orinoco oil belt from 1% to 16.6%. Irate Exxon-Mobil representatives say that the company is paying the new rate 'under protest.'

PDVSA Serves the Nation

Keeping Pdvsa under firm government control was politically important. In recent years, Chavez has sought to utilize oil revenue to carry out an ambitious social agenda. In a recent study it was estimated that over 60 percent of Venezuela's 24-million people live in poverty and make less than $2 a day. Accordingly, as a result of record high oil revenues, Chavez has been able to carry out an impressive array of programs promoting literacy, job training, land reform, subsidized food, and small loans. Perhaps most ambitiously, Chavez has used the nation’s oil wealth to extend health care and import Cuban doctors.

As Chavez began to export cheap subsidized oil to Cuba, Fidel Castro sent over 13,000 doctors to Venezuela. Today, the doctors are spread throughout the Andean nation and have access to over half the population, a first in Venezuela’s history. Chavez’s move to bring in Cuban doctors was one of many factors regarding his rule that provoked Washington. In May 2004, the U.S. State Department’s Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba—the administration’s propaganda office on Cuban issues—issued a report stating that Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba needed to be halted if political change on the island was to occur – which was tantamount to calling for a de facto embargo against the Castro regime.

Are there any signs that the confrontation between the two antagonist nations will soon abate? Recently, Chavez has publicly stated that he wanted to mend relations with the United States. 'We want to continue to send 1.5 million barrels of oil to the United States on a daily basis and to continue doing business,” he said. What is more, Chavez added that although 'we have said things, sometimes, very harsh things, it has been in response to aggressions.' Chavez explained that, 'what I have said is that if it occurs to the United States, or to someone there, to invade us, that they can forget about Venezuelan oil.' He clarified that this is just 'a theory that we of course do not want, and I hope that the United States does not want it either.'

Chavez turns on the Charm

Chavez’s recent conciliatory statements have brought little slack from Washington as the Bush administration’s harsh anti-Chavez rhetoric continues to boil over whether its splenetic utterances coming from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or routinely from the White House and State Department press offices. On one level, Venezuelan imbroglio seems to be heading towards deeper water. Chavez has repeatedly stated his determination to reduce his country’s dependency on oil sales to the United States. Accordingly, he has begun exploring the sale of parts of Citgo, Pdvsa’s marketing and refining affiliate in the U.S. Citgo owns eight refineries and almost 14,000 gas stations located primarily in the eastern part of the country. Chavez has complained that Citgo, whose refineries are especially adapted to process heavy crude oil from Venezuela, sells oil to the U.S at a discount of two dollars a barrel. “We are subsidizing the U.S. budget,” griped Chavez, who says Citgo contracts were signed before he assumed office in 1999. Moreover, Chavez maintains, 'not one Venezuelan works at these refineries…They don't give us 1 cent of profit. They don't pay taxes in Venezuela. This is economic imperialism.' According to Citgo's 2004 financial reports, the company paid $400 million in dividends to Venezuela but simultaneously paid as much in U.S. taxes. Energy Minister Rafael Ramírez, who also serves as Pdvsa’s president, has announced a freeze on plans to expand Citgo. Meanwhile, though Citgo CEO Félix Rodríguez notes that” the government does not plan to sell off the company's assets,” specialists suggest that Chavez may very well consider such a move after evaluating the profitability of each refinery. Alberto Quirós, a former executive at Royal/Dutch Shell in Venezuela, commented that selling the refineries would not be a bad idea right now. Chavez, he says, could get a decent price for the refineries because oil prices and demand are high. Were such facilities to be sold, however, the process would probably take at least a few years to be finalized.

Caracas Looks to Asia

In order to supplant oil sales to the U.S., Chavez made plans to begin shipping Venezuelan crude to China, the world's second-largest energy consumer after the United States. ”Reaching China is a strategic question,” says Ramirez. “It would be a mistake not to have a presence there. They are switching over from coal to more efficient fuels.” In Beijing last December, Chavez remarked ”We have reached agreements with China to begin to exploit 15 mature oilfields in eastern Venezuela that have more than one billion barrels in reserves, and a large part of that oil will come to China.” What is more, Chavez stated that Venezuela wanted to become a 'secure, long-term' petroleum supplier to India and this month the two countries concluded an energy cooperation agreement. Transporting oil to Asia, however, could prove logistically difficult. Pdvsa has expressed interest in moving oil across Panama to the Pacific Ocean via pipeline. The company is also exploring the idea of building such a facility across Venezuela’s northern border with Colombia, extending to that country’s Pacific coast. Shipping oil to Asia carries other logistical and infrastructural problems. China presently has an insufficient deep conversion refining capacity and transporting petroleum to the Asian giant would be costly due to the long distances involved. Moreover, the Panama pipeline eyed by Chavez already transports 100,000 barrels a day of Ecuadorian crude from the Pacific to the Atlantic. According to analysts, there is no way that the pipeline can be converted into being able to simultaneously ship Venezuelan oil to China in the opposite direction. Finally, China may be only interested in Venezuela in the short run, as Beijing is busy exploring for oil and gas closer to its shores in the South China Sea.

Despite these practical problems, Chavez’s rhetoric suggests the Venezuelan leader earnestly seeks to challenge U.S. regional hegemony by putting together a formidable coalition of like-minded nations. In a recent interview on al-Jazeera, Chavez cited Venezuela’s energy alliance with Cuba as an example of how 'we use oil in our war against neoliberalism.” What is more, when he was recently in Buenos Aires, Chavez launched the first gas station run by a joint venture between Pdvsa and the Argentine company Enarsa. The venture involves production, refining and distribution of petroleum by-products and natural gas. Chavez has also concluded oil agreements with Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. His desire to create a South American energy company called Petrosur, which would integrate regional oil and gas industries, is already bearing fruit.

Any interruption in Venezuelan oil exports to the U.S. would bring significant disruption to both countries and Washington is beginning to plan for such a contingency. Oil accounts for half of Caracas’ revenue and 75 percent of its exports. Currently the U.S. purchases 60 percent of Venezuela's oil exports and according to analysts, finding new markets could prove daunting to Venezuelan authorities. The fact is, exporting to the U.S. market is convenient due to close proximity and low transportation costs. Additionally, U.S. refineries are particularly equipped to process Venezuela's sulphur-rich crude.

U.S. analysts doubt that Chavez can afford to drastically cut shipments to the United States. And if Chavez cut off oil supplies, argue government officials, the United States would quickly make up for the loss by seeking other sources. But a potential cut off would represent no small economic loss to the U.S., as oil imported from elsewhere would likely be more expensive. The reality is that for the U.S., purchasing Venezuelan crude is economically advantageous because the South American nation is geographically close to U.S. ports. In Washington, politicians are now hedging their bets. In a clear sign ofconcern, Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar has asked the Government Accountability Office to study how a sharp decrease in Venezuelan oil imports could affect the U.S. economy. Additionally, the Senate recently called for a review of the government’s plans 'to make sure that all contingencies are in place to mitigate the effects of a significant shortfall of Venezuelan oil production, as this could have serious consequences for our nation's security and for the consumer at the pump.'

Even before Chavez was first elected he was explicit in describing his views about petroleum. 'Oil is a geopolitical weapon,' he declared, 'and these imbeciles who govern us don't realize the power they have, as an oil-producing country.' The evidence suggests that Chavez is now trying his best to follow through on this rhetoric.

--Nikolas Kozloff is a COHA Senior Research Fellow.

Bush Aggression Fuels UN Reform

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:37:00 +0000

3-29-05, 8:31 am

From Prensa Latina

Sao Paulo(Prensa Latina) US President George W. Bush´s aggressive policy ironically contributed to boost the movement in favor of reforming the UN, one of the 16 'notables' that worked on the project, Brazilian Joao Baena Soares said.

The former Organization of American States (OAS) secretary general told Folha de Sao Paulo daily that 'unilateral actions, positions, and decisions' as those assumed by the US president are unacceptable.

'The UN was already trying to update,' he said, and stated that the US foreign policy did not cause, but contributed unease to the international community, leading to a more accentuated renovation movement.

The diplomat rejected the idea that the UN is becoming irrelevant, which he said is an accusation by 'those whose interests have been damaged by the UN,' in reference to Washington.

According to Baena Soares, 'it is obvious that the Bush government is carrying out a campaign to emphasize superiority of power, but the UN is not irrelevant, and it is proving it has renovation capacity.'

He also said the Secretary General´s document confirms the importance of multilateralism, which makes many people feel uncomfortable. There is a tendency to unilateralism that must be fought.

He partially admitted Folha de Sao Paulo daily´s opinion that the UN should have made concessions, as to recognize some ways of 'preventive' use of force, although he said that the monopoly of the use of force would continue being the Security Council´s concern.'

In relation to the proposal of creating a fund to support democracy, he said that more than a reaction to the so called Bush doctrine, it is about responding through the international community´s participation to challenges and new situations that come up.

Tens of Thousands of Turkish Workers Demand an End to Iraq War

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:34:00 +0000

3-29-05, 8:28 am

From Solidarity Net

Rage Towards the US Occupation

In the 2nd year of the Iraq occupation, together with all the other anti-war forces around the world, thousands of workers and labourers coming from various provinces around Turkey to Istanbul condemned the US and chanted out for the 'US to get out of the Middle East.'

The thousands of workers, public sector labourers and students participating in the anti-war manifestation organised in Kadikoy (one of the central districts situated in the Anatolian coast of Istanbul), chanting such slogans as; 'The resistance will continue, the occupation will end' and 'The day will dawn, time will change, the US will account to the people', added their voices to the voices of all the anti-war forces holding manifestations at the same time in many places around the world.

In the demonstration to which such mass organisations as the Confederation of Public Sector Labourers' Unions (KESK), Confederation of Revolutionary Workers Trade Unions (DISK), Confederation of Workers Trade Unions of Turkey (TURK-IS), HAK-IS, Union of Architects and Engineers Chambers of Turkey (TMMOB) and Doctors' League of Turkey (TTB) and political parties such as the Party of Labour (EMEP), Freedom and Solidarity Party (ODP), Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) and the Republican Peoples Party (CHP) attended, the Newroz demonstrations to be held on the next few days all around the country were greeted with the slogan of; 'Long live the fraternity of the peoples.'

Among the slogans most often chanted by all the different groups of anti-war forces were; 'Labourers unite for a world without wars', 'Down with imperialism and Zionism,' 'Support to the resistance, not to the occupation' and 'War organisation NATO should be dissolved'. The demonstrators also showed their reaction to the Justice and Development Party (AKP) that is currently in power through such slogans as; 'We don't want a US puppet government.'

While the Petrol Workers' Union (Petrol-Is) drew a lot of attention with its massive participation, the engineers and architects coming to Istanbul from many provinces around the country to participate in the demonstration were a colourful part of the manifestation with their barrets. There was anger at the students' corteges at the constantly increasing student expulsions from the universities. The students expressed their reactions by chanting out; 'It's not enough to expel us, hang us!'. While some of the students performed the Iraqi resistance in a symbolic way; the spectators applauded for a long time the scene in which the US soldiers were defeated and Iraq was liberated.

Resistance With All Our Might

Rendering the opening speech on behalf of the Organisation Committee, Mehmet Soganci, the President of TMMOB said that; 'Today there is blood, tears, death, hunger and poverty all around the world. However there is also a resistance all around the world'. He then continued his speech with the following words; 'Being on the side of peace today means being side by side with all the forces of peace and democracy of the world against everything that is being suffered in Iraq and Palestine. Now is the time to stand against Bush and his collaborators together with all the peoples of the world, the time to resist with all our might to the attacks of the capital'.

Expressing that the peoples of the Middle East oppressed under the occupation were becoming more and more impoverished every day, Suleyman Celebi, the President of DISK said; 'We as the labourer classes are being made to pay the price of this'. Edelman is Going, Now it's Erdogan's Turn

While the US occupation of Iraq was condemned by the march organised in Ankara (the capital of the country); the US Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman who has been at the headlines recently with his intervention to Turkey's internal affairs and who has declared his resignation a few days ago was also protested. The marchers targeted the Prime Minister R. Tayyip Erdogan by chanting the slogan; 'Edelman is going, now it's Erdogan's turn.'

The trade unions, mass and professional organisations, associations and political parties protesting the US occupation of Iraq gathered around one of the central squares of the capital. More than a thousand people protested the US plans to further occupy the Middle Eastern countries after Iraq and the imperialist expansionist policies of the US along with its collaborators.

The Ankara Branches Platform of KESK, General Workers Union (Genel-Is) as well as other trade unions affiliated to DISK and such organisations as the Cultural Association of Pir Sultan Abdal (PSKAD), Doctors' Chamber of Ankara (ATO), Human Rights' Association (IHD), People's Houses, EMEP, Socialist Democracy Party (SDP), and the Socialist Platform of the Oppressed (ESP) participated in the march held under the banner of; 'The imperialists will be defeated, the resisting peoples shall win'. In the manifestation to which student groups also participated in, among the most often chanted slogans were; 'Murderer US, don't forget Vietnam', 'The day will dawn, time will change, the US will account to the people' and 'Murderer US, get out of Iraq, get out of the Middle East'.

Black Wreath to the US Consulate

The Human Rights Association, Genel-Is, Teachers' Union (Egitim-Sen), EMEP, TKP, SDP and ESP organised a protest demonstration in front of the US Consulate in Adana (a province situated in the Mediterranean region of the country in which there is an infamous US military base called Incirlik). Ethem Acikalin, a member of the Executive Committee of the IHD Branch of Adana stated that the US had massacred and continues to massacre many people on the pretext of `bringing democracy and freedom'. Acikalin continued his speech with the following words; 'We are calling the AKP government to stop the indirect or direct support it is currently giving to the occupiers and beginning with the Incirlik base, to close down the military bases and ports it has opened with a decree to the service of the US military'. Following the statement, a black wreath was left to the front of the US Consulate and the human rights report card of the US was read out.

The 2nd year of the US occupation was also protested with a march organised in Mersin (a province situated in the southern part of the country), in Gaziantep (a Kurdish province situated in the Southeast Anatolian region of the country), in Iskenderun (a province situated in the South region of the country, very close to the Syrian border), in Sivas (a province situated in the East Anatolian region ofthe country) and in Antalya (a province in the Mediterranean region of the country).

Majority Rejects Hypocrisy of Bush's 'Culture of Life'

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:09:00 +0000

3-28-05, 9:03 am

According to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup nationwide poll, President Bush's job-approval rating has sunk to lowest point of his presidency due, at least in part, to public opposition to his intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

The public simply rejected Bush's support for the Congressional effort to intervene in the personal affairs of the Schiavo family and to pressure the federal courts to overturn past court decisions that accepted Terri Schiavo's wishes.

Your Private Life is not Off Limits for GOP Strategists

A recent Los Angeles Times story says the Terri Schiavo intervention was a blunder for Bush and the Republicans as it reveals a GOP 'credibility gap.' The Republicans haven't adequately explained to the public how their intervention in this case doesn't contradict their demand for smaller government and the replacement of so-called activist judges in the federal judiciary. Political gain isn’t the only thing some right-wing groups hope to gain from Terri Schiavo’s tragedy. Traditional Values Coalition, which normally focuses its congressional lobbying efforts on blocking equal rights for gay people, is using the issue as a fundraiser. This move prompted criticism – even from conservative groups – that the Traditional Values Coalition might appear to be profiting from a tragedy and might be using dishonest methods to do so, according to the New York Time.

Traditional Values Coalition founder Louis Sheldon has accused gay people of being followers of Hitler and public schools of trying to destroy society.

'Err on the side of life'

In his remarks while signing the Republican bill intervening in the Schiavo family's private life, Bush said he would prefer to 'err on the side of life.' But one legal expert told the Los Angeles Times that he could not 'imagine [the Republicans] interrupting an Easter recess to come back for special legislation because there was a possibility that someone on death row was innocent.'

In his tenure as Texas governor, Bush led all governors in signing death warrants. In fact, according to Atlantic Monthly, the 150 men and women executed during Bush's 6-year governorship is 'a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history.'

Memos describing the legal arguments in death penalty cases sent by Alberto Gonzales (then Bush's legal counsel, now Attorney General) to Bush reveal that 'Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute,' says Alan Berlow of the Atlantic Monthly.

In numerous cases where serious disputes on legal issues such as 'ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence' existed, the Gonzales-Bush team only once offered clemency or stays of execution.

One case where the Gonzales-Bush record shows unusually extensive discussion was the case of Karla Faye Tucker, executed in 1998. In this case, Bush claims that signing her death warrant was 'one of the hardest things I have ever done.' He now says that he even lost sleep over it.

Yet in the 2000 campaign, even Republican presidential candidates who strongly support the death penalty lashed out at Bush for publicly mocking Karla Faye Tucker's plea for mercy.

Even further, Bush has refused to support a call for a moratorium on the use of capital punishment so that issues related to the use of DNA technology to determine guilt or innocence in some cases can be sorted out.

Supporters of the moratorium, including the former Republican governor of Illinois, George Ryan, say that we cannot be sure that innocent people aren't being put to death.

Bush certainly chose not to 'err on the side of life' in the case of Gary Graham (aka Shaka Sankofa) an African American prisoner who was executed in Texas during the 2000 presidential campaign. Despite DNA evidence of Graham's innocence, then Texas Governor Bush refused to sign a stay of execution and insisted that justice was being done.

Critics charged that Bush used Graham's execution as a campaign maneuver to prove his strength on the crime issue.

The war on Iraq is another point on which Bush dogmatically refused to 'err on the side of life.' When critics of the drive for war wanted more evidence for the reasons Bush offered for the necessity of war – Iraq's possession of WMD, the imminence of the threat with that WMD, and their responsibility for 9/11 – Bush brushed them aside.

It is clear that the US intelligence apparatus knew that the WMD and terrorism rationale did not hold up. Critics were accused of 'un-Americanism' and the rush to war pushed on. Since then more 1,500 US soldiers have been killed and over 100,000 Iraqis have died (according to estimates offered in British medical journal The Lancet).

Bush successfully used the war on Iraq and the terrorism fear to squeak out a razor thin victory over Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. The Bush campaign notoriously implied repeatedly that if Bush wasn't returned to office, terrorists would attack the US again, and many would be killed.

Since the November 2, 2004 election, the Department of Homeland Security's 'threat advisory' was lowered from 'high' (code orange) to 'elevated' (code yellow) on November 10, 2004 where it has remained since, despite continued activities by Osama Bin Laden, and his call for Iraq-based terrorist Zarqawi to attack US targets.

A casual observer might note that just days after the election, the terrorism issue simply disappeared off the radar.

Finally, while Bush interrupted – for the first time in his two terms – one of his numerous vacation periods in Texas to return to Washington to sign the Schiavo intervention bill, he remained silent on the deadliest high school shooting in US history.

Several days after Jeff Weise killed 9 members of the Red Lake Indian nation and himself at a high school in Northern Minnesota last week, Bush had failed to make any sort of statement. Indian leaders accused him of not being concerned about the lives of American Indians while taking extra care to get as much publicity for his intervention in the Schiavo case as possible.

His political instincts led him to declare immediately his support for the Schiavo intervention, but no such 'culture of life' instinct prompted him to say one syllable about Jeff Weise and 9 dead Indian children.

American Indians rarely support Republican initiatives, do not have millions to give to campaign coffers, and don't equal the political power of the ultra right Christian fundamentalist base of the GOP.

The GOP's Real Agenda

So if opposition to big government and the 'culture of life' and are really hoaxes for political gain, what is the Republican Party’s real agenda?

It is pretty simple. The rhetoric against 'big government' is not meant to provide us with more freedom, but to mobilize support for the Party as it attempts to privatize popular programs such as public education, Social Security, Medicare, and other public programs that the majority of Americans benefit from daily.

They think if you side with them on the Schiavo intervention, you will support their effort to hand trillions of dollars of Social Security money over to private investment firms or the federal treasury over to the very rich with tax cuts. Maybe, you will even sit idly by while they slash funding for public schools, anti-poverty programs, and environmental protection.

It is no secret that the GOP wants public resources turned over to the private sector to fatten its bottom line.

While the majority of Americans understand that turning over public resources to private industry is a recipe for price gouging, corruption, theft, inefficiency, and waste, the GOP's real ideological orientation is to side with the corporate beneficiaries of privatization. That is where they get the vast majority of their campaign resources and is where most of them have come to politics from or are planning to go after their political careers end.

This time they went too far.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and may be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

Bush Administration to Block War Crimes Tribunal for Darfur Atrocities

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:01:00 +0000

3-28-05, 8:56 am

Human rights organizations denounced the Bush administration's attempt to derail UN Security Council action on the human rights crisis in Darfur region of the Sudan last week.

Last Tuesday, the US delegation to the UN Security Council proposed watering down a draft resolution on Darfur and announced its opposition to referring the crimes it has labeled as genocide to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Almost two million people have been forcefully displaced from their homes in the past two years of the conflict. Most of these displaced civilians have become virtual prisoners in camps and towns due to ongoing attacks, rape, looting, and assault by the Janjaweed.

In a joint statement with the International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR) to the UN Commission on Human Rights last February, SOAT urged the United Nations, African Union and the international community to expand the mandate of the African Union's peace keeping forces to include the protection of civilians, to refer the situation in Darfur to the prosecutor of the ICC, to investigate allegations of continued attacks on civilians including allegations of torture, continue to exert pressure on all parties in the conflict to come to a peaceful settlement, guarantee respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the country in accordance with national laws and international human rights standards.

Friday, the Security Council adopted a resolution establishing a U.N. peace-support mission for Sudan. This mission is to implement the Naivasha peace agreement, the accord ending the 21-year civil war between the Sudanese government and southern-based rebels. The mission will not be deployed in Darfur, where Sudanese forces and government-backed Janjaweed militias have been responsible for atrocities against civilians.

In addition to SOAT and IFHR, a coalition of several dozen mainly African-based human rights organizations known as the Darfur Consortium reiterated its call for an immediate referral of the situation in Darfur to the ICC. In mid-March the consortium rejected a US-backed proposal to refer war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region to a special African court in Tanzania.

A representative of the consortium told African news agency Afrol News earlier this month that most African countries as well as the people of Darfur viewed the ICC as the best venue for bringing justice to the people of that region and as 'a protection mechanism from the continued attacks by government forces.' At least 12 of the 15 members of the Security Council favoring referring war crimes to the ICC as part of the accountability portion of the UNSC's resolutions on the Darfur crisis.

By all accounts, a US veto of the French proposal to refer the situation to the ICC would be perceived by those committing atrocities in Darfur as an indication that they are safe from punishment. The danger persists, in fact, that they might even view such a move as a sign that the label of 'genocide' adopted by the US was meant as nothing more than rhetoric.

According to Afrol News, earlier this month the American Bar Association also weighed in in support of the concept embodied in the French proposal. In a letter to the Bush administration, the leading lawyers' professional association urged him to permit the UN Security Council to refer the matter to the ICC as the best way to 'end the genocide there.'

As expected, the Sudanese government, which is not a signatory of the ICC treaty, shares the Bush administration's ideological opposition to the ICC and to the French resolution.

The fact that the administration has spent the last weeks trying to avoid having to vote on a resolution that refers the crimes in Darfur to the ICC hints that it would rather deliver a blow to the work of the ICC than to bring justice for atrocities that have shaken much of the world.

A vote on the French proposal is expected Wednesday.

Justice for Kirkuk: Interview with Hamid Majeed Mousa

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:52:00 +0000

3-28-05, 8:46 am

Iraqi Communist Party leader: Kirkuk issue requires a responsible and serious approach

The UAE daily newspaper “Al-Bayan” (February 2005) published an interview with comrade Hamid Majeed Mousa, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Iraqi Communist Party, focussing on the problem of Kirkuk, in his capacity as the head of the Higher Committee charged with this issue.

The following are extensive excerpts of this interview:

You have been appointed to head the Committee responsible for normalizing the situation in Kirkuk. What is the composition of this Committee, what are its tasks, and what has it achieved till now?

-- The Committee is the outcome of an agreement between the government, represented by the Prime Minister, with the approval of the Presidency, and also the multinational forces and the Kurdistan parties, with the aim of tackling the tension that took place before the elections. No real measures were taken since the promulgation of the Transitional Administrative Law that called for a resolution of Kirkuk problem. The situation did not change until the elections date was near and the Kurdistan forces decided to boycott at least the local elections for the city of Kirkuk. The problem, from their point of view, had not been resolved by the return of forcibly deported Kurdish and Turkoman residents of the province to their jobs, homes, farms and villages. As a result, the Kurdistan forces thought that this would give the impression of endorsing the status quo, i.e. maintaining the outcome of the demographic change carried out by the previous regime.

These are just perceptions. What did actually take place on the ground?

-- The perceptions were caused by the inaction. The Kurds therefore made several proposals, including that the province council should remain as it was, with the existing distribution of posts (on ethnic basis), otherwise the (deported) residents of the city should return and be give the right to vote, until the other issue are resolved (e.g., handing back their possessions, homes, land, etc.). When no measures were taken, an escalation took place by the Kurdish parties that hinted that if no attention is paid to resolving these problems, even at the minimum level, can lead to refusal to participate even in the general elections. Hence, a new political crisis was about to happen. Various interventions took place in order to convince them that what happen is not an endorsement of status quo, rather the issue would continue to be vital, that what the relevant clause in Transitional Administrative Law would maintain its force, and its clauses would be implemented later on. Thus the settlement was reached, to set up a Committee, and everybody pledged to activate what was stipulated by the Transitional Administrative Law.

How is the Transitional Administrative Law being activated?

-- The Prime Minister was charged with the task of nominating the head of the Higher Committee for normalizing the situation in Kirkuk, specifying its tasks, and ensuring that it enjoys financial and administrative independence to fulfil its job. Hamid Majeed Mousa was nominated as head of the Committee, and was given the task of presenting a list of candidates for the Higher Committee.

How would the candidates for this Committee be selected?

-- I have said that the decision to set up the Committee was a political decision, according to which the Kurds participated in the elections. On the practical level, however, there has to be a government in place for the Committee to be formed and start operating. The new cabinet must be formed so that some of its members are chosen to join the Higher Committee. The same applies to the two Kurdistan local administrations, as there will be changes in both, or be integrated, after convening the elected Kurdistan National Council. As soon as this normal legal action is finished, steps will be taken to lay the basis and embark on concrete work to implement and achieve what was stipulated in Clause 58 of the Iraqi Transitional Administrative Law.

What about the Kurdish conditions, concerning the determination of the “Kurdistan identity of Kirkuk”, for participation in the forthcoming stage of the political process? -- There are no conditions, and I think that there is a kind of clouding or confusion about what the Kurdistan parties are putting forward, because the Kirkuk issue is not new. The issue of benefiting from the state oil revenues and allocating a share for Kurdistan is not new, and also re-drawing the geographic-political administration map for the region is not new. These are matters that have been stipulated in Transitional Administrative Law, including Clause 58 which calls for the return of deportees, eliminating the legacy of deliberate Arabization and ethnic cleansing. The Kurds are raising up these matters in order to stress the new government’s commitment to their implementation, because the past experience gave the impression - as pointed out earlier - that it is not enough just to have clauses referring to them without any implementation. And also federalism. They want adherence to the Transitional Administrative Law, especially that we will be drafting the permanent constitution. I think that there is a difference in the formulation of issues under discussion, but they are basically clauses that were stipulated in the Transitional Administrative Law which was unanimously endorsed. They, and we too, consider them to be aimed at restoring justice, but not at the expense of others as some statements suggest.

Why do the Kurdish parties insist on the “Kurdistan identity” of Kirkuk? Is it one of their conditions, or is it, as an idea, open to discussion and settlement?

-- I personally have not heard that they are imposing forcefully their view that Kirkuk is of “Kurdistani identity”, but this is their conviction. What is now needed is to return matters to normal, and to seek the opinion of Kirkuk residents through a referendum, for example, in accordance with a proper and lawful census. The truth will emerge through this process. The forcibly deported people, not those who voluntarily left, would be returned to their original places, and they would be given back their rights, on the basis on proven facts.

This is an elastic matter .. There are many of Basra (in the south) residents who live in Baghdad, and of Kirkuk residents living in Nasseriyya (in the south) .. Would Kirkuk people be registered on the basis of their birthplace or their real place of residence?

-- We have, in fact, many regulations. I am, for example, from Hilla (south of Baghdad) and my place of residence, work and ration card are in Baghdad. How would I be considered? When we talk about the return of Kirkuk people to their homes, we mean those who had been really resident in Kirkuk and were forcibly deported as part of ethnic cleansing. When we talk about the return of Arabs who were settled by the previous regime in Kirkuk, we mean those who were settled with the aim of “Arabization” and not for job purposes, or those who had resided in Kirkuk for the purposes of work, business, etc. I therefore stress the need to return those forcibly deported. As for the Arabs who had been settled in Kirkuk, their problem cannot be resolved by expulsion, but rather through amicable agreement, proper compensation and finding suitable place .. This problem, as you can see, requires a consideration of each case on its merits, distinguishing between those who had left voluntarily and the deportees, as well as distinguishing between the residents and those who had been settled or forced to settle.. There are clearly defined clauses with regard to this subject that can be used as a basis. The humanitarian aspect must also be taken into consideration in all the cases, without resorting to repression, and employing the principle of mutual agreement in the cases of dispute.

What is the major obstacle in the face of normalization in Kirkuk?

-- Since being appointed to head the Committee, I have met with experts and advisers, Iraqis and non-Iraqis, who are acquainted with the issue, and have looked at many cases. I believe that leaving this problem without solution is like a dynamite that would explode the whole political process. The solution, however, must not be a reaction to a repressive act, but rather a responsible and serious remedy that respects the rights of citizens, with priorities that are endorsed by secular and religious laws and legislations. Those who had their possessions looted or confiscated must have them returned, on legal rather than haphazard basis. We are awaiting the National Assembly to be convened, and a government to be set up, so that members from the Iraqi federal and regional Kurdish sides are chosen, and bodies and settlement committees are set up .. And we hope that it does not take long to achieve that.

Millions Protest Iraq War in Indian State of West Bengal

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:45:00 +0000

3-28-05, 8:39 am

From People's Democracy

ANY programme against imperialism brings out that extra fervour among the people of Bengal. The day when a human chain was formed for ten minutes across Bengal, from the hills of Darjeeling to plains near the Sagar Island, on the coastal inlets of the Sunderbans, the anti-imperial mood of the people was more than evident. At the call of sixteen Left and democratic parties, the programme held on March 20 was an eminent success with millions of people taking part in forming a chain to show the anger and angst against the misdoings of the forces of imperialism led by the USA and its cohorts across the Atlantic Ocean. The action synchronised with the international observance of March 19/20 as 'Global Day of Protest' on the second anniversary of US war on Iraq. The principal slogan that rang out of the throats of the masses that packed the human chain was: 'Peace loving people! Unite against imperialism and against war!’ Over and above the parties that make up the Bengal Left Front, several other political parties took part in the human chain programme. The organising parties were: CPI (M), CPI, RSP, Forward Bloc, SUCI, WBSP, CPI (ML-Liberation), DSP, MFB, Biplabi Bangla Congress, RCPI, CRLI, PCCCPI (ML), Bolshevik Party, RJD, and Workers’ Party. Taking part in the programme were various Left mass organisations as well. Cultural workers as well as stage-and-film personalities took an enthusiastic part in the programme. A welcome feature of the struggles and movements of Bengal has always been that whenever a call has been given by the Bengal Left Front against imperialism and communalism, and for national unity and integrity, political parties who are otherwise antithetical to the Left Front, its policies, and even its constituents, have come forward in strength and with spontaneity to make the programmes notable successes. While all the districts have reported large turn outs everywhere, braving the summer sun of the early afternoon, the metropolis of Kolkata witnessed another mammoth turn out on the day. The stretch of human chain extended from Sinthee in the northern suburbs to Garia in the south — a stretch of 25 kilometres. From Sinthee along the B T Road, via Shyambazaar, Bidhan Sarani, College Street, College Square, Subodh Mullick Square, Lenin Sarani, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Shyamaprasad Mukherjee Road, Tollygunge railway bridge, Deshapran Sashmal Road, and Netaji Subhas Chandra Road into Garia, the human chain extended – with more and more people joining in as the programme got off to a start at five in the afternoon and lasted for ten minutes. During this time, the chain of hands put together the entirety of Bengal, and the hand clasping hand, at the Sunderbans could feel the pulse of the people of the hill region of the state – all joined together with determination to thwart the aggressive drive of imperialism and saying a loud ‘No!’ to war. The human chain programme was preceded by the big demonstration organised by twelve students’-youth organisations, including the DYFI and the SFI before the American Centre on Jawaharlal Nehru Road where the speakers condemned the US occupation of Iraq.

Bush’s ‘working retirement’: Work till you drop

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:42:00 +0000

3-28-05, 8:36 am

From People's Weekly World Newspaper “First there was the working lunch, then the working vacation. Now, thanks to George Bush, we are threatened with the working retirement.” That’s the opening of a dramatic new television ad from Moveon.org, opposing the administration’s plans to cut future Social Security benefits by up to 46 percent. You can see the ad at www.moveon.org. It shows senior citizens loading industrial washing machines, carrying heavy cartons, mopping floors in a hospital, and cleaning up a construction site. You can also see the reality in communities across the country.

Workers in their 50s and 60s, who had planned to retire early, are waiting until age 65 or later. And workers in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, retired (or downsized) from their jobs, are returning to work in astounding numbers.

At the end of 1995, 29.3 percent of the older population (age 55 and above) was working. As the economy improved over the next five years, more jobs were available and the figure rose to 31.7 percent. After the recession began in 2001, employment rates dropped for most workers. But for older workers, employment increased by another 3.7 points, reaching 35.4 percent at the end of last year. In the last nine years, adjusting for population growth, employment rates grew by 8 percent for workers between 55 and 65, and by 22 percent for workers between 65 and 75. For those over 75, the employment rate grew by 42 percent since 1995!

One viewpoint, quoted recently in The New York Times, is that this trend represents a great opportunity. The old dream was to retire free from work, it says. “The new dream may be the freedom to work in new fields, and in jobs that are still rewarding.”

Rewarding? My neighbor, now in his late 70s, works as a security guard. Another neighbor, retired from the same factory with a similarly meager pension, works as a home health aide. Every day they struggle to perform jobs that further undermine their health. They sacrifice time with their grandchildren in order to make ends meet and to help support extended families.

For my neighbors and for millions more, the reasons are not hard to find — more expenses and less income.
Medical expenses now consume 22 percent of seniors’ income, and companies across the country are terminating medical benefits for retirees. Elderly renters spend 41 percent of their income on housing, while property taxes and heating costs soar for homeowners. And at least 2.4 million grandparents are now the primary caregivers for their grandchildren, up from 2.0 million in 1992.

On the income side, employer-paid “defined benefit” pensions are disappearing, and 401(k)-type plans, always inadequate, took a big hit in the stock market crash. As a result, by 2001, savings and pensions together contributed only 34 percent of seniors’ income, down from 41 percent in 1992. Workers with low-paying jobs, who get the smallest Social Security checks, are also least likely to have company pensions or personal savings.

When expenses exceed income, seniors are forced to mortgage their homes and live on their credit cards. Since 1989, credit card balances for those over 65 more than doubled; by 2000, 28 percent had mortgages on their homes, up from 21 percent in 1990. Usurious interest rates and fees, and predatory mortgage loan practices targeted seniors, contributing to a tripling of their bankruptcy rate in the last decade. But the bankruptcy bill just passed by Congress, at the bidding of the financial industry, will keep even more of the elderly on the job.

Now, the Bush privatization proposal includes deep Social Security benefit cuts for future retirees. Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan has called for a “longer working life,” on top of the increase in retirement age to 67, which is already underway. There have been other proposals for cutting the cost-of-living adjustments for current retirees.

Any attempt to “save” Social Security by cutting benefits or raising the retirement age will condemn the majority of workers to a lifetime of toil. But making millionaires pay the same payroll tax as the rest of us could finance an increase in Social Security benefits. We could have universal, comprehensive health care by eliminating drug and insurance company profiteering. These are the two most important demands to insure retirement security for our parents, our children and us.

Appeals Court Nominee Thomas B. Griffith is a Wrong Choice

Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:13:00 +0000

3-26-05, 9:07 am

Last year, President Bush nominated Thomas B. Griffith to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Senate Democrats prevented a vote on his nomination. Consequently, President Bush re-nominated Mr. Griffith in February. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on his nomination on March 8, and is expected to vote on his confirmation in April. Also, Mr. Griffith practiced law in the District of Columbia between 1996 and 2000, despite the fact that he was suspended twice from the District of Columbia Bar, and as such was unauthorized to do so. His membership in the District of Columbia Bar was suspended in January, 1998, and again from November, 1998 to November, 2001. According to Mr. Griffith, this was “due to a clerical oversight.”

Mr. Griffith has said that his office accidentally failed to renew his participation in the Bar. The Bar’s policy is to mail out an invoice for dues, with two follow-up notices when the dues are not paid.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals requires that an attorney engaged in the practice of law in the District be “enrolled as an active member of the District of Columbia Bar.” During his suspension, he served as the legal counsel to Senate Republicans and was a partner at a law firm. As such, he actively worked as an attorney after being suspended from the practice of law.

In addition, from 2000 to 2004 Mr. Griffith served as the General Legal Counsel of Brigham Young University. But he was never authorized to practice law in Utah, either. Under Utah law, a person cannot practice law unless they have been admitted to the state Bar. Mr. Griffith could have received admittance to the Utah Bar if he was a member in good standing with another state Bar. Of course, he was not. His other option was to take the Utah Bar exam, but he never did.

As the General Counsel of BYU, Mr. Griffith was engaged in the practice of law. According to BYU itself, the General Counsel is responsible for “advising the Administration on all legal matters pertaining to the University.” In response to a questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee, when asked what the most recent position in his legal career was, Mr. Griffith responded “2000-present: Higher education law.” When questioned by the Committee as to why he didn’t join the Utah Bar, he said he didn’t believe as General Counsel for BYU this was necessary.

However, in 2003 the General Counsel of the Utah Bar sent a letter to Mr. Griffith which stated, “Utah does not have and has never had” a “general counsel rule exception.” The letter further advised him to take the state Bar exam. Although he had eight opportunities to take the exam, Mr. Griffith never did. Presumably, he felt that he was above the law, or was concerned that he was incapable of passing it. However, he did submit an application, under oath, to take the exam.

The application asked, “Have you ever been disbarred, suspended, censured, sanctioned, disciplined or otherwise reprimanded or disqualified, whether publicly or privately, as an attorney?” He had the opportunity to answer “Yes” and offer an explanation. Instead, he answered “No.” Of course, he knew that he had been suspended from the District of Columbia Bar twice. In doing so, he gave a false answer, under oath, to the Utah Bar.

The federal appeals courts play an extremely important role in the judicial system. While the U.S. Supreme Court only hears about 80 cases annually, the appeals courts adjudicate about 30,000 cases yearly. The judges who hold lifetime appointments to these courts have considerable ability to effect enforcement of the nation’s laws. We should expect those judges to have strong professional ethics and a high regard for the law. Sadly, Mr. Griffith has neither.

Iraqi Students Strike in Protest of Religious Extremist Violence

Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:00:00 +0000

3-26-05, 8:54 am

From IFTU

Several iraqi bloggers report that students from Basrah and Shatt Al-Arab universities in Basra City have been on all-out strike for the last three days as a reaction to the attack on 15 March by religious hardliners and Mahdi Army militiamen on students organising a field trip or a picnic at Al-Andalus park in the Al Makhal area of Basra.

The Kuwaiti arabic newspaper Al-Qabas also reported that hooded men assaulted the students with rubber cables and truncheons which resulted in severe injuries to an Armenian Christian girl, Zihoor Ashour who lost one eye because of being beaten on her head very hard with a thick stick of wood. Another student (a boy) who came to her rescue after militiamen had torn off her clothes and were beating her was shot in the head and died subsequently from his injuries.

One Iraqi email correspondent writes: 'It was a tragedy. The students of all colleges are in what you can say a revolution because of this. They made many demonstrations against Al-Mahdi army and Al-Sadr demanding to remove their offices from the universities and also a group of the students went to Sayid Al-Sistani to make him talk to Al-Sadr and advise him to be sensible in his actions.'

Students say that their belongings, such as mobile phones, cameras, stereo players and loudspeakers, were stolen or smashed to pieces by the militiamen. Girl students not wearing headscarves, most of them Christian, were severely beaten and at least 20 students were kidnapped, taken to Sadr's office in Al-Tuwaisa for 'interrogation' and were only released late at night.

Students also say the police and British soldiers were nearby but did not intervene.

A Sheikh As'ad Al-Basri, one of Sadr's aides in Basrah, stated that the 'believers' of the Mahdi Army did what they did in an act of 'divine intervention' in order to punish the students for their 'immoral and outrageous behaviour' during the 'holy month of Muharram, while the blood of Imam Hussein is yet to dry.' He added that he had sent the 'group of believers' to observe and photograph the students, and on witnessing them playing loud music, 'the kind they play in bars and discos', and openly talking to female students, the 'believers had to straighten things out'. Thousands of students have been demonstrating in front of the Basrah Governorate building in Asharr for the last three days, shouting 'No to political Islam', 'No to the new tyranny' and 'No to Sadr'. The police (who are loyal to Da'wa in Basrah) reportedly attacked the students in order to disperse the demonstrations.

One Iraqi blogger writes: 'The Governor of Basrah appeared on Fayhaa TV on Sunday 20 March claiming that problems with Sadr's office had been resolved peacefully. The Governor (who is a member of Da'wa) apparently met with representatives from Sadr's office under the mediation of Shia Islamic parties in Basrah (Da'wa, SCIRI, Fadheela, Thar Allah) and it appears that Sadr's aides agreed to 'punish the guilty parties under a special religious court that would convene for this purpose' and to compensate the students and to return all stolen items to the students. The Governor claimed to have met with the family of another Christian girl who was badly injured, 'generously' offering her free treatment in any country she chooses.

'No mention of the rule of law here. No involvement of Basrah's civil courts at all. The whole incident was mopped up in a tribal-religious meeting, but this time at the Governorate level. The guilty parties were sinisterly assigned the job of punishing themselves. A great lesson in democracy. But then, no one was punished for the executions and torture at religious courts in Najaf the last time anyway.

'What is even worse, the official statement from Sadr's office in Basrah. It asks for the names of the students that were 'allegedly mistreated' in order to compensate them. And listen to this; 'Sadr's office in Basrah offers to provide the universities of Basrah with groups to protect the students in their future field trips.' This following Sheikh As'ad Al-Basri's fiery statements that the students had 'disobeyed his orders, and the stick was for those who disobeyed,' alasa limen asa. He also alleged that the students had shouted 'No to Islam' in their demonstrations this week, insolently adding that the students should be punished for their 'blasphemy'.

'The Governor literally appointed Sadr's office as judge, witness and law-enforcer. We might even say that the Sadrists were in fact rewarded for their vile act...

'The students of Basra have made their demands clear; bringing the Sadrist militiamen to a public trial in the presence of representatives from Basrah's student groups, banning Islamist armed groups from entering campus or running Islamist student groups, and the dissolution of the infamous 'Security Committee' which operates in most of Basra's colleges, and which is reminiscient of the Ba'ath's 'University Security' but taking a Shi'ite Islamic appearance instead of a fascist nationalistic one.

'Student groups from Baghdad, Arbil and Suleimaniya have sent statements of support to Basra. Incidentally, four students were injured in Suleimaniya during demonstrations that have been taking place for the second week in row against the privatisation of educational institutions in the Kurdish region.

'Still no condemnation from the the Hawza, when the attack against the students was done in its name.'