Source: Away from its busy capital city and famous canal, Panama is one of the world's most ecologically diverse nations. Yet huge new hydroelectric dam projects now underway are seeing pristine rivers damned and virgin rainforest flooded. The government says it is vital for economic growth, big business is cashing in and even the UN has awarded carbon credits on the basis that the resultant energy will be 'sustainably' produced. But for the indigenous Ngabe people - whose homes are vanishing under water - it is a catastrophe. So they have been fighting back. Filmmaker Glenn Elis went to Panama for People & Power to find out more. ast February, the most famous Panamanian in the world went for a routine medical check-up. The authorities used a decoy, and General Noriega, the country's former military governor, was spirited back to his luxury detention centre, safe from prying eyes and a hungry press. Nonetheless, acres of news print around the world were lavished on the event, while a far more urgent unravelling Panamanian story dropped under the radar. Filmmaker's view: Glenn Elis Panama's largest indigenous group, the Ngabe, had decided to take a stand against the unlawful encroachment of their homeland. Since the time of the conquistadors, the Ngabe have been pushed to the margins of the country - forced to live on the land that no one else wanted. Twenty years ago the Panamanian government finally ceded what was considered a useless tract of land to them. The Ngabe had in fact lived there for centuries, so by rights it has always been theirs. But now this land, rich in mineral deposits and rivers, is considered priceless. And Ricardo Martinelli, Panama's authoritarian president who is a close friend of former Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi, wants it back. His plan is to open the Ngabe heartland to foreign mining companies and push hydroelectric power projects onto an unwilling population. The problem is that the Ngabe have nowhere else to go. So the scene was set for a dramatic showdown, which started when the Ngabe closed the Pan-American Highway in Chiriquà province in the west of the country - bringing Panama to a standstill. Their demand: an audience with the president. Martinelli's response was extraordinary for this relatively peaceful country with a constitution that forbids the formation of an army. The police, who human rights observers say have become increasingly militarised since Martinelli became president three years ago, launched a vicious crackdown, cutting communications with the outside world, and allegedly shooting innocent bystanders as well as peaceful protesters. Harrowing reports surfaced of rapes and the mistreatment of detainees, as scores of Ngabe men, women and children were arrested. At least two people were killed and many more were injured. The crackdown lasted for three days and proved so unpopular with Panamanians, that Martinelli was forced into negotiations with the Ngabe. Opening fire The talks were taking place at the National Assembly building in the centre of Panama City and dozens of Ngabe families had set up camp nearby to show support for Silvia Carerra, their elected leader who is known as the Casica. It was here that my crew and I set up our camera on my first day in Panama to interview some of the people who had travelled hundreds of miles to make their point. We had just started to interview a young woman and child when gun shots rang through the air. The police had opened fire at the demonstrators. There were several shotgun injuries, none serious, but nasty all the same. It seemed inexplicable. Why fire into a crowd filled with women and children, particularly at a time when their leader was negotiating with the government? It is possible that the government was never that keen to talk to the Ngabe in the first place and that this was an attempt to provoke a reaction which would force the cancellation of the talks. If that was the plan, it did not work. The Casica had no intention of letting the government set the agenda and the talks continued. But as I flicked through the channels in my hotel room later that night I was given an insight into the less than perfect relationship between the government and the media here. Panamanian TV media carried the police's version of events - that drunken Ngabe youths had gone on the rampage. It was a story that I knew for a fact was far from the truth. A piece of paradise The next day one of the so-called 'drunkards', a teetotaller by the name of Ricardo, invited us to his village. It was a six-hour drive from Panama City followed by a gruelling trek through mountain jungle. But nothing could have prepared me for the beauty of Kia - a settlement nestling on the banks of the Tabasara River. Here the Ngabe have carved out a little piece of paradise for themselves, and I saw at once why they are fighting so hard to protect it. There is an open air school where children are taught in the Ngabe language, which is vital if their unique culture is to survive. And I enjoyed a continuous stream of hospitality as we talked into the early hours under a night sky unblemished by light pollution. The following morning Ricardo gave us a guided tour of the village, explaining the close bond between his people and nature. I was taken a short distance to the riverbank where a little girl showed us a colony of Tabasara Rain Frogs, one of the rarest species in the world, which are found nowhere else on the planet. If the government has its way, all this will be flooded and the frogs will disappear. Yet a few miles downstream from Kia, the massive construction site of Barro Blanco is an ugly blot on the landscape. As the enormous dam takes shapes, armed guards patrol the perimeter to keep the villagers away. When the dam is complete the village of Kia will be lost. From Kia I travelled northwest to visit Ngabe villagers who had already lost their community. They had been made homeless by another hydroelectric project last year, when the mighty Changuinola River was dammed. Here I met Carolina. Her house had been built on higher ground than those of her neighbours in the village of Guiyaboa, but it was still not high enough. The village now lies deep underwater and all that can be seen is the roof of Carolina's house, jutting out of the water like some incongruous monument. She told me that she and countless others had received no compensation for loss of their land, crops or housing. I travelled on through Chiriqui province, the scene of the crackdown, and met and interviewed survivors and the relatives of those who had been killed by the police. I found it hard to understand why they had died. All the Ngabe had been asking for was an opportunity to talk to the government - a concession that the authorities had to make in the end anyway. It is not surprising that, away from the glitzy skyscrapers of the capital, a terrible sense of injustice and resentment is simmering below the surface. A roll call of Panama's wealthy Back in Panama City, Jorge Ricardo Fabrega, the country's powerful minister of government, agreed to meet me and explain the government's side. He admitted that things could have been handled better at Changuinola, but insisted that during the recent crackdowns the police had behaved very professionally. He was keen to underline the importance of hydroelectric energy for Panama's booming economy and then stated categorically that nothing would be allowed to stop the Barro Blanco project going ahead. "There's one thing that I have to make clear," he said. "We're not going to cancel Barro Blanco. The Barro Blanco project is under construction and it will continue." As I listened I thought of Ricardo and the other villagers whose future was being decided by the minister and his friends. By now news had got around that a filmmaker from Al Jazeera was in the country and someone discreetly passed me a lengthy document detailing the government's future hydroelectric plans. It was an eye-opener. The sheer number of the projects is startling; if they all go ahead they will surely produce far more electricity than Panama will ever need, no matter how dynamic or fast growing its economy. Which begs the obvious question: What will they do with all this power? Alongside each project listed were the names of the company directors involved - a roll call of Panama's wealthiest families. It was not difficult to put two and two together. Electricity is a commodity like anything else and if there is spare capacity it can be sold to energy-hungry consumers in neighbouring countries. Someone, it seemed, was going to get very rich. Unsurprisingly, that document has never been made public. It was then I realised what Silvia Carerra, the Casica, was up against in her negotiations with the government. And on my last evening in Panama, I was lucky enough to meet her. Despite having been up since sunrise debating with other Ngabe leaders, she found time for an interview. A charismatic 41-year-old, with little in the way of a formal education, she has found herself locked in negotiations with the minister I had just met. This remarkable woman is all that stands between her 100,000 kinsmen and development projects they neither want nor need. It must be a terrible responsibility. I found her candour and determination refreshing. She told me that even after all the government had done the Ngabe would never give in. But in the meantime, of course, work at Barro Blanco and elsewhere goes on. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. |
Friday, November 30, 2012
Panama: Village of the damned
Housing Move in Israel Seen as Setback for a Two-State Plan
By JODI RUDOREN and MARK LANDLER
JERUSALEM — Israel is moving forward with development of Jewish settlements in a contentious area east of Jerusalem, defying the United States by advancing a project that has long been condemned by Washington as effectively dooming any prospect of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A day after the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to upgrade the status of the Palestinians, a senior Israeli official said the government would pursue “preliminary zoning and planning preparations” for a development that would separate the West Bank cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem. If such a project were to go beyond blueprints, it could prevent the creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.
The development, in an open, mostly empty area known as E1, would connect the large settlement town of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem. Israeli officials also authorized the construction of 3,000 new housing units in parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The timing of the twin actions seemed aimed at punishing the Palestinians for their United Nations bid, and appeared to show that hard-liners in the government had prevailed after days of debate over how to respond. That represented a surprising turnaround, after a growing sense that Israeli leaders had acceded to pressure from Washington not to react quickly or harshly.
The Obama administration swiftly condemned the move as unhelpful. Senior officials expressed frustration that it came after Israeli officials had played down the importance of the Palestinian bid and suggested that they would only employ harsh retaliatory measures if the Palestinians used their new status to go after Israel in the International Criminal Court.
“We reiterate our longstanding opposition to settlements and East Jerusalem construction and announcements,” a spokesman for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said. “We believe these actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve a two-state solution.”
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a speech on Friday night in Washington, criticized Israel’s decision to proceed with plans for construction without referring to any settlements directly by name. “These activities set back the cause of a negotiated peace,” she said at the Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution.
Israel gave the United States only a few hours’ notice of the plan, a senior official said. President Obama did not call Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the official said.
For Mr. Obama, whose most bitter clashes with Mr. Netanyahu have come over settlements, the Israeli move could undermine a series of developments in recent weeks — from the violence in Gaza to the Palestinian vote — in which the two leaders appeared to draw closer together.
For years, American and European officials have told the Israelis that E1 is a red line. The leaked, somewhat vague, announcement of plans to proceed with building is the diplomatic equivalent of what the Israeli military did last month when it massed tens of thousands of ground troops at the Gaza border. It is a potent threat that may well, in the end, not be carried out because the Israeli government worries about its consequences.
The Palestinian Authority described the plan as “a new act of defiance from the Israeli government.” Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator, said in a statement, “At a moment where the Palestinian leadership is doing every single effort to save the two-state solution, the Israeli government does everything possible to destroy it.”
Mr. Netanyahu’s office declined to comment on the zoning and construction decisions, which were made Thursday night around the time of the General Assembly vote.
But Israel has long maintained its right to develop neighborhoods throughout East Jerusalem and the West Bank — more than 500,000 Jews already live there — and Mr. Netanyahu, responding to the United Nations speech by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, said, “Someone who wants peace does not talk in such a manner.”
While Israel has frequently announced settlement expansions at delicate political moments, often to its detriment, the E1 move came as a shock to many after a week in which both Israelis and Palestinians toned down their talk about day-after responses to the United Nations bid.
Avigdor Lieberman, the ultranationalist foreign minister who for months denounced the Palestinian initiative as “diplomatic terrorism” and said Israel should consider severe sanctions against the Palestinian Authority, had told reporters in recent days that there would be “no automatic response.”
Mr. Lieberman, who spoke before Mrs. Clinton at the Saban Forum, castigated Mr. Abbas as a failed politician who had sought to upgrade the Palestinians’ status to divert attention from an ailing economy at home.
Mr. Erekat’s spokesman declined to discuss whether the Palestinians would use their upgraded status, as a nonmember observer state with access to United Nations institutions, to pursue a case in the International Criminal Court, regarding E1 or the other settlement expansion.
Less contentious moves were already in progress: the Palestinian Authority has begun changing its name to “Palestine” on official documents, contracts and Web sites, and several nations are considering raising the level of diplomatic relations, giving Palestinian envoys the title of ambassador.
All but one European country, the Czech Republic, voted with the Palestinians or abstained in Thursday’s United Nations vote, many of them citing concerns about settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem territories that Israel captured in the 1967 war. The settlement of E1, a 4.6-square-mile expanse of hilly parkland where some Bedouins have camps and a police station was opened in 2008, could further increase Israel’s international isolation.
“This is not just another few houses in Jerusalem or another hilltop in the West Bank,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel and Egypt. “This is one of the most sensitive areas of territory, and I would hope the United States will lay down the law.”
After a day in which Israeli government officials insisted that the United Nations vote was a purely symbolic one that had not changed anything on the ground, the revelation of the development moves late Friday stunned and outraged even some of Mr. Netanyahu’s supporters.
“A number of important countries are telling us that they think it’s wrong to do settlements, and these are our best friends,” noted one senior Israeli government official, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of being fired. “After they say this directly or indirectly, the immediate response is to build more settlements, even in one of the most controversial areas, E1? How does that make sense? What is the message the government is sending its best friends?”
Dani Dayan, the leader of Israel’s settler movement, said the development of E1 was an “important Israeli strategic interest,” but he, too, was somewhat dismayed by the timing. “We don’t like the idea of developing our communities as a sort of retaliatory or punitive step,” he said.
Shelly Yacimovich, head of the left-wing Labor Party, also questioned the strategy. “Construction in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem is not controversial,” she said Friday night in a television interview. “But to do this now? That’s sticking a finger in the eye.”
It is hardly the first time Israel has been criticized for bad timing on settlement expansion. In August 2011, a month before a previous bid by Mr. Abbas for upgraded status at the United Nations Security Council, Israel’s Interior Ministry gave final approval for the construction of a 1,600-unit apartment complex in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo.
On the eve of an April 2011 meeting between Mr. Obama and Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, a Jerusalem planning committee gave its go-ahead for 1,000 units. And in 2010, Mr. Netanyahu was embarrassed by an early approval of the Ramat Shlomo development hours after a Jerusalem visit by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
But E1 — where a plan approved years ago calls for 3,910 housing units, 2,192 hotel rooms and an industrial park, in addition to the police station — is more contentious than all those projects combined. Presidents Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all strenuously objected to any settlement there.
Dani Seidemann, a Jerusalem lawyer and peace activist, described E1 as “the fatal heart attack of the two-state solution” and said Mr. Netanyahu was wielding “the doomsday weapon.”
Still, he and others noted that the approval was only for zoning and planning, early steps in a long development process before bulldozers begin work, and could be just what he called “the dramatic flourish.”
That may be why the announcement is so vague. Turning the plans into reality is likely to take years. On the other hand, just asserting that such steps are being considered is a way of signaling Israel’s readiness, after having lost a key battle at the United Nations, to engage fully in the diplomatic war over the future of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Jodi Rudoren reported from Jerusalem, and Mark Landler from Washington. Michael R. Gordon contributed reporting from Washington, Peter Baker from Hatfield, Pa., and Ethan Bronner from New York.
President Obama Speaks on Extending Tax Cuts for Middle Class Families (video?transcript)
Hatfield, Pennsylvania
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Well, good morning, everybody.
AUDIENCE: Good morning!
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody, please, please have a seat. Have a seat. Relax for a second. (Laughter.)
It is good to see all of you. Hello, Hatfield! (Applause.) It is good to be back in Pennsylvania. And it is good to be right here at K’NEX. (Applause.) I want to thank Michael Araten, Robert Glickman, and the inventor of K’NEX, Joel Glickman, for hosting me today and giving me a great tour. (Applause.) Where did they go? Where did they go? I want to -- (applause) -- stand up. Stand up so everybody can see you guys. There they are. (Applause.) There you go.
And I just noticed, we’ve got a couple of outstanding members of Congress here. We’ve got Chaka Fattah -- (applause)
-- and Allyson Schwartz. (Applause.)
Now, I just finished getting a tour of the K’NEX workshop. I have to say, it makes me wish that Joel had invented this stuff a little sooner, when I was a kid. (Laughter.) Back then, you couldn’t really build a rollercoaster out of your Erector Set. (Laughter.)
And I also got a chance to meet some of the folks who have been working around the clock to keep up with the Christmas rush, and that’s a good thing. These guys are Santa’s extra elves here. They manufacture almost 3,000 K’NEX pieces every minute. And every box that ends up on store shelves in 30 countries is stamped “Made in America.” And that’s something to be proud of. That’s something to be proud of. (Applause.)
By the way, I hope the camera folks had a chance to take a look at some of the K’NEX, including that flag made out of K’NEX. And Joe Biden was in Costco; he wanted to buy some of this stuff. (Laughter.) But I told him he had too much work to do. I wasn’t going to have him building rollercoasters all day long. (Laughter.)
Now, of course, Santa delivers everywhere. I’ve been keeping my own naughty-and-nice list for Washington. So you should keep your eye on who gets some K’NEX this year. (Laughter.) There are going to be some members of Congress who get them, and some who don't. (Laughter and applause.)
So, look, this is a wonderful time of year. It’s been a few weeks since a long election finally came to an end. And obviously, I couldn’t be more honored to be back in the White House. But I’m already missing the time that I spent on the campaign visiting towns like this and talking to folks like you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. That's why I miss you. (Applause.)
And one of the benefits of traveling and getting out of the White House is it gives you a chance to have a conversation with the American people about what kind of country do we want to be
–- and what kind of country do we want to leave to our kids.
I believe America only thrives when we have a strong and growing middle class. And I believe we’re at our best when everybody who works hard has a chance to get ahead. That's what I believe. And I know that's what the founders of this company believe as well. We were talking about these guys' dad, who I understand just passed away at the age of 101. So these guys have good genes in addition to inventive minds. And the story of generations starting businesses, hiring folks, making sure that if you work hard, you can get ahead, that's what America is all about. And that’s at the heart of the plan that I’ve been talking about all year.
I want to reward manufacturers like this one and small businesses that create jobs here in the United States, not overseas. (Applause.) And by the way this is a company -- one of the few companies in the toy industry that have aggressively moved jobs back here. (Applause.) That's a great story to tell because we’ve got the best workers in the world and the most productive workers in the world, and so we need champions for American industry creating jobs here in the United States.
I want to give more Americans the chance to earn the skills that businesses are looking for right now, and I want to give our children the kind of education they’ll need in the 21st century. I want America to lead the world in research and technology and clean energy. I want to put people back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our schools. And I want to do all this while bringing down our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. (Applause.)
Now, on this last point, you’ve probably heard a lot of talk in Washington and in the media about the deadlines that we’re facing on jobs and taxes and investments. This is not some run-of-the-mill debate. This isn’t about which political party can come out on top in negotiations. We’ve got important decisions to make that are going to have a real impact on businesses and families all across the country.
Our ultimate goal, our long-term goal is to get our long-term deficit under control in a way that is balanced and is fair. That would be good for businesses, for our economy, for future generations. And I believe both parties can -- and will -- work together in the coming weeks to get that done. We know how that gets done. We’re going to have to raise a little more revenue. We’ve got to cut out spending we don’t need, building on the trillion dollars of spending cuts we’ve already made. And if we combine those two things, we can create a path where America is paying its bills while still being able to make investments in the things we need to grow like education and infrastructure. So we know how to do that.
But in Washington, nothing is easy, so there is going to be some prolonged negotiations. And all of us are going to have to get out of our comfort zones to make that happen. I’m willing to do that, and I’m hopeful that enough members of Congress in both parties are willing to do that as well. We can solve these problems. But where the clock is really ticking right now is on middle-class taxes. At the end of the year, middle-class taxes that are currently in place are set to expire -- middle-class tax cuts that are currently in place are set to expire.
There are two things that can happen. If Congress does nothing, every family in America will see their income taxes automatically go up on January 1st. Every family, everybody here, you’ll see your taxes go up on January 1st. I mean, I’m assuming that doesn’t sound too good to you.
AUDIENCE: No!
THE PRESIDENT: That’s sort of like the lump of coal you get for Christmas. That’s a Scrooge Christmas. A typical middle-class family of four would see their income taxes go up by about $2,200. That’s for a typical family -- it would be more for some folks. That’s money a lot of families just can’t afford to lose. That’s less money to buy gas, less money to buy groceries. In some cases, it means tougher choices between paying the rent and saving for college. It means less money to buy more K’NEX.
AUDIENCE: Booo -- (laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Just the other day, economists said that if income taxes go up on the middle class, people will spend nearly $200 billion less in stores and online. And when folks are buying fewer clothes, or cars, or toys, that’s not good for our businesses; it’s not good for our economy; it’s not good for employment.
So that’s one path: Congress does nothing, we don’t deal with this looming tax hike on middle-class families, and starting in January, everybody gets hit with this big tax hike and businesses suddenly see fewer customers, less demand. The economy, which we’ve been fighting for four years to get out of this incredible economic crisis that we have, it starts stalling again. So that’s one path.
The good news is there’s a second option. Right now, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income -- everybody. So that means 98 percent of Americans, 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up by a single dime -- because 98 percent of Americans make $250,000 a year or less; 97 percent of small businesses make $250,000 a year or less. So if you say income taxes don’t go up for any income above $250,000, the vast majority of Americans, they don’t see a tax hike.
But here’s the thing. Even the top 2 percent, even folks who make more than $250,000, they’d still keep their tax cut on the first $250,000 of income. So it would still be better off for them, too, for us to go ahead and get that done. Families would have a sense of security going into the new year. Companies like this one would know what to expect in terms of planning for next year and the year after. That means people's jobs would be secure.
The sooner Congress gets this done, the sooner our economy will get a boost. And it would then give us in Washington more time to work together on that long-range plan to bring down deficits in a balanced way: Tax reform, working on entitlements, and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more so we can keep investing in things like education and research that make us strong.
So those are the choices that we have. And understand this was a central question in the election -- maybe the central question in the election. You remember. We talked about this a lot. (Laughter.) It wasn't like this should come as a surprise to anybody. We had debates about it. There were a lot of TV commercials about it. And at the end of the day, a clear majority of Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, independents -- they agreed with a balanced approach to deficit reduction and making sure that middle-class taxes don’t go up. Folks agreed to that.
Now, the good news is we're starting to see a few Republicans coming around to it, too -- I'm talking about Republicans in Congress. So the reason I'm here is because I want the American people to urge Congress soon, in the next week, the next two weeks, to begin the work we have by doing what we all agree on. Both parties agree that we should extend the middle-class tax cuts. We've got some disagreements about the high-end tax cuts, right? Republicans don’t want to raise taxes on folks like me; I think I can pay a little bit more to make sure that kids can go to college and we can build roads and invest in NIH so that we're finding cures for Alzheimer's. And that’s a disagreement that we're going to have and we've got to sort out.
But we already all agree, we say, on making sure middle-class taxes don’t go up, so let's get that done. Let's go ahead and take the fear out for the vast majority of American families so they don’t have to worry about $2,000 coming out of their pockets starting next year.
The Senate has already passed a bill to keep income taxes from going up on middle-class families. That’s already passed the Senate. Your member of Congress like Allyson and Chaka, other Democrats in the House, they're ready to go. They're ready to vote on that same thing. And if we can just get a few House Republicans on board, we can pass the bill in the House. It will land on my desk, and I am ready -- I've got a bunch of pens ready to sign this bill. (Laughter.) I’m ready to sign it. (Applause.) There are no shortage of pens in the White House. (Laughter.) And I carry one around for an emergency just in case, just waiting for the chance to use it to sign this bill to make sure people's taxes don’t go up.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you!
THE PRESIDENT: Well, don’t thank me yet, because I haven't signed it. (Laughter.) I need some help from Congress.
So the key is, though, that the American people have to be involved. It's not going to be enough for me to just do this on my own. So I'm hopeful that both sides are going to come together and do the right thing, but we all know you can't take anything for granted when it comes to Washington. Let's face it. And that’s why I'm going to be asking for all of you to make your voices heard over the next few days and the next couple of weeks.
I need you to remind members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- to not get bogged down in a bunch of partisan bickering, but let's go ahead and focus on the people who sent us to Washington and make sure that we're doing the right thing by them.
So I want you to call, I want you to send an email, post on their Facebook wall. If you tweet, then use a hashtag we're calling "My2K." Not Y2K, “My2K,” all right? Because it’s about your “2K” in your pocket. (Laughter.) We’re trying to burn that into people’s minds here. (Applause.)
So in the meantime I’m doing my part. I’m meeting with every constituency group out there. We’re talking to CEOs. We’re talking to labor groups. We’re talking to civic groups. I’m talking to media outlets, just explaining to the American people this is not that complicated. Let’s make sure that middle-class taxes don’t go up. Let’s get that done in the next couple of weeks.
Let’s also work together on a fair and balanced, responsible plan so that we are paying our bills -- we’re not spending on things we don’t need, but we are still spending on the things that make us grow. That’s the kind of fair, balanced, responsible plan that I talked about during the campaign, and that’s what the majority of Americans believe in.
So I’m hopeful, but I’m going to need folks like you, the people here in Hatfield and here in Pennsylvania and all across the country, to get this done. And a lot is riding on this debate. This is too important to our economy, it’s too important for our families to not get it done. And it’s not acceptable to me, and I don’t think it’s acceptable to you, for just a handful of Republicans in Congress to hold middle-class tax cuts hostage simply because they don’t want tax rates on upper-income folks to go up. All right? That doesn’t make sense. (Applause.)
If your voices are heard, then we can help businesses like this one. We’re going to sell a whole bunch of K’NEX. (Laughter and applause.) Let’s give families all across America the kind of security and certainty that they deserve during the holiday season. Let’s keep our economy on the right track. Let’s stand up for the American belief that each of us have our own dreams and aspirations, but we’re also in this together, and we can work together in a responsible way; that we’re one people, and we’re one nation.
That’s what this country is about. That’s what all of you deserve. That’s what I’m fighting for every single day, and I will keep fighting for as long as I have the privilege of being your President.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
12 Ways a Fiscal "Grand Bargain" Could Screw the Poor
As the fiscal cliff looms, there's a consensus that, one way or another, the rich are going to have to pay up. But that doesn't mean the poor are home free. Any "grand bargain" budget deal will be just that—a deal, which means that even though Democrats want to shield social programs from cuts, they will inevitably end up as bargaining chips on the table.
Obama's starting point for negotiations is the deficit plan that came out of the 2011 debt-ceiling showdown. It already contains heavy cuts in discretionary spending, which is spending on stuff that is not entitlements, including military and domestic programs. And 25 percent of that domestic spending goes to programs that help low-income people, according to Richard Kogan, a federal budget expert and senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Obama and the Democrats have been pretty set against cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and long-term unemployment benefits. However, Rep. Paul "62-percent-of-my-proposed-budget-cuts-come-from-poor-people-programs" Ryan will likely be leading the charge on the other side of the aisle. He won't be able to chop up the safety net to his liking, but he and his fellow Republicans will do what they can.
Kogan says that even though a final budget deal is likely not to eliminate tax benefits for the poor, it will almost certainly include deeper cuts to lots of social programs. Here are 12 possible targets (program costs are from 2012 unless otherwise noted):
Medicaid ($258 billion): Though Obama has largely targeted providers for potential Medicaid cuts, Republicans want beneficiaries to fork over more. In which case, says Kogan, patients might be forced to make copayments, or program costs may be shifted to the states, which could decide to scale back coverage.
Food Stamps ($78 billion in 2011): The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program serves about 45 million people. It is not part of discretionary spending, but Ellen Nissenbaum, senior vice president for government affairs at CBPP, told The Nation it faces a real prospect of being cut in negotiations.
Supplemental Security Income ($47 billion): Social Security itself is mostly off the table, but Supplemental Security Income for the blind, elderly, and disabled, is likely to take a hit, according to Nissenbaum.
Unemployment benefits extension in 2013 ($40 billion): If long-term unemployment benefits are allowed to expire at the end of the year, some 2 million jobless will be affected. Kogan says "there will be some extension, because that's just brutal. It's just a question of how much."
Pell Grants ($36 billion): These need-based grants help some 10 million low-income students afford college.
Section 8 Housing Assistance ($19 billion): Section 8 vouchers allow more than 2 million super low-income families to afford decent housing in the private market.
Job Training ($18 billion in 2009): Loads of federal job training programs help millions of seniors, Native Americans, farm workers, veterans, young people, and displaced or laid-off workers with career development.
Head Start ($7.9 billion): The program, which helps kids from disadvantaged homes be better prepared to start school, had about a million enrollees in 2010. Research has shown that Head Start generates real long-term benefits for participants.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($3.47 billion): In 2011, about 23 million poor folks got help paying the winter heating bills through LIHEAP.
Community Health Centers ($3.1 billion): In 2011, more than 20 million patients, 72 percent of whom were below the poverty line, got healthcare through federally-supported community health centers.
Title 1 Education Grants ($322 million): Under the No Child Left Behind Act, school districts serving a big percentage of low-income kids get financial assistance to help them meet state academic standards.
Women, Infants, and Children ($7.2 million in 2011): The Department of Agriculture's WIC program helps low-income moms and babies get access to supplemental nutrition and health care referrals. WIC has about 9 million participants, most of whom are kids.
Source: Mother Jones
Obama's starting point for negotiations is the deficit plan that came out of the 2011 debt-ceiling showdown. It already contains heavy cuts in discretionary spending, which is spending on stuff that is not entitlements, including military and domestic programs. And 25 percent of that domestic spending goes to programs that help low-income people, according to Richard Kogan, a federal budget expert and senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Obama and the Democrats have been pretty set against cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and long-term unemployment benefits. However, Rep. Paul "62-percent-of-my-proposed-budget-cuts-come-from-poor-people-programs" Ryan will likely be leading the charge on the other side of the aisle. He won't be able to chop up the safety net to his liking, but he and his fellow Republicans will do what they can.
Kogan says that even though a final budget deal is likely not to eliminate tax benefits for the poor, it will almost certainly include deeper cuts to lots of social programs. Here are 12 possible targets (program costs are from 2012 unless otherwise noted):
Medicaid ($258 billion): Though Obama has largely targeted providers for potential Medicaid cuts, Republicans want beneficiaries to fork over more. In which case, says Kogan, patients might be forced to make copayments, or program costs may be shifted to the states, which could decide to scale back coverage.
Food Stamps ($78 billion in 2011): The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program serves about 45 million people. It is not part of discretionary spending, but Ellen Nissenbaum, senior vice president for government affairs at CBPP, told The Nation it faces a real prospect of being cut in negotiations.
Supplemental Security Income ($47 billion): Social Security itself is mostly off the table, but Supplemental Security Income for the blind, elderly, and disabled, is likely to take a hit, according to Nissenbaum.
Unemployment benefits extension in 2013 ($40 billion): If long-term unemployment benefits are allowed to expire at the end of the year, some 2 million jobless will be affected. Kogan says "there will be some extension, because that's just brutal. It's just a question of how much."
Pell Grants ($36 billion): These need-based grants help some 10 million low-income students afford college.
Section 8 Housing Assistance ($19 billion): Section 8 vouchers allow more than 2 million super low-income families to afford decent housing in the private market.
Job Training ($18 billion in 2009): Loads of federal job training programs help millions of seniors, Native Americans, farm workers, veterans, young people, and displaced or laid-off workers with career development.
Head Start ($7.9 billion): The program, which helps kids from disadvantaged homes be better prepared to start school, had about a million enrollees in 2010. Research has shown that Head Start generates real long-term benefits for participants.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($3.47 billion): In 2011, about 23 million poor folks got help paying the winter heating bills through LIHEAP.
Community Health Centers ($3.1 billion): In 2011, more than 20 million patients, 72 percent of whom were below the poverty line, got healthcare through federally-supported community health centers.
Title 1 Education Grants ($322 million): Under the No Child Left Behind Act, school districts serving a big percentage of low-income kids get financial assistance to help them meet state academic standards.
Women, Infants, and Children ($7.2 million in 2011): The Department of Agriculture's WIC program helps low-income moms and babies get access to supplemental nutrition and health care referrals. WIC has about 9 million participants, most of whom are kids.
Source: Mother Jones
President Obama Holds a Cabinet Meeting (video/transcript)
HE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Is that brighter than usual? (Laughter.) Yes, that's serious.
Well, listen, this is a wonderful opportunity for me to meet with my full Cabinet for the first time since the election took place. The primary purpose from my perspective is to say thank you, because everybody here, in their respective agencies, has done a remarkable job on behalf of the American people, across the board on a wide range of issues. They’ve always prioritized how do we make sure that we have a strong middle class, how do we grow our economy, how do we put people back to work, and how do we keep the American people safe and continue to extend our influence and our ideals around the world. And I could not have a better collection of people, many of whom have stayed here throughout my first term. And I think we’ve had as little turnover as any President during the course of a first term, and the reason is because everybody has done such a remarkable job.
So my main purpose is to say thank you to them, but also to remind them that we’ve got a lot of work to do. There are going to be a few specific issues that we spend a lot of time on. One in particular that I should note is that the devastating impact of Hurricane Sandy is still being felt by families all across New York and New Jersey, parts of Connecticut. We are very pleased that under the leadership initially of Janet Napolitano and FEMA, but now Shaun Donovan, who’s heading up a task force, we’re focusing not only on recovery, but now on rebuilding and making sure those communities come back stronger than ever and people get the help that they need. So that will be an important topic because it’s really going to be an interagency concern.
The second thing that we’ll be talking about, obviously, is what’s on the minds of a lot of American families across the country, and that is making sure that we’ve got this fiscal cliff dealt with and that middle-class taxes don’t go up. I already spoke extensively about that today. I’ll just repeat: There is no reason why taxes on middle-class families should go up. It would be bad for the economy. It would be bad for those families. In fact, it would be bad for the world economy. And so I think it’s very important that we get that resolved, and I am very open to a fair and balanced approach to reduce our deficit and provide the kind of certainty that businesses and consumers need so that we can keep this recovery going.
And obviously, we’ll be spending some time talking about national security issues as well.
But I just want to say thank you to this extraordinary Cabinet for a job well done. And I will take this opportunity to publicly embarrass two members of the Cabinet whose birthdays are either today or tomorrow: Ric Shinseki, who is the Department of Veterans Affairs. Happy birthday to you. And that is actually today. (Applause.) And Janet Napolitano’s birthday is tomorrow. (Applause.)
All right, guys. Thank you. We want to get back to work.
Q Mr. President, do you think the Hill is being fair to Susan Rice in its meetings?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much guys.
Q Any thoughts on that at all?
THE PRESIDENT: Susan Rice is extraordinary. I couldn’t be prouder of the job that she’s done as the USPR. (Applause.)
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Educating Black Boys (video)
Tony Harris takes a personal look at Baltimore's inner city and an education system failing black Americans.
Source:Al Jazeera
Baltimore, Maryland has come to be known as 'Charm City' because of its harbor, which attracts a vibrant nightlife and thriving tourism business.
But just beyond the harbour's calm waters is one of the toughest and most violent inner cities in the US.
Baltimore is also home to Al Jazeera presenter Tony Harris and in this episode of Al Jazeera Correspondent he takes us on an up close and personal journey to his old neighbourhood to witness the challenges facing black youth today as they struggle to get out of the dead end of life on inner city streets.
Most of the crime in Baltimore is committed by black males with other blacks as victims, making black males an easy target for the police.
And many believe that the stereotyping of black kids starts at an early age in the US - as early as grade school. In this film, Harris examines how the education system has failed black boys and reflects upon why he managed to make it out successfully while so many of his friends did not.
A visit to his former high school reveals the desperation felt by both the pupils and the teachers.
"School and criminal justice systems biased against black boys; all echoes of my childhood. But I managed to avoid the trap of Baltimore's cycle of poverty and violence," he explains. "But now I was going back to my hometown to get to the bottom of what I considered the new civil rights fight in America - educating black boys."
Baltimore, Maryland has come to be known as 'Charm City' because of its harbor, which attracts a vibrant nightlife and thriving tourism business.
But just beyond the harbour's calm waters is one of the toughest and most violent inner cities in the US.
Baltimore is also home to Al Jazeera presenter Tony Harris and in this episode of Al Jazeera Correspondent he takes us on an up close and personal journey to his old neighbourhood to witness the challenges facing black youth today as they struggle to get out of the dead end of life on inner city streets.
Most of the crime in Baltimore is committed by black males with other blacks as victims, making black males an easy target for the police.
And many believe that the stereotyping of black kids starts at an early age in the US - as early as grade school. In this film, Harris examines how the education system has failed black boys and reflects upon why he managed to make it out successfully while so many of his friends did not.
A visit to his former high school reveals the desperation felt by both the pupils and the teachers.
"School and criminal justice systems biased against black boys; all echoes of my childhood. But I managed to avoid the trap of Baltimore's cycle of poverty and violence," he explains. "But now I was going back to my hometown to get to the bottom of what I considered the new civil rights fight in America - educating black boys."
Filibuster reform: The Senate is filled with hypocrites
Don't believe the GOP's charges of hypocrisy on filibuster reform -- both parties are guilty
on salon.com
In their war to preserve the filibuster, Senate Republicans have deployed two main arguments, neither of which makes much sense. The first is a threat to gum up the Senate even more than it is now if their right to stymie things is diminished. That’s a bit like a child refusing to clean up his room, then threatening to make his room even messier if his parents don’t abide his temper tantrum.
The other argument is that Democrats are being hypocritical in calling for reform, because they defended the filibuster just a few short years ago when they were in the minority, and thus their efforts should be dismissed out of hand. “Then-Sen. Obama thought it would be wrong to make the changes when the Republicans were in the majority; then-Sen. [Joe] Biden thought it was a bad idea when the Democrats were in the minority; and Harry Reid thought it was an awful idea when he was in the minority because he said no one group should be able to run roughshod over the other group,” said Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, who holds the No. 4 position in the GOP leadership.
On this count, Republicans are absolutely right. In 2005, when the Republican majority threatened to unilaterally override a Democratic filibuster of President Bush’s judicial nominations, the minority labeled the move the “nuclear option” and warned of all sorts of apocalyptic scenarios if the GOP pushed the proverbial button.
“If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it … The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington,” said Reid, who was then the minority leader.
“To basically trample and trench on those long-standing historic rules, I think, would disrupt the Senate in a way that would make it extremely difficult for it to function in any meaningful way for the rest of the session,” said liberal lion Ted Kennedy, in language that could easily come out of a Republican colleague’s mouth today.
on salon.com
In their war to preserve the filibuster, Senate Republicans have deployed two main arguments, neither of which makes much sense. The first is a threat to gum up the Senate even more than it is now if their right to stymie things is diminished. That’s a bit like a child refusing to clean up his room, then threatening to make his room even messier if his parents don’t abide his temper tantrum.
The other argument is that Democrats are being hypocritical in calling for reform, because they defended the filibuster just a few short years ago when they were in the minority, and thus their efforts should be dismissed out of hand. “Then-Sen. Obama thought it would be wrong to make the changes when the Republicans were in the majority; then-Sen. [Joe] Biden thought it was a bad idea when the Democrats were in the minority; and Harry Reid thought it was an awful idea when he was in the minority because he said no one group should be able to run roughshod over the other group,” said Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, who holds the No. 4 position in the GOP leadership.
On this count, Republicans are absolutely right. In 2005, when the Republican majority threatened to unilaterally override a Democratic filibuster of President Bush’s judicial nominations, the minority labeled the move the “nuclear option” and warned of all sorts of apocalyptic scenarios if the GOP pushed the proverbial button.
“If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it … The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington,” said Reid, who was then the minority leader.
“To basically trample and trench on those long-standing historic rules, I think, would disrupt the Senate in a way that would make it extremely difficult for it to function in any meaningful way for the rest of the session,” said liberal lion Ted Kennedy, in language that could easily come out of a Republican colleague’s mouth today.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Timeline: 20 years of climate conferences - Interactive - Al Jazeera English
Timeline: 20 years of climate conferences - Interactive - Al Jazeera English
Argentine scientists agree that there are signs of recovery of the ozone layer that protects life on earth by filtering out the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation, but they are cautious about saying that the problem is on its way to a solution.
“This year was benign, but the problem has not been solved. The ozone hole could expand to a record size in 2013,” Gerardo Carbajal, head of the Department of Atmospheric Monitoring and Geophysics (VAyGEO), said.
According to Carbajal, whose department is part of the National Meteorological Service, “this year the ozone hole was one of the smallest ever and it closed up earlier than expected, but we’ll have to wait and see before we can speak of a trend.”
Similarly, Susana DÃaz, an engineer with the Southern Centre for Scientific Research (CADIC), said that “in recent years we have observed a slight decrease of the ozone deficit within the so-called ‘hole’.”
DÃaz is a member of the state National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and heads the CADIC Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Laboratory in Ushuaia, the capital of the province of Tierra del Fuego, the most southerly in the country.
Protective covering
Measurements are made there of the ultraviolet rays that filter down over the city, to record the impact of the radiation during the season of ozone hole expansion in the stratosphere, which occurs from September to mid-November.
Ozone is a gas in the stratosphere, between 15 and 35 kilometres above the earth’s surface, which protects the biosphere by absorbing UV rays that are harmful to human health and plant and animal life.
Exposure to high levels of UV radiation can cause a higher incidence of skin cancer and eye problems in the population of affected areas, like southern Argentina and Chile.
“This year the ozone hole season was much shorter than in earlier years, and lasted only two days above Ushuaia. In other seasons it has lasted for 10 days, and it has been felt further north, in Patagonia,” said Guillermo Deferrari, a biologist at CADIC.
The size of the ozone hole varies. Some years it has covered an area of 30 million square kilometres, but in the last few weeks it has extended over 22 million square kilometres – still an area larger than all of South America.
According to the scientific consensus, the thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica was mainly due to the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemical substances used in the manufacturing of aerosols and refrigerants.
When this evidence was confirmed in the 1970s, countries signed the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, and in 1987 they approved the Montreal Protocol. These treaties were ratified by the largest number ever of United Nations members and set a timetable for phasing out and eliminating CFCs.
Levels 'stable'
Twenty-five years after the Montreal Protocol was approved, industry has substituted CFCs by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which, while they do not harm the ozone layer, are greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.
Meanwhile, there are other substances that destroy ozone and have not been replaced, such as methyl bromide, a pesticide, which in the Protocol is only scheduled for complete elimination in 2015.
Deferrari, who operates equipment at CADIC for measuring UV radiation over Ushuaia, said that “the levels are stable now, with no observed increase in the destruction of the ozone layer.”
He agreed with colleagues that this improvement cannot be said to be a trend, and that the ozone hole could grow again next year, because it depends on meteorological conditions in Antarctica as well. He said, however, that there are clear “signs of recovery”.
The observations confirm the findings of the latest report on the issue by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), published in 2010.
The study, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010, concluded that CFC elimination was having an effect and the ozone hole was not growing – a sign of recovery.
However, Deferrari pointed out that “we have not yet returned to the radiation levels we had in 1980,” since the chemicals that destroy ozone take 10 years to reach the stratosphere, and then the ozone layer takes time to recover.
Complete recovery of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica will take another 40 to 60 years, different studies say. But the fact that this year’s hole is smaller is good news.
A version of this article was first publish by Inter Press Service news agency (IPS).
Hopes grow on shrinking ozone hole |
Some scientists believe the ozone layer, protecting earth from the sun's ultraviolet radiation, could be recovering. Written by Marcela Valente |
Argentine scientists agree that there are signs of recovery of the ozone layer that protects life on earth by filtering out the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation, but they are cautious about saying that the problem is on its way to a solution.
“This year was benign, but the problem has not been solved. The ozone hole could expand to a record size in 2013,” Gerardo Carbajal, head of the Department of Atmospheric Monitoring and Geophysics (VAyGEO), said.
According to Carbajal, whose department is part of the National Meteorological Service, “this year the ozone hole was one of the smallest ever and it closed up earlier than expected, but we’ll have to wait and see before we can speak of a trend.”
Similarly, Susana DÃaz, an engineer with the Southern Centre for Scientific Research (CADIC), said that “in recent years we have observed a slight decrease of the ozone deficit within the so-called ‘hole’.”
DÃaz is a member of the state National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and heads the CADIC Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Laboratory in Ushuaia, the capital of the province of Tierra del Fuego, the most southerly in the country.
Protective covering
Measurements are made there of the ultraviolet rays that filter down over the city, to record the impact of the radiation during the season of ozone hole expansion in the stratosphere, which occurs from September to mid-November.
Ozone is a gas in the stratosphere, between 15 and 35 kilometres above the earth’s surface, which protects the biosphere by absorbing UV rays that are harmful to human health and plant and animal life.
Exposure to high levels of UV radiation can cause a higher incidence of skin cancer and eye problems in the population of affected areas, like southern Argentina and Chile.
“This year the ozone hole season was much shorter than in earlier years, and lasted only two days above Ushuaia. In other seasons it has lasted for 10 days, and it has been felt further north, in Patagonia,” said Guillermo Deferrari, a biologist at CADIC.
The size of the ozone hole varies. Some years it has covered an area of 30 million square kilometres, but in the last few weeks it has extended over 22 million square kilometres – still an area larger than all of South America.
According to the scientific consensus, the thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica was mainly due to the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemical substances used in the manufacturing of aerosols and refrigerants.
When this evidence was confirmed in the 1970s, countries signed the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, and in 1987 they approved the Montreal Protocol. These treaties were ratified by the largest number ever of United Nations members and set a timetable for phasing out and eliminating CFCs.
Levels 'stable'
Twenty-five years after the Montreal Protocol was approved, industry has substituted CFCs by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which, while they do not harm the ozone layer, are greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.
Meanwhile, there are other substances that destroy ozone and have not been replaced, such as methyl bromide, a pesticide, which in the Protocol is only scheduled for complete elimination in 2015.
Deferrari, who operates equipment at CADIC for measuring UV radiation over Ushuaia, said that “the levels are stable now, with no observed increase in the destruction of the ozone layer.”
He agreed with colleagues that this improvement cannot be said to be a trend, and that the ozone hole could grow again next year, because it depends on meteorological conditions in Antarctica as well. He said, however, that there are clear “signs of recovery”.
The observations confirm the findings of the latest report on the issue by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), published in 2010.
The study, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010, concluded that CFC elimination was having an effect and the ozone hole was not growing – a sign of recovery.
However, Deferrari pointed out that “we have not yet returned to the radiation levels we had in 1980,” since the chemicals that destroy ozone take 10 years to reach the stratosphere, and then the ozone layer takes time to recover.
Complete recovery of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica will take another 40 to 60 years, different studies say. But the fact that this year’s hole is smaller is good news.
A version of this article was first publish by Inter Press Service news agency (IPS).
Friday, November 23, 2012
Fracking in America
Source: Al Jazeera
With the US looking to ease its reliance on foreign oil, Fault Lines investigates the impact of natural gas extraction.
For years now, the United States has tried to lower its dependence on foreign oil for its energy needs.
With stability in the Middle East in question, drilling at home has never been more attractive. But it often comes at a cost.
Natural gas extraction - fracking - is being touted as the answer. But questions are being asked about the process and its implications.
With stability in the Middle East in question, drilling at home has never been more attractive. But it often comes at a cost.
Natural gas extraction - fracking - is being touted as the answer. But questions are being asked about the process and its implications.
America's prison problem
| Source: Al Jazeera |
Why does the US put so many people behind bars and what lies behind California's new push for leniency?
By filmmakers Michael Montgomery and Monica Lam, The Center for Investigative Reporting
The US locks up more people than any other country in the world, spending over $80bn each year to keep some two million prisoners behind bars. Over the past three decades, tough sentencing laws have contributed to a doubling of the country's prison population, with laws commonly known as 'three strikes and you're out' mandating life sentences for a wide range of crimes.
But a clear sign that Americans are rethinking crime and punishment is a voter's initiative on California's November ballot called Proposition 36 that seeks to reform the state's three-strikes law. Some 27 states have three-strikes laws patterned after California's version, which was one of the first to be enacted in the country.
Since it was passed in 1994, nearly 9,000 felons have been convicted in California under the law.
One of them is Norman Williams, a 49-year-old African-American man who was a crack addict living on the streets. He was convicted of burglarising an empty home and later stealing an armload of tools from an art studio. His third strike: filching a jack from a tow truck in Long Beach. His fate sealed under California's three-strikes law, Williams was sent to a maximum security prison alongside murderers, rapists and other violent criminals.
"I never wanted to do my whole life in prison. Nobody wants to be caged like that," Williams says.
Williams was lucky. After 13 years behind bars, his case was reviewed by a judge and he was released. He is one of about two dozen 'three strikers' who have won sentence reductions through the work of a Stanford University law clinic founded by Michael Romano. In Williams' case, the prosecutor actually agreed that the original sentence was too harsh. An idea emerged from Romano's work: Why not draft a ballot initiative to ensure that sentences like Williams' will not be repeated?
"When people originally passed the three-strikes law in 1994 the campaigns were about keeping serious and violent murderers, child molesters in prison for the rest of their lives," Romano says. "I think that's what people want and are kind of shocked to hear that people have been sentenced to life for petty theft."
Romano helped write Proposition 36, which would amend Californian law so felons could be sentenced to life only if their third strike is a serious or violent crime. Current 'three strikers' could appeal their sentences if their last conviction was non-serious and non-violent. However, the three-strikes law could still apply to felons whose third strike is a minor crime if their past strikes include violence, or what many call "super strikes" like murder, rape and child molestation.
Adam Gelb, the director of the Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project, says the proposition could be a bellwether for crime policies across the US.
"California's three-strikes law really stands out," he says. "If it's changed it will definitely send a dramatic signal to policy makers across the country that it is a new day."
'Hope for strikers'
Opponents of the initiative argue that the current three-strikes law works well, and has contributed to a dramatic fall in violent crime over the past two decades.
"We want to remove the worst offenders from society for the sake of our communities," says Carl Adams, the head of the California District Attorneys Association. "And we want to do it no matter what it costs and we want to do it no matter what the impact on the prison population."
Opponents also say prosecutors today are using the current law judiciously, pointing out that more than 80 per cent of 'three strikers' were sentenced prior to 2000. Changing the law, they say, would remove an important tool from the prosecutorial toolbox.
"I don’t know why anybody would want to fix something that doesn't require fixing," says Marc Klaas, one of the state's fiercest defenders of the current three-strikes law. Klaas led the charge to pass tough, mandatory sentencing laws after his 12-year-old daughter Polly was raped and murdered by a career criminal in 1993. "It's really about preventing future victimisations," Klaas says.
But critics of the current law say the net is cast too widely. At San Quentin State Prison near San Francisco, some inmates convicted under third strikes have formed a self-help group called 'Hope for Strikers'. Some of the men here even voted for the original three-strikes law.
Joey Mason lived in Polly Klaas' hometown and remembers the uproar surrounding her murder.
"It devastated a lot of people," he says.
Mason was later convicted of burglary when he relapsed into drug addiction and is now serving a life sentence. Most of the men in the group say they are here for non-violent crimes, like Eddie Griffin, who was sentenced to 27-years-to-life for possession of cocaine, or Forrest Lee Jones, who caught a third strike when he stole a VCR.
"I never believed that three-strikes was going to go after us men," says Mason.
Indeed, an analysis of state data by the Center for Investigative Reporting in collaboration with the San Francisco Chronicle found that 'three strikers' are not more prone to violence than other inmates. Instead, they have a higher risk of drug and substance abuse problems.
Behind bars: Prison conditions
Activists who are campaigning to change the three-strikes law in California are also trying to raise awareness about conditions inside prisons. They are targeting the use of special security units at maximum security prisons like Pelican Bay State Prison. A recent report by Amnesty International condemned the long-term use of these special units, equating them to solitary confinement.
"Pelican Bay is a vivid example of a criminal justice system at its most extreme," says Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of Amnesty International USA.
Corrections officials defend their use of the special units, saying they are necessary to segregate some of the state's most dangerous criminals - powerful gang members and violent inmates.
"The design is based on providing the maximum amount of security in housing these men separate from our general population and it provides for the safety of my staff, which is paramount," says Pelican Bay warden Greg Lewis.
But national scrutiny is being aimed at the stark conditions inside Pelican Bay and other so-called supermax prisons. In June, US Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois called for a hearing on the use of solitary confinement.
"We as American citizens are driving other American citizens out of their minds," testified Anthony Graves, a former Texas death row inmate who was exonerated after 18 years. For 10 of those years, Graves was held in isolation.
"No one can begin to imagine the psychological effects isolation has on another human being," he says.
Durbin says Americans are ready to rethink the costs of 'tough on crime' policies - both the human and financial costs. "There are things we can do that sound tough that are a waste of money and lead America down a path that we don't want to go down," he says.
The cost of incarceration
As election day approaches, the campaign to change California's three-strikes law is focusing its message on the burden to taxpayers.
In a TV ad, district attorneys from Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties endorse Proposition 36, saying: "Save millions of dollars, instead of wasting millions on non-violent offenders."
The Yes-on-36-campaign has gathered support from across the political spectrum, including conservative watchdog Grover Norquist and religious conservatives like Pat Nolan.
Even if California voters decide to amend the three-strikes law, only a few thousand inmates would qualify to have their sentences reduced. Still, the change would send an important signal to the rest of the country, says Adam Gelb.
"California started this trend, as it starts so many trends," says Gelb. "What's happening in California now is going to resonate loudly across the country in terms of criminal justice policy for years to come."
The US locks up more people than any other country in the world, spending over $80bn each year to keep some two million prisoners behind bars. Over the past three decades, tough sentencing laws have contributed to a doubling of the country's prison population, with laws commonly known as 'three strikes and you're out' mandating life sentences for a wide range of crimes.
But a clear sign that Americans are rethinking crime and punishment is a voter's initiative on California's November ballot called Proposition 36 that seeks to reform the state's three-strikes law. Some 27 states have three-strikes laws patterned after California's version, which was one of the first to be enacted in the country.
Since it was passed in 1994, nearly 9,000 felons have been convicted in California under the law.
One of them is Norman Williams, a 49-year-old African-American man who was a crack addict living on the streets. He was convicted of burglarising an empty home and later stealing an armload of tools from an art studio. His third strike: filching a jack from a tow truck in Long Beach. His fate sealed under California's three-strikes law, Williams was sent to a maximum security prison alongside murderers, rapists and other violent criminals.
"I never wanted to do my whole life in prison. Nobody wants to be caged like that," Williams says.
Williams was lucky. After 13 years behind bars, his case was reviewed by a judge and he was released. He is one of about two dozen 'three strikers' who have won sentence reductions through the work of a Stanford University law clinic founded by Michael Romano. In Williams' case, the prosecutor actually agreed that the original sentence was too harsh. An idea emerged from Romano's work: Why not draft a ballot initiative to ensure that sentences like Williams' will not be repeated?
"When people originally passed the three-strikes law in 1994 the campaigns were about keeping serious and violent murderers, child molesters in prison for the rest of their lives," Romano says. "I think that's what people want and are kind of shocked to hear that people have been sentenced to life for petty theft."
Romano helped write Proposition 36, which would amend Californian law so felons could be sentenced to life only if their third strike is a serious or violent crime. Current 'three strikers' could appeal their sentences if their last conviction was non-serious and non-violent. However, the three-strikes law could still apply to felons whose third strike is a minor crime if their past strikes include violence, or what many call "super strikes" like murder, rape and child molestation.
Adam Gelb, the director of the Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project, says the proposition could be a bellwether for crime policies across the US.
"California's three-strikes law really stands out," he says. "If it's changed it will definitely send a dramatic signal to policy makers across the country that it is a new day."
'Hope for strikers'
Opponents of the initiative argue that the current three-strikes law works well, and has contributed to a dramatic fall in violent crime over the past two decades.
"We want to remove the worst offenders from society for the sake of our communities," says Carl Adams, the head of the California District Attorneys Association. "And we want to do it no matter what it costs and we want to do it no matter what the impact on the prison population."
Opponents also say prosecutors today are using the current law judiciously, pointing out that more than 80 per cent of 'three strikers' were sentenced prior to 2000. Changing the law, they say, would remove an important tool from the prosecutorial toolbox.
"I don’t know why anybody would want to fix something that doesn't require fixing," says Marc Klaas, one of the state's fiercest defenders of the current three-strikes law. Klaas led the charge to pass tough, mandatory sentencing laws after his 12-year-old daughter Polly was raped and murdered by a career criminal in 1993. "It's really about preventing future victimisations," Klaas says.
But critics of the current law say the net is cast too widely. At San Quentin State Prison near San Francisco, some inmates convicted under third strikes have formed a self-help group called 'Hope for Strikers'. Some of the men here even voted for the original three-strikes law.
Joey Mason lived in Polly Klaas' hometown and remembers the uproar surrounding her murder.
"It devastated a lot of people," he says.
Mason was later convicted of burglary when he relapsed into drug addiction and is now serving a life sentence. Most of the men in the group say they are here for non-violent crimes, like Eddie Griffin, who was sentenced to 27-years-to-life for possession of cocaine, or Forrest Lee Jones, who caught a third strike when he stole a VCR.
"I never believed that three-strikes was going to go after us men," says Mason.
Indeed, an analysis of state data by the Center for Investigative Reporting in collaboration with the San Francisco Chronicle found that 'three strikers' are not more prone to violence than other inmates. Instead, they have a higher risk of drug and substance abuse problems.
Behind bars: Prison conditions
Activists who are campaigning to change the three-strikes law in California are also trying to raise awareness about conditions inside prisons. They are targeting the use of special security units at maximum security prisons like Pelican Bay State Prison. A recent report by Amnesty International condemned the long-term use of these special units, equating them to solitary confinement.
"Pelican Bay is a vivid example of a criminal justice system at its most extreme," says Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of Amnesty International USA.
Corrections officials defend their use of the special units, saying they are necessary to segregate some of the state's most dangerous criminals - powerful gang members and violent inmates.
"The design is based on providing the maximum amount of security in housing these men separate from our general population and it provides for the safety of my staff, which is paramount," says Pelican Bay warden Greg Lewis.
But national scrutiny is being aimed at the stark conditions inside Pelican Bay and other so-called supermax prisons. In June, US Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois called for a hearing on the use of solitary confinement.
"We as American citizens are driving other American citizens out of their minds," testified Anthony Graves, a former Texas death row inmate who was exonerated after 18 years. For 10 of those years, Graves was held in isolation.
"No one can begin to imagine the psychological effects isolation has on another human being," he says.
Durbin says Americans are ready to rethink the costs of 'tough on crime' policies - both the human and financial costs. "There are things we can do that sound tough that are a waste of money and lead America down a path that we don't want to go down," he says.
The cost of incarceration
As election day approaches, the campaign to change California's three-strikes law is focusing its message on the burden to taxpayers.
In a TV ad, district attorneys from Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties endorse Proposition 36, saying: "Save millions of dollars, instead of wasting millions on non-violent offenders."
The Yes-on-36-campaign has gathered support from across the political spectrum, including conservative watchdog Grover Norquist and religious conservatives like Pat Nolan.
Even if California voters decide to amend the three-strikes law, only a few thousand inmates would qualify to have their sentences reduced. Still, the change would send an important signal to the rest of the country, says Adam Gelb.
"California started this trend, as it starts so many trends," says Gelb. "What's happening in California now is going to resonate loudly across the country in terms of criminal justice policy for years to come."
Weekly Address: Wishing the American People a Happy Thanksgiving - November 22, 2012 (Video/Transcript)
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
November 22, 2012
Weekly Address
The White House
November 22, 2012
On behalf of the Obama family – Michelle, Malia, Sasha and Bo – I want to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving.
For us, like so many of you, this is a day full of family and friends; food and football. It’s a day to fight the overwhelming urge to take a nap – at least until after dinner. But most of all, it’s a time to give thanks for each other, and for the incredible bounty we enjoy.
That’s especially important this year. As a nation, we’ve just emerged from a campaign season that was passionate, noisy, and vital to our democracy. But it also required us to make choices – and sometimes those choices led us to focus on what sets us apart instead of what ties us together; on what candidate we support instead of what country we belong to.
Thanksgiving is a chance to put it all in perspective – to remember that, despite our differences, we are, and always will be, Americans first and foremost.
Today we give thanks for blessings that are all too rare in this world. The ability to spend time with the ones we love; to say what we want; to worship as we please; to know that there are brave men and women defending our freedom around the globe; and to look our children in the eye and tell them that, here in America, no dream is too big if they’re willing to work for it.
We’re also grateful that this country has always been home to Americans who see these blessings not simply as gifts to enjoy, but as opportunities to give back. Americans who believe we have a responsibility to look out for those less fortunate – to pull each other up and move forward together.
Right now, as we prepare to gather around our dinner tables, there are families in the northeast who don’t have that luxury. Many of them have lost everything to Hurricane Sandy – homes, possessions, even loved ones. And it will be a long time before life goes back to normal.
But in the midst of so much tragedy, there are also glimmers of hope. Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen FEMA personnel, National Guard and first responders working around the clock in hard-hit communities. We’ve seen hospital workers using their lunch breaks to distribute supplies. Families offering up extra bedrooms. The fire department advertising free hot showers. Buses full of volunteers coming from hundreds of miles away. Neighbors sharing whatever they have – food, water, electricity – and saying again and again how lucky they are to have a roof over their heads.
It would have been easy for these folks to do nothing – to worry about themselves and leave the rest to someone else. But that’s not who we are. That’s not what we do.
As Americans, we are a bold, generous, big-hearted people. When our brothers and sisters are in need, we roll up our sleeves and get to work – not for the recognition or the reward, but because it’s the right thing to do. Because there but for the grace of God go I. And because here in America, we rise or fall together, as one nation and one people.
That’s something to be grateful for – today and every day.
So to all the Americans doing your part to make our world a better place – it is my privilege to serve as your President. To all our servicemembers – it is my honor to be your Commander in Chief. And from our family to yours, happy Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
President Obama Pardons White House Turkey (video/transcript)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, good afternoon, everybody. (Turkey gobbles.) (Laughter.)
They say that life is all about second chances. And this November, I could not agree more. (Laughter.) So in the spirit of the season, I have one more gift to give, and it goes to a pair of turkeys named Cobbler and Gobbler. The American people have spoken, and these birds are moving forward. (Turkey gobbles.) (Laughter.) I love this bird. (Laughter.)
Now, I joke, but for the first time in our history, the winners of the White House Turkey Pardon were chosen through a highly competitive online vote. And once again, Nate Silver completely nailed it. (Laughter.) The guy is amazing. He predicted these guys would win.
I want to thank everyone who participated in this election. Because of your votes, the only cobbler anyone’s eating this Thanksgiving will come with a side of ice cream. And for that, our winning turkey can thank his stellar campaign team led by Steve Willardsen, who is the Chairman of the National Turkey Foundation and raised this beautiful bird at Miller Farm in Harrisonburg, Virginia. So here’s Steve. (Applause.)
And, as always, if for some reason Cobbler cannot fulfill his duties as the Official White House Turkey, Gobbler will be waiting in the wings.
From here, these two -- (laughter) -- from here these two lucky birds will be swept up in a whirlwind of fame and fortune that will ultimately lead them to Mount Vernon, where they will spend their twilight years in the storied home of George Washington. And later today, Michelle, Malia, Sasha and I will be taking two turkeys who were not so lucky to a local food bank here in Washington, D.C. I want to thank Jaindl Turkey Farms in Pennsylvania for donating these birds -- or those birds -- and I’d like to ask every American to do what they can to help families who are in need of a real Thanksgiving this year.
Tomorrow, in the company of friends and loved ones, we will celebrate a uniquely American holiday. And it’s a chance for us to spend time with the people we care about and to give thanks for the blessings that we enjoy; and to think about just how lucky we are to live in the greatest nation on Earth.
But it’s also a time to remember those who are less fortunate -– and this year, that’s particularly true for our neighbors in the Northeast who have lost their homes and their possessions, and even their loved ones to Hurricane Sandy.
In the last few weeks, I had a chance to visit both New Jersey and New York. And while I’ve seen entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble and heartbreaking loss and devastation, I have yet to find a broken spirit.
Countless stories of courage, and compassion, and resilience have emerged in the aftermath of the storm. But one that comes to mind today is about a tree on Staten Island. It’s a giant blue spruce that came crashing down in the front yard of Joseph Ingenito, whose home in New Dorp Beach flooded during the hurricane. Today, if you go to Joseph’s street, you’ll see a lot of damage and debris scattered all over the block. But you’ll also see the top of that tree, standing tall in front of his house, decorated with ornaments that survived the storm, along with anything else his neighbors could find including empty cups and surgical masks and safety goggles. It’s a Christmas tree, and it’s there to remind the neighborhood that there will still be holidays to celebrate, and happy moments to share, and life will go on. And we will rebuild.
And so tomorrow, we give thanks -– not only for the things that we have, or the people we love, but for the spirit that sees us through the toughest times, and holds us together as one American family, guided along our journey by the hope of a better day.
And I hope that over this holiday weekend, we’re also thinking about our extraordinary men and women overseas who are serving far away from home in harm’s way. But the reason they're there is because they give thanks too for the extraordinary life that have here in the United States of America.
So may God bless those brave men and women in uniform who are away from their families this holiday season. May God bless the American people. May you all have a very happy Thanksgiving.
And with that I think we are going to bestow the official pardon on -- wait, which -- is he Gobbler or Cobbler? Cobbler. Come on. All right, I’ve got to give the special dispensation. Congratulations, Cobbler. You have a great life.
Everybody give Cobbler a big round of applause.
(The turkeys are pardoned.)
Monday, November 19, 2012
Palestinian Civilians Bear the Brunt of Unrelenting Bombings in U.S.-Backed Attack on Gaza (video/transcript)
Source: Democracy Now
AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli attack on Gaza has entered its sixth day with few signs of letting up. At least 95 Palestinians have been killed in air strikes by warplanes and drones. More than 700 have been wounded, including 200 children. Earlier today, an Israeli strike near the Bureij refugee camp killed at least three children, including an 18-month-old infant, and two women. On Sunday, a massive air strike leveled a home in Gaza City killing 12 people, including 10 members of the same family. Over the past week, rockets fired from Gaza have killed three Israelis.
Speaking in Bangkok Sunday, President Obama supported Israel’s attack on Gaza.
Raji, can you tell us where you are right now and describe what’s happening in Gaza?
RAJI SOURANI: I’m in Gaza City in the western part of the city, just near the beach. And the situation for the last 24 hours has been escalated in a very, very drastic way, meaning—I mean more and more aerial bombardment coming for the Gaza. Gunships have been bombing all over the place. And the number of killings and injuries, especially among civilians, raised in a very unique way. In the last five days, we lost 27 civilians, women and children. But in the last 24 hours, we lost 31 civilians, including al-Dalo family where 10 family members has been killed during this air raid on their three-stories home.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you know who this family was? And who were the 10 members of this family?
RAJI SOURANI: We are talking about six children, four women. And this family good—I mean, nice, good, working family, a successful businessman who’s doing well, I mean, in Gaza. And they have nothing to do with politics. I mean, like any ordinary, standard Gazans. I think this wasn’t, I mean, the first, you know, house to be targeted. And the eye of the storm, Gaza civilians. An overwhelming majority so far among the killings and injuries are civilians. More than 70 percent are civilians. We know them, we count them, we document them, and we are aware about that. Even, I mean, the targets are very, very civilian targets. You are talking about private houses. You are talking about police stations. You are talking about soccer fields. You are talking about water wells. I mean, it’s amazing. I think the Israelis very intentionally targeting civilians. They are the one in the eye of the storm.
I’ll share with you a very personal story. My family house, located in the heart of the Gaza City, is just near a police station. And this police station, since first hour, no one in it. It’s entirely empty. But last night, 3:00 in the morning, my aunt—she is 87—and I have two brothers who passed through open-heart surgeries, and many of the children rounded the house, and 10 to 3:00 a.m. in the early morning, maybe one-ton bomb hit the first time, and second bomb exploded. And the entire neighborhood, I mean, was just insane. I mean, it’s like earthquake hit to place, tsunami hit the place.
I’m wondering, Amy, what’s the added security value of bombing a civilian police station? And this police station is empty. And what’s the added value of causing damage for something around 10 houses around that police station? And what’s the added value of terrorizing more than 20-30,000 people who live around that place? It’s incredible what’s going on here. We don’t feel entirely hostage to this Israeli belligerent occupation and their practice. Civilians are the target. They are exactly the same thing which had happened four years ago, when Cast Lead operation has been carried by Israel, and again, civilians were in the eye of the storm. If these things—Dalo family killed, bombing these places, terrorizing civilians—are not war crimes, what are war crimes?
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play for you a comment by Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister. He thanked the Obama administration for its support.
RAJI SOURANI: First thing I have to say that, I swear, one day we will hold accountable all these Israeli leaders because of the war crimes and crimes against humanity they are perpetrating against children and women, against civilians in this part of the world. We are people who believe in rule of law and accountability. And Obama administration provided full legal, political immunity for those who are criminals, when Cast Lead operation had happened few years ago. And they used a veto in the Security Council not to pass Goldstone Report and being tried through the ICC.
Now, that makes us—when I do hear this statement of Mr. Obama and Mr. Barak, that Mr. Obama is a real partner of Israel and the crimes they are doing against civilians. If there are a lack of facts—and I am sure there are not—we can provide them with very first-class, legal-documented files showing, I mean, all these war crimes and crimes against humanity, I mean, Israel do perpetrate. We are civilians under occupation. We are entitled for protection. International law, international humanitarian law give us that. Geneva Conventions are not for intellect or academics; it’s for civilians to have it on their skin, to be protected at the time of war, not peace. We are the targets of this Israeli belligerent occupation offensive. We are the target of this war. We are the one whom we face state terrorism on our skin. We are the ones who are counting the corpses and injuries of the children, women and civilians. This is shame, because—this is not, I mean, really what we say; this is what Human Rights Watch says. This is what ICJ, International Commission of Jurists; FIDH; [inaudible] the Euro-Med Human Rights Network; even Israeli human rights organization talk about what’s going on here. It’s Kafka, when we are the people who are entitled for protection, and we’re called in law that protected civilian under the occupation, being exposed as the victimizers of this Israeli belligerent occupation, reminding everybody that we are the only country on earth who have this belligerent occupation for the last 45 years.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, then come back to this discussion. We are with Raji Sourani, a well-known Palestinian human rights attorney, winner of the RFK Memorial Prize for his human rights work. And we’re also going to be joined by the U.N. rapporteur, Richard Falk. So, stay with us.
AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli attack on Gaza has entered its sixth day with few signs of letting up. At least 95 Palestinians have been killed in air strikes by warplanes and drones. More than 700 have been wounded, including 200 children. Earlier today, an Israeli strike near the Bureij refugee camp killed at least three children, including an 18-month-old infant, and two women. On Sunday, a massive air strike leveled a home in Gaza City killing 12 people, including 10 members of the same family. Over the past week, rockets fired from Gaza have killed three Israelis.
Speaking in Bangkok Sunday, President Obama supported Israel’s attack on Gaza.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There is no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders. So, we are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself from missiles landing on people’s homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians.AMY GOODMAN: Joining us now from Gaza is Raji Sourani, an award-winning human rights lawyer, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza. He is on the executive board of the International Federation for Human Rights. In 1991, he won the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Prize.
Raji, can you tell us where you are right now and describe what’s happening in Gaza?
RAJI SOURANI: I’m in Gaza City in the western part of the city, just near the beach. And the situation for the last 24 hours has been escalated in a very, very drastic way, meaning—I mean more and more aerial bombardment coming for the Gaza. Gunships have been bombing all over the place. And the number of killings and injuries, especially among civilians, raised in a very unique way. In the last five days, we lost 27 civilians, women and children. But in the last 24 hours, we lost 31 civilians, including al-Dalo family where 10 family members has been killed during this air raid on their three-stories home.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you know who this family was? And who were the 10 members of this family?
RAJI SOURANI: We are talking about six children, four women. And this family good—I mean, nice, good, working family, a successful businessman who’s doing well, I mean, in Gaza. And they have nothing to do with politics. I mean, like any ordinary, standard Gazans. I think this wasn’t, I mean, the first, you know, house to be targeted. And the eye of the storm, Gaza civilians. An overwhelming majority so far among the killings and injuries are civilians. More than 70 percent are civilians. We know them, we count them, we document them, and we are aware about that. Even, I mean, the targets are very, very civilian targets. You are talking about private houses. You are talking about police stations. You are talking about soccer fields. You are talking about water wells. I mean, it’s amazing. I think the Israelis very intentionally targeting civilians. They are the one in the eye of the storm.
I’ll share with you a very personal story. My family house, located in the heart of the Gaza City, is just near a police station. And this police station, since first hour, no one in it. It’s entirely empty. But last night, 3:00 in the morning, my aunt—she is 87—and I have two brothers who passed through open-heart surgeries, and many of the children rounded the house, and 10 to 3:00 a.m. in the early morning, maybe one-ton bomb hit the first time, and second bomb exploded. And the entire neighborhood, I mean, was just insane. I mean, it’s like earthquake hit to place, tsunami hit the place.
I’m wondering, Amy, what’s the added security value of bombing a civilian police station? And this police station is empty. And what’s the added value of causing damage for something around 10 houses around that police station? And what’s the added value of terrorizing more than 20-30,000 people who live around that place? It’s incredible what’s going on here. We don’t feel entirely hostage to this Israeli belligerent occupation and their practice. Civilians are the target. They are exactly the same thing which had happened four years ago, when Cast Lead operation has been carried by Israel, and again, civilians were in the eye of the storm. If these things—Dalo family killed, bombing these places, terrorizing civilians—are not war crimes, what are war crimes?
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play for you a comment by Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister. He thanked the Obama administration for its support.
EHUD BARAK: This effort could not have been concluded without the generous and consistent support of the American administration, led by President Obama.AMY GOODMAN: I was wondering if you can comment on what the Israeli defense minister said and President Obama’s own words, saying that any country has the right to defend its own population, talking about the Hamas missiles that are being shot out of Gaza.
RAJI SOURANI: First thing I have to say that, I swear, one day we will hold accountable all these Israeli leaders because of the war crimes and crimes against humanity they are perpetrating against children and women, against civilians in this part of the world. We are people who believe in rule of law and accountability. And Obama administration provided full legal, political immunity for those who are criminals, when Cast Lead operation had happened few years ago. And they used a veto in the Security Council not to pass Goldstone Report and being tried through the ICC.
Now, that makes us—when I do hear this statement of Mr. Obama and Mr. Barak, that Mr. Obama is a real partner of Israel and the crimes they are doing against civilians. If there are a lack of facts—and I am sure there are not—we can provide them with very first-class, legal-documented files showing, I mean, all these war crimes and crimes against humanity, I mean, Israel do perpetrate. We are civilians under occupation. We are entitled for protection. International law, international humanitarian law give us that. Geneva Conventions are not for intellect or academics; it’s for civilians to have it on their skin, to be protected at the time of war, not peace. We are the targets of this Israeli belligerent occupation offensive. We are the target of this war. We are the one whom we face state terrorism on our skin. We are the ones who are counting the corpses and injuries of the children, women and civilians. This is shame, because—this is not, I mean, really what we say; this is what Human Rights Watch says. This is what ICJ, International Commission of Jurists; FIDH; [inaudible] the Euro-Med Human Rights Network; even Israeli human rights organization talk about what’s going on here. It’s Kafka, when we are the people who are entitled for protection, and we’re called in law that protected civilian under the occupation, being exposed as the victimizers of this Israeli belligerent occupation, reminding everybody that we are the only country on earth who have this belligerent occupation for the last 45 years.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, then come back to this discussion. We are with Raji Sourani, a well-known Palestinian human rights attorney, winner of the RFK Memorial Prize for his human rights work. And we’re also going to be joined by the U.N. rapporteur, Richard Falk. So, stay with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)