Child Malnutrition Rises in Afghanistan as Obama Renews "Committment" to Rebuild

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday February 27, 2012 · 2:28 PM PST

2012/02/27 · 14:28

As the US continues to strenuously ignore and underfund the only development program in the country which works cheaply and effectively, the Afghan National Solidarity Program (NSP,) which is at arm's length from the Karzai government and which gets management help from the World Bank, and as it has instead wasted around $15 billion since 2001 on showcase projects that Afghans never asked for, using Washington-connected American contractors who take 40% or more in profit before the work ever begins, child malnutrition has edged up in the country from 54% in 2005 according to the World Bank to 60% according to Save the Children in a recent NBC News report. The grim statistic follows the recent freezing deaths of dozens of children under age five from the bitter cold in the squalid refugee camps in and around Kabul, the most secure area in the country.

The World Bank reports that 60% of Afghan children suffer from stunted growth.

In a report in the Fall of 2011, "Afghans are bitterly disappointed by broken promises" by the German media outlet DW, the author writes:

Ten years ago, Afghans were taken in by the promises made by the United States. They believed Washington when it said the military operation was not directed against them but against al Qaeda and the Taliban and that Mullah Omar's regime would be replaced by an elected government. After 20 years of war, they believed the promise that Afghanistan's reconstruction would bring security and well-being.
...

Now the Taliban are back on the scene and peace seems very far off. Many Afghans are baffled by the fact that the tens of thousands NATO-led troops have not been able to restore order and stability...Another thing people wonder about is why seven million Afghans have to suffer from hunger although billions of US dollars have been pumped into the reconstruction efforts...

The Agency Coordinating Body For Afghan Relief (ACBAR,) in a report by Oxfam's Matt Waldman, concluded in a 2008 report "Aid Effectiveness":

"just $15 billion in aid has so far been spent, of which it is estimated a staggering 40 percent has returned to donor countries in corporate profits and consultant salaries"

In the midst of the fall-out over the burning of a large number of Qurans at a Us military base, the Obama administration issued a statement declaring that the American "commitment" to rebuilding Afghanistan continues, with US Ambassador Ryan Crocker saying:

"We have got to redouble our efforts. We've got to create a situation in which al-Qaida is not coming back."

Two-thirds to three quarters of Afghans still do not have access to safe drinking water, although these kinds of projects would be among the easiest to implement and would involve hiring large numbers of unemployed Afghans. And so strong is the US "commitment" to help rebuild the country it has occupied for ten years that its support for an organization which runs 11 orphanages will be terminated at the end of this month, in a country with one of the highest number of war orphans in the world. Now that's heart.

News Flash: The US is not and never has been concerned with rebuilding Afghanistan. Even the U.S. Special Inspector General for the Afghanistan Reconstruction has said of the National Solidarity Program (NSP):

"We found that [the controls instituted by the NSP] provided reasonable assurance that NSP funds were used as intended."

The NSP focuses on many small, basic infrastructure projects like irrigation, clearing the canals, clean water projects, and improving dirt roads. This helps all other parts of the traditional economy of agriculture and small business. Labor is provided by Afghans wherever possible.

In the meantime $2 billion per WEEK in military hardware and military supplies crisscrosses the country by truck convoy, and the Pentagon pays insurgents hundreds of millions of dollars a year to let it through unmolested, thus making the Taliban stronger and enabling it to buy more weapons. No wonder Afghans are mad.

Rep. John Tierney's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs reports in "Warlord, Inc," that supply missions in Afghanistan consist of:

"roughly 6,000 to 8,000 truck missions per month. The trucks carry food, supplies, fuel, ammunition, and even Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs)."

The Subcommittee writes:

"Military logistics officers are responsible for providing the troops with the food, water, shelter, weapons, ammunition, and fuel they need to perform their duties. To put the scope of the logistics operation into perspective, U.S. and NATO forces required 1.1 million gallons of fuel per day in 2009. That year, as troop levels grew from 31,800 to 68,000, U.S. military and contractor planes delivered 187,394 tons of cargo. Given that the backbone of the military’s distribution network is overland, the cargo transported by trucks is nearly ten times that amount. Eighty percent of goods and materiel reach Afghanistan by land."

When the Quran gets burned it's the straw which breaks the camel's back. The child malnutrition rate in a country where $2 billion a week in cargo crosses the country to military bases might perhaps not go down much, although this too is inexcusable, but it should certainly not go up. Redirect one month's worth of military spending to the National Solidarity Program, through the World Bank which manages donor nations' contributions, and stability in Afghanistan will follow as troops withdraw. Instead the NSP is chronically short of funds to complete projects, even though its minister has come to Congress begging for funds and to explain his strategy.

Best of all, in the middle of such misery, guess who is always hiring and paying the good wage of $10 a day? The Taliban!

As I argued last week, US neglect of basic needs in Afghanistan is not only immoral; it is in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

What the US is doing is a recipe for further war and instability. War is profitable. Nothing comes close to the rate you can bilk the taxpayers at than in war. Why things remain the same is obvious: this is exactly the way Congress and the president want it, for their campaign contributors in the war business. After ten years the verdict is in.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives... A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." - Double Medal of Honor winner Marine Corp General Smedley Butler , in his book "War is a Racket."

The Afghan National Solidarity Program

Contact President Obama
Contact your congress member

The author is co-founder of Jobs for Afghans.

A CRASH COURSE IN AFGHANISTAN:
"Afghans are bitterly disappointed by broken promises"
http://www.dw.de/...

"$2 Billion a week in war costs (not civilian aid), most expensive war in history"
http://inthesenewtimes.com/...

Department of Defense Funding the Taliban - CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/...

Children freezing to death, New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/...

NBC News: 60% of Afghan Children Malnourished:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

Video on the Afghan National Solidarity Program
http://www.youtube.com/...

"The Road to Taliban Land" by Ann Jones:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/...

For more information:
http://jobsforafghans.org

With Mass Child Freezing Deaths, Proof of Mass Starvation, US in Violation of Geneva in Afghanistan

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 19, 2012 · 12:01 PM PST

2012/02/19 · 12:01

A little known aspect of World War II history is that immediately after the end of major hostilities, as Europe lay in ruins, millions of Germans in Ally-occupied Germany and people in other Axis nations descended into a spiral of humanitarian crisis, and faced the specter of mass starvation as Allies bickered over the spoils of war. After a particularly harsh winter in 1946 - 1947, Assistant Secretary of State William Clayton reported to Washington that "millions of people are slowly starving." With the infrastructure ruined, and with a shortage of coal, many Germans froze to death.

Finally President Harry Truman was persuaded by General George Marshall to implement the Marshall Plan, by which million of tons in assistance was delivered to populations by the Allies. Marshall warned that "The patient is sinking while the doctors deliberate." Truman understood that there would be no more fertile ground for left-leaning ideologies to take hold than in populations which were cold, hungry, and hopeless. In 1949, at the Fourth Geneva Convention, the responsibilities of an "occupying power" were recognized as a part of international law, to remain in effect as long as the occupier was the true and final authority in the client country, regardless of the nominal existence of a new, indigenous national government.

Article 55 of the Geneva Conventions states:

"To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate...."

Article 59:

"If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal. Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing."

And Article 60 insured that even if civilian relief efforts are underway:

"Relief consignments shall in no way relieve the Occupying Power of any of its responsibilities under Articles 55, 56 and 59."

As for what constitutes an "occupying power," according to Amnesty International, "The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law":

...is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control...Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks."

Amnesty elaborates that an occupation:

"takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own. It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory."

US forces in Afghanistan, willing and able to arrest Afghan nationals and imprison them as well as back all decisions with military force, clearly meets the definition of an "occupying power" according to international law. By 1950 the number of US occupation troops in Germany was about 100,000, roughly the same number in Afghanistan now.

A crucial component of Article 55 would obviously be "To the fullest extent of the means available to it..." Some argue, not altogether convincingly, that in remote areas of Afghanistan where starvation is prevalent, the US lacks the means to meet the food and basic survival requirements of the occupied population. Mountain passes are snowed in for a good part of the year, and high altitudes and bad weather make airlift difficult. In Ghazni and other remote provinces it is not unusual to hear reports that villages have been reduced to eating grass, and lose many members over the course of winter.

But it is in the Kabul refugee camps, in the most secure area of the country with constant NATO activity in and around it, where at least 23 children have been reported by the New York Times to have frozen to death since Jan. 15th, due to lack of simple items such as blankets, warm clothes, food, and fuel for heating the tents and mud huts that are now home to approximately 35,000 Afghans. The winter which has hit Kabul is the coldest in 20 years.

Millions of tons of commodities and cargo destined for US military bases pass through and around Kabul regularly. Rep. John Tierney in his subcommittee's report "Warlord, Inc." reveals the enormous extent of the volume of goods paid for with US tax dollars which cross the country daily in 200 and 300-truck convoys, comprising the material deemed necessary to sustain the military occupation.

Rep. Tierney's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs reports in "Warlord, Inc" that supply missions in Afghanistan consist of:

"roughly 6,000 to 8,000 truck missions per month. The trucks carry food, supplies, fuel, ammunition, and even Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs)."

The Subcommittee writes:

"Military logistics officers are responsible for providing the troops with the food, water, shelter, weapons, ammunition, and fuel they need to perform their duties. To put the scope of the logistics operation into perspective, U.S. and NATO forces required 1.1 million gallons of fuel per day in 2009. That year, as troop levels grew from 31,800 to 68,000, U.S. military and contractor planes delivered 187,394 tons of cargo. Given that the backbone of the military’s distribution network is overland, the cargo transported by trucks is nearly ten times that amount. Eighty percent of goods and materiel reach Afghanistan by land."

The Tierney report detailed how the massive quantities of goods entering into Afghanistan can only reach its destinations as a result of pay-offs to insurgents to not attack the convoys. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress in 2009:

“You offload a ship in Karachi [Pakistan] and by the time whatever it is – you know, muffins for our soldiers’ breakfasts or anti-IED equipment – gets to where we’re headed, it goes through a lot of hands. And one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.”

What is abundantly clear is that there is no lack of "means available to" the US to meet its responsibilities under Articles 55 through Article 60 of Geneva, especially when the afflicted populations are in the most secure part of the country.

Temperatures early this week in the Kabul refugee camps where dozens of babies froze when temperatures were in the teens, are forecast to drop to the single digits, down to 7 degrees F. In such temperatures, every northern city in the US will issue "dangerous cold" alerts and open emergency shelter and warming facilities to residents, especially homeless populations.

There is no doubt that within short distances of the camps, at Camp Phoenix outside of Kabul, for example, warehouses are stacked high to the rafters with blankets, sleeping bags, Meals-Ready-to-Eat, heat tabs, and insulating material which are normal stocks for an occupation of 100,000 soldiers. The $2 billion per week in war spending which flows into Afghanistan every single week makes Afghanistan the most expensive war in American history. Camp Phoenix, one of the largest American bases in Afghanistan, offers many amenities, according to Wiki:

"[Camp Phoenix offers] a small selection of electronics. The PX also sells some military clothing and tactical goods for the war on terror. The PX area has a Green Bean Coffee shop. There are also pool and ping pong tables available. The Dining Facility (DFAC) offers a large menu, including short order, weekly "surf and turf," Americanized versions of "Mexican" food, "Chinese" food, and "Italian" food, soft drinks, and ice cream. Just outside the PX is a Pizza Hut which opened 2/19/11. A Burger King also opened 7/4/11."

NBC News has now reported definitively what aid workers and many others have long known in Afghanistan: Millions of children are starving rapidly, and millions more people are starving more slowly, even in secure population centers little affected by the war. NBC News reports:

"This crisis that is now at emergency levels, killing 30,000 children every year. Drought and poverty are at its root. According to Save the Children, who are working in the country, 60% of children - more than 15 million - are chronically malnourished."

Development is not technically the concern of an occupying power, at least according to the Geneva Conventions, although as Truman showed, making it one is wise. But adequate food, shelter, and basic needs are.

As Commander-in-Chief, Obama, or Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, can give an order and start trucks loading and rolling before single digit temperatures hit, or make provisions to open a center, such as Kabul Stadium, where refugees can go and avail themselves to heat sources, blankets, clothing, and food. The Geneva Conventions, to which the US is signatory, is crystal clear on this. Where it can be helped, people freezing and starving to death cannot be allowed to happen.

NBC News: Starvation Among Children in Afghanistan Reaches Epidemic Proportions

Photojournalist Andrea Bruce covering the story:

The British Afghan Women's Society will be taking donations of blankets, winter clothing for children and adults, and other emergency items at collection points across the UK, in a modest relief effort which will not come anywhere close to the total need, but which will save some lives. The cargo will then be loaded onto an air cargo transport destined for Kabul. Monetary donations are being accepted. American credit cards can be used even though donations are denominated in British pounds. A small conversion fee may be charged. Please reference donation with the note "winter012."

British Afghan Women's Society online donation link.

Further donation information

Please contact, "Send emergency supplies to the Kabul refugee camps!":

Ambassador Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Afghanistan:

rcrocker@bushschool.tamu.edu and kabulwebmaster@state.gov

Contact the White House email form
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

White House Facebook

General John Allen, Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan:
pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int

Contact Congress: "Pass emergency assistance to Kabul refugees now!"

Thanks to Capt. Ron Fisher (USN-retired) formerly of the JAG for explanation of international law. The author gives express permission for reprint in full of this article with attribution. He is co-founder of Jobs for Afghans.

UK Women Gathering Emergency Supplies/Funds for Afghan Refugees, Temperatures to Drop to Six Degrees

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday February 18, 2012 · 11:36 AM PST

2012/02/18 · 11:36

Last week I reported on the tragedy in the refugee camps in Kabul in which at least 23 children under age five have frozen to death since Jan. 15th, as a result of temperatures in the mid-teens with families sleeping in unheated tents and inadequate blankets. (See "In the Midst of $2 Billion Per Week Spending on War, Babies Freezing in Kabul for Lack of Food, Fuel.") This was first reported by Rod Nordland of the New York Times.

The British Afghan Women's Society is acting fast to prevent an even worse repeat of the unexpected cold spell tragedy. In the camps, always misery-ridden at any time of year, the babies with weakened immune systems from poor nutrition succumbed quickly. Heat is drawn from small bodies in a fraction of the time as adults, and hypothermia sets in especially quickly

This week the temperatures in Kabul will be in the upper to mid-twenties until Monday, then Tuesday's forecast is low teens. Then on Wednesday they will plunge down to the single digits, 7 degrees F.

The British Afghan Women's Society will be taking donations at collection points across the UK. The cargo will then be loaded onto an air cargo transport. The air cargo transport donor or donors, angels in the true sense of the word, will land in Kabul, where eager hands and contacts on the other side will take charge of distribution of blankets, warm baby clothes, baby formula, food, vitamins, and other manner of assistance.

To bulk up the load for a cargo plane, donations are being accepted from the British Afghan Womens' Society. American credit cards can be used even though donations are denominated in British pounds. A small conversion fee may be charged. Please reference donation with the note "winter012."

British Afghan Women's Society online donation link.

Further donation information

Please contact, "Send emergency supplies to the Kabul refugee camps!":

Ambassador Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Afghanistan:

rcrocker@bushschool.tamu.edu and kabulwebmaster@state.gov

The White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

White House Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/...

Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard: 202-456-1414

General John Allen, Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan:

pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int

Contact Congress: "Pass emergency assistance to Kabul refugees now!"

Photojournalist Andrea Bruce covering the story:

UPDATE: Starvation Among Children in Afghanistan Reaches Epidemic Proportions

What is truly criminal is this would be so easy to fix, were the US to devote as much as what it spends in 2 weeks on war on the one national development program that works, and has been proven to be honest, competent, and capable of handling many thousands of small infrastructure projects which put income into the hands of the poorest Afghans. This crisis that is now at emergency levels, killing 30,000 children every year. Drought and poverty are at its root. According to Save the Children, who are working in the country, 60% of children - more than 15 million - are chronically malnourished. ITN’s Emma Murphy reports from an Afghan hospital.

The diarist is co-founder of Jobs for Afghans.

Why Did Petraeus Fire the Auditor Charged with Stopping Flow of Pentagon Funds to Taliban?

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 14, 2012 · 12:04 PM PST

2012/02/14 · 12:04

The story which reared its head then dropped off the radar in summer of 2010 is still alive: that the major source of funding for the Taliban is likely the Department of Defense itself, estimated around $400 million per year, which is funneled to Afghan "security" companies as "protection payments," for allowing the massive and constant ground traffic of convoys of supplies for US bases to crisscross the country unhindered by attacks. So says a report, "Warlord Inc.," by a House subcommittee chaired by Rep. John Tierney.

The Soviet Union devoted nearly one-third of its force during its occupation to protecting its supply lines. The Americans have figured out a different way: pay insurgents to not attack. The Tierney report - the report of the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, laid bare the system of payments of Department of Defense contracting funds to Afghan warlords with ties to both sides of the conflict. Through both extensive data collection and excerpts the Subcommittee describes the realities of getting military supplies to the network of over 200 American bases and outposts across Afghanistan. The CEO of one "security company says:

“Matiullah has the road from Kandahar to Tarin Kowt completely under his control. No one can travel without Matiullah without facing consequences. There is no other way to get there. You have to either pay him, or fight him.”

Thus the truth: This is a manufactured war. Without American dollars to finance its explosives, ammunition, rockets, and pay and support for its fighters, the Taliban might be little more than a nuisance. DoD money likely dwarfs the profits that insurgents take in from the opium trade. For an upper estimate on this amount, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) maintains:

Taliban insurgents draw some $125m/yr from drugs, which is more money than ten years ago,...

Unlike the Viet Cong, the Taliban attracts little ideological loyalty, and was widely despised by Afghans of all ethnicities during its rule. Few in number, during its time in power the Taliban's formula for enforcing its will was simple: fear. There was only one penalty for nearly every alleged infraction: death.

If you have not seen the film "The Kiterunner" based on Khaled Hosseini's best-selling (and accurate) novel, it is worth watching. In one scene the hero, back in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to save his nephew, engages in a minor staring match with a Taliban patrol in the back of a pickup truck, at a stoplight. His driver, in a sweat after the truck drives off, hisses angrily: "Don't EVER do that again! That was very dangerous!"

For fighters the Taliban depends on being able to pay a $10 a day wage, plus help with food and medicine. None other than a former Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan, General Karl Eikenberry, acknowledged to Congress in 2007:

"Much of the enemy force is drawn from the ranks of unemployed men looking for wages to support their families"

Now it turns out, completely ignored by the American press, before being appointed to head the CIA by Obama, General David Petraeus quietly fired the 2-star Admiral who was appointed to head the response to the revelation of Taliban funding by the US, Admiral Kathleen Dussault, an expert auditor. Dussault was replaced by a one-star with no experience in accounting and little chance of success in stopping the flow of funds.

In April of 2011 Matthew J. Nasuti wrote for the Kabul Press:

Last year, General David Petraeus hired and then three months later secretly fired Rear Admiral Kathleen Dussault, who was the director in Afghanistan of Task Force 2010. The incident and its significance were ignored by the Western news media. Task Force 2010 was created in mid-June 2010, with much fanfare by General Petraeus. It was supposed to ensure that no NATO funds were being diverted directly or indirectly to the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Admiral Dussault was appointed at its director. She had the perfect credentials for the job as she is an expert auditor with an extensive background in logistics and contracting. On September 29, 2010, Admiral Dussault was quietly relieved of command and shipped out of Afghanistan. She was hurriedly replaced by a junior one-star general with no experience in either logistics or contracting. It is believed that Admiral Dussault pushed too hard to cut off the diversion of U.S. funds to the Taliban.

Petraeus, recall, was who former CENTCOM chief Admiral William Fallon once derided as "an ass-kissing little chickenshit," adding, "I hate people like that."

The mothers of soldiers in Afghanistan should be descending on Congress and the White House in droves. This is the money which buys the weapons which kill their sons.

Nasuti, who pursued claims by the Pentagon in email correspondence and found a number of them false, concludes in his report:

Task Force 2010 was created as a sham to placate members of Congress and to present the appearance that NATO was trying to cut off the flow of Western funds to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In reality NATO has concluded that it needs to fund both sides in this war with U.S. tax dollars. The casualties in this farce are the American people, the Afghan people, our troops in the field and Admiral Dussault. The victors are the Taliban, who continue to receive $400 million in U.S. taxpayer funds each year. Pentagon officials continue to pay their adversaries not to attack and then they have the audacity to testify before Congress that the number of attacks has dropped and that the Taliban is on the run.

Why? This is well-known to the many who have been marginalized by the mainstream media and are not allowed onto the airwaves with their assessments, like America's Mom Cindy Sheehan, who says it's about money. A Wall Street newsletter InvestingDaily.com in an April 2010 article "How to profit from the war in Afghanistan" gushed:

"The Afghanistan troop surge means profits!...the likelihood that the U.S. will end up the loser in Afghanistan is a long-term worry. In the short-term, military contractors doing business in Afghanistan will make a boatload of money..."

No words have continued to ring out from beyond the grave like double Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler's, the Marine general who renounced his profession and spent the remainder of his life giving his "War is a Racket" speech across the country:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives... A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

The "burn rate" for the occupation, the military's term for the rate of spending, is over $8 billion a month or $10 million every hour, making it the most expensive war in US history.

Were but a miniscule fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars now given over to war profiteering to be spent on trustworthy, Afghan-led development programs like the National Solidarity Program, which is chronically short of funds, by amounts each year which are less than what is spent on the war in one week, the war would be over, and the US would have a solid ally in the Afghan people. Unemployment there would not be from 40-80 percent (depending on region) and perhaps children would not freeze to death in the winter right in the middle of Kabul.

The World Bank reports 60% stunting among children for lack of food and one-third of all Afghan children underweight.

But as Cindy Sheehan once told me, there's no money in that.

The Lamia Afghan Foundation, an American charity started by Lt. Gen. John A. Bradley, is collecting donations for baby formula, blankets, fuel and other emergency items for the unusually harsh winter in Kabul, in which at least 23 children under 5 have already been reported frozen to death. After a Paypal donation please type "baby formula" into the notes. The George Washington University Afghan Students Association has started a Facebook to support the drive HERE.

Lamia Afghan Foundation

Photojournalist Andrea Bruce, freezing deaths of children in Kabul:

The Afghan National Solidarity Program

Marine General Smedley Butler

Behind in protection payments

Contact President Obama
Contact your congress member

The author is co-founder of Jobs for Afghans.

In the Midst of $2 Billion Per Week Spending on War, Babies Freezing in Kabul for Lack of Food, Fuel

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday February 13, 2012 · 1:43 PM PST

2012/02/13 · 13:43

It goes on and on and on, a black Theater of the Absurd. NATO truck convoys laden with every comfort imaginable which US war contractor dollars can buy - bottled water, frozen steaks, space heaters, air conditioners, new SUVs, anything really - roll into Kabul destined for military bases, embassies, and the universe of end-delivery points which comprise a major military occupation. The "burn rate" for the occupation, the military's term for the rate of spending, is over $8 billion a month or $10 million every hour, making it the most expensive war in US history. Along the way, the convoys pass in plain view of the refugee camps where 35,000 people fight day-to-day for barest survival, internally displaced persons or IDPs who have fled the fighting around their homes in other parts of Afghanistan.

There is no way not to see the camps as you enter or leave Kabul. They announce the city limits in every direction. In Kabul there is no Taliban, unless gathering for an occasional strike just to show that it can. But in general security is good. Men gather by the tens of thousands in the city squares each morning hoping to be picked up for a day of work, for $5 a day, much like illegal workers in this country can be seen at 5am in the parking lot of a Home Depot.

And in unheated tents and mud huts, while adults shiver away another night of bad or non-existent sleep merely gathering strength for next days' scavenging and search for work, seeing their condensed breath from beneath inadequate blankets, children freeze or die from immune systems weakened by poor nutrition. In the frigid temperatures, in the teens, the children may roll out from under the blankets, and, in contact with bare dirt or mud floors, quickly have the heat drawn out of them and enter the stages of hypothermia. Since January 15, at least 23 children under 5 have died frozen to death in the camps.

The New York Times reports that:

The deaths occurred at two of the largest camps, Charahi Qambar (8 cold-related deaths), and Nasaji Bagrami (14 such deaths). Both camps are populated largely with refugees who fled the fighting in areas like Helmand Province in the south.

An alarming number of Afghans are expressing bitter disappointment with the American occupation, and are puzzled at the resurgence of the Taliban. When the Taliban was overthrown, the vast majority of Afghans rejoiced. The Taliban were few in numbers but had a simple formula or enforcing its rule: fear. Afghans have told me that under the Taliban, if a ten dollar bill was laying on the sidewalk, you could walk past the next day and it would still be there. Because there was only one penalty if you were accused of theft: getting your hand chopped off.

The severity of this Kabul winter is unusual, the coldest in 20 years. But the utter state of unpreparedness and lack of institutional response after ten years of occupation has appalled aid workers. One German aid worker told the New York Times: “The fact that every year there’s winter shouldn’t come as a surprise.”

Of course any emergency response now will be a short-term solution. What may be even more unforgivable is that a long-term solution to the chronic misery of Afghans, who still suffer horrendous rates of malnutrition among both children and adults, is tested, available, and waiting. The World Bank reports 60% stunting among children for lack of food and one-third of all Afghan children underweight. The clear solution is continually ignored by the Obama administration, congressional committees charged with overseeing development assistance, and the American media.

It is a myth that all parts of the Afghan government are corrupt and incompetent, or that the task of helping Afghans get on their feet in a non-imperialist manner which allows ordinary Afghans to determine their own destiny is too daunting. But beyond this, it is a fact that the reason Afghans are in this predicament goes back long before the US invasion of 2001, to the days when Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski sought to give the Russians "their own Vietnam" through CIA meddling in Afghan affairs. In a nutshell, Brzezinski armed religiously conservative, rural, Islamist warlords who were long-time enemies of the modernizing Kabul government, because they represented the anti-Russian faction in a civil war.

The Russians intervened, brutally devastated the country, and got bogged down, just as Brzezinski had hoped. In a sense, rather than leave the Afghans to fight out their civil war, the US drew it out, tempted a third power into the middle of it, and now continues to inject both arms and money into an inherently unstable situation. The Pakistan-based Taliban now looks more like an interlude in the ongoing efforts of Afghans of all ethnicities and tribes to come together to settle their own affairs.

Critical to this process will be the removal of the dry tinder of civil war. This is nothing more than what has always been well-understood as a preventative for civil war: reparations or other forms of dignified assistance which put tools, materials, and technical assistance into the hands of men and women eager to rebuild their own country. Instead, the US is now in essence paying fighting-age men to do the opposite. By keeping unemployment at 40% and as high as 80% in war-ravaged regions., and at the same time continuing the flow of Department of Defense funding for the Taliban through transportation contracts, as documented by the House subcommittee report "Warlord Inc.," the Taliban is placed in the enviable position of the employer of last resort, paying the excellent wage for Afghanistan of $10 per day.

General Karl Eikenberry, former Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan, acknowledged in congressional testimony in 2007:

"Much of the enemy force is drawn from the ranks of unemployed men looking for wages to support their families"

The best way to keep an insurgency going is to pay both sides to fight. Even more remarkably, and completely ignored by the American press, before being appointed to head the CIA by Obama, General David Petraeus quietly fired the 2-star Admiral who was appointed to head the response to the revelation of Taliban funding by the US, Admiral Kathleen Dussault, an expert auditor, and replaced her with a one-star with no experience in accounting.

In contrast, were reparations, distributed through an efficient and honest mechanism, to keep discontented men busy with the proud work of re-building the basic infrastructure of their own villages and communities, the Taliban, lacking broad appeal or ideological loyalty as the result of its past depredations, would gradually recede into irrelevance. Young Afghans want to learn computers and become famous athletes, not fight. They are of a generation which has known nothing but war. Already Afghanistan is doing remarkable things in world cricket, basketball, wrestling, and other sports. The achievements are even more remarkable considering they arise from a largely malnourished and utterly poverty-stricken population.

After 30 years of constant fighting, there is no stock lower anywhere than war is in Afghanistan. But fight they will, if forced into it, fueled by hopelessness, idleness, and simmering anger at past injustices.

The best news of all is that such a vehicle for distributing reparations already exists as a major program within one government ministry. The World Bank calls the National Solidarity Program (NSP) "a government within a government." The NSP is a unique hybrid of a national government department with voluntary financial oversight from an external agency, the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF.) The ARTF collects funds from international country donors, such as the US, and passes them down to the NSP on a project by project, milestone by milestone basis. The projects are decided on by elected village councils, which include women.

Projects are small and simple but many: clearing canals or irrigation, basic road improvement, livestock walls, schools, all employing almost all Afghans, and improving infrastructure to enable revitalization of the traditional agrarian economy. Dirt roads improved with gravel and re-grading allow farmers to get to market during rainy season. A shorter walk for clean water (3/4 of the country still lacks it) means children can attend school rather than spend days hauling it.

Alone among major development programs in Afghanistan, the NSP received a glowing report from the US Special Inspector General for the Afghanistan Reconstruction.

Unfortunately, and unforgivably in a country where children are freezing to death, the NSP is chronically short of funds, by an amount which would equal about what the US spends on war costs in one week, about $2 billion. Were this amount to be diverted to the NSP (through the ARTF) for each of three years, Afghan society would soon be on a stable footing, interested in anything but more war.

The negligence of basic needs is not only immoral; it is against international law as it regards "occupying powers," which the US qualifies as after the invasion and overthrow of the Taliban. Article 55 of the 1949 Geneva Convention states:

Art. 55. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

The NY Times Rod Nordland reports on the dead:

¶ Abdul Hadi, son of Abdul Ghani. He was not even a year old and was already trying to stand, although his father said that during those last few days he seemed more shaky than normal.
¶ Naghma and Nazia, the twin daughters of Musa Jan. They were only 3 months old and just starting to roll over.

¶ Ismail, the son of Juma Gul. “He was never warm in his entire life,” Mr. Gul said. “Not once.” It was a short life, 30 days long.

Donations: The Lamia Afghan Foundation, an American charity started by Lt. Gen. John A. Bradley, is collecting donations for baby formula, blankets, fuel and other emergency items. After a Paypal donation please type "baby formula" into the notes. The George Washington University Afghan Students Association has started a Facebook to support the drive HERE.

Lamia Afghan Foundation

Photojournalist Andrea Bruce covering the story:

The Afghan National Solidarity Program

Contact President Obama
Contact your congress member

The author is co-founder of Jobs for Afghans.

Where is Conyers with Impeachment Threats Against President for Iran Attack Now?

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday February 08, 2012 · 1:47 PM PST

2012/02/08 · 13:47

It may have been the one and only thing which prevented an attack on Iran during the Bush years. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers spent years fending off nationwide calls to impeach George W. Bush over the invasion of Iraq, the shredding of the Constitution after 9/11, and other high crimes and misdemeanors culminating in a summer of 2008 "non-impeachment impeachment hearings," in which witnesses such as Rep. Brad Miller, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Rep. Walter Jones, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, Vincent Bugliosi and many others came together to implore the committee to bring articles of impeachment.

At one point Conyers closed to the committee room to any further audience members, prompting calls of "shame! shame! shame!" from the packed halls of the Rayburn Building to which people had traveled from across the country, but established numerous closed-circuit television viewing rooms for the public in other parts of the Hill.

Conyers refused to impeach, but did in fact draw one hard line in the sand, saying that if Bush attacked Iran, it would guarantee impeachment proceedings. George Bush must have believed him. Now as the crazies beat the drums for war with Iran, driving Obama almost irresistibly to war, Conyers has fallen silent. As recently as January 25, Obama said no options were "off the table."

If we attack Iran, it will be an excuse to pour millions of rounds of utterly demonic - there is no other word - depleted uranium ammunition into a country which has done us no harm, which acknowledges the right of navigation in international waters but merely insists that it will not be bullied. The U.S. is determined to impose sanctions no matter what Iran says about its weapons programs, in a perfect replay of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Then as in Iraq, this will kill and maim entire generations of the most innocent life imaginable, that which sits and will sit in their mothers' wombs.

One of the most little-noted after effects of the invasion of Iraq is the rate of horrifying birth deformities caused the the U.S.'s use of these weapons, with rates of birth deformities now running as high as 75% in Fallujah. The Iraqi nation, for all practical purposes, is destroyed. Hospitals do not know how to care for or deal with the epidemic. A country still rife with problems like clean water and sewage systems ravaged by the war is struggling with how to care for these babies for life. The greatest evil of the Iraq war, no one ever talks about. (See: "DU-Induced Birth Deformities in Iraq" by William Shannon.)

President John F. Kennedy sat alone in the war councils during the Cuban Missile Crisis demanding to know of his generals how what they wanted, strikes on Cuba, would not culminate in World War III. Our youngest president faced hawks in politics and the military who assured him that he would be made to look like a weak appeaser if he did not give them what they wanted: war. Kennedy stood firm. When General Curtis Lemay taunted him in the war room that "you're in a pretty bad fix" Kennedy shot back: "You're in it with me." Kennedy may have been making it eminently clear that he was playing hardball, and if he were to go down, he would make sure that the generals who helped make it happen would go with him. Kennedy added for Lemay's benefit: "Personally."

When Conyers drew his line in the sand, the system of checks and balances for once worked. He also, as a junior congressman, led the impeachment of Richard Nixon. I am no great fan of Joe Biden, but I believe he would make a perfectly fine, if unremarkable, Democratic president. The war drums are beating, and the time to speak is now or never. The parallel to the Cuban Missile Crisis is not as far-fetched as some would believe. Pakistani nukes are probably already one step from Al Qaeda thanks to the Islamist-riddled Pakistani officer corp, and an attack on Iran might force an open coup which would place the Pakistani arsenal at the disposal of revenge-minded factions. Why Iran is being demonized, a country greatly wronged by the U.S. in the past, while Pakistan, a proven threat which has been caught helping the Taliban in Afghanistan, is left alone is a mystery.

The Israeli people should be furious that their hawkish leaders are playing this dangerous game, and the world would be safest now if they drove them out of office. On NPR the other night the topic was "Is it time for an attack on Iran?" - with one guest saying "yes" and the other saying "not yet." Host Tom Ashbrook kept referring to the emails and and Facebook posts he was getting from his horrified listeners at Nice Peoples' Radio, marveling that the overwhelming sentiment was "WE WANT A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION!"

Obama has said repeatedly that he finds outside pressure healthy and useful, saying "make me do it." Now is the time to do that with respect to talk of war with Iran. Joe Biden would make a competent president.

Millions more depleted uranium rounds into another Middle Eastern country. 75% deformities in Fallujah. This great evil must not come to pass.

Depleted Uranium babies in Iraq:

Agreeing to Disagree on Much, Occupiers and Tea Party Stand Together Against NDAA.

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday February 04, 2012 · 2:16 PM PST

2012/02/04 · 14:16

Well almost standing together. The Worcester Telegram and Gazette reported that Occupy Wall Streeters in Worcester, MA "mostly occupied the north end of the small Federal Plaza Park and Tea Partiers mostly the south" last Friday on Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest Day. The protest has been expanded to fall on the first Friday and Saturday of every month at congressional offices across the country. They gathered to protest the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which strips US citizens of their right to a jury trial when the government asserts that they are suspected of "support" for "forces" which are "associated" with Al Qaeda. The NDAA allows the US military to detain citizens without charges, counsel, or any contact with the outside world, for life.

In a cruel slap in the face of the American people, Congress passed the law precisely on Bill of Rights Day. Congress's clear intention that the law apply to Americans was on vivid display when it voted down numerous amendments offered to address precisely these concerns. This was even after Sen. Lindsey Graham erased any doubt of the law's intent by saying on the Senate floor that “the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Mitt Romney openly favored the indefinite military detention of US citizens in a South Carolina debate last month when he said "you don't have a right to join a group that has challenged America and has threatened killing Americans, has killed Americans, and has declared war against America." Romney did not say who exactly was asking for the "right" to join such groups, nor how it would be determined who had done these things without evidence, charges, or trial.

The roll call votes of congress members for the NDAA are here, "yes" is in approval of military detention of US citizens:

Senate (86 “yes” - 13 “no”) House (283 “yes” - 136 “no”)

The bill was signed into law by Obama late on New Years Eve, when, as law professor Jonathan Turley said, a high proportion of Americans were probably drunk. The law allows for the round-up and indefinite military detention of US citizens without charge or trial for the "duration of hostilities" in the "war on terror."

In Worcester there was frank talk and wary across-the-lines feelers and recon between Occupy Worcester and the Tea Party. Worcester Tea Party member Ken Mandile admitted that although there was some “good discussion,” “we're not changing any minds.”

Nevertheless, he said, it is impressive that the groups can put aside their differences to stand for such an important principle as the Bill of Rights. Occupy Worcester's Jonathan Noble said "Even though I feel a little uncomfortable about what they (tea party members) stand for, I think it's kind of a beautiful thing that we can stand together on this.”

The Worcester Telegram and Gazette said that both sides, over 100 people, came together to:

"read in unison the Bill of Rights in the plaza in front of the federal courthouse, under the watchful eyes on three Worcester police officers and two members of Homeland Security's Federal Protective Service. There were no incidents, save for a citation written for defacing public property when an Occupy Worcester member wrote in chalk “Occupy Everywhere” on a column in Federal Plaza."

The International Business Times reported as the day began:

"NDAA protests have begun at congressional offices nationwide, as opponents look to keep up the pressure on their elected representatives to repeal the National Defense Authorization Act.
The NDAA was passed more than a month ago, but protesters are hoping that with enough public outcry, the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama may rethink the law."

Congressmen Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and Ron Paul have introduced legislation, HR 3785, which repeals the operative language which applies to American citizens, Section 1021. The repeal legislation reads simply:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Repeal of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012."

The law's critics contend that the law was cleverly crafted to deceive the American public into believing that indefinite military detention did not apply to US citizens. Part (e) of Section 1021 states:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens...."

However , legal experts point out that "existing law" is represented by a controversial appellate court decision in the case of Jose Padilla, which upheld the Bush administration's claim of authority to hold US citizens in military detention indefinitely. During the floor debate on NDAA, Sen. Lindsey Graham called the appellate court's decision in Padilla the "law of the land." But Article VI of the US Constitution, the "Supremacy Clause," declares the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be the "Supreme Law of the Land."

In the Worcester protest City Councilor Konstantina B. Lukes and Ronal C. Madnick, both former executive directors of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, also attended the rally, as did lawyer and radio host Randy Feldman. For more information on the monthly protests at congressional offices go to the Facebook Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protests.

Worcester NDAA protest

PHOTOS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY, NDAA PROTEST FEB. 3

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.287741851287611.67159.248343955227401&type=3" target="_blank"></a> <a href="http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com">Recall the Traitors Blog</a>

NDAA Protests Happening at Congressional Offices Across Country, Please Call Now.

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday February 03, 2012 · 12:42 PM PST

2012/02/03 · 12:42

Until 7pm today for those folks who knock off at 5. Protests against the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012's provisions for the indefinite military detention of US citizens without charge or trial. Please back them up with some phone calls now! CONGRESSIONAL SWITCHBOARD 24/7: 202-224-3121

You can find out how your congress members and senators voted here:

Senate (86 “yes” - 13 “no”) at http://tinyurl.com/... and House (283 “yes” - 136 “no”) at http://tinyurl.com/...

International Business Times reports today:

NDAA Protests Begin at Congressional Offices Nationwide
By Connor Adams

February 3, 2012 1:14 PM EST

NDAA protests have begun at congressional offices nationwide, as opponents look to keep up the pressure on their elected representatives to repeal the National Defense Authorization Act.

The NDAA was passed more than a month ago, but protesters are hoping that with enough public outcry, the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama may rethink the law.

A new round of NDAA protests is taking place at congressional offices across the nation today (Friday, Feb. 3) from noon to 7 p.m.

Protesters have deployed across the nation to make their views loudly heard at the offices of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate who voted to approve the NDAA.

Occupy Louisville staged a march to Mitch McConnell's office. "Karla" posted at the Facebook: "Asking off work right now! Lets do this!" Then later: "My boss gave me the day off and told me to tell mitch to fuck off."

The event's main Facebook is here. Citizens are simply showing up at the offices of any congress member who voted for NDAA and demand he reverse him or herself and work to repeal it. The Facebook states:

12:00pm until 7:00pm
Congressional Offices Throughout the Country

Americans across the country will gather outside congressional offices Feb. 3rd from noon to 7 p.m. to protest NDAA 2012 (H.R. 1540). You will find your protest location by looking to see how your congressmen voted.

An important proposal at the Facebook from "Mirela," as one protest is not likely to accomplish the goal and this has begun as more or less a seat-of-the-pants operation:

I propose that we organize an ongoing anti-NDAA Nationwide Protest scheduled for the first Friday and Saturday of each month for the remainder of the year or until the law is repealed.
Holding it on both Friday and Saturday, allows those who work the opportunity to join in on the weekend, and those who are out of town during the weekends can join the protest on a Friday.

All those in favor, please say Aye!

Below is a printable pdf Fact Sheet folks can even hand out by themselves at suitable locations today. If you cannot join the actions in person, please support the protests with phone calls to your congressmembers' office. REPEAL NDAA! RESTORE THE BILL OF RIGHTS NOW!

CONGRESSIONAL SWITCHBOARD 24/7: 202-224-3121
Contact Congress

NDAA Fact Sheet PDF

Fact Sheet: New Law Allowing for Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Charge or Trial, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA)
Last revision: 1/10/2011

- The National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (NDAA) passed by the House and the Senate on Dec. 15, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, and signed by Obama in the late hours of New Year’s Eve, allows for American citizens to be taken into military custody without charge or trial, for the “duration of hostilities” in the “War on Terror” for the first time in American history.

- The roll call votes for the House and Senate can be seen at links: Senate (86 “yes” - 13 “no”) at http://tinyurl.com/... and House (283 “yes” - 136 “no”) at http://tinyurl.com/...

- Forbes Magazine: “The NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.” (“President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?” by E.D. Kain, Forbes, 1/2/2011)

- ACLU: “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law…Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody…” (“President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law,” Press Release, ACLU, 12/31/2010 at http://tinyurl.com/... )

- There is a major campaign underway to deceive Americans into thinking NDAA does not apply to U.S. citizens. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) said the legislation was “carefully crafted to mislead the public.” (“U.S. Rep. Justin Amash opposes defense authorization bill,” The Grand Rapids Press, 11/28/2010)

- In a Jan. 5, 2011 BBC report, Professor Jonathan Turley of the Georgetown University School of Law called Obama’s signing statement to not use NDAA powers against U.S. citizens a “hollow promise” which nevertheless gives the president and future presidents “authoritarian powers” to lock up U.S. citizens without trial and even kill them. Youtube of interview at: http://tinyurl.com/...

- Precise analysis of bill language at http://tinyurl.com/... (“Continuing Protests Against NDAA Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens, Recall Efforts On” at DailyKos.com )

- The Washington Post has confirmed a secret list of Americans to be assassinated, reporting on Jan. 26, 2010: "The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list that includes several Americans...U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities..." There is no way to determine who is on the list, as it is "classified." ("U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes," Washington Post, by Dana Priest, Jan. 27, 2010)

- The only U.S. senators who voted against the NDAA are: Cardin (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Durbin (D-IL), Franken (D-MN), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Sanders (I-VT), Wyden (D-OR)

- The Oath of Office for U.S. senators and congressmen, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, and American military officers is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” Thomas Jefferson said: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

- Citizens have launched recall campaigns against senators and congressmen who voted for the NDAA. The states which presently have such recall laws are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. States which do not can pass them. For more information go to RecallTheTraitors.blogspot.com, and http://tinyurl.com/...

Opposition to the NDAA and the restoration of Americans’ basic rights are not a partisan issue.

PRINTABLE FACT SHEET PDF AT:
http://jobsforafghans.org/...

Obama Orders Military-Police Department Joint Exercises in Los Angeles, Other Cities.

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 29, 2012 · 12:07 PM PST

2012/01/29 · 12:07

Photo: Truthout.org

Weeks after Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges filed suit against President Obama in Federal District Court for egregiously violating the U.S. Constitution by signing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the US military has been conducting joint exercises with city police departments. An LAPD press release states:

The Los Angeles Police Department will be providing support for a joint military training exercise in and around the great (sic) Los Angeles area. This will be routine training conducted by military personnel, designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments, and meet mandatory training certification requirements.

NDAA, as the bill signed into law by Obama on New years Eve has come to be called, allows the indefinite military detentions of US citizens without charge or trial.

CBS blithely noted last Tuesday:

If you notice a heavy military presence around downtown Los Angeles this week, don’t be alarmed — it’s only a drill.

The military deployed a Black Hawk, a helicopter that has served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and four OH-6 helicopters. According to Truthout.org, at one point they flew just above the US Bank building downtown.

Hedges in an interview with Democracy Now speculated that, since the national security establishment, NSA, FBI and other agencies charged with protecting the country against terrorists actually lobbied against the NDAA, the true impetus for it was the fear among corporate elites of an expanding Occupy Wall Street movement this summer.

Hedges said:

"And I think, without question, the corporate elites understand that things, certainly economically, are about to get much worse. I think they’re worried about the Occupy movement expanding. And I think that, in the end—and this is a supposition—they don’t trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the Army."

This month Occupy DC continued to press Congress with the message of getting the influence of money out of politics. Reuters reported on Jan. 17th:

"Demonstrators from the Occupy movement rallied at the Capitol and congressional office buildings on Tuesday to protest against the influence of money on lawmakers....Occupy protesters from around the country who gathered on the Capitol's rain-soaked lawn carried signs saying, "Face it liberals, the Dems sold us out," "Congress for sale" and "Banksters of America.""

The influence of money on the political process has been well-researched and documented by citizen watchdog organizations such as MAPLight.org. In a report relating to the TARP bank bailouts MAPlight.org found that congressmen who voted for TARP, the "Troubled Assets Relief Program," received nearly 50 percent more in campaign contributions from the financial services industry (an average of about $149,000) than congressmen who voted no.

As Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces Obama must sign off on all deployments and exercises. This would seem to apply especially to deployments as politically sensitive as those in direct violation of the spirit of Posse Comitatus, the post-Civil War law intended to bar the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. This is a role for which the National Guard was designed in case of emergencies.

Blackhawk standard armaments, two M240H machine guns.

In his lawsuit against Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA,) also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill, Hedges charges in Count I of the official complaint:

The Homeland Battlefield Bill, §1031(C)(1) authorizes the indefinite detention, imprisonment and incarceration of U.S. citizens and other “covered persons” in the United States, including persons such as Plaintiff, without trial or judicial recourse in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment V.

Full text of Hedges Complaint as Scribd document HERE.

The congressional drive to pass provisions which allow for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial was accompanied by wording in the bill which Congressman Justin Amash called “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

This Friday, Feb. 3, is the Nationwide NDAA Congressional Protest. The event's Facebook page states:

Americans across the country will gather outside congressional offices Feb. 3rd from noon to 7 p.m. to protest NDAA 2012 (H.R. 1540). You will find your protest location by looking to see how your congressmen voted. Look below - under house and senate. There is also a link so you can find the address to your congressman's local office where your protest will take place.

A number of recall campaigns have begun against congressmen and senators who voted in favor of NDAA, as well as other state-level actions which challenge and seek to nullify the detention of Americans provisions. In Virginia, legislators in the House of Delegates have filed House Bill 1160 (HB1160) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

(Roll call votes: Senate (86 “yes” - 13 “no”)....House (283 “yes” - 136 “no”))

OH-6 "Little Bird" armaments

BBC report on NDAA:

Occupy Wall Street Descends on Congress, Says: Money Out of Politics!

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday January 18, 2012 · 12:32 PM PST

2012/01/18 · 12:32

It's a quid pro quo. Only the most gullible rube ready to buy swampland in Florida could think otherwise. The citizen's watchdog MAPlight.org found that congressmen who voted for TARP, the "Troubled Assets Relief Program," received nearly 50 percent more in campaign contributions from the financial services industry (an average of about $149,000) than congressmen who voted no.

And House Energy and Commerce Committee members who voted yes on an amendment in 2009 favored by the forest products industry, to allow heavier cutting of trees, received an average of $25,745 from the forestry and paper products industry. This was ten times more than each member voting no. The pattern repeats itself over and over, ditto for why wars go on when polls show most of the population is against them.

TARP is the most well-known, but by no means the only or even the largest according to projections, of the government bailout programs which are projected to cost around $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, on top of normal taxes. The costs are borne in systemic and most times intangible ways. Bridges don't get maintained by states. Schools don't get repaired. College loan and grant amounts are capped at a lower level. A soldier doesn't get the psychiatric help he is begging for after he gets cuts loose from the Army, it being cheaper to prescribe a handful of meds and send him home.

The cost are intangible, that is, until a bridge collapses. A potential academic star decides he or she can't afford the first choice college. Until another soldier blows his brains out.

David DeGraw, the intellectual founder of OWS and author of “The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States,” asserts:

Current statistical societal indicators clearly demonstrate that a strategic attack has been launched and an analysis of current governmental policies prove that conditions for 99% of Americans will continue to deteriorate. The Economic Elite have engineered a financial coup and have brought war to our doorstep… and make no mistake, they have launched a war to eliminate the US middle class.”

The roughly $50,000 per every man, woman, and child figure is according to Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general for the government’s financial bailout programs, whom Glenn Greenwald called "easily...one of the most impressive and courageous political officials in Washington."

Politico reported:

A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government’s watchdog over the effort says – a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year.

Politico writes:

$23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Despite all efforts to contort Occupy Wall Street into a mob of malcontent losers of the economic race, looking to take what is not theirs, OWS persists in educating the American public that they are the ones getting stolen from. As one sign at a protest said, "They only call it class war when you fight back."

Now Occupy DC has scored a bulls-eye with its descent on Congress yesterday and its unmistakable message: Get the money out of politics. Because as long as money drives politics, no other change is possible. Reuters said yesterday:

"Demonstrators from the Occupy movement rallied at the Capitol and congressional office buildings on Tuesday to protest against the influence of money on lawmakers....Occupy protesters from around the country who gathered on the Capitol's rain-soaked lawn carried signs saying, "Face it liberals, the Dems sold us out," "Congress for sale" and "Banksters of America.""

And the NZ Herald reported in "Occupy protesters storm Washington DC":

"small groups of protesters entered House office buildings in a bid to meet with individual members of Congress. Participants later in the evening marched to the Supreme Court and the White House."

Even the Washington Post got it right, no doubt thanks to numerous meetings with activists getting wiser and meeting with reporters and editors repeatedly in case they really, really still did not understand "why are we here." The WaPo report,"What Occupy DC wants: Less corporate money in politics," quotes "Brian":

“Our government has allowed policy, laws and justice to be for sale to the highest bidder....There needs to be a limit on the amount of money you can spend on elections, or can contribute...”

In case the media still didn't get it, the Occupiers started the day with a march on Bank of America.

Two days ago Occupy DC passed a "Corporate Personhood Resolution," which states, as HuffPo reports:

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent spending on elections by corporations and other groups could not be limited by government regulations. This decision is only the latest in a long line of judicial rulings that have invented the legal doctrine of corporate personhood, affording corporations the same constitutional rights as people.

Occupy DC joins Move To Amend the Constitution, which is holding actions at courthouses across the country tomorrow, Friday, demanding the ratification of a constitutional amendment which would supersede the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, in which money was first equated to speech, as if the equivalent of handing a $100 bribe for a police officer to not give you a traffic ticket had anything to do with the First Amendment.

A rather remarkable OpenSecrets.org report on Occupy DC covers an earlier speech by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig:

Lessig emphasized corruption in our current government -- not of the bribery variety a la Rod Blagojevich, but rather in Congress' dependence on money, money that is mostly from corporations and a tiny proportion of the population.
"Forget 99 percent, we are the 99.5 percent," Lessig told the audience "Only .05 percent of America gave the max contribution of $2,500 to candidates last election."

Lessig's statistics are correct, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. Only .05 percent of the U.S. population gave the legal maximum to at least one candidate, which was $2,400 per election during the 2010 cycle.

In fact, only 0.26 percent of the U.S. population gave more than $200, the level at which public disclosure of contribution records is mandated by the Federal Elections Commission.

Yet these 818,700 or so donors accounted for 67.7 percent of the total contributions to federal candidates that election cycle.

In the report Ben Thompson, an Occupier from Bethesda, Md., told OpenSecrets Blog: "The money from Wall Street flows to K Street."

Indeed, MAPLight.org, which is based on the OpenSecrets.org database, found, even more startlingly, that on average, 80 percent of congress members and senators campaign funds come from outside their districts, and largely from outside their states. MAPLight found a distinct flow of money from a small number of wealthy zip codes, such as Westchester County and Chevy Chase, MD, to congressmen representing many poorer, rural zip codes. A vote is a vote. It doesn't matter where it comes from. The most money by far emanated from addresses in and around the Washington DC beltway, i.e., where lobbyists and PACs live. These are the findings in the MAPLight.org report entitled "Remote Control."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. These are the same state legislators in whose hands any efforts to pass recall laws aimed at U.S. congressmen and senators would rest. In many ways, the imperious indifference of incumbents in Washington these days points to citizens getting reacquainted with their state legislators.

The renewed vigor and focus of OWS comes as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges voices the opinion that, since the national security establishment such as the NSA and FBI actually lobbied against the newly-signed National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA,) allowing the indefinite military detention of American citizens, the true target of NDAA is Occupy Wall Street this summer. Last year showed that police could not be relied upon to suppress dissent, making the 1% nervous enough to bribe congressmen to give the Executive Branch the power to "call in the Army":

Hedges said in an interview with Democracy Now:

"And I think, without question, the corporate elites understand that things, certainly economically, are about to get much worse. I think they’re worried about the Occupy movement expanding. And I think that, in the end—and this is a supposition—they don’t trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the Army."

The costs of bailouts and continuing wars mounts daily, with Obama now asking for another trillion-plus hike in the debt ceiling, a move many economists warn that the dollar cannot sustain. One illustration shows the budget predicament as the equivalent of one wage earner making $35,000 per year who cannot pay his bills, must borrow money, and is already $135,000 in debt.

So society cuts corners in every other way. Trains and subway service are lousy because drivers and equipment maintenance are being cut back. Public libraries are closed on Sundays, leaving children motivated to transcend their home environments to the streets. Our children and grandchildren are saddled with yet more debt to pay for trillion-dollar bailouts. They only call it class war when we fight back.

Father of Iraq vet who committed suicide.

Join Recall the Traitors Over NDAA!

Pulitzer Prize-Winner Sues Obama Over NDAA, Says Occupy Wall Street is the Target.

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday January 17, 2012 · 12:53 PM PST

2012/01/17 · 12:53

Noting that the national security establishment such as the NSA and FBI lobbied against the newly-signed National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA,) also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges has filed suit against President Obama in Federal District Court for egregiously violating the U.S. Constitution. Count I of the official complaint states:

The Homeland Battlefield Bill, §1031(C)(1) authorizes the indefinite detention, imprisonment and incarceration of U.S. citizens and other “covered persons” in the United States, including persons such as Plaintiff, without trial or judicial recourse in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment V.

Full text of Hedges Complaint as Scribd document HERE.

In the below interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Hedges speculates that since the national security establishment charged with protecting the country against terrorists was against the bill, the true impetus for its passage was the fear among corporate elites of an expanding Occupy Wall Street movement this summer, in which police could not be relied upon to suppress legitimate dissent and elites desired the power to "call out the military." Today Occupy DC pressed the message of getting the influence of money out of politics by descending on Congress. The protesters carried signs saying: "Face it liberals, the Dems sold us out," "Congress for sale" and "Banksters of America."

Hedges wrote extensively on his action in Truthdig.com in "Why I am Suing President Obama". The interview features footage of the NDAA issue being raised in a recent Republican presidential debate in SC, in which Romney draws boos for affirming that he too would have signed the NDAA.

Hedges writes in Truthdig.com:

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.
The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.

Hedges takes special pains to point out the potential in the NDAA's language to subject American citizens to extraordinary rendition, the same as foreign nationals under the Bush administration were, to avoid American law regarding prisoners of war. Combined with the new HR 3166 "Enemy Expatriation Act" winding its way through Congress, which seeks to strip U.S. citizens of their citizenship upon accusation by the Executive Branch, the law raises the specter that US dissidents will know treatments long perfected by branches of the military and intelligence in order to produce, not information, but false confessions.

The "reverse engineering" of SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) tactics under the Bush administration, covered extensively by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker and referred to in the article which went viral in these pages "Welcome to Boston, Mr. Rumsfeld, You Are Under Arrest," are the very same tactics which could be used in the extraordinary rendition of Americans.

Mayer writes:

According to a report adopted in June by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, titled “Secret Detentions and Illegal Transfers of Detainees,” detainees were “taken to their cells by strong people who wore black outfits, masks that covered their whole faces, and dark visors over their eyes.”...A former member of a C.I.A. transport team has described the “takeout” of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, during which a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location.

Mayer says:

The C.I.A.’s interrogation program is remarkable for its mechanistic aura. “It’s one of the most sophisticated, refined programs of torture ever,” an outside expert familiar with the protocol said. “At every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail. Procedure was adhered to almost to the letter. There was top-down quality control, and such a set routine that you get to the point where you know what each detainee is going to say, because you’ve heard it before. It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.”

Thus far journalist Hedges is one of the highest-profile figures to step forward as one of the "good Germans," to the continuing shame of the law profession, especially those in the halls of academe who remain silent.

In related news:

Business Insider writer David Seaman has been let go from Business Insider for his relentless push to have the major media cover what is happening to American rights under the NDAA and the "Enemy Expatriation Act." Read more at Business Times: "David Seaman, Critic of NDAA & SOPA, Dismissed by Business Insider After NBC News Complaints."

Seaman is author of "NDAA and SOPA: The End of America." Seaman was blocked from commenting on NBC articles after urging coverage of NDAA and SOPA, which he details in "NBC News Blocked Me From Commenting On NDAA And SOPA." NBC has also threatened partners who do not sign onto support for SOPA, coverage at TechDirt.com: "NBC Universal Threatens Partners That They Need To Sign 'Grassroots' Support Of SOPA/PIPA Or It Might Have To Drop Them."

NBC alleged that Seaman was "spamming" NBC's comments sections with calls for NBC News to cover NDAA and SOPA. Seaman told International Business that claims of spamming were:

"unequivocally untrue. I would challenge him, or anyone at NBC, to produce these spam comments. Let the public decide if I was spamming ... It is also completely untrue that I had 'link to his website on every article we were posting this week.' That is 100% false."

International Business reported in the same article that NBC News community manager Anthony Quintano, in alleging that Seaman had spammed,

"went on to say via Google that he would "also be contacting Business Insider on your false accusations towards NBC on censorship."

Seaman was then suspended from Twitter. In a late-breaking development, Seaman now writes at Google Plus:

David Seaman - Dec 19, 2011 - Public
Starting to get very worried for America. The reporter over at International Business Times who wrote about my Twitter suspension is now unable to use his own account: "My Twitter is now not letting me access other users' profile pages (incl. yours.) It says: 'sorry that page doesnt exist'"
#OWS #TeaParty #NDAA #SOPA

David Seaman

FIGHT BACK. JOIN RECALL THE TRAITORS BLOG.

Major NBC News Advertisers. PLEASE BOYCOTT.

(contact links)

NissanUsa.com
Purewater.com

Proctor and Gamble Products Advertised (contact P&G):
Bounty
Bounce
Gain
Charmin
Fixodent

NBCUniversal

SOPA Beaten Back, Now for NDAA Military Detention of Americans. To the State Houses.

Ralph Lopez

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 15, 2012 · 11:58 AM PST

2012/01/15 · 11:58

Succumbing to public outrage, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) seems to have been beaten back for now. SHTFPlan.com reports:

Amid significant pressure from tens of thousands of internet users and major web behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Reddit, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is, in its current form, Dead on Arrival.

Washington Monthly reported:

Though the administration did issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form. A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.

Although presented in the guise of a bill to combat online piracy, Daisy Luther at Inalienably Yours, detailed how the bill was nothing short of a direct attack against the first Amendment, in much the same way that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) was a direct attack on U.S. citizens' right to a jury trial when accused of links to terrorism, in the guise of a harmless bill targeting only foreign nationals. Luther writes:

On closer inspection, the legalese in the bill has the potential to eviscerate free speech….and like NDAA, without proof…only with suspicion of “wrong-doing”. It’s all about copyright infringement. If you tick off the powers that be, and you’ve quoted someone, somewhere, saying something, you may have infringed on their copyright. As a defendant, you are not even present at the legal proceeding allowing “them” to shut you down until you prove yourself innocent.
How do they shut you down? Search engines are required to remove you from their listings. Internet Service Providers can be ordered to block access to your site. Advertising networks and payment providers can also be forced to cease doing business with you. This continues until you are proven INNOCENT. Wait – I thought it was innocent until proven guilty….oh….that was “before” the NDAA.

David Seaman at BusinessInsider.com was more blunt in his piece "NDAA And SOPA: The End of America?!":

SOPA, as you probably know, threatens the very existence of the Internet in its current form -- and would enable government censorship of Internet content on a scale never before seen in America or the developed world.

Forbes Magazine writer E.D. Kain in "SOPA, the NDAA, and Patent-Trolling: Why Americans Need a Civil Liberties Caucus" highlights the small group of senators from both parties, unlikely allies in most other issues, who stand against SOPA and the NDAA, saying:

We need to elect more men and women willing to stand up against bills that strip away our basic rights. We have more to fear from these laws than we do from terrorism or internet piracy. We need leaders on the left and the right who reflect American values, and not American fears.

The 13 senators who voted against NDAA were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

The action comes after Fight for the Future had called for a web strike on Jan. 18th during which, starting at 8a.m. Eastern, participating website would go dark and replace their home page with this page protesting SOPA.

There is no guarantee the main elements of the bill will not surface in some other form in the future, therefore eternal vigilance is still required.

Which turns attention to the continuing battle to reverse the military detention of U.S. citizens provisions of the NDAA, which began on Christmas Day with the announcement of Montanans from both sides of the political spectrum to begin a recall effort against their senators and congressmembers who voted for the bill, which led to the spontaneous sprouting of numerous Facebook pages such as Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA.

Nationwide protests and actions are scheduled over the NDAA on Feb. 3, protest Facebook HERE.

Activists are bringing the battle to the state legislatures in the matter of recall of federal officials. States which presently have federal recall laws are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Federal recall laws remain relatively untested in the courts, with the reasoning behind the two instances in which they have been disallowed, in Idaho and New in New Jersey, considered weak and vulnerable. Proponents of such laws point out that the Idaho decision was based on the idea that a recall law constituted a change in the "qualifications" for office, such as age and residency, which the Constitution prohibits. And the NJ decision, by a state court, relied on the argument that the Constitution prohibits the length of a term of office from being changed, something which a recall does not do.

A faculty paper of theCollege of William and Mary Law School on federal recall argues:

Properly conceived and exercised, the recall would serve not as a referendum for single issues like abortion or a balanced budget, but rather would provide the voters with a means of removing a senator who has perpetrated an extraordinary breach of the public trust...

For states with no present federal recall laws, RecallTheTraitors.blogspot.com (of which I am a participant) has released a suggested cover letter and model recall law package for presentation to state legislators.

Recall Package for State Legislators to Enact a Recall Law for U.S. Senators and Congressmen in Your State
COPY AND PASTE INTO A WORD DOCUMENT AND TAILOR TO YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND STATE SENATORS.

CONTACT YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS HERE
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=17173

COVER LETTER

[Brackets where information to be tailored]

Dear Representative/Assemblyman [NAME]

You of course are familiar with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA), the controversial law which allows (not requires) the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial for the "duration of hostilities" in the "war on terror." The law was passed by Congress on December 15, Bill of Rights Day, and signed by the president on New Years' Eve. There is no question that the law, and any idea that the U.S. government can do this to its citizens, is clearly unconstitutional, illegal, and in violation of the Oath of Office of every U.S. Senator and Congressman who voted to pass the bill.

We believe it is time for [STATE NAME] to have a recall law modeled along the lines of the carefully worded, stringent recall law passed by Washington State. This law allows for the recall of federal officials on two grounds: 1) acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or 2) violation of the oath of office. There is no doubt that [Senators John Kerry and Scott Brown] have violated their oaths of office, to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."   The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" according to the Supremacy Clause, Article VI.

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that in "all" criminal prosecutions:

    "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

In contrast, Section 1021 (b) through (c) of the NDAA in substance states that:

""Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ...to detain...A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda...or associated forces...including any person who has...directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces...The disposition of a person...may include...Detention under the law of war...without trial until the end of the hostilities..."

In cases of treason, in which American citizens have taken up arms against the United States, Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution mandates that:

       "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

In cases of treason, American citizens are guaranteed not only their Sixth Amendment rights under the Constitution, which are "inalienable" according to the document from which the Constitution emanates, the Declaration of Independence, but also their Article III requirement that two witnesses testify against him, or that he confess in open court. The Declaration of Independence declares that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights;"

The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1897 that:

       "The Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.     The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first."

As for the importance of the right to a jury trial, Thomas Jefferson said:

    "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Therefore, in cases of treason, U.S. citizens are guaranteed, by the Supreme Law of the Land, due process rights under two distinct sections of the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment, and Article III.

The NDAA is unconstitutional for the additional reason that the broad sweep of the language used in Section 1021, “substantial support” of an “associated force,” may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities, such as free speech opposition to U.S. government policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience.

U.S. Representative Tom McClintock said on the House floor during debate that Section 1021:

    "specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with “substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any ‘associated forces’” — whatever that means. Would “substantial support” of an “associated force,” mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don’t know."

It is important to remember that the passage of the NDAA has been accompanied by a sophisticated and well-oiled misinformation campaign intended to deceive Americans into believing that the indefinite military detention provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens. U.S. Representative Justin Amash warned that the NDAA as passed was“carefully crafted to mislead the public.” For example, Section 1021 (e) states:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

But "existing law" is in flux, and in its present state is embodied in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case of Jose Padilla, the U.S.-born citizen whom Fourth Circuit affirmed could be held indefinitely by the military under the Bush administration without charge or trial. The Fourth Circuit's controversial decision was destined for Supreme Court review until the Bush administration released Padilla to civilian trial after nearly 4 years of military detention, after which he was unable to assist in his own defense. Some speculate that the change of course in Padilla was made specifically to avoid Supreme Courth review of the Fourth Circuit decision, the first involving the status and rights of "enemy combatants" in the first proclaimed war without end.

The second section of deceptive language is in Section 1022 (b) of the NDAA states:

"APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS: (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

However, even if US citizens are not "required" to be detained by the military in terrorism cases, it is still "allowed."

The ACLU has said:

“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law…Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody…” (“President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law,” Press Release, ACLU, 12/31/2010 at http://tinyurl.com/... )

By violation of their Oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Senators Kerry and Brown have become eligible for recall.

We the People of Massachusetts demand that our U.S. senators and congressmen obey their sacred Oath of Office, to be performed before all other official acts of of. These are not just words.

[State representatives if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts] also take an oath to "support the United States Constitution." Senators [Kerry's and Brown's] actions demand recall by the people.    Without delay, please sponsor and work to enact The Massachusetts Public Official Accountability Act of 2012 (MPOAA,) draft language below, modeled upon the federal recall law for the state of Washington, in order that the People may exercise our powers reserved to us under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which "reserves" all powers not specifically enumerated as the preserve of the federal government "to the states...and to the people":

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A comprehensive analysis of NDAA language from the final bill can be found at http://tinyurl.com/... (“Continuing Protests Against NDAA Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens, Recall Efforts On” at DailyKos.com ) Please find enclosed a Fact Sheet on NDAA and draft language of the model law based on Washington State's.

Thank you and best regards.

Signed Your Constituents:

Non-constituent supporters of MPOAA:

---------

Washington State Recall Law, Constitution of the State of Washington Article I, Sections 33 and 34:

Recall of Elective Officers.

Every elective public officer of the [state of Washington] except judges of courts of record is subject to recall and discharge by the legal voters of the state, or of the political subdivision of the state, from which he was elected whenever a petition demanding his recall, reciting that such officer has committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office, stating the matters complained of, signed by the percentages of the qualified electors thereof, hereinafter provided, the percentage required to be computed from the total number of votes cast for all candidates for his said office to which he was elected at the preceding election, is filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination, or certificate for nomination, to such office must be filed under the laws of this state, and the same officer shall call a special election as provided by the general election laws of this state, and the result determined as therein provided.

The legislature shall pass the necessary laws to carry out the provisions of section thirty-three (33) of this article, and to facilitate its operation and effect without delay: Provided, That the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people. The percentages required shall be, state officers, other than judges, senators and representatives, city officers of cities of the first class, school district boards in cities of the first class; county officers of counties of the first, second and third classes, twenty-five per cent. Officers of all other political subdivisions, cities, towns, townships, precincts and school districts not herein mentioned, and state senators and representatives, thirty-five per cent.

Washington State law linked at http://www.ballotpedia.org/...

-------

Fact Sheet: New Law Allowing for Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Charge or Trial, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA)

Last revision: 1/10/2011

- The National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (NDAA) passed by the House and the Senate on Dec. 15, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, and signed by Obama in the late hours of New Year’s Eve, allows for American citizens to be taken into military custody without charge or trial, for the “duration of hostilities” in the “War on Terror” for the first time in American history.

- The roll call votes for the House and Senate can be seen at links: Senate (86 “yes” - 13 “no”) at http://tinyurl.com/... and House (283 “yes” - 136 “no”) at http://tinyurl.com/...

- Forbes Magazine: “The NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.” (“President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?” by E.D. Kain, Forbes, 1/2/2011)

- ACLU: “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law…Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody…” (“President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law,” Press Release, ACLU, 12/31/2010 at http://tinyurl.com/...   )

- There is a major campaign underway to deceive Americans into thinking NDAA does not apply to U.S. citizens. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) said the legislation was “carefully crafted to mislead the public.” (“U.S. Rep. Justin Amash opposes defense authorization bill,” The Grand Rapids Press, 11/28/2010)

- In a Jan. 5, 2011 BBC report, Professor Jonathan Turley of the Georgetown University School of Law called Obama’s signing statement to not use NDAA powers against U.S. citizens a “hollow promise” which nevertheless gives the president and future presidents “authoritarian powers” to lock up U.S. citizens without trial and even kill them. Youtube of interview at: http://tinyurl.com/...

- Precise analysis of bill language at http://tinyurl.com/...    (“Continuing Protests Against NDAA Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens, Recall Efforts On” at DailyKos.com )

- The Washington Post has confirmed a secret list of Americans to be assassinated, reporting on Jan. 26, 2010: "The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list that includes several Americans...U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities..." There is no way to determine who is on the list, as it is "classified." ("U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes," Washington Post, by Dana Priest, Jan. 27, 2010)

- The only U.S. senators who voted against the NDAA are: Cardin (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Durbin (D-IL), Franken (D-MN), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Sanders (I-VT), Wyden (D-OR)

- The Oath of Office for U.S. senators and congressmen, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, and American military officers is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” Thomas Jefferson said: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

- Citizens have launched recall campaigns against senators and congressmen who voted for the NDAA. The states which presently have such recall laws are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. States which do not can pass them. For more information go to RecallTheTraitors.blogspot.com, and http://tinyurl.com/...

Opposition to the NDAA and the restoration of Americans’ basic rights are not a partisan issue. Citizens from the left to the right of the spectrum have come together in outrage. For more information go to RecallTheTraitors.blogspot.com Please join the Facebook linked at this site.

NDAA Fact Sheet linked at http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/...

Newer
Older

RSS