Get me out of So. Cal

Israel uses cluster bombs against civilians

TKeck — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:50:04 EDT

Yesterday, human rights watch confirmed Israel's use of cluster bombs on Lebanonese civilians, specifically in the village of Blida (July 19). These bombs are very indiscriminate and contrary to international humanitarian law. There is no other use for this bomb except to kill or wound civilians, as it leaves behind smaller bomblets, similiar to a small anti-personnel mine. Furthermore, although uncomfirmed by an independent source, Lebanese president Emile Lahoud has also claimed that Israel has used white phosphorous against civilians, a clear violation of international law if true.

Another interesting development is a story released by the SF Gate, which revealed that Israel had very developed plans for this war. This gives further credence to the argument that this war was planned and premeditated by Israel. This was not an "accidental war" as The Economist claimed in a recent editorial. This is part of the larger neo-con idea of remaking the Middle East by force.

Finally, don't give me this bullshit that Israel doesn't target civilians. You don't use cluster bombs unless you are targeting civilians. The damage has been done. An immediate cease-fire without triggering a wider regional war is our best hope for an end to this madness.

Lebanon on fire.

TKeck — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:37:31 EDT

At least 226 people have been killed in Lebanon and 25 in Israel. The World Health Organization estimates 900,000 Lebanese to be displaced from their homes. Calls for a cease-fire have been met with resistance from Israel and the United States, steadfastly supporting Israel's sovereign right to defend itself. While Israel has the right and responsibility to defend itself, the bombardment and subsequent invasion of Lebanon constitutes a form of collective punishment against a vulnerable civilian population, not self-defense. Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure (i.e. Power plants and Beirut International Airport) violate the fourth Geneva convention. Of course it goes without saying that Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israeli civilian homes is also criminal.

The responsible course of action is the proposed cease-fire brokered by international peacekeepers. Unless looking for a wider regional war, Israel should relinquish its demand for an immediate disarmament of Hezbollah. Israeli government officials know disarmament is unlikely given Hezbollah's strong domestic support in Southern Lebanon for its role in getting Israeli Defensive Forces out of Lebanon six years ago.

The future must involve an end to the unilateral policies of the Israeli government and of course an end to the brutal occupation of the Palestinians. As Israel calls for Lebanon's compliance with the UNSC's demand for the disarmament of Hezbollah, Israel should be looking to fullfil its own obligations to UNSC resolution 242 and 338.

Rubber Stamp Republicans

TKeck — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:45:54 EST

After James Risen's article's surfaced last December on the illegal wiretapping of American citizens, Bush made no secret of his contempt for the legal process. You would think that true conservatives (if there are any left in the senate) would have been outraged by the Bush Administrations power grab.

At first, they was bi-partisan outrage. There was talk of hearings and I thought for once, both parties would come together to ensure there was oversight. When Al Gonzales framed the issue as conducting surveillance on terrorists vs not conducting surveillance, I scoffed, thinking for sure that any smart individual could see through this propaganda. The issue wasn't ever about the right to wiretapp terrrorist suspects. The issue was OVERSIGHT! I want the government to be able to conduct surveillance on people who might be suspected of plotting terrorist attacks against innocent people. I just want a court to determine whether there is "probable cause" to conduct that survellance. Thats the issue.

Now the Republicans are putting forth a plan:

The Republican proposal would give Congressional approval to the eavesdropping program much as it was secretly authorized by Mr. Bush after the 2001 terrorist attacks, with limited notification to a handful of Congressional leaders. The N.S.A. would be permitted to intercept the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people in the United States if there was "probable cause to believe that one party to the communication is a member, affiliate, or working in support of a terrorist group or organization," according to a written summary of the proposal issued by its Republican sponsors. The finding of probable cause would not be reviewed by any court.

This plan would allow the president to conduct warrantless wiretapping for 45 days instead of previously just 3 days. Is this supposed to be an improvement? The Republican led Congress has shamefully become a rubber stamp for the President.

If International law applied to the United States.

TKeck — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:24:47 EST

I was listening to KPFK this morning, a progressive radio station on the west coast. Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman was on the air with professor of International law Phillipe Sands (University of London). Professor Sands talked about the landmark Pinochet case in which the former Chiliean head of state was arrested in Spain on the grounds of crimes against humanity, including 94 counts of torture. The importance of this case was that, a head of state had been arrested in a foreign country, for crimes committed against his own people and spanish citizens without support from the host country (Chile). Eventually, Pinochet returned to Chile after living lavisingly under "house arrest," for "health" reasons but the case established the fact that heads of state are not immune from trial for breaches of the law while serving as a head of state.

Turning towards the contemporary, Sands was touting his new book "Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules." Basically he layed out the case that members of the Bush administration may suffer a similiar fate if traveling abroad after their term in office is over. This is based off the principle of universal jurisdiction, a belief that certain crimes are so terrible that any court may have jurisdiction in prosecution. This sounds very similiar to precedents from the UNOCAL case , based off the 1789 Alien Tort Statue. Its not that these cases were similiar, but rather the precedents in international law are similar, that national boundaries does not give immunities to persons or companies for grave crimes. This should be seen in a positive light by those in favor of strenghtening international law and justice. For a more in depth legal insight, turn here.

Turning back to the original scenario. Is it possible that members of the Bush administration could be prosecuted for crimes akin to Pinochet's? Probably not. While the Bush Administration is surely responsible for torture and flagrant human righs violations, Bush is unlike Pinochet in two respects. The Bush administration is far more powerful and his crimes dont compare with Pinochet. I think is intellectually dishonest to claim they were similiar crinimals. That said, the best case that could be made by a foreign court is Alberto Gonzales infamous memo claiming that the Geneva Conventions dont apply to non-combatants. The point of Sand's talk was to illustrate the hypocriscy of the United States in claiming that other countries must abide by international law, while the Bush Administration disregards basic rights, such as humane treatment and a fair trial. In the end, perhaps Bush administration officials would be prosecuted for their crimes if I believed international law applied to the United States in the same way it applies to less powerful states.

Is this the beginning of the end for women's reproductive rights?

TKeck — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:14:12 EST

Yesterday, the South Dakota legislature passed a law that will bring the state back to pre-1973 limits on reproductive rights, banning all abortion except when a threat to a woman's health. That is, if the law is not struck down by the supreme court as it should be. Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, is already planning a lawsuit if Governor Michael Rounds doesn't veto the bill.

In reality, vis-a-vis state laws, getting an abortion has become more difficult in many "red" states such as Mississippi. Many states have made incremenetal changes curbing a woman's right to choose. Given our new supreme court justices, this step is clearly a challenge to the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe V. Wade. Could this be the beginning of the end? Irregardless of how you feel about abortion, we cannot move backwards. Even my passionately pro-life mother knows that we cannot set back the clock on women's rights.

Bolton nominated for Nobel Peace Prize.

TKeck — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:08:16 EST

So I heard this piece of news this week and just now found the time to check this out. In fact, John Bolton and Kenneth Timmeran (author of "Countdown to Crisis:The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran") have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Does anyone else think its odd that the man who wants to destroy the UN was nominated for a nobel peace prize?

Link

On Coretta Scott King's Funeral

TKeck — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:15:48 EST

This may sound crude or crass, but what the hell were the Bush's doing at Coretta's Scott King's funeral? Does anybody think they care about racism, poverty or stopping war? Of course not, yet these were the very issues which defined the King family. I felt the same way, when Bush spoke on MLK's birthday. I mean come on, anyone can see its a PR move. The republican party is attempting to reach out to the black vote, which has no reason to vote republican. Only 10% of African-Americans voted for Bush in the last election.

And then republicans have the nerve to call Joseph Lowery's comments innapropriate and disrespectful. Apparently, it was inpolite to remember the politics of a VERY political family, and one that stood in stark contrast to the politics of the Bush Administration. Its fine if the Bush family wants to make an appearance, its just ridiculous that the republicans are complaining that the president was made to feel uncomfortable. After all, it was SOMEBODY ELSE'S service, and that somebody had a social conscience and a sense of compassion--something the president has yet to develop.

On the Palestinian Elections

TKeck — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:29:47 EST

Now that the votes have been tallied and the editorials written in most major newspapers, I will add my two cents on the elections. I just don't see it as that bad.

After all, Arafat's party did not spring up nonviolently. As an organization Hamas is far better organized, more populist and less corrupt than Fatah. Over and over, people are quoted acknowledging that Hamas is "closer" to the people with its financial and social support. However, with that support comes a theocratic agenda and its violent revolutionary rhetoric/actions.

But, now that Hamas has gained a parliamentary majority, the party must look to politics to solve their problems. If Hamas continues to call for the destruction of Israel, the party leadership will have squandered the enormous opportunity given to them. Due to the stict structure of Hamas, arguably, violence will be easier to control IF there is the political will to control it.

If Hamas chooses the path of moderation, thereby renouncing its call for the destruction of Israel and pledging its support for a peaceful two state solution, the ball will have succesfully moved to the Israeli's court. Then it will be up to the Labor party and Kadima (Sharon's new party) to back up their words with actions.

Of course, I understand this is a somewhat glossy summarization, but I would be curious to know what everyone thinks about the impact of the elections.

Bush low-balls Iraqi civilian casualties.

TKeck — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:54:25 EST

Its almost become trite to criticize the President on his lack of clarity, lack of exit strategy and overall incompetence in performing his job. But its also important that we counter the various untruths coming from the white house. So here goes.

In a speech at the World Affairs Council this morning, Bush was asked how many Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the war. Bush replied confidently "about 30,000 more or less..." Probably a bit more. Everyone remembers the study released by The Lancet (british medical journal) last year which stated that 100,000 civilians had been killed mostly from airstrikes. The Lancet study.

Framing the Wal-Mart Debate

TKeck — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:34:49 EST

Inside the war room in Little Rock, corporate management of the largest retailer in the world has discovered that it's not always that great to be at top. Hailed by business-minded journals, Business Week and The Economist for its "competitive business strategy" and criticized by virtually anyone who doesn't vehemently hate unions--Wal-Mart execs are understandably worried. As the charges continue to mount, one has to wonder, can ordinary citizens really change the way Wal-Mart conducts business? I am sure most are familiar with Wal-Mart's business practices, but here's a brief summary of a couple issues with Wal-Mart.

The most disturbing charge facing Wal-Mart is its contribution to the health care crisis. As early as 2003, documents surfaced indicating that Wal-Mart encouraged employees to apply for food stamps and Medicaid--a charge Wal-Mart corporate denies. Less than half of Wal-Mart employees are covered by Wal-Mart's health care program compared to 66% (nationally) of employees at large corporations.

Wal-Mart has also made it harder for employees to gain health care coverage, requiring full time employees to wait six months to be eligible for the company plan. Part-time employees are required to wait two years before becoming eligible for the plan--which excludes family members (for part-timers). Now is the time to point out that Wal-Mart considers workers part time if they work under 34 hours a week. The average cashier works twenty-nine hours a week at approximately $7.92 an hour bringing in roughly $11,948, well under the poverty line for a family of one adult and a child. Moreover, Wal-Mart's plan has gradually shifted the cost to the employee, now requiring the employee to pay 42 percent of the costs. On average, employees at large corporations pay 16 percent of the costs of health care.

All the evidence says that Wal-Mart doesn't want to cover its employees, and wants somebody else to shoulder the burden. As a result, many Wal-Mart employees are forced to turn to state health care or ignore health care for more pressing needs--like food and housing costs. A study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at Berkeley, found that California taxpayers subsidized 20.5 million dollars of medical care for Wal-Mart in California alone.

Low wages are also an issue. The average wage at Wal-Mart is approximately eight dollars an hour, compared to the national average of $10.16, for large retailers. Combined with low wages, associates are hard pressed to get full time work. In an effort to drive down costs, managers are pushed exceedingly hard to hit yearly growth quotas set by Wal-Mart, while similarly cutting costs. As such, Wal-Mart prefers to hire more workers under the part-time label, rather than fewer full time workers. Under this model, fewer workers are eligible for the company health-care plan and wage costs are reduced.

But cutting costs doesn't stop at reducing the hours employees work like many other corporations. In a rare moment in 2001, Wal-Mart settled by paying $50 million dollars to Colorado employees to settle a class-action lawsuit maintaining Wal-Mart had an unofficial policy that required employees to finish work off the clock. Similar charges of unpaid overtime work have prompted employees to sue in New Mexico, Texas, Minnesota, Oregon and California. One manager in Oregon testified in court that she was forced to delete hours from employee time sheets for six years. Similar depositions and documents released to the press seem to bolster the idea that pressure exerted from the top is at the root of the problem. Of course, there are other issues with Wal-Mart, including its practices of unequal opportunities for women and people of color. Currently pending is a class action lawsuit, Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, which represents 1.6 million women on grounds of sexual discrimination. Child labor violations and Wal-Mart's support for sweatshops in China are also at issue.

As the largest retailer and company in the world, Wal-Mart is setting a terrible trend for labor practices. Responsible businesses find it exceedingly difficult if not impossible to compete with the Wal-Mart, which is leading to what is now being called the "Wal-Martization" of jobs in rich countries. This includes a pro-corporate, anti-union business model. Power is consolidated at the top, while breaking the back of unions is the goal. Witness the unsuccessful attempt by workers at supermarkets in California last year in demanding that employers shoulder a greater burden of the company healthcare plan.

What did Wal-Mart have to do with this? Everything. Many companies similar to Wal-Mart are finding they must begin to drastically reduce costs or risk becoming uncompetitive. In fact, I would argue the larger problem is not Wal-Mart's business practices, but the effect Wal-Mart is having on the U.S. labor market as well as the global economy. This is the context people should really be framing the problem, as it will eliminate the often used response of any criticism of Wal-Mart: that is "Wal-Mart employees have a choice in their employment." Yes, but this response doesn't address the larger problem of how to deal with stagnant wages, rising inequalities..etc. In framing the problem this way we can truly begin to address some of the problems Wal-Mart has created.

By the way, I would recommend anyone who hasn't see Robert Greenwald's film "Wal-Mart: the high cost of low price" to check it out. The LA times and the New Yorker have given it bad reviews, but I thought it was a good documentary--not perfect--but good.

Put an end to this rubbish

TKeck — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:37:12 EST

Progessives should unite to defeat an intellectually dishonest argument currently in the public discourse. The argument that "we need to fight the terrorists over there so that we dont have to fight them on our soil." Rubbish. I heard some guy from Arkansas say this on C-SPAN this morning and just about died. The reason this statement aggravates me so much, ESPECIALLY when used by a public representative, is that it is just not a true statement, nor does it even understand terrorism.

The suicide bombers in the middle east are not some monolithic entity (just like communists weren't). You can't lump all terrorists into the same category, because their motivations and goals are often much different. Simply put, terrorism is a tactic. For instance, Hamas, the Tamil Tigers, Chechen rebel groups and the IRA are all groups which have used terror, but are not collaboratively working together. Of course, it goes without saying (but i will say it anyways), state or group violence against innocent people is never justified.

No matter how much the Bush Administration wishes it, the "war on terror" is not WWII. We will probably have to live with terrorism the rest of our lives, because as I said, terrorism is a tactic. Terrorism can not be militarily defeated, because its proponents are not a monolithic entity nor is there a finite number of terrorists. This is why the only way to end terrorism is to address the root causes... through politics. By no means do I suggest coddling or catering to the needs of people who cut off journalists heads. These people should be held accountable. But at some point, people need to realize that terrorism manifests from resentment and grievances that people have with the west.

These grievances may not always be entirely accurate or fair, and surely some people may just follow others like lemmings. But, I would imagine, American hypocriscy concering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Bush Administration's arrogant foreign policy and documented evidence of torture by the military may be creating more people likely to use terrorism against Americans. If we really want to end terrorism, we should start with these issues.

Recasting Sovereignty at the UN

TKeck — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:45:49 EDT

Part of the reform package adopted by member states at the UN summit several weeks ago included the new doctrine known as "The Responsibility to Protect." This new doctrine is supposed to shore up the power and iniatitive of the UN in confronting the most prescient threat to humanity--namely genocide.

Under "the responsibility to protect" the international community assumes the right and responsibility of protecting a targeted population from ethnic cleansing, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, if the country whose nationals are being targeted fails to protect their citizens. This is major departure from absolute-westphalian sovereignty of the past ( note: it is quite obvious that sovereignty hasn't been considered absolute for a long time). Moreover, while legitimate collective security should be attempted through the security council, it is not necessary for intervention. Bascially, the doctrine endorsed a coalition of the willing if consensus could not be reached in the Security Council. This was the basic thrust of the concept of the doctrine when I read it in Foreign Affairs.

Yet, the pledge in the UN reform package has changed since the original idea in Foreign Affairs. The new pledge places much more emphasis on the United Nations as the proper entity for intervention. It came out looking like this:

The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapter VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to help states build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assist those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

Many have said, this declaration marks a turning point--for now the world must take responsibility for crimes committed outside our borders. Many say this declaration gives the UN the teeth to stand tall in the face of genocide.

Really? According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), all signatories have and still have an OBLIGATION to stop genocide whenver it occurs. That legislation has been in effect for over half a century. While I agree with the central thrust of the "responsibility to protect," I am somewhat skeptical that it could remain just an ideal to be lived up to and/or badly abused for advancing narrow national interests. Ideally, it will unite the world to take action and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe before it occurs.

I would be interested to know what others think of this reform.

A U.S. Department of Peace

TKeck — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:52:35 EDT

On September 14, Congressman Dennis Kucinich will introduce legislation for the establishment of a U.S. Deparment of Peace. This would be similiar to the State deparment-except that the goals of a Department of Peace would be to promote peaceful interaction instead of U.S interests. This legislation has some well known endorsements-Jonathan Schell (The Nation), Patch Adams, Walter Cronkite, John Conyers (D-MI; also well known for his work on introducing a resolution of inquiry on the Downing Street Memo). When I first heard of this legislation, I chuckled slightly at the Orwellian sounding name for this proposed insitution. After I took a look at the reasons for such an institution and read the legislation, it sounded relatively good.

Why? War and violence are not necessarily norms of human nature. Significant research in the fields of conflict resolution, peace studies and political psychology show that there are ways to address the root causes of war and violence. This department would focus on non-violent methods of international conflict resolution by addressing problems before violence materializes, promote international disarmament, seek to address domestic violence, promote a rehabilitation program for our prisons, promote human rights and democratic principles. One interesting part of this legislation is that this deparment would be tied in with the Secretary of Labor to address domestic socio-economic inequalities. This is significant as much research points to poverty as a leading contributor to domestic violence.

Here is the website: Link. I think this may take years to pass, but I do believe-with persistence-this could pass. The United States has always been a great country to live in--but anyone who has ever taken a serious look at our history knows that we have and continue to fall short of our ideals. This department only asks for a modest budget, just 1% of the budget for the DOD. We spend 400 billion dollars on war. You would think we can take a small fraction of that and work on innovative methods of addressing problems without violence-both at home and abroad. Then we might truly become the shining city on the hill.

If you do agree with this, please write or call your congressperson and ask for their support in the next few days.

The role of an Opposition Party

TKeck — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:37:32 EDT

Imagine for a second that the situation was reversed. The Democrats had the presidency and the majority in Congress. But the Iraq situation is the same...daily sucide bombings, a stagnant political process and sectarian conflict. And like Bush, the democratic president refused to change course-was unwilling to acknowledge the the public opposition to the war. What would the Republicans do? Would the Republicans continue to back such a war? I doubt it. This is the only thing I envy about the Republican party: backbone. I only wish Republicans would use it for legitimate and just causes.

It is time for the Democratic party to become the party of opposition. Bush's polls are at the lowest since the great depression-lower than Nixon's! In 2006, the democratic party should put phased withdrawal of American forces on its platform. We need unified opposition to a war that was wrong to begin with and continues to remain wrong. Calling for more troops to put down the insurgency refuses to acknowledge, that the harsh reality of a brutal occupation is the main recruiter for the insurgents. We know that the insurgency is likely to continue for years. Does that mean we will continue to supply and lose more American youth--and Iraqi civilians to a senseless and fabricated war?

Bush says we will stand down, when the Iraqis stand up. The reality is we need to set a timetable. We cannot occupy Iraq forever. If the democratic parrty wants to continue as a national party, its about time for some leadership. For all democratic members of Congress up for re-election or taking on a republican incumbent, run on a campaign to be a part of a coalition willing to cut funding for Iraq if President Bush does not begin withdrawing troops.

Global poverty threatens international security

TKeck — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:41:06 EDT

Everyone should know this. It's almost a platitude. But the problem still exists. UNDP estimates that one billion people live on a dollar a day. Sam Walton died worth almost 20 billion dollars. There is something wrong with this picture.

The UN released a report yesterday called "The Inequality Predicament" which basically said that the global inequality is increasing. Furthermore, ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council) predicted a rise in national and international violence due to stark inequalities and competition over depleting resources. The report advocated a solution which progressives should largely agree with: greater access to markets, social services and resources for those living in poverty coupled with economic development programs tailored to national needs. But focusing entirely on market solutions is NOT an option as this will only create greater disparities.

This our generations cause. The only people who will be able to change this situation are the people within developed countries whose interests arent already tied in with the wealthy and powerful. Thats us! I am not entirely sure the best approach to this cause, but I think it starts with the middle class in develped countries finding solidarity with the dispossed and impoverished. I am not just talking about the impoverished in developing countries too. An even greater incentive is that our security may depend on finding a soution to this moral catastrophe.

September 24: A turning point?

TKeck — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:25:44 EDT

United for Peace and Justice is spearheading the march on Washington on September 24, in a renewed attempt to wake up Americans and Congress that Iraq is a quagmire. Most major cities will also host their own antiwar rallies, including one in my own San Diego. But apparently, Americans have turned already. For the first time, polls consistently show a sustained majority against the war and believing that initial justification were wrong. This is HUGE for the antiwar movement. So what next?
Bush has already stated publicly he doesn't care what the people think. Like a lemming, he continues to say we must "stay the course." In reality, Bush is out of time. Once swayed by Bush's emotional appeals to spreading freedom, the public now seems to have an immunity Bush's loaded propaganda. Many say it depends on the Republicans now. Which position will they take? Will 08' hopefuls take a position against the president or "ride the coattails of the President" as one pundit put it recently. Actually, it depends on the Democrats.
September 24 has the potential of being a turning point if the democrats stand opposed to the war. I am not talking about progressive leaders such as Kucinich or Ted Kennedy (these people are still important), but rather the ones who voted for the war--'08' hopefuls such as Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. If prominent leaders took a stand against the war, I believe it would bring more people to embrace the democratic party to take back Congress in 2006 and potentially the presidency in '08. For all intensive purposes the war is already over. Its time to go.