Chart showing the generally four-court judicial court system in China.

The New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch issued its World Report 2012 on Jan 22, observing China’s human rights conditions from angles of defendant rights, judicial reform, freedom of speech and religious freedom. The report seriously lacks in objectivity and impartiality. Its conclusion intentionally distorts China’s human rights conditions. Its observation of China’s judicial reform is extremely inconsistent with facts and one-sided.

The report says the public security departments dominate the criminal justice system and rely excessively on the defendant’s confession. The weak courts and seriously limited rights of defense mean forced confession is still universal and judicial partiality is common. This is serious distortion.

It is known that China’s criminal justice system is not controlled by public security departments, but consists of investigation and procuratorial organs as well as people’s courts. China’s Criminal Procedural Law clearly stipulates the labor distribution among the three parties. They work with and check against one another.

The proposal for prosecution by public security departments must be examined by procuratorial organs before it is recommended to the court to initiate a public prosecution. The public prosecution of the investigating organs must go through the court’s open and fair trial, during which the defendant’s opinions and all kinds of testimony must be verified, before becoming part of the court’s decision.

In this process, it is common for the procuratorial organs to require public security departments to file a case (or not), the procuratorial organs decide to prosecute (or not), and the people’s courts declare the accused guilty (or not). These possibilities all restrict the power of public security departments.

In judicial practices, public security departments must follow or respond to the procuratorial organs’ procuratorial proposals and supervision of filing a criminal case. According to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s work report to the National People’s Congress in 2011, all procuratorial organs proposed 33,863 times and cases to correct the public security departments’ illegal practices of investigation.

The number of cases in which the procuratorial organs do not ratify an arrest, do not prosecute, withdraw a lawsuit, and the people’s courts decide the accused innocent, is increasing proportionally year by year. All of these actions are restricting the public security departments’ power effectively.

Besides, according to the seventh article of the Regulation on Exclusion of Illegal Evidence issued in June 2011, if the courts are doubtful of the legitimacy of the defendants’ confessions obtained before trial, the courts can insist that the questioners take the stand in courts. All these examples prove that China’s criminal justice system is not controlled by the public security departments. It is an integral system made up of the three parties, each with clear duties, with the people’s courts’ rights of sentencing and measurement of penalty as the core.

Excessive dependence on defendants’ confessions is decreasing remarkably. The role and rights of defense counsels are increasing steadily. Forced confession is strictly forbidden. The regulations on the exclusion of illegal evidence and on evidence in death penalty cases issued in June 2010, as well as the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law released in Aug 2011, all reflect important progress in the protection of human rights. But the Human Rights Watch report fabricates and speculates on “an article of secret detention” of the draft amendment, which no longer exists.

In fact the draft amendment issued in August 2011 includes an article about notice of detention. That is big progress compared with related articles of the law in 1996. According to the 84th article of the draft amendment, the public security departments must present detention warrants when detaining anyone, who should be sent to the detention center within 24 hours after being detained. The detained person’s family should be notified about the detention reason and the detention center location within 24 hours after detention, except for serious crimes such as those endangering national security, terrorist crimes. There are exceptions, if it is impossible to notify, or if the notice may obstruct investigation.

The 64th article of the Criminal Procedural Law of 1996 only stipulated that the public security departments must present detention warrants while detaining anyone. The detained person’s family or work units should be noticed about the detention reason and detention center within 24 hours after detention, except if it is impossible to notify, or the notice may obstruct investigation. This amendment of the 84th article is just to strengthen the public security departments’ obligation to notify and protect the suspects’ families’ rights to know.

The report of Human Rights Watch does not mention progress in the draft amendment at all and only fabricates non-existent misleading articles.

In the draft amendment, forced confession is prevented; exclusion of illegal evidence and its procedure are added, standard of proof of criminal procedure is clarified; the definition of “social danger” is clarified; the obligation of persons obtaining guarantor pending trial is regulated to lower detention rate; designated monitored residence can be converted to prison term; technical investigation is authorized and regulated; the recording system in inquest is strengthened, investigation defense system is formed and clarified, the number of remand for retrial is limited, the criminal reconciliation procedure is clarified; the system of sealing up criminal record of juvenile crimes and deferred prosecution is regulated; mental illness treatment procedure is regulated, and inspection and supervision of implementation are strengthened.

These active changes reflect the main progress in China’s judicial reform in 2011. Compared with the former one in 1996, more than 60 articles are added and more than 90 articles are amended in the draft amendment.

Remarkable breakthroughs in judicial reform have been made in 2011 in measurement of penalty, State compensation, mediation, trial management and implementation procedure. It is a pity the report of Human Rights Watch turned a blind eye to all these positive steps and Chinese authorities’ effort to promote judicial reforms, and only focuses on some non-existent articles.

The author is with the Law School of Nankai University.

Source

Members of the All Workers' Militant Front (PAME) protesting outside the Athens hotel where the delegation of troika is located.

On 25/1 at the crack of the dawn the All Workers’ Militant Front (PAME) carried out a dynamic protest in Athens outside the hotel where the delegation of the troika is staying and called on the working people to rise up against the government, the plutocracy and their allies. The protesters of PAME blocked the central entrance of the hotel and shouted slogans from the loudspeakers expressing the opposition of the workers and the people to the policy that leads them to bankruptcy and impoverishment.

This symbolic protest took place in parallel with the fraudulent “social dialogue” between the unions of the employers and the compromised leaderships of the trade unions which takes place in line with the demands of the troika and the coalition government (social democrats, right-wingers, nationalists). As the class oriented trade union movement has denounced, the dialogue aims at the further deterioration of the labour relations, by means of abolishing sectoral collective bargaining agreements and the reduction of the worker’s income in the name of the “competitiveness” of the economy.

The protesters carried out a symbolic action as they removed and burned the flag of the EU which was outside the hotel. The mobilization was warmly received by the people who were passing by hotel. Police forces arrived upon the request of troika that demanded the intervention of the public prosecutor so that they could leave the hotel. Nevertheless, the intimidation efforts failed.

Escalation of the struggle with the general strike

In its statement on the meeting of the so called “social partners” the Executive Secretariat of PAME stresses: “the majority in GSEE has criminal responsibilities. Once again it participates in the dialogue with its partners, SEV (Hellenic Federation of Enterprises), GSEBEE and ESEE (unions of large-scale retailers). The working people must say no the dialogue-fraud. They should not trust the leadership of GSEE which is about to agree with SEV in the name of competitiveness (…)The statements concerning “red lines” are a big deception. They were saying the same thing in previous dialogues while at the same time they were digging the grave of the workers (…).Workers, everyone with PAME for a general strike at the beginning of February, for the escalation of the struggle against the plundering of our income”.

Labour Centers and Federations are already taking decisions for a strike at the beginning of February.

The International Relations Section of KKE

Source

President Obama during State of the Union address, Jan. 24

“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 1998

“America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs—and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.” President Barack Obama, State of the Union message, 2012

President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union message is an object lesson in contemporary U.S. class politics. Obama came into office three years ago on a wave of progressive hopes and even euphoria, very understandable given the bitter history of racism in this country and the fact that he was taking the place of his widely despised predecessor, George W. Bush.

What the last three years as well as this speech have reaffirmed is that, regardless of the particular personality or characteristics of the person assuming the U.S. presidency, it is a job that comes with a specific job description: CEO of the imperialist ruling class.

For militarism and chauvinism, combined with empty liberal rhetoric, President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union message would be hard to beat. That it was lavished with uncritical praise by liberal Democratic Party units like MoveOn.org—an allegedly “anti-war” group—was just another reminder that 2012 is an election year.

The president began by hailing the U.S. war on Iraq, a war he supposedly opposed when he was candidate Obama in 2008. Back then he was perceived by millions as the “peace candidate,” a critical element in his election victory.

“Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq,” said Obama. “Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought—and several thousand gave their lives. We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.”

Really?

In fact, the war in Iraq largely destroyed a country that posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Millions of Iraqis were killed, wounded or forced into exile and its society torn to shreds. Not only did thousands of U.S. soldiers die in a war fought on entirely false pretenses, hundreds of thousands more suffered severe physical and psychological wounds. The total cost of the war will exceed $3 trillion—$3,000,000,000,000.

Obama portrayed the Afghanistan war as another impending success: “The Taliban’s momentum has been broken. …” Even his top advisers, however, view the war as a stalemate, one where the U.S.—despite more than three decades of inflicting devastation on Afghanistan—cannot achieve a military victory.

He lauded the NATO overthrow of the government in Libya and predicted a similar outcome in Syria. But, of course, not a hint of criticism of the absolute monarchies that rule Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries in the Gulf.

Continuing his triumphalist world tour: “Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al-Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.”

US targets China

“We’ve made it clear that America [sic] is a Pacific power.” The primary target of the U.S. military buildup in Asia is China. The anti-China campaign is economic as well: “We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration. Tonight I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China.”

Near the end of his remarks, Obama celebrated the damage that “crippling sanctions” are having on the Iranian people, and once again threatened Iran with military attack, including the use of nuclear weapons: “America [sic] is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

Regarding the only country in the Middle East that actually possesses nuclear weapons, the president declared: “Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.” Not even the usual ritual mention of the Palestinians this time around.

In between his imperialistic international pronouncements, the president lamented about the difficulties of life for workers without jobs and students burdened by high-interest debt, and called on employers, universities and Congress to do better. He spent a good deal of time advocating a “fairer” tax system. But he projected no actual new programs.

When it came to helping Big Oil, it was a very different story: “Tonight I’m directing my administration to open up more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.” In addition he expressed unambiguous support for “fracking,” the extremely hazardous extraction of gas from underground shale rock by blasting it apart using massive amounts of water and chemicals. Fracking has polluted water supplies, has sickened many people and recently has caused earthquakes in non-quake-prone areas.

While on the one hand calling for “comprehensive immigration reform” and something like the Dream Act, he boasted of stepping up the militarization of the border with Mexico: “That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.”

Financial crimes go unpunished

Following more lamenting about bad things done by Wall Street and the big banks that led to the financial/economic crisis, what seemed to excite loyal Democrats more than anything else was this announcement by Obama: “We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender.”

But these two sentences raise more than a few questions, starting with, “What took so long?” followed by, “What—there is no real penalty for financial firms that repeatedly violate major anti-fraud laws?”

President Obama took office as the biggest financial/economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s was breaking. Countless articles and whole books dissecting widespread fraud, particularly in the multi-trillion-dollar mortgage banking business, have been written. Virtually none of those who reaped immense profits from these fraudulent operations have gone to jail or even lost their fortunes. The famous exception is Bernie Madoff, who made the mistake of stealing mainly from the rich.

There is no particular reason to believe that three years later, the“Financial Crimes Unit” is anything but another election ploy. Under capitalism, all are not equal before the law. The “justice system” is administered by the rich against the rest.

Echoing the words of Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s war-mongering secretary of state from 1997 to 2001, Obama thundered: “America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs—and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.” The implication, of course, is that all other countries and nations in the world are … dispensable.

Source

There is growing apprehension that through miscalculation, deliberate provocation or a staged false flag operation, a U.S. war with Iran is imminent.

The dangerous combination of top U.S. officials’ public threats, the Pentagon’s massive military deployment, continued drone flights and industrial sabotage against Iran provides an ominous warning. The corporate media have been more than willing to cheer industrial sabotage, computer viruses and targeted assassinations. War maneuvers with Israel scheduled for mid-January were suddenly postponed Jan. 15 until May or later.

The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly voted to include binding provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, and President Obama signed the legislation Dec. 31 ordering Iran’s economic strangulation. These NDAA provisions demand that every other country in the world joins this economic blockade of Iran or face U.S. sanctions themselves. This itself is an act of war.

Iran has directly charged the CIA for the Jan. 11 assassination of physicist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, which has outraged Iranians. Roshan is the fourth scientist killed in five targeted assassinations in two years.

Whether or not a war will actually erupt, it is essential to look at the powerful forces that lay the groundwork for such a conflagration.

A U.S. war would kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and create region-wide destabilization. It would cause a wild, speculative hike in oil and gas prices, devastating fragile economies of the poorest countries and unhinging the increasingly shaky Eurozone.

Revolutionary Marxists like Fidel Castro, political leaders in China and Russia, and even a hardened Israeli general have joined many political commentators to warn that a U.S. or U.S.-supported Israeli attack on Iran could quickly become a far wider war. While defending its sovereign right to develop energy self-sufficiency, Tehran has made every effort to deflect U.S. threats and charges. Iran has submitted to years of intrusive inspections of its research and industrial facilities to confirm its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But Washington insists on stopping Iran’s development — and not only its nuclear energy development to assure its future as oil production declines. For decades Iran was forced to import refined oil. Washington has tried to stop Iran from importing parts to build oil refineries, as it has tried to stop all Iran’s development since the 1979 revolution.

The myth of stimulus from war

David Broder, Washington Post political correspondent for 40 years and news show pundit, described in an Oct. 31, 2010, article how Obama could deal with his weakened situation when the Republicans swept Congress. He argued that to fix the economy and regain popularity, the solution is obvious and unavoidable: “War with Iran.”

Broder had more than 400 appearances on “Meet the Press.” He even won a Pulitzer Prize. Broder could be counted on to reflect political thinking and planning in Washington. Only the war machine can pull the U.S. out of economic stagnation, Broder argued.

“Look back at FDR and the Great Depression,” wrote Broder. “What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II. [A showdown with the mullahs] will help [Obama] politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

Upon Broder’s death in March, Obama called him “the most respected and incisive political commentator of his generation.” (New York Times, March 9)

Broder’s statement shows an absolutely criminal mindset. It also shows a dangerous illusion. Broder calmly proposed the murder of tens of thousands of people, the devastation of entire cities, the destruction of a whole culture as a temporary economic fix to win a U.S. election.

Others commentators just as coldly argued with Broder that war with Iran would not be large enough, because all the weapons needed already exist and are in place. So no surge of military orders would follow. A larger war would be needed to give a big enough push!

In 1939 reviving shuttered U.S. steel, rubber and textile clothing plants with government orders for tanks, ships, jeeps, helmets, uniforms and life vests for sale to Europe was a big stimulus. The entry of the U.S. into World War II in 1941 provided an enormous surge of productive capacity that pulled the U.S. economy out of a 10-year economic depression. What worked as an economic stimulus 70 years ago, before the existence of the gargantuan, bloated, high-tech
military-industrial complex, is long past.

Today the U.S. has a military machine and a military budget larger than that of the rest of the world combined, exceeding $1 trillion a year in stated and hidden costs, even without another war. It is guaranteed to grow at a rate of 5 percent to 10 percent a year. This is built into the Pentagon’s budget projections even without cost overruns.

World won’t bow to U.S. dictates

Washington’s plans to easily conquer Afghanistan and Iraq and set up stable puppet regimes were frustrated. The U.S. plan for economic war on Iran has also exposed U.S. weaknesses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner launched a tour of East Asian nations in early January to convince south Korea, China, India and Japan to cut their massive Iranian oil imports and abide by the sanctions.

China and India — both major economies — refused directly. China buys a third of Iran’s oil exports.

The Obama administration said that the U.S. would offer countries that applied for a temporary waiver to continue oil purchases from Iran while they made other arrangements. An Indian cabinet minister said India will continue to do business with Iran. South Korea said it would apply for a U.S. waiver because it planned to increase oil purchases from Iran.

Japanese officials, when meeting with Geithner, seemed to agree. But after his departure Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba backtracked, saying, “The United States would like to impose sanctions. We believe it is necessary to be extremely circumspect about this matter.” (AFP, Jan.13)

Russia announced its refusal to comply with sanctions. So did NATO member Turkey. The European Union insisted on a six-month delay, due to fears of the economic consequences to debt-ridden Italy, Spain and Greece. The Greek government said it needs at least a year.

Saudi Arabia’s crude oil contains more sulfur than lighter Iranian oil and requires substantially higher refining costs. In a time of global capitalist recession, this added cost is no easy sell.

Even outright U.S. collaborators are refusing Washington’s demands. Pakistan, for example, refused to abandon a pipeline to transport Iranian natural gas into Pakistan and in the future even into India.

All of this would be good news. But the danger is that U.S. corporate power, seeing on every side its declining ability to ram through its dictates, is increasingly driven to military solutions.

This is exacerbated by U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan that have weakened the U.S. superpower’s dominance of Southwest Asia relative to Iran. The more the U.S. loses its grip on the region, the more desperate imperialism may become to risk all in a mad adventure to recoup its past position.

Every voice must be raised at this urgent hour against sanctions and war.

Sara Flounders is the Co-Director International Action Center, www.IACenter.org

Source

Over the last few days, the media and representatives of certain governments traditionally committed to anti-Cuba subversion have unleashed a new campaign of accusations, unscrupulously taking advantage of a lamentable event: the death of an ordinary prisoner, which possibly only in the case of Cuba, is converted into news of international repercussion.

The method utilized is the same one as always: fruitlessly attempting, through repetition, to demonize Cuba, in this case through the deliberate manipulation of an incident which is absolutely exceptional in this country.

This so-called political prisoner was serving a four-year sentence after a fair legal process during which he was at liberty and a trial in accordance with the law, for a brutal physical attack on his wife in public and violent resistance to arrest by police agents.

This man died from multi-organ failure due to an acute respiratory infection, despite having received appropriate medical attention, including specialized medication and treatment in the intensive care room of Santiago de Cuba’s principal hospital.

Why did Spanish authorities and certain members of the European Union hasten to condemn Cuba without any investigation into the incident? Why do they always utilize pre-fabricated lies in the context of Cuba? Why, in addition to lying, do they censor the truth? Why is the voice and truth about Cuba openly denied the smallest space in the international media?

They are acting both cynically and hypocritically. How would they describe the recent manifestations of police brutality in Spain and a large part of “educated and civilized” Europe against the indignados movement?

Why is there no concern over the dramatic situation of overcrowding in Spanish jails with a high immigrant population – in excess of 35% of total prisoners in the country – according to the most recent report by the ACAIP prison union, dated April 3, 2010?

Who has made any effort to investigate the death in July of 2011 in the Spanish penitentiary of Teruel, of Tohuami Hamdaoui, an ordinary prisoner of Moroccan origin after a hunger strike of several months? Who has reflected the fact that he has insisted he is innocent?

Has the Chilean spokesperson slandering us by asserting that the dead man was a political dissident on his 50th day of hunger strike lost his memory and sense of reality? He must remember his days as a student leader linked to Pinochet’s troops, who massacred Chileans and instituted disappearances and torture throughout the Southern Cone via Plan Condor, while there have been no statements about the harsh repression of students peacefully demonstrating in defense of the human right to universal and free education. Is he one of those who supported re-labeling the Pinochet dictatorship a military regime in school textbooks? Has he made any statement about the repressive and arbitrary Anti-Terrorist Law implemented against Mapuche prisoners on hunger strike?

The United States government, the principal instigator of any effort to discredit Cuba in order to justify its policy of hostility, subversion and the economic, political and media blockade of Cuba, could not be missing from this campaign.

The hypocrisy of spokespersons for the United States, a country with a poor human rights record at home and abroad, is staggering. The UN Human Rights Council has acknowledged frequent serious violations in this country of women’s rights, in the treatment of persons, racial and ethnic discrimination, inhuman conditions in prisons, neglect of inmates, a differentiated racial standard and frequent judicial errors in imposing capital punishment, and the execution of minors and the mentally ill. This is compounded by abuses of the migratory detention system, deaths along the militarized southern border, atrocious acts against human dignity and the killing of innocent civilians by U.S. army troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, not to mention arbitrary detentions and acts of torture perpetrated in the illegally occupied Guantánamo Naval Base.

It is barely known that three people died in the United States last November 2011 during a mass hunger strike of prisoners in California. According to testimonies from prisoners in adjoining cells, prison guards offered no assistance whatsoever and ignored their cries for help, as opposed to the abusive practice of force feeding hunger strikers.

A few weeks previously, African American Troy Davis was executed despite a large body of evidence demonstrating legal errors in his case. The White House and the Department of State did nothing about this case.

A total of 90 prisoners have been executed since January 2010 to date in the United States, while a further 3,220 remain on death row. The government frequently brutally represses those who dare to expose injustices within the system.

This new attack on Cuba is clearly politically motivated and has nothing to do with legitimate concerns for the lives of Cuban men and women. It is fuelled by the complicity of the financial-media corporations such as the Prisa Group and the corporation running CNN en Espanol, in the finest style of the Miami Mafia. It is irrationally accusing the Cuban government without having made any investigation into the facts. Condemnation and judgment are made a priori.

It is apparent from the immediate and crude response of authorities and the apparatus in the service of media aggression against Cuba that they did not even take the trouble to confirm the information. The truth is unimportant if the intention is to fabricate and sell a false image of alleged flagrant and systematic violations of civil liberties in Cuba which could one day justify an intervention in order to “protect defenseless Cuban civilians.”

The attempt to impose a distorted image of Cuba meant to indicate a notable deterioration in human rights, to construct an allegedly victimized opposition dying in prison, where health services are denied, is evident.

The humanist vocation of Cuban doctors and health personnel, who spare no effort or the country’s scant resources – to a large extent the result of the criminal 50-year blockade imposed on the Cuban people – to save lives and improve the health standards of their own people and in many other nations is well known.

Cuba is respected and admired by many peoples and governments who recognize its social undertakings at home and abroad.

Deeds speak louder than words. Anti-Cuban campaigns will not inflict any damage on the Cuban Revolution or the people, who will continue improving their socialism.

The truth of Cuba is that of a country in which human beings are most valued: a life expectancy rate at birth of 77.9 years; free health coverage for the entire population; an infant mortality rate of 4.9 per 1,000 live births, a figure exceeding that of the United States and the lowest on the continent along with Canada; a literate population with full and free access to all levels of education; 96% participation in the 2008 general elections; and a democratic process of discussion of the new economic and social guidelines prior to the 6th Congress of the Communist Party.

The truth of Cuba is that of a country which has taken its universities and schools to penitentiaries holding inmates who had fair and impartial trials, who receive the same wages for work undertaken, and enjoy high levels of medical attention without any distinction in terms of ethnicity, gender, creed or social origin.

It will be demonstrated yet again that lies, however much they are repeated, do not necessarily become truths, because, as José Martí stated, “A just principle, from the depths of a cave, can do more than an army.”

Translated by Granma International

Source

Photo taken in Bani Walid of the green flag waving, signifying supporters of now-deceased Col. Gaddafi re-capturing the Libyan city.

Fighters loyal to Muammar Gaddafi have seized back the town of Bani Walid and raised the late dictator’s green flag, in a blow to Libya’s struggling provisional government.

Reports said at least four people were killed during clashes between besieged forces loyal to the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) and armed and well-organised supporters of Gaddafi. “They control the town now. They are roaming the town,” one militia member was quoted as saying of the pro-Gaddafi fighters, according to Reuters.

Bani Walid, a former regime stronghold 110 miles south-east of Tripoli, was one of the last to succumb to pro-government forces after the capital fell in August. The latest clashes mark the most significant loyalist attack since Libya was officially “liberated” on 23 October. It appears further evidence of the NTC’s weakness, incapacity and internal divisions ahead of supposed national elections later this year.

About 30 pro-government were reported to have been injured in exchanges of fire. Mahmud Warfelli, spokesman of Bani Walid local council, said 100-150 men armed with heavy weapons launched a carefully planned attack, swiftly overwhelming the town. Soldiers from the May 28 Brigade were pinned down in a compound and the attackers took up sniper positions in a mosque and a school, preventing the pro-government fighters from helping their wounded to safety.

Warfelli said the defenders’ ammunition supplies had almost run out and he had had appealed to Tripoli and the defence ministry to send reinforcements. No help had come, he said. “We’re out of the frying pan into the fire. We’ve been warning about this for the past two months,” he said, according to AFP.

Units from the coastal city of Misrata, home to the most powerful of the government militias, scrambled armoured units towards Bani Walid with orders to block routes out of the town. Libya’s defence minister, Osama Jweli, said he would not order army units to enter until he had established whether the fighting was indeed a pro-Gaddafi uprising or a battle between rival clans. “There is conflict at Bani Walid,” Jweli told the Guardian. “For the moment we are waiting to assess the situation.”

Bani Walid was the scene of prolonged fighting last November when pro-government forces entered the town searching for war crimes suspects and battled with local militias, leaving twelve fighters dead. Skirmishes between competing militias have been common in western Libya since the Gaddafi regime was toppled last October. But the recapture of Bani Walid is something new – not least because with Gaddafi dead and his son Saif al-Islam in custody, anti-government forces have no leadership figure around whom they can unite.

The green flag of Libya’s ousted regime was reportedly flying again over many parts of the city. There were reports that the attackers were shouting the old regime slogan: “Allah, Muammar, Libya, that’s it!” They were also carrying green flags.

The NTC is supposed to be paving the way for a new constitution and democratic elections, but it has been struggling to assert its political authority. On Sunday it was due to announce a new electoral law and the composition of an election commission. The announcement was delayed after protesters ransacked the NTC’s offices in the eastern city of Benghazi, where Libya’s revolution began almost year ago.

The protesters, made up of former rebels, had been demonstrating outside the building for weeks, unhappy at the lack of transparency within the NTC and the apparent appointment of ex-Gaddafi loyalists to the ruling body. They believe that opportunists have been allowed to join the government, with some saying the NTC represents western rather than Libyan interests.

Interim officials counter that it is impossible to sack all of the officials who worked for the Gaddafi regime, and say those involved in human rights abuses and other crimes will be prosecuted.

On Sunday the NTC’s deputy leader, Abdul Hafez Ghoga, resigned after being manhandled at the protest.

Meanwhile, the international criminal court denied a claim by the Libyan justice minister, Ali Humaida Ashour, that it had agreed that the war crimes trial of Saif Al Islam would take place in Libya. The court said no decision had yet been taken.

Source

January 24, 2012

The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) today issued the following statement:

The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) joins the Filipino people in demanding that the Obama and Aquino regimes stop carrying out provocative actions in the South China Sea region. The CPP urges the Filipino people to vigorously oppose the scheduled Balikatan exercises in March where at least 500 American soldiers, US warships and jet fighters are expected to carry out military drills in the South China Sea off the coast of Palawan together with 1,000 AFP soldiers.

The US imperialist government is using ts puppet Aquino regime and the so-called “joint military exercises” with the AFP to carry out power projection operations in the South China Sea as part of its aim of claiming dominance in the crucial trade route and containing China’s growing economic and military strength. In participating in such US military actions, the Aquino government is allowing itself to be used as a pawn in the US geo-political strategy of imposing military, political and economic dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.

The upcoming anti-China Balikatan exercises in March violates the progressive policy of exercising mutual respect for national sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit. The Filipino people must struggle against the Aquino regime for allowing the US imperialists to dictate the direction of Philippine foreign policy. They should continue to intensify their struggle to abrogate unequal treaties such as the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement which allow the US to use the Philippines as a base for US military intervention in the Philippines.

About four days ago I visited Zabadani late at night after watching an Al-Arabiya report that stated thousands of so-called “Free Syrian Army” officers had taken the city. Later the channel showed footage of a convoy of approximately 10 cars filled with armed fighters apparently in the city.

This is what I saw when I visited shortly after those reports (Zabadani is about a 30 minute drive from Damascus).

When I drove into the city, there was just one checkpoint on the way in. The legitimate Syrian Army soldiers there who were busy building a fire to keep warm in light snow waved us through. We drove for about ten minutes into the city and the streets were completely dead, no gunshots no “Free Syrian Army” checkpoints, nothing.

On the way out we stopped at the checkpoint leaving Zabadani to speak to the legitimate Syrian Army soldiers. They told us that if we wanted, we were free to turn back around and drive through Zabadani all the way to Lebanon. Hardly what they would say if the city was in the process of being “taken” by insurgents.

Today the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen, claiming to be in the city, reported that the town was under “full control of opposition forces”, without presenting any credible evidence whatsoever.

We do know that being so close to the Lebanese border there are certainly armed insurgents in the city. And I also know that the road to Zabadani remains much as it was when I visited. So, when  does a city become taken? There was hardly a battle between the army and insurgents and government forces are definitely moving through parts of the city although I cannot confirm that this is the case for the whole city. Are images we see of Zabadani, like in Libya before it, of a few insurgents surrounded by some “anti-Asad” protesters being sent to news channels so they can say that the city has been taken? It wouldn’t be the first time the Qataris were so desperate for some return on their investment that they fabricate a “victory”.

Of course the problem for the military is not that they are overpowered by the terrorists. As usual the difficulty is when they embed themselves amongst a civilian population, it is extremely difficult for the army to respond without endangering civilian life. And in the meantime the terrorists terrorise communities and increase their grip of power over them.

Source

Law professor and former Justice Department official, John Yoo (right), with former Vice President Cheney's legal advisor, David Addington

Our colleague Eric Brill has produced a detailed analysis of John Yoo’s recent article, “An Unavoidable Challenge—Now is the Time to Make the Case for Military Action Against Iran,” which we are pleased to publish below.  Last month, we noted and discussed Yoo’s piece, which purported to develop a legal case for a U.S.-initiated war against Iran, but which struck us as largely an argument that the United States should and could disregard international law.  In the course of Eric’s deconstruction of Yoo’s reasoning, Eric notes that

“Whatever his views on Iran may be…any president or candidate may safely overlook John Yoo.  He advocates nothing profound or complicated—merely that the US ignore its most important commitments under the UN Charter whenever they are inconvenient, while continuing to claim all benefits of UN membership.  If this inconsistency does not bother the leader in question, he will feel no need for any thinker to provide a legal justification.  If he does feel such a need, John Yoo will be of no use to him.”

On this point, we were struck recently by a Rick Santorum campaign event broadcast on C-Span.  After Santorum had finished speaking, he milled informally with the crowd.  Before C-Span cut away for its next program, viewers could see and hear a man come up to Santorum and ask, in an utterly non-hostile, non-challenging way, that since Congress had not declared war on Iran and the United Nations has not authorized the use of force, “are we [the United States] allowed” to go ahead and attack Iran anyway.  Santorum confidently assured the man, “Yes, we are.”  The camera cut away then, so we could not hear Santorum’s further explanation.  But we strongly suspect that Santorum, like all of the Republican candidates save Ron Paul, has already found his inner John Yoo.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

******

A Review of

“An Unavoidable Challenge –
Now is the Time to Make the Case
for Military Action Against Iran”

by John Yoo, National Review, December 31, 2011

Reviewed by Eric A. Brill

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is best known for his brief stint at the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration (2001-2003), where he authored a controversial memorandum approving the use of torture in prisoner interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. In the reviewed article, Yoo argues that the US should attack Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons because this “would cause a radical reversal of the balance of power” in that part of the world, a prospect that “justifies action in itself.” The US need not and should not seek authorization from the UN Security Council, Yoo argues, because the UN “has no armed forces of its own, has a crippled decision-making system, and lacks political legitimacy.”

John Yoo’s article becomes most interesting when one reaches this passage:

Obama has [failed] to build the legal case for attacking Iran. Instead, the administration has tethered American national security to the dictates of the United Nations.

The reader naturally anticipates that Yoo will “build the legal case” that Obama has neglected, but he does not. He simply asserts that the US has a right to ignore its commitments under the UN Charter (while remaining a UN member) whenever it perceives a “grave threat to American interests.” Yoo believes Iran fits that description and so he recommends that the US attack Iran without asking the Security Council whether it approves, just as the US did when it invaded Iraq nine years ago.

Yoo sets the bar high for himself:

… the U.N. Charter guarantees the “territorial integrity” and “political independence” of each member nation, and prohibits the use of force except in self defense [or] war to prevent threats to international peace and security, but only if approved by the Security Council. … Just as national governments claim a monopoly on the use of force within their borders and in exchange offer police protection, the U.N. asks nations to give up their right to go to war and in exchange offers to police the world.

But Yoo insists that the UN is incapable of upholding its “policing” side of the bargain: “[The] U.N. has no armed forces of its own, has a crippled decision-making system, and lacks political legitimacy.” The conclusion Yoo draws from these three UN shortcomings is not explicitly stated but nonetheless clear: they invalidate the Security Council’s exclusive peace-keeping authority under the UN Charter.

Does Yoo’s first observation – that “the U.N. has no armed forces of its own” – entitle the US to engage in world-policing on its own initiative? There are several reasons why the UN has never had armed forces, but they do not matter here. What does matter is that all UN members, including the US, have always understood that the Security Council would carry out approved military interventions by calling upon member countries for ad hoc contributions of armed forces, and that is what has happened. The US has never recommended that a standing UN military force be created, and probably never will.

Yoo complains also about the UN’s “crippled decision-making system.” He has in mind the veto rights of the Security Council’s five permanent members – the US, Great Britain, France, China and Russia – which enable especially the last two to block military interventions proposed by the US. It is unlikely, however, that Yoo would describe the Security Council’s decision-making system as “crippled” when the US vetoes a proposed Security Council action, as it has done many times. That system is no more “crippled” when China or Russia blocks a US-proposed military intervention. The Security Council’s decision-making system works well enough – just not always to Yoo’s liking.

Yoo’s third assertion – that the UN “lacks political legitimacy” – is the most puzzling of all. The UN achieved political legitimacy when its members (nearly every country in the world) adopted the UN Charter and agreed to be bound by it. No country has ever been forced to join the UN, and every UN member is free to withdraw at any time. The UN’s political legitimacy is not diminished merely because a member nation disagrees with a particular Security Council action. Yet the following sentence warns the reader that Yoo will soon be arguing just that:

[The Security Council's exclusive authority to approve military interventions] is contrary to both American national interests and global welfare because it subjects any intervention, no matter how justified or beneficial, to the approval of authoritarian nations.

“Authoritarian nations” – not a flattering description – refers to the 15 members of the Security Council, exercising their clear authority under the UN Charter. “Authorized” would be correct.

Yoo points out that a Security Council decision may conflict with the US’ national interest, an obvious possibility that the US undoubtedly considered before joining the UN. As a veto-wielding permanent member, the US can prevent the Security Council from taking any action, and it has done so many times. It is Security Council inaction that bothers Yoo, however, since the US has no power to prevent that. Inaction highlights the veto power of China and Russia, who “generally oppose intervention in what they consider ‘internal’ affairs…[and] can usually be counted on to protect other oppressive regimes by blocking U.N. approval for war….”

Yoo adds that the Security Council may not always decide correctly what is best for “global welfare.” In his view, there are military interventions that are “justified or beneficial” even if the Security Council does not think so. That may be, but the key question remains: Other than the Security Council, who should be authorized to approve a military intervention to protect international security? By agreeing to abide by the UN Charter, every UN member has given the same answer: no one. If asked again, very few would add the US to the list.

In short, the proper response to each of Yoo’s two points is the same: The US clearly understood these risks and accepted them by approving a UN Charter that grants the Security Council exclusive authority to approve military action other than in self-defense. If Yoo believes the US should withdraw from the UN, he should say so, which he does not. Unless and until the US withdraws, it should honor its commitments, just as it often demands of other UN members.

Given these feeble challenges to the Security Council’s authority over military interventions, it is not surprising that Yoo turns to the single recognized exception: the sovereign right of each UN member to defend itself. He introduces this “self-defense” exception in a hypothetical argument that the US might present to the Security Council if it does seek approval to attack Iran:

But if the president seeks U.N. authorization for a military action against Iran, his administration will have to make a case much like the one that the Bush administration made regarding Iraq. It can argue that destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons is a combination of self defense and protecting international security.

As Yoo recalls well, however, the “international security” prong of this argument failed to impress the Security Council in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Several members, including usually reliable US allies, openly disagreed that attacking Iraq was necessary to protect international security. This left the US with only its “self-defense” argument, which fared much better because the US felt obliged to persuade only itself and other members of its small “coalition of the willing.” That proved not to be difficult, and the US soon attacked Iraq without even asking for Security Council approval. Though the US nevertheless claimed broad support, the Security Council’s skepticism appears to have reflected world opinion: only three other countries contributed troops to the invasion force – the United Kingdom, Poland and Australia, homes to about 2% of the world’s population.

Hindsight has enabled most observers to conclude that the US’ self-defense argument was flimsy regarding Iraq; foresight was sufficient for many who actually evaluated the US’ proffered evidence. Yoo nevertheless believes a similar self-defense argument justifies an attack on Iran. Although he offers an unpersuasive analogy to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis – in which the US blocked Soviet ships from delivering ready-to-fire nuclear missiles to Cuba, where they were to have been placed on already-built launching pads and aimed at Florida targets 90 miles away – Yoo makes clear that “self-defense” has the same broad scope and vague limits it had before the Iraq war. It does not require that Iran have nuclear weapons or be likely to obtain them in the near future, nor that Iran actually could attack the United States if it ever does. It is sufficient for Yoo that, in his opinion, the balance of power in that part of the world would change:

A president need not wait until an attack is imminent before taking action. Iranian nuclear capabilities would cause a radical reversal of the balance of power, and that fact justifies action in itself.

Yoo does not explain why this “justifies action in itself.” As with most elements of his “legal case,” he merely declares it and moves on, as if his point were self-evident. What “justifies action” under the UN Charter, however, is either (1) self-defense; or (2) Security Council approval. There is no third choice – unless a country withdraws from the UN, which Yoo does not recommend.

Yoo makes a fair point that “self-defense” should not require a country to wait until enemy troops are massed at its border, much less streaming across. One can easily understand why he nonetheless prefers not to dwell on whether an unprovoked US attack on Iran, for the purpose of maintaining the strategic “balance of power” in a region halfway around the world, can fairly be characterized as US “self-defense.” Unless that label fits, however, the best that can be said about such an attack is that its aim would be to protect international security – in which case it would require Security Council approval. If a UN member’s right of self-defense were deemed to have no limit short of what the country itself might declare, the Security Council’s exclusive authority to determine threats to international security would be meaningless. Any UN member could attack whomever and whenever it sees fit, simply claiming “self-defense” to insulate itself from any claim that Security Council approval is required or that its war-making threatens international security.

Yoo probably would acknowledge that the Security Council may set limits on a UN member’s right of self-defense. For example, it is unlikely that he questioned the Security Council’s authority to reject Saddam Hussein’s “self-defense” objection when it ordered the return of nuclear inspectors to Iraq in 2002, or to reject Moammar Qaddafi’s insistence that his army was defending Libya against lawless rebels in 2011. If Iran should ever reverse course and insist it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself, the Security Council undoubtedly would reject that claim as well, and Yoo would not challenge its authority to do so.

Nonetheless, Yoo’s broad self-defense justification – based here on nothing more than his predicted shift in the “balance of power” in Iran’s part of the world – would leave the US free of any practical restraint. Instead of requiring Security Council approval for military intervention, it would permit the US to attack any country whenever it likes – unless and until the Security Council affirmatively rejects the US’ claimed justification. That, of course, will never happen. Unlike Saddam Hussein or Moammar Qaddafi, the US can veto any action by the Security Council. In effect, Yoo’s practically limitless definition of “self-defense” would transform the veto power of the Security Council’s permanent members from an annoying obstacle, as the US considers it when Russia or China (or France) opposes a military intervention proposed by the US, into a useful tool with which the US can prevent the Security Council from ever challenging its characterization of aggressive military action as self-defense.

Though Yoo’s prose sounds tough at times, his arguments lack the boldness necessary to give them any claim to validity. Most important, he does not recommend that the US withdraw from the UN, which would terminate its commitment to abide by the UN Charter. Yoo apparently prefers that the US remain a UN member but pick and choose among the burdens and benefits of membership. For example, he does not question the Security Council’s authority to adopt resolutions of which the US approves. Nor does he object when the US insists that other countries comply fully with those resolutions, or demands that even harsher resolutions be adopted. He does not complain that the UN Charter permits the US to veto any Security Council proposal it does not like – only that Russia and China are permitted to do the same thing. Yoo’s complaints about the UN are reserved for situations where the US desires military intervention but the Security Council declines to authorize it. Only then does he insist that the Security Council lacks “political legitimacy,” that its decision-making system is “crippled,” and that the US is being short-changed in its UN bargain because “the U.N. has no armed forces of its own.” That is when an unapproved US attack on another country, based on Yoo’s broad “balance of power” view of self-defense, strikes him as justified by the Security Council’s failure to recognize what is plain to Yoo: “global welfare” requires such an attack.

Yoo believes the US wasted precious time before the 2003 Iraq war. Initially it tried to fit its attack decision within a UN Charter framework, insisting that the Security Council’s 2002 resolution ordering the return of nuclear inspectors to Iraq (1441) was sufficient authorization for an attack, or that resolutions left over from the 1991 Gulf War (678 and 687) could be dusted off and used again. It even considered requesting explicit attack authority until its closest ally (Great Britain) advised that this would be futile. In the end, however, the US despaired of these efforts and fell back on its “self-defense” argument, appointed itself as the sole judge of that argument, and, not surprisingly, concluded that the argument was compelling.

Yoo worries that Barrack Obama might dawdle with Iran as his predecessor dawdled with Iraq, and he sees danger signs in Obama’s handling of the 2011 Libya uprising:

In Libya, Obama delayed launching the air war until the Security Council approved the intervention, allowing a popular revolution to metastasize into a prolonged, destructive civil war. The same craving for international approval may lead the administration to put off military action against Iran until it is too late.

If Obama will not act without seeking UN approval, Yoo thinks he should be replaced by someone who has laid the groundwork for Yoo’s plan to be carried out:

The United States has assumed the role, once held by Great Britain, of guaranteeing free trade and economic development, spreading liberal values, and maintaining international security. … The Republican presidential candidates should begin preparing the case now for this difficult but unavoidable challenge.

Whatever his views on Iran may be, however, any president or candidate may safely overlook John Yoo. He advocates nothing profound or complicated – merely that the US ignore its most important commitments under the UN Charter whenever they are inconvenient, while continuing to claim all benefits of UN membership. If this inconsistency does not bother the leader in question, he will feel no need for any thinker to provide a legal justification. If he does feel such a need, John Yoo will be of no use to him.

Source

A statement from the Raza Press and Media Association on the resent banning of number of important works by indigenous North American authors (both Chicano and Indian) by the white power government of Arizona. The RPMA is associated with the indigenous-Chiaco revolutionary nationalist organization Unión del Barrio.

Last week the Tucson Board of Education capitulated to the Superintendent of Education John Huppenthal of Arizona, in an attempt to erase, censor and alter the content and character of Tucson’s educational curriculum.

By dismantling Chicano/a Studies and banning books such Occupied America, by Rodolfo Acuña, Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years, by Rethinking Schools, and Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, among other books, the Tucson School Board stood on the side of apartheid white rule over the needs and interests of the majority Raza/Indigenous people of that city and of that state.

With one notable exception, the Tucson School Board voted 4‐1 in favor of pulling over 50 titles from the classroom –putting ignorance above critical thinking.

For more than 20 years the Chicano Studies curriculum taught through the Mexican American and Ethnic studies courses were successful in providing a sense of historical understanding to the present day oppression of Raza/indigenous majority of Arizona. This program was one the few set of courses in the whole of the United States that were successful in enabling students to graduate from High School and attend colleges and universities.

So it is no surprise that in the age of increased hostility towards Raza/Indigenous people‐ the racist settler governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law HB2281 in May of 2010. HB2281 was written with the explicit objective of prohibiting “ethnic solidarity” and class‐consciousness –important elements towards building unity among oppressed peoples to effect social justice.

This is why apartheid white rule has openly attacked ethnic solidarity and class‐consciousness; it wants to maintain its political power by utilizing ignorance and lies to alter history.

After more than one year of legal challenges to HB2281, the courts of Arizona in December of 2011 allowed the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to eliminate the Mexican American and Ethnic Studies programs by defunding school districts that teach these areas of study. This act clearly demonstrates that there is no democracy within the current political, judicial and educational system in the United States.

It is clear to us that these attempts to censor and silence the voices of truth and justice, are from those forces who are scared and shaking in their boots of the possibility of oppressed people learning the truth about ourselves and our ability to become subjects of our own liberation. Our task as Raza journalists is to expose the nature of the rotten colonial school system. This is why we must step up our efforts to expose the lies, defamation and dehumanizing conditions imposed on our communities by settler institutions of white power (courts, legislators, and schools).

As an organization who for more 20 years has been struggling for real free speech and raising the critical consciousness of all oppressed people, the Raza Press and Media Association stands in solidarity with the educators, students and parents of Tucson and throughout Arizona, in their struggle to defend the right to learn about our history, social and economic justice, and the right to self‐determination.

We end this brief statement by encouraging all who are in unity with building a movement for a real liberating education to attend the 6th Annual Association of Raza Educators (ARE) Conference, entitled: ¡Aqui Estamos, Educamos, Transformamos y No Nos Vamos!, to be held on April 14th, 2011, at Lincoln High School in San Diego, CA.

¡Que Viva la Raza!
¡Que Viva Chicano/Raza Studies!

Source