US “Pressured” Cuba Not To Let Snowden In

By RT TV

LEFT: A television screen shows former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden during a news bulletin at a cafe at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport (Reuters/Tatyana Makeyeva) 

Edward Snowden was forced to stay in Russia after the US threatened Cuba with “adverse consequences” should the NSA whistleblower get on board Aeroflot’s Moscow-Havana flight, Kommersant newspaper has learned.

Under US pressure the Cuban authorities informed Moscow the Aeroflot plane would not be able to land in Havana, a source told the Russian newspaper.

One of the sources close to the US State Department stated that Cuba was one of the countries whose authorities were warned of “adverse consequences” if it helped Snowden.

The paper also pointed out that Russian authorities did not contact Snowden or issue an invitation to take refuge on its territory; however, they were aware that he would arrive to Moscow en route to Latin America. 

“His choice of route (to Latin America via Moscow), and his request for help were an absolute surprise for us. We did not invite him,” an official source explained. 

The paper also learned that before leaving Hong Kong, Snowden spent a couple of days at the Russian Consulate, where he even celebrated his 30th birthday. A source within the Russian government has confirmed that Snowden was not invited and contacted the consulate on his own initiative.

Reportedly, Snowden explained to the Consulate that he intended to seek asylum in one of the Latin American countries and presented his ticket to Havana through Moscow.

A source from one of the Western countries told the paper that the West thinks it is possible that “Russians contacted Snowden, by giving him an invitation through the Chinese, who were happy to get rid of him.”


LEFT: A protester carries two portraits of Edward Snowden during a demonstration against secret monitoring programs PRISM, TEMPORA, INDECT and showing solidarity with whistleblowers Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and others in Berlin July 27, 2013 (Reuters/Pawel Kopczynski) 

NSA whistleblower Snowden, a former CIA employee and NSA contractor, was the one who leaked classified documents detailing massive electronic surveillance by the US government and foreign allies who collaborated with them.

Snowden left Hawaii, US, in May to go to Hong Kong, where he first went public about the leaks in a video interview to The Guardian. In the interview he also admitted that he feared for his life and would be seeking asylum in a country that respected freedom of speech. 

After the leaks, the US charged Snowden with theft of federal government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful sharing of classified documents to an unauthorized person. The last two charges fall under the US Espionage Act.

Amidst mounting US pressure on both Beijing and the local authorities in Hong Kong to hand over the whistleblower for prosecution, Snowden flew to Moscow on June 23.  According to Kommesant’s report, a WikiLeaks lawyer warned Snowden that the local authorities would arrest him due to mounting US pressure, but at the same time would not stop him if he tried to leave. 

On June 21, Snowden bought a ticket to Havana via Moscow, which was on the same day the US had informed China that it revoked the whistleblower’s passport.  

Moscow was initially intended as a temporary stopover on his journey, but Snowden ended up getting stranded at Sheremetyevo Airport without proper ID. Snowden could neither leave Russia nor enter it, forcing him to remain in the airport’s transit zone.

While stranded, Snowden reportedly sought asylum in 27 countries, hoping to gain protection from US prosecutors. Venezuela offered Snowden asylum, as well as Nicaragua. 

Reuters / Maxim Shemetov
Ecuador also considered giving Snowden asylum but then had a change of heart.

At least 11 other states rejected requests.

Snowden received five outright rejections from Finland, Brazil, Poland, India, and Germany, according to WikiLeaks.

Spain, Norway, Italy and Austria also rejected Snowden’s applications, stating that asylum requests cannot be granted unless the applicant is already inside the country.

US steps up intimidation In the meantime, the US launched a witch-hunt campaign to get Snowden. 

Late in June, Washington stated that it expected the Russian government to “look at all options available” to expel Edward Snowden to the US to face espionage charges. The US comments came after the White House expressed “disappointment” that China and Hong Kong didn’t detain the NSA leaker.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said he “would be deeply troubled” if China and Russia knew about the whistleblower’s plans“There would be without any question some effect and impact on the relationship” with the  US if this had taken place.

Earlier the US State Department issued a statement warning countries of the “Western Hemisphere” about reports that Edward Snowden might be looking for refuge in the region and urging them to not let the whistleblower in and assist with returning him to the US.

At the beginning of July, Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane — returning from Moscow — was forced to make a sudden stop in Vienna, after Spain, France, Portugal and Italy abruptly blocked their airspace to him. In Vienna, officials inquired whether the plane was carrying Edward Snowden. 

The Bolivian presidential airplane is parked at the Vienna International Airport in Schwechat July 3, 2013 (Reuters / Heinz-Peter Bader)
LEFT: The Bolivian presidential airplane is parked at the Vienna International Airport in Schwechat July 3, 2013 (Reuters/Heinz-Peter Bader)

“We have no doubt that it was an order from the White House,” Bolivia’s Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Sacha Llorenti Soliz said“By no means should a diplomatic plane with the president be diverted from its route and forced to land in another country.”

After the incident, Snowden applied for temporary asylum in Russia, a status that would allow him to live and work in the country for one year. 

The photo of Edward Snowden's application for political asylum in Russia taken by Russian human rights lawyer Anatoly Kucherena.
The photo of Edward Snowden’s application for political asylum in Russia taken by Russian human rights lawyer Anatoly Kucherena.

On August 1, Snowden was granted temporary asylum and was allowed to enter Russia. His present location has not been made public nor will it be disclosed, Snowden’s legal representative Anatoly Kucherena said. “He is the most wanted person on earth and his security will be a priority,” the attorney explained.  Since then, the US has not stopped its intimidation tactics directed at Snowden and those who help him. 

Just recently, Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who first published secrets leaked by Snowden, saw his partner David Miranda detained for nine hours under anti-terrorism laws while transiting through London’s Heathrow Airport on his way to Rio de Janeiro. 

The 28-year-old was traveling after visiting US filmmaker Lauro Poitras, who has been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The authorities took away all his electronic devices and forced Miranda to reveal his passwords. A security source told Reuters that Miranda’s detention was meant to send a message to those who received Snowden’s classified documents, about how serious the UK is in trying to prevent further leaks.

In response to the incident, the US government has released a statement saying that British officials told them about their decision to detain Miranda, although Washington denied its own involvement.

Following the scandal, The Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger revealed that intelligence officials from the Government Communications Headquarters demanded the return or destruction of files leaked by Snowden.  Rusbridger refused to hand over the documents and government officials then watched as computers, which contained classified information passed on by Snowden, were physically destroyed in one of the newspaper building’s basements.

The US campaign to get Snowden alone and with the help of its strongest allies may be explained by the fact that the whistleblower was able to evade all safeguards at the NSA while collecting data, leaving the agency puzzled at how he did it, according to AP sources. 

Even two months after the leaks took place, NSA Director Keith Alexander could not tell the press in July exactly what Snowden might have had access to, downloaded or taken with him.

Submitters Bio:

rt.com is Russian television, which actually does a great job reporting on US news too.




Liberal degeneracy: Floyd Abrams praises Manning verdict

Abrams

Abrams

By Tom Carter, wsws.org

Floyd Abrams’ July 31 letter to the New York Times praising the Bradley Manning verdict underscores the degree to which what was once the liberal intelligentsia has abandoned any serious defense of democratic rights.

Abrams famously served as one of the lawyers for the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case (1971), establishing a certain reputation at the time as a defender of free speech and freedom of the press. In the intervening decades Abrams has shifted far to the right, together with an entire layer of once-liberal professionals, intellectuals, and academics. Abrams now writes in support of the conviction of Bradley Manning on espionage charges, which constitutes a monumental assault on those basic principles he once defended.

In his letter, published on the Times front page, Abrams begins by asserting that the young soldier is guilty: “Pfc. Bradley Manning’s conduct in providing WikiLeaks with more than 700,000 confidential government documents undoubtedly violated some provisions of federal law, as his pleas of guilty to some of the charges and Col. Denise R. Lind’s rulings as to others make plain,” Abrams wrote. The rest of Abrams’ letter is dedicated to a celebration of Manning’s acquittal on the “aiding the enemy” charge, which carried a possible death sentence.

“Colonel Lind’s brave decision — it is nothing less than that — rejecting the government’s misguided efforts to convict Private Manning of violating military law in ‘aiding the enemy’ is worthy of special commendation,” Abrams wrote. A conviction on the “aiding the enemy” charge, according to Abrams, “would have imperiled a good deal of invaluable journalism.”

As an initial matter, contrary to Abrams’ assertions, Manning’s guilty pleas—extracted through torture, a rigged trial, and the Obama administration’s pursuit of a charge carrying the death penalty—do not signify anything.

More importantly, absent from Abrams’ letter is any mention of the content of Manning’s disclosures, which included evidence of war crimes, systematic deceit and lying by successive American administrations, and globe-spanning conspiracies to violate domestic and international law. In the US, the political establishment—with the aid of the media and figures such as Abrams—has sought to prevent a discussion of the criminality revealed by Manning by focusing instead on whether Manning himself violated any laws.

Manning’s conviction represents the first time in American history that a government whistleblower has been convicted in a full trial on espionage charges. Under the Obama administration’s logic, Manning committed “espionage” against the United States because he leaked classified documents “having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy.”

There is no allegation that Manning turned over the documents to any foreign government or political entity in particular, or that he was paid anything or sought to benefit personally from the disclosures. His only motive was to serve the public interest by exposing crimes. Nevertheless, according to the Obama administration’s theory, if a document is designated as “classified” and its contents are leaked to the public—no matter what the content of the document is—then the leaker is guilty of “espionage” because the document can be accessed online by Al Qaeda. This new and reactionary theory constitutes a frontal assault on a long line of legal precedents, from the Nuremberg Trials to the Pentagon Papers case to the core historic First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of the press.

[pullquote] If a person, especially in the military, encounters illegal activity, then his or her duty is not to participate in that activity but to try to stop and prevent it. [/pullquote]

The Nuremberg Trials following the Second World War affirmed the basic principle that “following orders” is not an excuse for participating in crimes. If a person, especially in the military, encounters illegal activity, then his or her duty is not to participate in that activity but to try to stop and prevent it.

The world-spanning corruption, deceit, and thuggery exposed by Manning have been the subject of dozens if not hundreds of articles on the World Socialist Web Site —including the murder of journalists and civilians by helicopter in Iraq; backroom deals with MasterCard and Visa in Russia; violations of international treaties by US spies posing as diplomats; and conspiracies to install Shell Oil men in the Nigerian government. Cables leaked by Manning contributed to anger that fueled protests that brought down US-allied strongmen in Tunisia and Egypt and rocked the entire region. Human civilization as a whole owes this brave young soldier a debt of gratitude.

Not a hair has been touched on the heads of any of the criminals exposed by Manning within the US political establishment, military, and intelligence apparatus, as well as their corporate and financial co-conspirators. These individuals continue to sit comfortably in their luxurious offices enjoying lavish incomes and lifestyles. On the subject of the “guilt” of such individuals, figures such as Abrams are silent. Instead of prosecuting the criminals exposed by Manning, the Obama administration has done its utmost to make an example of Manning, including through the use of torture.

Abrams’ emphasis on the judge’s acquittal of Manning under the “aiding the enemy” theory is a red herring. Colonel Lind did not refuse to allow the Obama administration to proceed under this theory as a matter of law. She only ruled that Manning was not guilty under the facts of this specific case, holding the door open to similar charges in future prosecutions.

The factual circumstances of Manning’s disclosures and their publication are in all pertinent respects identical to the leak and publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg himself, who handed copies of the Pentagon Papers to a New York Times reporter in March 1971, has publicly defended Manning and has rejected any false distinction between the “good” Pentagon Papers and the “bad” WikiLeaks.

Abrams himself emerged in 2010 to pen a long New York Times column falsifying the history of the Pentagon Papers as part of an attempt to discredit Julian Assange and Wilikeaks. (At the time, the World Socialist Web Site published a detailed response setting straight the historical record.)

The falsification of the history of the Pentagon Papers case serves definite political ends. In 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Can anyone imagine such statements being made today in the judiciary, in Congress, or in the media?

There is no legal or moral substance to any of the charges against Manning, who had every right to do what he did. Democratic rights cannot be entrusted to figures such as Abrams. The defense and expansion of basic democratic rights—and the struggle to safeguard heroic individuals such as Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange from retaliation by the state—requires nothing short of the independent mobilization of the working class on a socialist program.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tom Carter writes for the wsws.org, information arm of the Social Equality Party.




Dan Kovalik: The Colombia story the American press won’t report

Peasants greet us along the highway.

Peasants greet us along the highway.

Below we present two reports by Dan Kovalik, a citizen’s journalist with the courage and commitment to cover Colombia, one of the most victimized nations in Latin America, and one of the most dangerous assignments for a working journalist. Today, as has been the case for decades, Colombia is still a badly-disguised client state of the United States dominated by a murderous landowning oligarchy.  Since the corporate media—to their eternal damnation—won’t come close to reporting truthfully on Colombia, it is people like Kovalik who has to do the job.  —PG

____________

Dispatch From Catatumbo—

Capitalism, Genocide & Colombia

by DANIEL KOVALIK

I just returned from Catatumbo, Colombia where thousands of peasants are waging a life-and-death struggle against the U.S.-backed Colombian military and its paramilitary allies.   For over 60 days, the peasants have been demonstrating against the deplorable living conditions and economic circumstances in which they live, and in support of their proposal for a Peasant Farmer Reserve Zone of 10 million hectares.

 

Such a zone, which is provided for under the law, would allow the peasants to engage in subsistence farming free of the threat of encroachment by extractive companies desiring to mine or drill on their land.   This demand, along with the concomitant demand of the peasants for all mining and oil exploration and extraction in their region to be suspended, is critical to the peasants who are being driven to the verge of extinction.

[pullquote] The grotesquely overpaid media celebrities do not deign to cover such important stories, especially when they reveal the true criminal nature of US foreign policy. [/pullquote]

According to the Luis Carlos Pérez Lawyers’ Collective (CALCP), 11,000 peasants have been killed in this region by state and para-state forces, most of them during the 2002-2010 term of President of Alvaro Uribe, and over 100,000 peasants, out of a total of around 300,000, have been forcibly displaced.   At least 32 mass graves containing the bodies of murdered peasant activists have been found in this region in recent years.

And, this mass murder and displacement is being carried out to make way for more oil drilling, African palm cultivation (for biodiesel) and for coal mining by North American companies.

I say that this mayhem is being carried out, in part, in order to make way for more oil drilling because, in fact, much oil drilling has been taking place there for the past 70 years.   And, the peasants of this region have nothing to show for this many years of drilling.  As we were told a few times during out trip, after 70 years of oil exploration, the rural parts of this region do not even have a paved road.    (Our delegation – led by Justice for Colombia and including participants from the USW and Unite the Union UK – found this out the hard way during our 3.5 hour drive over a dirt road from Cucuta to a village outside Tibu near the Venezuelan border).

In addition, there is no sewage system, no running water and no health services.   Indeed, peasants injured in their confrontations with the military and police during the two months of demonstrations – with the peasants defending themselves with sticks against the guns, tanks and other U.S.-supplied hardware of the military and police – have been forced to flee into Venezuela for refuge and medical services.

In short, the oil and other extractive companies, beginning with Texaco in the 1930’s, have taken and taken, and left the people with nothing.  Now, the companies want even more, and it is the very existence and presence of the peasants which stands in their way.  And so, quite logically, the companies, with the help of the U.S.-backed military and paramilitaries, are aiming to literally wipe the peasants off the map.  In other words, these forces are engaged in a calculated act of genocide.   Indeed, when a number of us remarked upon how almost everyone we saw and met with in our visit to Catatumbo were no more than teenagers, we were told that this was the result of the fact that their parents had either been murdered or displaced.   Left behind are villages populated almost entirely by children.

Young Peasants of Catatumbo In Rebellion

The calculated mass killing and displacement that is taking place in Catatumbo is a good example of the phenomenon discussed in the new book, Capitalism: A Structural Genocide by Garry Leech.   In that book, Leech argues, and quite forcefully, that capitalism, left to its own devices, will inevitably destroy (1) those who stand in the way of the exploitation of natural resources; and (2) those individuals, such as peasants and subsistent farmers, who are engaged in pursuits which neither contribute towards economic “growth” nor produce surplus value or profit.  Of course, the peasants of Catatumbo fall into both of these categories simultaneously, and are therefore a double threat.

Citing Indian physicist and philosopher Vandana Shiva, Leech explains that, under capitalism, “nothing has value until it enters the market.   Shiva points out that under capitalism ‘if you consume what you produce, you do not really produce, at least not economically speaking.  If I grow my own food, and do not sell it, then this does not contribute to GDP, and so does not contribute towards growth.’”    Rather, for such subsistence farmers, “’nature exists as a commons.’”   The commons, moreover, and those who work on it, are simply not permitted under capitalism.

image002-1

Young peasants of Catatumbo in rebellion.

As Leech and Shiva explain, those working the commons must either “be incorporated – often through coercion – into the ever-widening spheres of production and circulation,” or they must be simply be destroyed.   This process, as Leech explains, is what Karl Marx termed, “primitive accumulation,” and it is quite a nasty process, wherever it is carried out.

Leech explains that, as capitalism was beginning to get into full swing in Britain in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, the British Parliament passed a series of Enclosure Acts which privatized commonly held lands and “prevented much of the generations-old practice of grazing their animals and cultivating their crops on commonly held lands, thereby forcing them to move to the cities in search of jobs.”

More recently, as Leech astutely points out, Mexico outlawed communal land titles for indigenous peoples in order to make way for NAFTA.   As Leech explains, and as many of us have argued for years, a major raison d’être of NAFTA was in fact the primitive accumulation of the commons of millions of small farmers in Mexico.   This primitive accumulation was carried out by NAFTA’s provisions which allowed heavily-subsidized, and therefore cheap, agricultural products from North America to flood the Mexican markets tariff-free.   Meanwhile, the IMF rules governing Mexico forbid that country from subsidizing its own agricultural producers.

As Leech explains, the results for 2 million small farmers in Mexico, who could not compete with the subsidized food from the North, was devastating, with these small farmers losing their livelihood and their land and fleeing into the cities, or illegally into the U.S.   Finding themselves displaced from their land, many were left with no jobs at all, found themselves exploited in low paying jobs with poor safety and health practices, or turned to the drug trade for employment.  The result for Mexico as a whole has been the destruction of the social fabric of the nation and increased violence, with cities like Juarez suffering violence levels comparable to nations at war.

While Leech does not focus on Colombia in his book,  he does mention that Colombia itself “has become Latin America’s poster child over the past decade and its economic growth has been driven by the exploitation of the country’s natural resources, particularly oil, coal and gold, by foreign companies.”   Colombia now has the largest internally displaced population in the world at over 5 million.   As Leech explains, “[m]any have been forced from their lands by direct physical violence related to the country’s armed conflict – often by the Colombian military and right-wing paramilitary groups serving the interests of multinational corporations.  However, many others have become economic refugees due to the structural violence inherent in neoliberal policies that has dispossessed them of their lands in order to facilitate capital accumulation for foreign companies.”

Peasants Greet Us Along The Highway

The peasants of Catatumbo have long been the victims of such direct as well as structural violence, but now they are fighting back to defend their land.   For 53 days, these peasants, armed only with sticks, blocked the main highway linking the cities of Cucuta and Tibu.  Shortly after our visit, the government agreed to negotiate with them directly, and the peasants ended this blockade for now.  However, they will begin it anew if talks fail.

image002-2
Young Luchador in Catatumbo.

While the Colombian Minister of Defense warned us not to travel this highway because of these protests, the peasants freely allowed us to pass.  Of course, as all of us understood, what the Colombian government was truly afraid of was that we would witness that it is in fact the peasants who are on the side of right; that it is they who are defending the land, the water and the rainforests for all of us.   And, this is why their struggle, and the struggles of others like them, must succeed.   In truth, our very lives and future depend on them.

Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer and teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

 

_______________________

Also by Dan Kovalik——

The U.S. Empire and Modern Day Christian Martyrs

[Posted originally on: 02/25/2013]

In their landmark book, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman devote a chapter to the media’s unbalanced coverage of the murder of one priest in Poland in 1984 as compared to the coverage of the 72 religious killed throughout Latin America between 1964 and 1978, the killing of 23 religious in Guatemala between 1980 and 1985, the murder of Archbishop Romero of San Salvador in 1980 and the rape and murder of the four U.S. church women in El Salvador in 1980. In short, the murder of the one Polish priest — the perpetrators of which were tried, convicted and sentenced to prison — received significantly more coverage than all of the latter killings, which almost invariably remain unsolved and unpunished, combined.

Meanwhile, there has been almost no media coverage of the killings of the “two bishops, 79 priests, eight men and women religious, as well as three seminarians” killed in Colombia alone between 1984 and 2011 — this, according to the Episcopal Conference of Colombia. The Episcopal Conference of Colombia publicly announced this grim tally in the fall of 2011 upon the murder of the sixth priest killed in 2011 alone. One of the priests killed in 2011 was Father Reynel Restrepo Idarraga, the pastor of the town of Marmato, who was murdered by presumed paramilitaries in retaliation for his vocal defense of Marmato against the attempt of the Canadian mining company, Gran Colombia Gold, which to this day is still attempting to seize the land of the entire town and convert it into a gold mine. The Colombian bishops attributed the rash of killings in 2011 to “the courageous commitment of our priests to the prophetic denunciation of injustice and the cause of the poorest in the country.”

The number of priests killed in Colombia since 1984 just climbed to 80 with the murder of Father Luis Alfredo Suarez Salazar on Feb. 2, 2013 by two unknown assailants in the northern Colombian city of Ocana.

Then, on February 13, 2013, there was an assassination attempt against another Catholic priest. The target of the attack was Father Alberto Franco, a member of the Inter-Church Commission of Justice & Peace (CIJP), an organization created in 1988 pursuant to the resolution of the Conference of Religious Superiors of Colombia which aspired “[t]o promote and encourage the Christian prophetic signs which are present in religious communities, through the creation of a Commission of Justice and Peace which will channel and disseminate information and protests throughout the country.” As Father Javier Giraldo, S.J., a founding member of the CIJP, relates in The Genocidal Democracy, while the Colombian Catholic Conference of Bishops “did not approve of this initiative and placed obstacles in its path,” 25 Catholic provincials nonetheless went ahead with the formation of the CIJP.

As Father Giraldo explains, the first and continuing project of the CIJP has been “to gather and disseminate information about the victims of human rights violations, the right to life, in particular.” Not surprisingly, this project has made the CIJP a constant target of threats and violence, particularly from the Colombian state and its paramilitary allies. Father Alberto Franco himself has been the target of threats and surveillance for some time now, culminating in the attempt upon his life on Februrary 13, in which assailants fired three shots into the windshield of Father Franco’s car. Luckily, Father Franco had not yet entered the car and therefore escaped unharmed. Meanwhile, Father Franco, along with 17 other members of the CIJP, remain, by the Colombian government’s own measures, under “extraordinary risk” of attack.

According to a statement sent in support of the CIJP signed by 130 organizations,

We consider these threats to be a direct result of CIJP’s work on land restitution and their efforts to expose state, military, and business responsibility in illegal land grabs, threats, and the violation of human rights before national and international courts. The most recent threats occurred days after Father Franco informed the press that officials of ex-President Alvaro Uribe’s government were involved in the displacement and illegal occupation of the collective territories of Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó. That same week, there was a hearing on the case of Marino López and others in Cacarica before the Inter-American Human Rights Court.

We have observed that the Afro-descendant, indigenous, and campesino communities that CIJP accompanies are also attacked for defending their land rights. In December 2012, we received first-hand information of the presence of many uniformed and armed paramilitaries in Curvaradó, in addition to the threat of an imminent massacre. On various occasions, we have expressed our concern regarding the attacks and threats against María Ligia Chavera and Enrique Petro, two emblematic leaders in the land restitution process in Curvaradó.

Of course, as I have written about at great length before, the “land grabs” which the CIJP are denouncing are only accelerating due to the free trade agreements between Colombia and the U.S. and Canada which are promoting the increased exploitation of land by multi-national mining and agricultural companies — companies which regularly use the Colombian military and paramilitaries to clear the land they covet of the residents who live there.

However, in the midst of the economic causes of the repression against individuals such as Father Franco, one also cannot forget the very real spiritual and religious convictions which motivate Father Franco and others like him to risk their lives to defend the poor, and one cannot ignore the commitment of those attacking such individuals to eradicate such convictions. Father Javier Giraldo, S.J., has indeed recently published a book (in Spanish only) which details the spiritual aspect of this struggle.

That book, The Deaths That Illuminate Life, sets forth the stories of 35 Colombians — including bishops, priests, nuns, religious laity and even a child — who Father Giraldo considers to be modern Christian martyrs. In Father Giraldo’s words, they were “witnesses of Christian values objectively: men and women who heroically endured torture and death to the save the lives of others, or for refusing to become collaborators with criminal agencies, or because they joined groups and organizations where they sought to realize in some way their militant option for justice and solidarity.”

Comparing these modern martyrs to the early martyrs of the first three centuries of the Church, Father Giraldo does not mince words about their common executioners — the prevailing empires at the time (the Roman and U.S. empires, respectively).

Thus, Father Giraldo explains that, just as in the time of the Roman Empire Christians would naturally find themselves to be “subversives” in that they were compelled to deny the Emperor as their “Lord,” so too must modern Christians in Latin America find themselves at odds with their neo-colonial oppressors. As he writes,

To confess Christ, in this context, has meaning and truth only in the margins of a historic commitment to the liberation of the oppressed which explains an inescapable confrontation with the oppressors, “some of whom are those who say they are Christians,” that is why there are today Christians tortured and killed in the name of “the democratic freedoms”, in the name of the “market economy”, in the name of “Christian western civilization”, in the name of “national security”, on behalf of the “defense of the society against atheistic ideologies”, etc. The Christian label provides no clue in revealing the roots of the conflict, which cause death; these causes can only be discerned through an in-depth review of the practice of the faith, confronted with its challenging context, and taking into account that the Christian character of this praxis, tends to be refused, systematically, by all those that are in some degree of collusion with the interests of the oppressors.Today there is no longer the idol of the Roman Emperor, in whose altars was shed the Blood of the first Christians, but there is the secular idol of the market economy, upon whose altars is sacrificed the life and dignity of millions of human beings…

To this day, I cannot get over the irony, and indeed the shock, at the realization that it is in fact the U.S. — the professed protector of democracy and indeed Christian values in the world — which is the entity so bent on destroying the roots of true Christianity in Latin America, for it is a philosophy that so profoundly calls into question the U.S.’s true values which revolve around the worship of wealth and power. And so, it is the U.S. which, since 1962, has cultivated the very death squads which haunt the Church of the poor in Latin America, and specifically in Colombia.

And indeed, the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), which continues to train thousands of repressive Latin American military forces, has, as Noam Chomsky explains, gone so far as to brag about its role in destroying Liberation Theology (the Christian philosophy which advocates “the preferential treatment for the poor”) in Latin America. As Chomsky has explained, “[o]ne of its advertising points is that the U.S. Army [School of the Americas] helped defeat liberation theology, which was a dominant force, and it was an enemy for the same reason that secular nationalism in the Arab world was an enemy – it was working for the poor.” Thankfully, the SOA has not been as thoroughly successful as it has advertised in this regard, and that brave souls like Father Giraldo and Father Franco continue to risk martyrdom in order to defend the poor and dispossessed in Latin America.

In truth, I stopped being a practicing Catholic some time ago, but I continue to hold dear the philosophy of the “preferential treatment of the poor,” and I honor those in Latin America who continue to exhibit the courage — courage I have yet to find in myself — to risk their lives every day in carrying out this key tenet of Liberation Theology. I have concluded that, to be a person of decency by any measure, one must join with these Davids of the Third World who are fighting for independence and economic justice against the Goliath in which we happen to live.Follow Dan Kovalik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@danielmkovalik

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Kovalik is a human and labor rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh. He has been a peace activist throughout his life and has been deeply involved in the movement for peace and social justice in Colombia and Central America. He is an attorney for Colombian Plaintiffs in cases alleging corporate complicity in egregious human rights violations. Kovalik, a 1993 graduate of Columbia Law School, was a co-recipient of the 2003 Project Censored Award for a story he co-wrote on the murder of trade unionists in Colombia.




Enemies of the People: Georgina Rinehart

Get to know your ruling class!

ginaRinehart-420x0

By BRANFORD PERRY, HIPOKRISY.NET
Not only is this woman bad news for people, seeking their immiseration at every turn, but she’s poison on the planet, too, as she’s an active member of the oil/extractive industries club of prominent climate change deniers. [/pullquote]

Earning about a billion dollars a year from the iron ore and coal projects she owns in Australia, Rinehart’s fortune of $17 billion makes her the richest person in the country and the No. 5 wealthiest woman in the world. In November, Rinehart, the consummate activist* billionaire, self-published a book calling for Australian workers to accept wages comparable to $2-a-day African workers, causing global consternation. Along with creating headlines for her continuing court battle with three of her four children, who she cut out of the family trust, she’s pushing for the northern region of the country (where the bulk of her holdings reside) to become a special economic zone with lower taxes and less regulation. 2013 SPOTLIGHT: Wannabe Rupert? Rinehart has been purchasing large shares in Aussie media companies Channel 10 and Fairfax Media, the only non-Murdoch broadsheet company in the country.

Rinehart’s push to lower the minimum wage should have been met with howls of indignation, and massive protests on all public spaces, not polite “consternation” as Forbes so coyly suggests. [/pullquote]

Here’s CELEBRITYNETWORH.COM’s much more accurate assessment:

Gina Rinehart is an Australian mining heiress with a net worth of $18.9 billion. Gina Rinehart inherited the Hancock Prospecting from her father Lang Hancock. Many recent evaluations of her wealth put her at a net worth of more than Carlos Slim (~$74 Billion), as she owns her company outright with no shareholders. Her operations of coal and iron production are estimated to produce $10 billion in annual profits. When you put her privately held mining operations at a comparable 11-1 price to earnings ratio (as compared to similar publicly traded companies), her net worth could approach $100 billion making her not only the richest woman in the world, but the richest person in the world!

[SOURCE: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest-billionaires/gina-rinehart-net-worth/ ]

WELL, THERE YOU HAVE IT. Quite a charming character. While you ponder this woman’s dubious credits for membership in a true democracy, keep in mind that she and her ilk are the constant objects of adulation and apologetics by the opinion-shaping buffoons of the corporate press, which only underscores the desperate need for a new type of truly democratic media.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Acid-tongued London curmudgeon BRANFORD PERRY, founder of Hipokrisy.net, is an occasional contributor to TGP and other leading political venues. Divorced now for several years from his long-suffering wife (his words not ours), his main company now are three lovely shelties and a rich library of dead poets and historians. 




Freedom Rider: The Corporate Media’s Mass Hypnosis

Delivery systems and platforms for information may proliferate at blinding speed, but most Americans have no access to anything resembling the truth. They may know the names of the dead – like Trayvon Martin – but have no clue why they died. “Lies and nonsense are the standard fare for the most read and watched news sources in this country.”

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

When Jay-Z and Beyonce show up at a rally, a movement has bitten the dust.”

BAR-media-box-of-lies

What would a hypothetical person know after diligently reading the newspaper, watching television news and reading online news sources for the past week? That person would know that someone named Trayvon Martin had been murdered and that he looked like or could have been or would look like the son of the president. This anonymous man or woman would know that Al Sharpton, Jay-Z, and Beyonce were sad that Trayvon was dead. The news follower wouldn’t know the ugly truth of why Trayvon was killed, the real reason [11] his murderer went free, or that the man most able to bring justice probably would not.

The anonymous viewer/reader would know that a rich woman in London gave birth to a baby boy. He or she wouldn’t know that the rich woman and her husband and baby had their immense wealth as a result of great theft which took place over many centuries and which continues at the expense of millions of people. Despite the enormous amount of coverage, the news consumer wouldn’t know how many people were really interested in the rich family at all.

Capitalism itself had destroyed a once thriving city which provided high wages to generations of workers.”

The concerned citizen would know that the city of Detroit, Michigan was declared bankrupt. They would know that the city’s art collection [12] might be sold off, but not that pension obligations had already been subverted and workers and retirees who ought to live a decent life were instead on the road to being impoverished. The imagined news junkie would see images of dilapidated buildings and empty neighborhoods but would not be told that capitalism itself [13] had destroyed a once thriving city which provided high wages to generations of workers.

This person who made efforts to be informed would know that America was in the midst of a searing heat wave. Some of the news stories would point out that 2012 was the hottest year [14] on record for the continental United States because of something called climate change. They may or may not have been told that climate change resulted from increased production of fossil fuels and high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. They would not know that the world’s second worst culprit of CO2 production was the United States of America.

Jane or John Q. Public would learn that a man named Ray Kelly was commissioner of the New York Police Department and the president found him “well qualified” to be nominated as Secretary of Homeland Security. They would not know that the president, putatively black, was singing the praises of a man who orchestrated the criminalization of nearly every black person in New York City through the infamous stop and frisk policy.

Our person on the street might hear about a man named Edward Snowden who, according to the corporate media, made an odd decision by requesting permission to live in the Russian Federation. They would not be told that Snowden wanted to live in some twenty other nations but was prevented from doing so because the president actively obstructed his right to seek asylum from American persecution.

The president, putatively black, was singing the praises of a man who orchestrated the criminalization of nearly every black person in New York City through the infamous stop and frisk policy.”

We live in age when it is all but impossible to escape media influence. As with all things, the quality of that media varies greatly from one outlet to another, but the corporate media is most ubiquitous while also being the least informative.

Even watershed events such as the verdict which freed Trayvon Martin’s killer are eventually treated with the same degree of triviality as every other news story created in a corporate corner office. When Jay-Z and Beyonce show up at a rally, a movement has bitten the dust.

Those people who make sincere efforts to be well informed are ultimately unable to do so. How else can one explain that millions of people moved from openly demanding justice for Trayvon Martin to being mollified by the president’s chicanery and worthless sentimentality?

Readers of the Black Agenda Report are in no danger of turning into mindless sycophants of a president, or followers of celebrity births, but the points of view presented here are not always easily found. Lies and nonsense are the standard fare for the most read and watched news sources in this country. Ignorance may not be bliss, but it is the preferred state of affairs for politicians, CEOs and their friends at the television networks and editorial boards of leading newspapers. These sources are decidedly unreliable.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [15] Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Listen to us on the Black Talk Radio Network at www.blacktalkradionetwork.com

Share this [16]


Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-corporate-media%E2%80%99s-mass-hypnosis