"War on Terror" turns into war on charities

NGO "Blacklist" Unfair and Arbitrary, Groups Say

After the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., Congress gave the government sweeping new powers to crack down on not-for-profit organisations that were using their charitable status as cover for funneling funds to terrorist groups.

These powers include the authority to designate any charity as a material supporter of terrorism. This action demands virtually no due process from the government, denies the target to see the evidence against it, and can result in freezing of a charity's assets, effectively shutting it down. Since 9/11, the government has shut down dozens of charitable groups, but only three have ever been charged and brought to trial for supporting terrorist causes. None has been convicted.

It seems the government can designate any organization as terrorist without proof, and can freeze assets without showing ties to terrorism or illegal acts. A report Collateral Damage: How the War on Terror Hurts Charities, Foundations, and the People They Serve estimates that since 9/11 it is estimated that over $6 Billion in assets, from charities and foundations labeled as terrorist organizations, have been frozen. A charity without access to its funds is often effectively shut down.

It also asserts that the government has used its surveillance powers against charitable groups for political purposes. It charges, "In addition to providing aid and services to people in need, charitable and religious organisations help to facilitate a free exchange of information and ideas, fostering debate about public policy issues. The government has treated some of these activities as a terrorist threat. Since 9/11, there have been disturbing revelations about the use of counterterrorism resources to track and sometimes interfere with groups that publicly and vocally dissent from administration policies."

In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched its Spy Files Project and uncovered an intricate system of domestic spying on U.S. non-profits largely condoned by expanded counterterrorism powers within the USA PATRIOT Act.

Many legitimate and effective organisations have suffered because of the undemocratic and heavy-handed application of these powers.

The report finds that "U.S. counterterrorism laws have made it increasingly difficult for U.S.-based organisations to operate overseas. For example, after the 2004 tsunami, U.S. organisations operating in areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers, a designated terrorist organisation, risked violating prohibitions against 'material support' when creating displaced persons' camps and hospitals, traveling, or distributing food and water."

For aid organisations like the International Red Cross, compliance with U.S. counterterrorism laws can force NGOs to violate standards of neutrality in their work. The Principles of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Response Programmes state, "The humanitarian imperative comes first. Aid is given regardless of the race, creed or nationality of the recipients and without adverse distinction of any kind. Aid priorities are calculated on the basis of need alone."

In some cases, the report declares, counterterrorism laws have caused nonprofits to pull out of programmes.

So, right-wingers are always promoting charity as the alternative to public programmes and social services... how can they be effective when they have to face these kinds of problems?

On Rising Food Prices

Kissinger made a chilling 1970 comment that explains a lot about what's happening now - "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." Combine it with unchallengeable military power and you control everything, and Kissinger likely said that, too.<Global Food Crisis: Hunger Plagues Haiti and the World by Stephen Lendman>

Hugo Chavez is calling the food crisis a "Massacre of the Poor". As Raj Patel puts it: "What gets to me is that even in a good year, 850 million people were going hungry, thousands of whom died. Was that not a massacre too?"

George Monbiot reminds us that despite the problem is not about production, but distribution: "There is plenty of food. It is just not reaching human stomachs. Of the 2.13bn tonnes likely to be consumed this year, only 1.01bn, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), will feed people." The rest mainly feeds animals and cars (and landfills).

Go, read those articles.

I know I have been remiss in my blogging, but my real life duties have had to take priority. Yes, I know, you all miss me so much. ;) By early May I should be able to blog again.

Speaking of Starvation, How's that Biofuel Industry?

From an article by George Monbiot from a few months ago:

It doesn't get madder than this. Swaziland is in the grip of a famine and receiving emergency food aid. Forty per cent of its people are facing acute food shortages. So what has the government decided to export? Biofuel made from one of its staple crops, cassava. The government has allocated several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production in the county of Lavumisa, which happens to be the place worst hit by drought.

Monbiot says the biofuel trade

should be frozen until second-generation fuels - made from wood or straw or waste - become commercially available. Otherwise the superior purchasing power of drivers in the rich world means that they will snatch food from people’s mouths. Run your car on virgin biofuel and other people will starve.

He goes on to analyze the relative inefficiency of current generation biofuels (corn ethanol for instance), and reminds us:

If there is one blindingly obvious fact about biofuel it’s that it is not a smallholder crop. It is an internationally-traded commodity which travels well and can be stored indefinitely, with no premium for local or organic produce. Already the Indian government is planning 14m hectares of jatropha plantations. In August the first riots took place among the peasant farmers being driven off the land to make way for them.

If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that of the Iraq war. Millions will be displaced, hundreds of millions more could go hungry. This crime against humanity is a complex one, but that neither lessens nor excuses it.

People are starving, but hey, at least the big rich greenwashing countries can look all environmentally friendly without anyone having to, say, drive less. 'Cause that would be a real tragedy.

Jena Six Hearing Video

Best line:

Don't we have a system that is essentially using the criminal justice system to do what the Jim Crow system did in the past? Isn't it just an extension?

Via Automatic Preference

This upsets me so much I can't even think of a title for this post

From Sick joke or sick reality?:

"Parental Alienation Syndrome has been used nationwide by batterers as a courtroom tactic to silence abused children by attempting to discredit their disclosures of abuse. This theory is not recognized as valid by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association. Parental Alienation Syndrome is not accepted as a psychiatric diagnosis, and has been rejected by the mainstream psychological community. Parental Alienation Syndrome is junk science; there is no valid research or empirical data to support this unproven theory."

PAS is all about punishing mothers, while abused children are denied their safety and the validation of their own experiences.

In Florida, Indiana, Connecticut, Kentucky, Nebraska, Iowa, Maine, and Nevada, there is now reportedly a whole day officially dedicated to raising "awareness" about [Richard] Gardner's theory called Parental Alienation Syndrome, in which the very reports of abuse by a child against a father are themselves evidence that the child is being brainwashed by the mother (and if the child is angry at the father, or doesn't want to visit, that's even more evidence) and the only "cure" for this syndrome is to force the child to live with the abuser and deny ANY contact with the protective mother, who has no history of abuse.

C'mon, you're thinking, what judge would buy this crock? Doesn't it matter if the abuse really happened? Apparently not.

So why is PAS being allowed into the courts?

This month, the NOW Foundation joined other leading organizations working on family law and family violence in a complaint filed against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The complaint charges that U.S. courts are failing to protect the life, liberties, security, and other human rights of abused mothers and children by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters. PAS is one predominant strategy being used by lawyers to place children in such danger. A recent Newsweek article noted the finding of a Harvard study that in custody cases involving documented spousal abuse, 54% granted custody to the batterer, and parental alienation was used as an argument in nearly every single one.

Don't Miss: Courageous Kids (powerful) - kids who had to live with an abusive parent are speaking out about their experiences.
Also: A Letter to Richard Gardener (funny)

Fighting Against Occupation Will Not be Tolerated (Unless you're on our Side)

Let's do a little mental experiment.

Let's say the USA was invaded by Cuba for harboring known terrorist Luis Posada Carriles. Many American civilians were killed.

Along with US army, private security contractors, militias, and regular armed citizens join in the popular resistance against the occupiers. Now lets say one of those killed a member of the invading Cuban army. Would that person deserve to be taken to a secretive prison, charged with murder, and potentially receive the death penalty?

What if this American was a teenager: 14 or 15 years old?

15 year old Omar Khadr (actually a Canadian Citizen) was arrested in 2002 because he threw a grenade which caused injury leading to death. He has been in Guantanamo since.

Now, nearly 5 years later he is being formally charged with murder. Originally the process was ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court, and the charges were thrown out, but the law was conveniently changed by Congress.

The message being sent? This is what happens when you resist the great military imperialist juggernaut that is the USA. Resistance is futile. It will not be tolerated.

The truth? The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is the crime. Resisting is not.

Oh yeah, and why do we understand that child soldiers in Africa are victims, who are traumatized and need treatment, while Middle Eastern children are not given the same consideration? Oh silly me. I know why: because of who they kill. If a child soldier kills one us they are evil. If they only kill other Africans we get that it isn't their fault. Read A Child in War: Detaining Omar Khadr Violates Our Moral and Legal Principles

UPDATE MAY 2, 2007
Read this excellent post, and the scary comments that follow

On Hijabs' n Things

So now we have yet another controversy over what some women wear on their heads.

Makes me think of something I read a few days ago. Exerpted from Sand Gets in My Eyes:

The Biker and the Old Woman: A parable of the veil

An animal rights guy is walking down the street with a bucket of red paint when he passes a Hell’s Angel wearing colors and dressed in a full set of leathers.

“Hey Dude,” he says with a smile. “Nice chaps.”

A block later, that same animal rights guy passes a little old lady in a mink coat and throws the red paint on her.

“Animals died for you vanity!” he shouts.

The point of Butchie’s parable was that both the biker and the old lady were wearing animal products, but the activist knew better than to go after the big, macho male offender, choosing to go after the helpless, frail female one instead.

She goes on to quote William Bennet (yeah I know):

“To go after women donning their veils is to attack the problem at its weakest — and frankly, least important — link (again, when the veil is freely chosen). While Muslim women are being beaten, while honor killings are extant, and while mosques, universities, and madrassahs are fomenting actual terrorism, Muslim women assuming a dress code is not where our — or our allies’ — focus should be. Go after the men who do these things — that’s where the fight is.”

Geez, don't we have more important things to get upset about? Like women in miniskirts or something?

On Privilege and What We Can do About It

Came across this excellent post today: "Check my What? On Privilege and What We Can do About It. Some tips on going from pro-equality in spirit to pro-equality in deed".

A really good explanation of what privilege means, with some concrete suggestions of how to deal with it. Tells us to accept the fact that privilege exists, learn to listen so we can understand what our privilege means, and then gives tips on how to communicate (including some tips on respectful language, and dealing with minority spaces). One of the most important specifics is, I think, is the advice to recognize "it's not about you". Basically anyone who has any sort of privilege oughtta read it: men, white people, heteros, rich people, etc.

It seems to be an opportune time to post about this, considering the conversations that have been raging in this corner of the blogosphere lately. More to come.

Read the whole thing.

Also recommended for a good primer on some of the effects of privilege vs. discrimination: The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the US Racial Wealth Divide, previously blogged about here.

UPDATE: Check out Classified: How to Stop Hiding Your Privilege and Use it for Social Change. You can even download a whole copy here.

The Reality of People in Gaza: Could You Live Like This?

Via Window into Palestine:

One thing this video shows particularly well is the psychological implications for Palestinian children.

Aside from the violence, and the restrictions on movement, the sanctions on the Palestinians are also extremely oppressive. They get sick from dirty water and there's no medicine to make them better. Rates of malnutrition are increasing. People in Gaza can't even fish anymore, which means about a third of their meager dietary protein is now gone. It is truly a humanitarian crisis.

URGENT UPDATE RE: KEVIN (Canadian child in Texas prison)

Just received from Verbena-19:

People of Canada, my fellow bloggers:

In light of new information that I’ve just received, I beseech you to contact our Canadian Immigration Minister Diane Finley by phone/fax/letter/email ASAP! A little boy’s health is quickly deteriorating and his life may be at stake!

As of Friday night, Kevin is still awaiting news from the Canadian Government as he waits in his cell in Texas.

Please read the information below and ACT NOW!!

READ MORE

The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the US Racial Wealth Divide

For every dollar in assets possessed by the average white family in the United States, the average family of color has less than a dime. This event asks why the distribution of wealth in our nation is so uneven; whether public policy, even when well intentioned, reinforces existing inequalities; and whether or not race and ethnicity continue to play a pivotal role in defining the haves and have-nots in our society.

With:
Meizhu Lui, executive director, UFE
Betsy Leondar-Wright, communications director, UFE
Michelle Cromwell, professor, social systems, Pine Manor

Listen Here - Free streaming audio or mp3 download, approx 1h 25m.

Keep Up the Pressure - Bring Kevin Home

Broadcast on Democracy Now, tirelessly followed up by AnneMarie and others, the story of Kevin, the 9 year old Canadian boy in an American immigration jail has now been taken up in some mainstream media outlets such as the Globe and Mail.

Apparently it is not yet enough. Peter Mackay, who is now aware of the issue, recently said:

"We've taken the opportunity to review how we can be of assistance to him but there have been no decisions taken as of yet," [Mackay] said.
Ultimately, it will be up to Citizenship and Immigration whether they're admitted to Canada, said MacKay, adding that he's been told the family won't be deported to Iran until "we have an opportunity to assess all the various options."
"This is in many ways a personal decision that the family have yet to make," said MacKay.

The family made the decision a long time ago. They want to live in Canada. Kevin was born here, this is his home. His parents, denied status, were tortured in Iran. They are only in the US by accident. Truly they have done nothing wrong. They have harmed no one. They just want a home in Canada where they can be safe and build a life for their son. Regardless of your agreement with that, their 9 year old son has most definitely committed no crime. He just wants to go home.

The Canadian government should be ashamed of themselves. Keep up the pressure. Write Peter MacKay. Write your MP. Keep blogging, keep writing the newspapers. Check in for updates.

Punished for Electing the Wrong Leaders

The Americans (let's suppose) democratically elected George Bush, whose administration uses violence to further its goals. Therefore the Americans must live with the consequences of their actions; they must starve. Food will not enter the country. Their taxes will not pay for their services, but stay outside the country. They will not be allowed to leave their local areas. They will be kidnapped, jailed, shot - civilians: men, women, children.

Here in Canada, Harper is our democratically elected leader. Under his watch we've stepped up our mission of destroying Afghanistan. Does that mean now that I (even though I voted Green), you, your children, the peace activists, the Liberals, those who didn't vote, and all the rest of us Canadians should lose our right to a decent life free from hunger, torture, and violent death?

Why would this be considered ludicrously unjust for Americans and Canadians, but considered fair and reasonable for Palestinians?

The Palestinians democratically elected Hamas, which we are told was bad because Hamas is a terrorist organization (presumably because they use violence to further their goals). Therefore the Palestinians must live with the consequences of their actions; they must starve. (See: "Gaza is a Jail. Nobody is allowed to leave. We are all starving now")

Canadian Elections Coordinator on the 2006 Haitian Presidential Elections

"On a very personal level, Haiti exposed me to the realities of development as an imperialistic enterprise."

The significance of the Haitian presidential elections of February 2006, has been ignored by the corporate press. That isn't surprising given that the results exposed the most damaging distortion the international press reported about the ouster of President Jean Bertrand Aristide - that it was the result of a "popular uprising" against him.

Voters delivered a decisive rebuke to the most prominent people involved in the coup of February 29, 2004. Guy Philippe, the rebel whom the press told us was greeted by huge, cheering crowds after Aristide's ouster, received less than 2% of the vote. Charles Baker, a sweatshop owner widely and uncritically quoted by the press before and after the coup, received 6%.

Rene Preval, who was endorsed by the Rev. Gerard Jean-Juste, a prominent Aristide ally and former political prisoner, eventually prevailed after massive non-violent protest foiled the de facto government's last gasp attempt at fraud.

The Canadian government was responsible for organizing the presidential elections of 2006.

Read the full interview with a Canadian elections coordinator who worked in Haiti, with an insider's perspective on the elections.

For background on Haiti and the ouster of Aristide, watch Aristide and the Endless Revolution or check out Democracy Now's ongoing coverage.

More about Canada's Involvement, here mapped out to help you visualize it.

These Are the Good Guys?

Gul Haider, a commander of the Northern Alliance that swept into Kabul after the Taliban's collapse, makes no apology for owning a mansion in Shirpur.

"We are praying for the poor people to have houses like us," he said. "But everything belongs to God. God knows better who should be given property and who shouldn't. God gave us this property and we built our houses. We are praying that God will look more favorably on the poor." - The Boston Globe, November 11, 2006

Meanwhile, Children work the streets to support families because they are so desperately poor. The favoured economic activity for children is picking soda cans out of the dump to sell.



Meanwhile parts of Kabul have been changed into a "mini-Paris" for better enjoyment of rich people, warlords, drug-lords, NGOs etc., most of them high ranking government officials.



More photos

When Did "Suspecting" Become Justification for Killing?

Recent U.S. airstrikes in Somalia have been rationalized as targeting "suspected operatives of Al Qaeda". Since when is the U.S. Military the judge and jury as well as the executioner?

...the world has become used to what is called “targeted assassinations” -- in Gaza by Israel, in Afghanistan by NATO, and in Iraq, as well. But let us be clear that all such attacks are illegal under international law. No one has been identified and tried and sentenced. Invariably, lots of innocent people die in such attacks, sometimes scores, as happened recently in Pakistan. So these are illegal attacks. (From Democracy Now)

Such an act would never be acceptable within the U.S. We in the Western world are so used to legal protection and due process of law that we'd instantly feel the stirring of injustice and there would be a huge outcry. Can you even imagine? Try a thought experiment. Imagine if the police went around willy-nilly, killing those they suspected of crimes (and killing a few random innocent people in the process)? Any attempt at justification by referring to "suspected criminals" would be ludicrous.

So why is it considered an acceptible justification for killing in Somalia? Innocent civilians (although we don't know how many yet) have been killed by the airstrikes, in addition to the suspects. Again, why is this considered ok?

The only thing I can think of is that American life is seen as somehow more valuable than Somali life. I think that should be expanded, actually; each Western (especially white) person's life is seen as more valuable than each non-white, third-world life.

To underscore this, think about the discrepancy between the American deaths and Iraqi deaths in the current Iraq war. Depending on the estimate there have been something between 17 and 217 TIMES the number of Iraqi deaths compared to U.S. deaths. Even worse, though is the fact that we don't even know how many Iraqis have died. The message it sends? "We don't care."

Save rich people first?

Right-wing yahoo Neal Boortz believes it is a priority to save rich people rather than poor people if faced with another disaster. He says:

who do I want to save first? The rich. Save the poor first. Then, when everything's over, where are you gonna go for a job?

He goes on...

Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity.

I guess the people who work at jobs aren't important, it's the guys who play golf and pay other people to do work for them who produce the things we need and enjoy in our economy. Where would a boss be without workers? How many cars are built by the shareholders or CEO of Ford? How can someone actually see production this way? It's like saying that if you have a choice between saving the food factory or the food farms, you should choose the factory because it makes all the food.

If the poor could eat pomposity, they'd never go hungry in the good ol' US of A.

At least people can see what the true beliefs of these greedy b*stards really are.

Anyone else notice class is becoming a topic for discussion again?

Thanks to Court Fool for this.