The Largest Minority

June 27th, 2008 by evmonk

Global Voices, a unique blogging project started by Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, is holding their yearly conference in Budapest for the next two days. Today the conference panels are focused on the censorship and freedom of expression online. Tomorrow there will be a number of panels on citizen media and the use of web2.0 to improve the political process, build community, and bridge the language barrier. The entire even is being streamed and liveblogged, and archived video of every panel is available here. If you’re interested in this stuff, there are some great speakers and discussions. But remember that these are bloggers and technophiles, so their presentations aren’t always the most entertaining.

If you haven’t heard of Global Voices, check them out. They aggregate and review blogs from around the world and then organize the best posts by region and topic, in addition to having a general feed.

June 12th, 2008 by D.C.

The right of habeas corpus has returned to the detainees of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. The high court of the United States, by a vote of 5-4, overthrew a law that George W. Bush forced through Congress in 2006.

The 2006 law allowed for a limited review by a U.S. appeals court in Washington of the military’s designation of the prisoners as “enemy combatants.” It took away their right to a hearing before a U.S. district court judge to challenge their confinement.

This is a great step towards detainees gaining the rights that they deserve. Some have been imprisoned without trials and there is even rumor of abuse within the prisons. These terrorism suspects are people just like anyone else. They deserve to have the same rights as all other people, because they are people, just like you and me. Daila Hashad, Amnesty International’s human rights program director, comments on the court decision:

“The Supreme Court did the right thing. Everyone has the right to challenge why they’re being thrown in prison, to hear the charges against them and to answer to that,”

“It’s a real shame that in the 21st Century, we’ve taken such a step backward in the Bush Administration, to say we have the right to throw someone in jail and throw away the key — but no longer.”

I fully agree with Hashad. President Bush had no right to take away the rights of terrorist suspects. It almost seems like Bush wanted to bring the United States back to the time of the Cold War (McCarthyism anyone?). You can’t deny specific people commonly held rights. That is the sign of a tyrannical mind at work. The whole point of a free society is so that everyone is represented equally under the law. With Bush that seems to have ‘gone out the window.’

The high court decision was dissented by four judges. Of these four judges two were conservatives appointed by Bush ( Justices John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) and the other two were conservatives Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Scalia’s dissent showed his extreme conservatism on the matter when he stated:

“Today, for the first time in our nation’s history, the court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war,”

First of all, the label of ‘alien enemies,’ denotes they are guilty before having a trial. Since there has been more than one detainee released from Guantanamo Bay, this is a huge oversight. Secondly, even if there is an ‘ongoing war,’ (which I personally would not call a war) doesn’t a prisoner of war retain rights? Doesn’t the U.S. government have to abide by rules when imprisoning people during war? Even members of the Nazi party after World War II were given a trial.  

All people have the right to a fair trial, and everyone is supposed to be equal underneath the law. When the equality is broken and the scales of power are tipped in favor of a person, or an agenda (such as the ‘war on terror’), the whole basis of the law crumbles. In the decision passed down by the high court, the framework to restore the law to it’s rightful position in society, which was on the brink of destruction by the hands of Bush, was reborn.

Source  

June 9th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

During his weekly radio and television address on Sunday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged Colombian FARC rebels to lay down their weapons and free dozens of hostages. This came as a surprise to many since Chavez has previously called on world governments to remove FARC from their terrorist lists.

But a FARC statement posted Sunday on a sympathetic Web site suggested the group was far from considering laying down its arms.

Written by rebel leader Luciano Marin Arango, alias Ivan Marquez, and dated June 5, the statement demanded that new elections be called to oust Colombia’s government and Congress.

The FARC’s “strategic objective is the taking of power for the people,” the statement said.

President Chavez describes FARC as a legitimate insurgent force. The group has said in the past that they would release their hostages in exchange for guerillas imprisoned in Colombia and the US, and Chavez himself has been successful in acting as mediator between FARC and the Colombian government. Recently, however, Colombia’s US-backed government has accused the Chavez of financing and supplying the rebels, using doctored files to tie him to the group.

An illegal strike at a FARC camp inside Ecuadorian borders by Colombia halted productive talks between all parties and prompted both President Chavez and President Correa of Ecuador to send troops to their borders to protect their national sovereignty. Since then, diplomatic relations have not been fully restored between Colombia and Ecuador, and a US plan to overthrow Chavez through the proxy state of Colombia has been revealed.

Though it may seem like a departure, or even abandonment of his principles, Chavez’s call for reconciliation could prove positive for the revolution by undermining the overall agenda of the US government in the region. The decades-long civil war in Colombia is the kind of “destabilizing” conflict which the US could use to justify acts of provocation against leftist governments in Latin America.

“You in the FARC should know something: You have become an excuse for the empire to threaten all of us,” Chavez said in reference to the American Empire. “The day that peace arrives in Colombia, the empire will have no excuses.” Addressing new FARC leader Alfonso Cano, Chavez said, “I think the time has come to free all of the hostages you have. It would be a great, humanitarian gesture. In exchange for nothing.”

In a separate address, Chavez warned that George W. Bush “will be much more dangerous during the last months that he has left,” but discussed his desire to work closely with the next US president. Speaking of Obama and McCain, President Chavez said, “they have begun using my name in the domestic campaign. One of them said he would talk with Chavez and another said he wouldn’t. For me that’s not important,” Chavez added. “The only thing I ask of the American people is to have the common sense to elect a president who devotes himself first to solving the problems of the United States and not planning on global imperial domination.”

source 1
source 2

May 12th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

Divide and conquer is a strategy essential to the success of imperialist powers throughout world history. You can give this policy a new name, such as “neo-conservative” or “neo-liberal” (which are essentially the same thing), and excuse it as a necessity for fighting communism and now terror, but it’s still the same shit.

The US is financially supporting division in Iraq, has managed to split the West Bank and Gaza between the parties of Fatah and Hamas, has planned to fracture Venezuela with the help of the Colombian military, and has also sparked division in Bolivia by appealing to the overtly racist white oligarchs which are trying to enact an unconstitutional autonomy referendum in the rich province of Santa Cruz. Pepe Escobar of The Real News gives us the truth about this referendum, which was not sanctioned by the National Electoral Court or the Bolivian Congress.

As Bolivian Minister of Foreign Relations David Choquehuanca has said, the US-backed separatist movement is “a true conspiracy against a democratically elected government.” This autonomy referendum isn’t just illegal; its foreign-funded terrorism against the poor indigenous population to keep what is rightfully theirs concentrated in the hands of white landowners.

In another video on the subject, Pepe notes that Evo’s government has “nationalized gas. They have called for a constituent assembly to re-found the country. They have invested in social programs. And the major taboo: they have transferred hundreds of thousands of hectares of land from big landowners to poor campesinos—peasants. No wonder the elite in Bolivia wants to bring this government down. And, yes, this is a war of whites against Indians, a war of rich against the poor. And it’s also part of a huge, ambitious plan B: break up Bolivia and have a gas-rich independent state in the eastern part of the country—a dagger in the heart of South American integration. Now, guess whom the Bush administration, the State Department, and the CIA is supporting?”

May 10th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

Back in March, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela called Colombia the “Israel of Latin America”. Today we realize how fitting that description is. Not only has there been a drive for the US-proxy state of Israel to attack Iran, but it’s now been revealed that another proxy state, Colombia, will be used to attack Venezuela, another oil-rich enemy of the US.

This so-called “final offensive” against Venezuela, aimed at taking President Chávez out of power and fracturing the country (sound like the plan in Iraq to anyone?), will be executed by Colombia’s army. Documented agreements have already taken place between Colombian President Álvaro Uribe and “the known agent of the intelligence services of the United States,” William Brownfield

This information, recorded in a document titled “Shock and Awe Theory in Venezuela: Provoke a State of Shock In Order to Command Respect,” was presented to the Venezuelan Public Ministry by former Venezuelan Attorney General Isaías Rodríguez. The document cites the Colombian Security Administration Department (DAS) in recounting a recent private meeting in which US Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield, Colombian President Uribe, Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos, and Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos discuss the “secession of the state of Zulia, Venezuela.”

In the conversation, Ambassador Brownfield is said to have referenced a previous conversation he had with US Defense Secretary Gates, who confirmed a collaboration with Venezuelan Governor Manuel Rosales of the State of Zulia. Gates referred to Zulia as “the oil state,” which holds some of the richest oil deposits in the Americas, and expressed concern about the lacking support of the Colombian military. Governor Rosales is a staunch US-ally who participated in the April 2002 coup against his own government and intends to sell state oil companies to transnational corporations.

The source [from within the DAS] added, “The Venezuelan army will be displaced to impede the autonomy and in that moment is when the paramilitaries come into play. Uribe interrupted to express that this action was very dangerous and that he did not think Venezuelans would accept the state’s separation. ‘I know the Venezuelans well and they will not accept this, so perhaps this favors Chávez.’”

Francisco Santos rebutted Uribe, saying that “the idea is to distract Chávez while the other part of the plan is carried out in Caracas, Valencia, and Maracay”. Brownfield calmed Uribe, saying “don´t worry, everything is already prepared, we’ve been in Venezuela creating the conditions in Zulia for years, now the only thing left is to tie up the loose strings from Colombia and sew together the operation to produce the Venezuelan May.”

Uribe put Francisco Santos in charge of the details “without it looking like the Government is involved because we would go to war. The [US] ambassador ended the discussion like this: ‘this is the best moment, because the electoral season in the United States makes many people think that our country is focused on that juncture, therefore any direct or indirect action by the United States would be ruled out or unsubstantiated. Long live the element of surprise.’”

The document also mentions that paramilitaries already working with the US in Caracas, Venezuela will kidnap Chávez’s son and take him to Colombia in order to break down Chávez morally. Keep in mind that this plan comes at a time when US intelligence officials are claiming that computer files seized from a Colombian rebel leader’s laptop show strong ties between President Chávez and FARC. Hmmm, falsely linking the president of a country with a terrorist organization all to invade and steal the country’s oil resources? Yeah, like that would ever happen!

The computer files, which have already been exposed by investigative journalist Greg Palast as agenda-driven fabrications, are implicating Chávez as a “destabilizing” force in the region. Haven’t the same allegations of destabilization also been thrown at Iran? Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela’s ambassador to the US, recently said the computer files were “false and an attempt to discredit the Venezuelan government” after the illegal Colombian attack in Ecuador to extrajudicially kill FARC guerillas increased tensions in the region.

Though the nature of this plan seems more intricate and aggressive than before, US hegemony is of course nothing new to Venezuela. Some of you may remember the failed US-backed 2002 coup against Chávez, or the CIA memo confirming that another US-backed coup has been in play against the Chávez government ever since.

The greatest adversaries to democracy in the world today are the United States and its proxy states. The terrorism which is American foreign policy must come to an end. Resistance begins at home. Let us stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters throughout ALL the Americas.

source 1
source 2

April 26th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

April 21st, 2008 by Manila Ryce

For the first time in over 60 years, the conservative Colorado Party has lost their hold on Paraguay after leftist Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo won the country’s presidential election. Lugo, who is known as the “bishop of the poor”, is a political novice who was able to defeat the experienced right-wing machine by bringing leftist unions, indigenous people, and poor farmers together to form the Patriotic Alliance for Change of seven opposition parties. He has most notably called for land reform and a renegotiation to an energy treaty with Brazil.

Lugo (who sounds like a substantive and liberal version of Barack Obama) said he had dreamt of Paraguay being a country for everyone. Once it was clear that he not only won, but that the victory would be respected, Lugo told supporters at his campaign headquarters, “I invite Paraguayans of all political types, even the ones who don’t share our ideals, to help this country that was once great be great again.” Lugo’s main competition was Blanca Olevar, a candidate from the Colorado Party who was campaigning to become the first female president.

Sitting President Nicanor Duarte of the Colorado Party told a news conference, “For the first time in our history, one party will transfer power to another without a coup, without bloodshed and without fighting among brothers.” The Colorado Party has been in power since 1947. Lugo’s win brings an end to one of the longest periods of continuous rule in the world, and is also the latest in a series of election victories by leftist leaders in Latin America.

Paraguay’s conservative government has been a violator and civil and human rights, and a key ally of Washington (of course) as the rest of Latin America has shifted to the left. That relationship will obviously crumble now that Paraguay belongs to the people. Like all leftist leaders, Lugo will have much work ahead of him to repair the damage that capitalism, authoritarianism, corruption, colonialism, and violent political repression have done to his country.

source

March 29th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

Bolivian President Evo Morales has accused US ambassador Philip Goldberg of heading a conspiracy against his government. Morales has also accused USAID, the main aid organization which is supposed to provide $85 million a year in aid to Bolivia, of funding far-right political opposition. Morales said, “USAID, with funds that come American tax payers, who think they are helping the Bolivian people, is using the money in a dirty campaign against my government and especially against me.”

Anyone familiar with history knows that the US has funded terrorism against the people of Latin America for decades in the form of paramilitary forces, assassins, and far-right dictators. “The mayor of a city, who recently visited me, told me he was offered money by the US AID agency to run as an opposition congressman. They even offered to pay for his campaign.” Morales continued, “And the mayor told me that the people who work for the US agency go from house to house telling people that if they get rid of Evo Morales, they will have more money.”

Morales is attempting to introduce a new constitution which would outline a detailed bill of rights and considerable autonomy for the country’s 36 indigenous groups, who say they were shut out of power by the white population.

Opposition politicians say the charter favors native communities over the rest of the population and fails to address demands for autonomy from the eastern states.

Morales, who is a former coca farmer of the first indigenous head of state since the Spanish Conquest in 470 years, says he has endured racism from the US-backed opposition leaders. “As a trade union leader and leader of peasant movements, I witnessed and had to endure racism and I thought that once I was in the presidency that would stop. The things that some opposition groups and leaders are saying against the indigenous movement are increasingly more radical,” Evo said. “For example, the governor of Santa Cruz [a Bolivian state] referred to president Hugo Chavez as the Chief Monkey, meaning that the other monkey, the other ape, was Evo Morales.”

source