This is the third and final blog on the subject of actions of George W. Bush which should have led to impeachment. I originally sent this piece out on the Peace Action network on November 6. 2007, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged anyone to identify even one action of Bush that should have led to his impeachment.
V. Grey Areas
1) According to United Press International, 300 Special Forces troops were introduced into Iraq shortly before the March 2003 invasion, where they joined Delta forces and CIA paramilitaries already in the country. Introduction of foreign troops into a sovereign state without an invitation is tantamount to an invasion and is thus against international law and the UN Charter.
2) The U.S. tried to blame the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan for the deplorable conditions at Shebanghan Prison: the finding of the bodies of at least 15 Taliban captives, smothered to death near the prison; the suffocation of Taliban captives in airless shipping crates; and the finding of dead Taliban with feet or hands tied, meaning that they had been killed after being captured. A good treatment of U.S. command responsibility in Afghanistan can be found in the December 12, 2002 memo to the Council on Foreign Relations, written by Holly J. Burkhalter for the Physicians for Human Rights. A special report on detainees mistreated in Afghanistan can be found in a late August 2002 issue of Newsweek. Yet another good source is to google Special Forces in Afghanistan and link to "Vietnam Redux."
3) According to the Winter 2002 report by the Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, the INS picked up 1,200 to 2,000 people from Arab, South Asian and Muslim backgrounds. The Justice Department was going to great lengths to keep the immigration proceedings secret. During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush had criticized the Clinton administration for conducting closed immigration hearings.
4) Questionable appropriation of funds:
a) General Tommy Franks used funds not appropriated for that purpose to plan the war on Iraq.
b) Money was secretly expended to individuals to promote Bush administration programs, such as the $240,000 supplied to a talk show host to promote No Child Left Behind.
c) A Pentagon-funded contractor in Iraq used servicemen to write puff pieces under the guise that they were articles written by Iraqi journalists.
5) Malfeasance fostering corruption
a) According to Naomi Klein, an Iraqi reconstruction watchdog, not one additional auditor was provided for in the initial appropriation of over $18 billion for Iraqi reconstruction.
b) A British auditing firm could not find a paper trail for about 20 percent of Iraqi oil money earmarked for reconstruction.
c) Testifying before the House Government Reform Committee on October 4, 2007, auditors for the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction said that the State Department does not know specifically what it received for most of the $1.2 billion in expenditures under its DynCorp contract for the Iraqi Police Training Program. The books were in "disarray."
It is not the case that actions with very destructive outcomes always involve the breaking of specific laws. Operating a government in a very secretive way; having a reckless disregard for checks and balances in government; and being heedless of the effect of your nation's actions on international opinion, constitutes conduct worthy of severe censure, even if no laws are broken.
Speaker Pelosi, the listings of Bush administration wrongdoing or misconduct are illustrative of the iceberg in the ocean, as much more is hidden than is seen. Yet this limited treatment far exceeds your challenge to Ed Schultz that you be advised of one law that President Bush has broken.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Actions of George W. Bush Leading to Impeachment: Part II
I began this blog by listing violations of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva and Hague Conventions during George W. Bush's presidency. This blog will cover violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. statutes, long-standing legal practice and indiiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
III. Violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Statutes and Long-Standing Legal Practice
1) The invasion of Iraq without a declaration of war violated the U.S.Constitution, which gives the Congress the sole right to declare war.
2) The detention of a U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla, without charges and without access to a lawyer for a considerable time, violated due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
3) Wiretapping without a court order violated the FISA Act of 1978. Ignorance of the law is not a factor, since there is an oft-repeated audio in which George W. Bush assures U.S. citizens thast no one can wiretap without a court order.
4) The use of presidential signing statements was once a purely ceremonial affair without any legislative intent. Ronald Reagan was the first presidient to try to give signing statements a legislative intent and to urge judges to use such statements as a factor in legal rulings. President Bush greatly expanded upon the scope and number of such statements, as brought out by a Boston Globe story specifying 750 of such statements.
The U.S. Supreme Copurt has ruled that the president may participate in the legislative process only by proposing legislation and vetoing/approving bills.
5) Although the firing of eight U.S. attorneys was within President Bush's discretion, as frequently claimed, the fact that no explanations have been provided for individual firings; the fact that those who may have played roles in the firings can't be questioned due to claims of executive privilege; the fact that documents related to the firings are being withheld from Congress; and the fact that pertinent emails have been lost, raises the strong suspicion that the firings were due to the Bush administration's belief that the eight were running their offices in a manner that was insufficiently partisan.
6) The current case of an Interior Department undersecretary doctoring scientific documents is just the latest skirmish in a long-running war against science conducted by the Bush administration, in which the revision of scientific information to downgrade the threat of global warming has been the most repeated offense.
IV. Weapons of Mass and Indiscriminate Destruction
President George W. Bush has inveighed frequently against weapons of mass detrauction but he has not been held to account for the weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction used during his presiidency.
1) The 15,000 pound Daisy-Cutter was ued in Afghanistan beginning in the first week of November 2001 to try to dislodge Taliban troops dug-in to stop a Northern Alliance advance on Kabul. Later, the Daisy-Cutter, along with the B-52 bomber, was used to pulverize caves and tunnels in the White Mountains to prevent their use by Taliban and foreign troops.
The Daisy-Cuitter can incinerate an area equivalent to five football fields.
2) The use of the B-52 bomber to carpet-bomb dug-in Taliban was first advocated by Senator John McCain. The imprecise nature of B-52 bombing was emphasized when a 2,000 pound bomb killed a number of U.S. and anti-Taliban troops on December 5, 2001. B-52s were used in the heavy bombing of the White Mountains, raising serious comcerns about long-term ecological damage.
3) Cluster bombs were heavily used in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Tragically, the boomlets used in Afghanistan were the same color as the food packages being dropped by another arm of the government. The U.S. military claims only a one percent failure rate on the most recent version of the boomlets but failure rates on the older versions are much higher.
Cluster bombs are not banned by international law but there is a strong movement underway by as many as 40 nations to ban them due to their deadly effect on civilian populations.
4) Depleted uranium, with its long-term radiation effect, has become a commonly used munition by the U.S. military due to its superior armor-piercing capability.
5) The U.S. military first denied using white phosphorous or any other chemical in Iraq. It later said that the chemical was used strictly to illuminate insurgent positions in Fallujah. Finally, after U.S. troops in the Fallujah offensive spoke out, the Pentagon acknowledged that white phosphorous was used in combat to drive insugents from their positions so they could be killed by heavy explosives.
Italian RAI state television showed video images of white phosphorous being used in Fallujah; said it was used "in a massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians; and reported on civilians in hospitals with phosphorous burns -- phosphorous can burn to the bone.
Protocol three of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW), prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians and military targets located within a concentration of civilians. The U.S. has ratified only protocols one and two. Ironically, before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration warned that use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis could bring the use of nuclear weapons by the United States.
6) President Bush has not ruled out using nuclear weapons against buried nuclear facilities in Iran. Using Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability software, developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Physicians for Social Responsibility has calculated that using a B83 nuclear bomb, adapted for bunker busting, to attack the nuclear facilities at Ishahan, Iran, would kill three million people with one explosion.
Part III of this blog will focus on grey areas of conduct.
III. Violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Statutes and Long-Standing Legal Practice
1) The invasion of Iraq without a declaration of war violated the U.S.Constitution, which gives the Congress the sole right to declare war.
2) The detention of a U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla, without charges and without access to a lawyer for a considerable time, violated due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
3) Wiretapping without a court order violated the FISA Act of 1978. Ignorance of the law is not a factor, since there is an oft-repeated audio in which George W. Bush assures U.S. citizens thast no one can wiretap without a court order.
4) The use of presidential signing statements was once a purely ceremonial affair without any legislative intent. Ronald Reagan was the first presidient to try to give signing statements a legislative intent and to urge judges to use such statements as a factor in legal rulings. President Bush greatly expanded upon the scope and number of such statements, as brought out by a Boston Globe story specifying 750 of such statements.
The U.S. Supreme Copurt has ruled that the president may participate in the legislative process only by proposing legislation and vetoing/approving bills.
5) Although the firing of eight U.S. attorneys was within President Bush's discretion, as frequently claimed, the fact that no explanations have been provided for individual firings; the fact that those who may have played roles in the firings can't be questioned due to claims of executive privilege; the fact that documents related to the firings are being withheld from Congress; and the fact that pertinent emails have been lost, raises the strong suspicion that the firings were due to the Bush administration's belief that the eight were running their offices in a manner that was insufficiently partisan.
6) The current case of an Interior Department undersecretary doctoring scientific documents is just the latest skirmish in a long-running war against science conducted by the Bush administration, in which the revision of scientific information to downgrade the threat of global warming has been the most repeated offense.
IV. Weapons of Mass and Indiscriminate Destruction
President George W. Bush has inveighed frequently against weapons of mass detrauction but he has not been held to account for the weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction used during his presiidency.
1) The 15,000 pound Daisy-Cutter was ued in Afghanistan beginning in the first week of November 2001 to try to dislodge Taliban troops dug-in to stop a Northern Alliance advance on Kabul. Later, the Daisy-Cutter, along with the B-52 bomber, was used to pulverize caves and tunnels in the White Mountains to prevent their use by Taliban and foreign troops.
The Daisy-Cuitter can incinerate an area equivalent to five football fields.
2) The use of the B-52 bomber to carpet-bomb dug-in Taliban was first advocated by Senator John McCain. The imprecise nature of B-52 bombing was emphasized when a 2,000 pound bomb killed a number of U.S. and anti-Taliban troops on December 5, 2001. B-52s were used in the heavy bombing of the White Mountains, raising serious comcerns about long-term ecological damage.
3) Cluster bombs were heavily used in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Tragically, the boomlets used in Afghanistan were the same color as the food packages being dropped by another arm of the government. The U.S. military claims only a one percent failure rate on the most recent version of the boomlets but failure rates on the older versions are much higher.
Cluster bombs are not banned by international law but there is a strong movement underway by as many as 40 nations to ban them due to their deadly effect on civilian populations.
4) Depleted uranium, with its long-term radiation effect, has become a commonly used munition by the U.S. military due to its superior armor-piercing capability.
5) The U.S. military first denied using white phosphorous or any other chemical in Iraq. It later said that the chemical was used strictly to illuminate insurgent positions in Fallujah. Finally, after U.S. troops in the Fallujah offensive spoke out, the Pentagon acknowledged that white phosphorous was used in combat to drive insugents from their positions so they could be killed by heavy explosives.
Italian RAI state television showed video images of white phosphorous being used in Fallujah; said it was used "in a massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians; and reported on civilians in hospitals with phosphorous burns -- phosphorous can burn to the bone.
Protocol three of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW), prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians and military targets located within a concentration of civilians. The U.S. has ratified only protocols one and two. Ironically, before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration warned that use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis could bring the use of nuclear weapons by the United States.
6) President Bush has not ruled out using nuclear weapons against buried nuclear facilities in Iran. Using Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability software, developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Physicians for Social Responsibility has calculated that using a B83 nuclear bomb, adapted for bunker busting, to attack the nuclear facilities at Ishahan, Iran, would kill three million people with one explosion.
Part III of this blog will focus on grey areas of conduct.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Actions of George W. Bush Leading to Impeachment
In his January 2012 State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama proposed to set up a trade review unit and a business fraud bureau. Later, he issued an executive order establishing a trade bureau, which, I, in a prior blog, argued was an unconstitutional act, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. If the bureau will look at prior trade practices, it will be a violation of Obama's dictum that his administration would not investigate possible high crimes and misdemeanors by George W. Bush and high officials in his administration, because he wanted to look forward, not backward. On November 6, 2007, I circulated a piece detailing many possible crimes committed by Obama's immediate presidential predecessor. Since the piece is fairly long, I will present it in three parts
Speaker Pelosi, you recently told Ed Schultz, on his radio talk show on Air America, that you would welcome anyone providing information about a law that President Bush has broken that should lead to impeachment. The listings below provide specific instances in which laws at the national and international level have been broken, or in which accepted norms of governmental operation have been violated.
I. Violations of the UN Charter
1) The "shock and awe" psychological campaign conducted against Iraq before the March 2003 invasion, complemented by the public threats to use the full force of the U.S. military, violated Article II of the UN Charter, which calls upon Member nations to refrain from threatening the use of force.
2) The invasion of Iraq violated Article 51 of the UN Charter, which limits a claimed right of self-defense to a response to an armed attack.
3) The claim by the United States that it can unilaterally enforce UN resolutions goes against long-standing U.S. practice and bypasses enforcement provisions in the UN Charter.
II. Violations of the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva and Hague Conventions
1) The command responsibility doctrine in the Nuremberg Principles holds that those in positions of command cannot escape responsibility for the actions of subordinates.
2) The seminal document in the paper trail of torture authorization, the Bybee memo, cleared the Justice Department of responsibility for torture and received the imprimatur of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who labeled the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." President Bush holds the command responsibility for this memo.
3) The Rumsfeld memo specifying harsh means of interrogation and the very similar September 2003 memo by the top commander in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, both implicate Bush under the command responsibility principle.
4) Holding detainees without charges or any judicial action violates a basic precept of the Geneva Conventions, by which the status of detainees must be established by competent authority operating within a structure of law.
5) Mistreatment of detainees, up to and including torture, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and in Iraq has been so common a practice and so varied in method that it is difficult to catalog it, but clearly, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions has been so tattered and torn as to have ceased to be a restraint on U.S. action under President Bush.
6) The practice of extraordinary rendition, by which detainees are sent to other countries for interrogation, without judicial process, may not technically violate the Geneva Conventions, but it is an abhorrent act that violates the spirit of the Conventions. Although the United States insists it gets assurances that the receiving countries will not practice torture, there is no practical way to check on the fulfillment of the promises. According to an article on detainee mistreatment in the December 26, 2002 Washington Post, at least 100 suspects were sent to other countries by the United States.
7) Changing the laws of an occupied country, as was done by the Coalition Provisional Authority, especially under Order 39, which allows extensive penetration of the Iraqi economy by foreign corporations, violates the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual, "The Law of Land Warfare."
The next blog will cover violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. statutes and indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker Pelosi, you recently told Ed Schultz, on his radio talk show on Air America, that you would welcome anyone providing information about a law that President Bush has broken that should lead to impeachment. The listings below provide specific instances in which laws at the national and international level have been broken, or in which accepted norms of governmental operation have been violated.
I. Violations of the UN Charter
1) The "shock and awe" psychological campaign conducted against Iraq before the March 2003 invasion, complemented by the public threats to use the full force of the U.S. military, violated Article II of the UN Charter, which calls upon Member nations to refrain from threatening the use of force.
2) The invasion of Iraq violated Article 51 of the UN Charter, which limits a claimed right of self-defense to a response to an armed attack.
3) The claim by the United States that it can unilaterally enforce UN resolutions goes against long-standing U.S. practice and bypasses enforcement provisions in the UN Charter.
II. Violations of the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva and Hague Conventions
1) The command responsibility doctrine in the Nuremberg Principles holds that those in positions of command cannot escape responsibility for the actions of subordinates.
2) The seminal document in the paper trail of torture authorization, the Bybee memo, cleared the Justice Department of responsibility for torture and received the imprimatur of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who labeled the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." President Bush holds the command responsibility for this memo.
3) The Rumsfeld memo specifying harsh means of interrogation and the very similar September 2003 memo by the top commander in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, both implicate Bush under the command responsibility principle.
4) Holding detainees without charges or any judicial action violates a basic precept of the Geneva Conventions, by which the status of detainees must be established by competent authority operating within a structure of law.
5) Mistreatment of detainees, up to and including torture, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and in Iraq has been so common a practice and so varied in method that it is difficult to catalog it, but clearly, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions has been so tattered and torn as to have ceased to be a restraint on U.S. action under President Bush.
6) The practice of extraordinary rendition, by which detainees are sent to other countries for interrogation, without judicial process, may not technically violate the Geneva Conventions, but it is an abhorrent act that violates the spirit of the Conventions. Although the United States insists it gets assurances that the receiving countries will not practice torture, there is no practical way to check on the fulfillment of the promises. According to an article on detainee mistreatment in the December 26, 2002 Washington Post, at least 100 suspects were sent to other countries by the United States.
7) Changing the laws of an occupied country, as was done by the Coalition Provisional Authority, especially under Order 39, which allows extensive penetration of the Iraqi economy by foreign corporations, violates the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual, "The Law of Land Warfare."
The next blog will cover violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. statutes and indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Blind Spot in the Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Show
This past Saturday, my wife and I attended the Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Show, held in the Popejoy Theater at the University of New Mexico. Part of the show's purpose is to bolster the re-election prospects of President Barack Obama. Two of the main arguments for the Obama re-election are: 1) he has done some good things despite enormous political opposition; and 2) more progressive Democrats must be elected to Congress to help him do what he really wants to do.
President Barack Obama is not a liberal or a progressive: a more accurate labeling of him might be a pragmatic technocrat. The things that he has done in his first term which might be labeled liberal or progressive are largely the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the economic stimulus package, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the two Supreme Court appointees. He did withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq but that was on the schedule set up by George W. Bush. The negative or non-progressive side of the ledger is much longer. He has embraced a bloated Pentagon, supports an expensive buildup of nuclear weapons capability; has failed to trim the sprawling intelligence empire; has adopted most of the retrograde civil liberties policies of the Bush administration; has extended the Bush tax cuts; has failed to propose a progressive tax system of his own; and has substantially increased the troop levels in Afghanistan without a declared ending date to the war.
A much better alternative to the Affordable Care Act would have been single-payer but he refused to even put it on the table, much as he sabotaged a robust public option. Even the economic stimulus package was flawed by having too large a component of tax cuts and not having a follow-up to extend its stimulative effect.
As for electing progressive Democrats lower on the ticket, it is hard to elect progressives when the head of the party has not articulated even a sliver of a progressive agenda, beyond proposing a surcharge on millionaires that will generate only $47 billion in revenue over ten years. On a personal note, I have received six fundraising letters signed by either Michelle or Barack Obama, and none of them propose a single policy program for the future.
It is right and proper to heap ridicule on the Republican presidential contenders but it is so sad and tragic that the alternative to them is so tragically flawed.
President Barack Obama is not a liberal or a progressive: a more accurate labeling of him might be a pragmatic technocrat. The things that he has done in his first term which might be labeled liberal or progressive are largely the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the economic stimulus package, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the two Supreme Court appointees. He did withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq but that was on the schedule set up by George W. Bush. The negative or non-progressive side of the ledger is much longer. He has embraced a bloated Pentagon, supports an expensive buildup of nuclear weapons capability; has failed to trim the sprawling intelligence empire; has adopted most of the retrograde civil liberties policies of the Bush administration; has extended the Bush tax cuts; has failed to propose a progressive tax system of his own; and has substantially increased the troop levels in Afghanistan without a declared ending date to the war.
A much better alternative to the Affordable Care Act would have been single-payer but he refused to even put it on the table, much as he sabotaged a robust public option. Even the economic stimulus package was flawed by having too large a component of tax cuts and not having a follow-up to extend its stimulative effect.
As for electing progressive Democrats lower on the ticket, it is hard to elect progressives when the head of the party has not articulated even a sliver of a progressive agenda, beyond proposing a surcharge on millionaires that will generate only $47 billion in revenue over ten years. On a personal note, I have received six fundraising letters signed by either Michelle or Barack Obama, and none of them propose a single policy program for the future.
It is right and proper to heap ridicule on the Republican presidential contenders but it is so sad and tragic that the alternative to them is so tragically flawed.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Obama "Flexibility" on Missile Defense Wrongly Interpreted
While President Barack Obama was having a private talk with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, he apparently didn't know that his microphone was on and he told Medvedev that after his "last" election was over he would have "more flexibility" on the Eastern European missile defense system. His claim was jumped all over, mostly by conservative commentators, whose main complaint was the Obama should have demanded a price for any U.S. concession.
Since the anti-missile shield is intensely hated by the Russian government, Obama, in effect, was saying that if he got re-elected he would have more room to either trim the shield or remove it. Conservative critics fumed that he should have traded a concession on the shield for a more cooperative attitude on Syria on the part of the Russians. Critics of Obama have focused on the wrong issue: the anti-missile shield is a carry-over from the George W. Bush delusional belief that if Iran develops a nuclear missile capability it might fire missiles toward Eastern European countries. The only change Obama made in the Bush proposal is that he changed it from a defense against long-range to short-range missiles.
It was a mistake for Presiident Barack Obama to have adopted a much more modest version of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars fantrasy. Obama should begin a retreat from his embrace of anti-missile missiles. If he can get concessions from Russia that would be in the foreign policy interest of the United States that would be supportable; however, the important needed change in policy is to prepare the political ground for the removal of the Eastern European anti-missile shield and to stop the waste of money on anti-missile missiles.
Since the anti-missile shield is intensely hated by the Russian government, Obama, in effect, was saying that if he got re-elected he would have more room to either trim the shield or remove it. Conservative critics fumed that he should have traded a concession on the shield for a more cooperative attitude on Syria on the part of the Russians. Critics of Obama have focused on the wrong issue: the anti-missile shield is a carry-over from the George W. Bush delusional belief that if Iran develops a nuclear missile capability it might fire missiles toward Eastern European countries. The only change Obama made in the Bush proposal is that he changed it from a defense against long-range to short-range missiles.
It was a mistake for Presiident Barack Obama to have adopted a much more modest version of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars fantrasy. Obama should begin a retreat from his embrace of anti-missile missiles. If he can get concessions from Russia that would be in the foreign policy interest of the United States that would be supportable; however, the important needed change in policy is to prepare the political ground for the removal of the Eastern European anti-missile shield and to stop the waste of money on anti-missile missiles.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Trayvon Martin: The Blaming the Victim Stage
Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old black teenager who was shot to death by a reputed Neighborhood Watch captain named George Zimmerman. The shooting, which happened about a month ago, has now reached the stage of "Blame the Victim." Trayvon's mother has said that her son's life has been destroyed and now the attempt is being made to destroy his reputation. About the only thing of any substance that has been brought out is that traces of marijuana were found in his backpack in school but that holds no relevance to a claim that Trayvon Martin may have attacked George Zimmerman. Very recently, the charge has been made that Trayvon swung at a bus driver. That charge seems to rest entirely on an email from a cousin who is apparently responding to an email from Trayvon in which he may have said something about taking a swing at a bus driver. There is apparently no report of such an incident by a bus driver, nor is there any police report. Trayvon and his cousin may have been acting out a psychodrama of no real substance.
The other attempt to blacken the image of Trayvon Martin and justify the shooting is the circulation of a picture of a black teenager in baggy pants, "showing the finger." The circulated picture has been identified as that of another teenager. The only aspect of Trayvon Martin's history that might be relevant to the shooting is if he had a record of violence against others and thus may have initiated a physical conflict with Zimmerman. No such record has surfaced.
The story surfacing in the past week or so is that Trayvon Martin jumped George Zimmerman from the back, toppled him and repeatedly drove his face into the pavement, breaking his nose and bloodying his face. Allegedly, Trayvon attempted to get Zimmerman's gun.
The story raises some questions. I don't recall an initial report of a bloody-faced Zimmerman with a broken nose.* Does Zimmerman have a broken nose? Does his face show signs of bruising? Two eyewitnesses who saw and heard the shooting, went outside and saw George Zimmerman with his hands on the back of the prone Trayvon Martin. One of the eyewitnesses said they were within about 10 feet of Trayvon. Neither one noticed anything unusual about Zimmerman's face but one eyewitness said it was getting dark and the lighting was not good.
It is hard to believe that George Zimmerman would have allowed Trayvon Martin to get the jump on him. Zimmerman said in his call to the police that the guy he had observed seemed to be "up to no good." One probably would not totally turn his/her back on someone who was "up to no good." without turning the head around to make sure that this potentially dangerous person did not attack from the back. Even if Zimmerman was attacked and then somehow got the upper hand, was it still necessary to shoot to kill his attacker? He had his gun out and Trayvon Martin was unarmed. With the huge advantage George Zimmerman had, would the teenager have still presented such a threat to him that it was necessary to shoot to kill?
Racial stereotyping entered this tragic story when Geraldo Rivera raised the issue of Trayvon wearing a hoodie and the hoodie made him appear to be more dangerous: to many people a hoodie conveys an image of black teenagers filled with menacing violence. A number of years ago, fear was inflamed by reports of a new generation of super-predator young people posing a threat of violence to communities across the nation.
So, besides the racial element, why might there be such a major effort being made to blame Trayvon Martin for initiating his own death and exonerating his killer? A motivation that comes to mind is the fear that "Stand Your Ground" laws might be overturned because of the Martin case. The National Rifle Association was a major driving force behind the Florida law and other similar laws in other states; therefore, the more it can promote the idea that the use of a firearm is a legitimate way to end what is perceived as a potentially dangerous situation, the better it will be for gun sales. Fear is a great generator of gun sales and if people feel not only feel safer carrying a gun, but also rationalize that they can successfully claim self-defense if they falsely perceive a threat to them, they will be more inclined to arm themselves.
I have heard that the number of claimed self-defense shootings has tripled since "Stand Your Ground" was enacted but have not seen any law enforcement statistics. It would seem that making it easier to claim self-dense in a fatal shooting imposes a big burden on a prosecutor when someone is able to make an intended killing look like self-defense.
In regard to the Sanford Police Department, standard police procedure is to interview everyone who may have seen or heard anything in a case of apparent murder. The Sanford police did not interview the many people who apparently had visual or auditory information about the interaction between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, nor did they do a toxicology test on Zimmerman, although they did one on Martin.
It is a part of the deteriorated state of U.S. society that when firearms are such a major component of the high level of violence in the nation that we should be promoting the greater availability of firearms.
* It has been mystifying to me why there were no local police reports of taking into custody a badly bruised and battered George Zimmerman. And if Zimmerman was in such bad shape because of assault by Trayvon Martin, why didn't the media pick up on that condition weeks ago? Is this a case of major media malfeasance?
I raised questions earlier in this blog about whether or not George Zimmerman has a broken nose and does his face show signs of bruising. Now it appears I have my answer. On this morning's 5 a.m. (Mountain time) CNN newscast, the report was that police videos don't show any apparent damage to George Zimmerman's face, including the nose. The same newscast said that a New York Police Department person -- I assume for credibility reasons it was a person with medical credentials -- had carefully examined photos of Zimmerman taken after he was taken into custody. The examiner could find no abrasions or contusions on the face.
The 6 a.m. CNN newscast said that ABC News has published pictures of George Zimmerman getting out of a police cruiser at the police station. There is no visible damage to the face and no discoloration of his clothing indicating the presence of blood.
CNN newscasts also reported this morning that George Zimmerman's father is alleging that Trayvon Martin launched a vicious attack on his son and threatened to kill him. The threat to kill claim could only have come from George Zimmerman and cannot be corroborated.
The other attempt to blacken the image of Trayvon Martin and justify the shooting is the circulation of a picture of a black teenager in baggy pants, "showing the finger." The circulated picture has been identified as that of another teenager. The only aspect of Trayvon Martin's history that might be relevant to the shooting is if he had a record of violence against others and thus may have initiated a physical conflict with Zimmerman. No such record has surfaced.
The story surfacing in the past week or so is that Trayvon Martin jumped George Zimmerman from the back, toppled him and repeatedly drove his face into the pavement, breaking his nose and bloodying his face. Allegedly, Trayvon attempted to get Zimmerman's gun.
The story raises some questions. I don't recall an initial report of a bloody-faced Zimmerman with a broken nose.* Does Zimmerman have a broken nose? Does his face show signs of bruising? Two eyewitnesses who saw and heard the shooting, went outside and saw George Zimmerman with his hands on the back of the prone Trayvon Martin. One of the eyewitnesses said they were within about 10 feet of Trayvon. Neither one noticed anything unusual about Zimmerman's face but one eyewitness said it was getting dark and the lighting was not good.
It is hard to believe that George Zimmerman would have allowed Trayvon Martin to get the jump on him. Zimmerman said in his call to the police that the guy he had observed seemed to be "up to no good." One probably would not totally turn his/her back on someone who was "up to no good." without turning the head around to make sure that this potentially dangerous person did not attack from the back. Even if Zimmerman was attacked and then somehow got the upper hand, was it still necessary to shoot to kill his attacker? He had his gun out and Trayvon Martin was unarmed. With the huge advantage George Zimmerman had, would the teenager have still presented such a threat to him that it was necessary to shoot to kill?
Racial stereotyping entered this tragic story when Geraldo Rivera raised the issue of Trayvon wearing a hoodie and the hoodie made him appear to be more dangerous: to many people a hoodie conveys an image of black teenagers filled with menacing violence. A number of years ago, fear was inflamed by reports of a new generation of super-predator young people posing a threat of violence to communities across the nation.
So, besides the racial element, why might there be such a major effort being made to blame Trayvon Martin for initiating his own death and exonerating his killer? A motivation that comes to mind is the fear that "Stand Your Ground" laws might be overturned because of the Martin case. The National Rifle Association was a major driving force behind the Florida law and other similar laws in other states; therefore, the more it can promote the idea that the use of a firearm is a legitimate way to end what is perceived as a potentially dangerous situation, the better it will be for gun sales. Fear is a great generator of gun sales and if people feel not only feel safer carrying a gun, but also rationalize that they can successfully claim self-defense if they falsely perceive a threat to them, they will be more inclined to arm themselves.
I have heard that the number of claimed self-defense shootings has tripled since "Stand Your Ground" was enacted but have not seen any law enforcement statistics. It would seem that making it easier to claim self-dense in a fatal shooting imposes a big burden on a prosecutor when someone is able to make an intended killing look like self-defense.
In regard to the Sanford Police Department, standard police procedure is to interview everyone who may have seen or heard anything in a case of apparent murder. The Sanford police did not interview the many people who apparently had visual or auditory information about the interaction between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, nor did they do a toxicology test on Zimmerman, although they did one on Martin.
It is a part of the deteriorated state of U.S. society that when firearms are such a major component of the high level of violence in the nation that we should be promoting the greater availability of firearms.
* It has been mystifying to me why there were no local police reports of taking into custody a badly bruised and battered George Zimmerman. And if Zimmerman was in such bad shape because of assault by Trayvon Martin, why didn't the media pick up on that condition weeks ago? Is this a case of major media malfeasance?
I raised questions earlier in this blog about whether or not George Zimmerman has a broken nose and does his face show signs of bruising. Now it appears I have my answer. On this morning's 5 a.m. (Mountain time) CNN newscast, the report was that police videos don't show any apparent damage to George Zimmerman's face, including the nose. The same newscast said that a New York Police Department person -- I assume for credibility reasons it was a person with medical credentials -- had carefully examined photos of Zimmerman taken after he was taken into custody. The examiner could find no abrasions or contusions on the face.
The 6 a.m. CNN newscast said that ABC News has published pictures of George Zimmerman getting out of a police cruiser at the police station. There is no visible damage to the face and no discoloration of his clothing indicating the presence of blood.
CNN newscasts also reported this morning that George Zimmerman's father is alleging that Trayvon Martin launched a vicious attack on his son and threatened to kill him. The threat to kill claim could only have come from George Zimmerman and cannot be corroborated.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Future Nuclear Weapons Spending Contradicts Obama's World View
During the Asian summit meeting ending today, one of the subjects was how to secure loose nuclear materials. Although securing such materials is a very laudable undertaking, it will not take us to the nuclear weapons-free world that President Obama envisioned in a Middle East speech early in his presidency. I am indebted to the Peace Action New York State's fact sheets on nuclear weapons spending to show how far we are diverging from the vision that Obama presented.
CMRR
The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory is designed to replace the existing CMR building, which is designed to perform technical analyses on materials, particularly the plutonium used in U.S. nuclear weapons. President Obama zeroed it out of the FY 2013 budget.
CMRR will not help with warhead maintenance: seven of the eight warhead types in the stockpile are in or will soon undergo major Life Extension Programs (LEPs).
Not building the CMRR nuclear facility could save $3-5 billion. Not expanding pit production could save tens of billions more over the long term. Pits are the triggers to ignite the plutonium in a nuclear bomb.
The Project will not create any new jobs, because employees will be shifted over from the old facility.
MOX Fuel
The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX plant) was originally designed to reduce quantities of excess U.S. and Russian weapons-grade plutonium. The centerpiece is the Savannah River site near Aiken, South Carolina.
The Department of Energy has stated that the current projected life-cycle costs of the program have increased to $7.1 billion.
There is currently no U.S. customer for MOX fuel. MOX increases proliferation dangers and is a more expensive option for disposing of plutonium than dry cask storage. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is a more effective non-proliferation program.
LRPB
The U.S. currently has a fleet of nuclear-capable strategic bombers that will last well into the 2030s. Delaying the Long Range Penetrating Bomber (LRPB) for ten years would save at least $3.7 billion in research and development costs.Canceling it would save $50 billion in procurement costs alone. The five-year cost is $6.3 billion. The LRPB was not in the 2012 Aircraft Procurement Plan projecting ten years ahead. Its mission would be dropping nuclear gravity bombs.
There are now 76 B-52 Hs and 18 B-2s.Through 2016 the plan is to spend an additional $1.1 billion for the B-52s and $2.9 billion for the B-2s, and eventually purchase 80-100 LRPBs. $30 billion in procurement costs could be saved if the 30-year LRPB program was canceled.
SSBNCX
The Navy's nuclear-capable ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet is currently comprised of 14 Ohio class submarines, of which 12 are operational and two are in refueling overhaul at any given time. The Ohio class submarines will be retired between 2027 and 2040.
The Navy has plans to build 12 new nuclear-capable submarines (SSBNCX) over the next 30 years as replacements. They are intended to be operational through 2070. There is $565 million in the FY2013 budget for the SSBNCX. According to the Ploughshares Fund, cutting procurement to eight subs would save $27 billion over ten years, or $123 billion over the 50-year life of the program. The SSBNCX will cost $347 billion over its lifetime.
Eight subs of the Ohio class can carry 192 Trident II D-5 missiles with 1,536 warheads; and eight of the new subs, with 16 tubes, could carry 128 missiles with 1,024 warheads.
The SSBNCX and the other future nuclear weapons spending contradicts President Obama's pledge to work toward a nuclear weapons-free world; also, the building programs violate the provision in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires signatory states to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
CMRR
The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory is designed to replace the existing CMR building, which is designed to perform technical analyses on materials, particularly the plutonium used in U.S. nuclear weapons. President Obama zeroed it out of the FY 2013 budget.
CMRR will not help with warhead maintenance: seven of the eight warhead types in the stockpile are in or will soon undergo major Life Extension Programs (LEPs).
Not building the CMRR nuclear facility could save $3-5 billion. Not expanding pit production could save tens of billions more over the long term. Pits are the triggers to ignite the plutonium in a nuclear bomb.
The Project will not create any new jobs, because employees will be shifted over from the old facility.
MOX Fuel
The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX plant) was originally designed to reduce quantities of excess U.S. and Russian weapons-grade plutonium. The centerpiece is the Savannah River site near Aiken, South Carolina.
The Department of Energy has stated that the current projected life-cycle costs of the program have increased to $7.1 billion.
There is currently no U.S. customer for MOX fuel. MOX increases proliferation dangers and is a more expensive option for disposing of plutonium than dry cask storage. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is a more effective non-proliferation program.
LRPB
The U.S. currently has a fleet of nuclear-capable strategic bombers that will last well into the 2030s. Delaying the Long Range Penetrating Bomber (LRPB) for ten years would save at least $3.7 billion in research and development costs.Canceling it would save $50 billion in procurement costs alone. The five-year cost is $6.3 billion. The LRPB was not in the 2012 Aircraft Procurement Plan projecting ten years ahead. Its mission would be dropping nuclear gravity bombs.
There are now 76 B-52 Hs and 18 B-2s.Through 2016 the plan is to spend an additional $1.1 billion for the B-52s and $2.9 billion for the B-2s, and eventually purchase 80-100 LRPBs. $30 billion in procurement costs could be saved if the 30-year LRPB program was canceled.
SSBNCX
The Navy's nuclear-capable ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet is currently comprised of 14 Ohio class submarines, of which 12 are operational and two are in refueling overhaul at any given time. The Ohio class submarines will be retired between 2027 and 2040.
The Navy has plans to build 12 new nuclear-capable submarines (SSBNCX) over the next 30 years as replacements. They are intended to be operational through 2070. There is $565 million in the FY2013 budget for the SSBNCX. According to the Ploughshares Fund, cutting procurement to eight subs would save $27 billion over ten years, or $123 billion over the 50-year life of the program. The SSBNCX will cost $347 billion over its lifetime.
Eight subs of the Ohio class can carry 192 Trident II D-5 missiles with 1,536 warheads; and eight of the new subs, with 16 tubes, could carry 128 missiles with 1,024 warheads.
The SSBNCX and the other future nuclear weapons spending contradicts President Obama's pledge to work toward a nuclear weapons-free world; also, the building programs violate the provision in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires signatory states to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)