Powered By Blogger

Friday, December 23, 2011

US: End CIA Drone Attacks | Human Rights Watch

US: End CIA Drone Attacks | Human Rights Watch

Demonstrate ‘Targeted Killings’ Adhere to International Law
DECEMBER 19, 2011
CIA drone strikes have become an almost daily occurrence around the world, but little is known about who is killed and under what circumstances. So long as the US resists public accountability for CIA drone strikes, the agency should not be conducting targeted killings.
James Ross, legal and policy director

(Washington, DC) – The US government should transfer Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) command of aerial drone strikes to the armed forces and clarify its legal rationale for targeted killings, Human Rights Watch said today in a letterto President Barack Obama and in a questions and answers document. A dramatic increase in the use of CIA drone strikes underscores the need for the US to demonstrate that the CIA adheres to international legal requirements for accountability, Human Rights Watch said.

“CIA drone strikes have become an almost daily occurrence around the world, but little is known about who is killed and under what circumstances,” said James Ross, legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch. “So long as the US resists public accountability for CIA drone strikes, the agency should not be conducting targeted killings.”

In the decade since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush and Obama administrations have engaged in a campaign of “targeted killings” – deliberate, lethal attacks aimed at specific individuals under the color of law. Estimates of the number of deaths of alleged al Qaeda members, other armed group members, and civilians from US targeted killings range from several hundred to more than two thousand. Most of these attacks are believed to have occurred in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen using unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, armed with missiles and laser-guided bombs.

The lawfulness of a targeted killing hinges in part on the applicable international law, which is determined by the context in which the attack takes place, Human Rights Watch said. The laws of war permit attacks during situations of armed conflict only against valid military targets. Attacks causing disproportionate loss of civilian life or property are prohibited. During law enforcement situations, international human rights law permits the use of lethal force only when absolutely necessary to save human life. Individuals cannot be targeted with lethal force merely because of past unlawful behavior, but only for imminent or other grave threats to life when arrest is not reasonably possible.

The CIA’s increasing role in targeted killings using drones in Pakistan and other countries with no transparency or demonstrated accountability raises grave concerns about the lawfulness of the attacks, Human Rights Watch said. While the laws of war do not prohibit intelligence agencies from participating in combat operations, states are obligated to investigate credible allegations of war crimes and provide redress for victims of unlawful attacks. The US government’s refusal to acknowledge the CIA’s role in targeted killings or to provide information on strikes where there have been credible allegations of laws-of-war violations leaves little basis for determining whether the US is meeting its international legal obligations.

“Unsupported claims by administration officials that all US agencies involved in targeted killings are complying with international law are wholly inadequate,” Ross said. “By failing to adopt policies and practices that demonstrate compliance with international law, the US raises doubts among its allies about the lawfulness of its actions and creates a dangerous model for abusive governments.”

Since the US has not demonstrated a readiness to hold the CIA to international legal requirements, the use of drones for attacks should be exclusively within the command responsibility of the US armed forces, Human Rights Watch said. The military has more transparent procedures for investigating possible wrongdoing, although it too needs to make clear that it is conducting attacks in accordance with international legal requirements.

Ending the CIA’s command of targeted killing operations would be consistent with the recommendations of the independent 9/11 Commission, which in 2004 specifically urged that “[l]ead responsibility for directing and executing paramilitary operations, whether clandestine or covert, should shift to the Defense Department.” In November, former director of national intelligence Dennis Blair called for military control over the armed drone program, noting that the armed forces have an open set of procedures, while CIA operations require secrecy, which is not sustainable over the long term: “If something has been going for a long period of time, somebody else ought to do it, not intelligence agencies."

Human Rights Watch also called upon the US government to clarify fully and publicly its legal rationale for conducting targeted killings and the legal limits on such strikes. The US should explain why it believes that specific attacks are in conformity with international law and make information public, including video footage, on how particular attacks comply with those standards. To ensure compliance with international law, the United States should conduct investigations of all targeted killings where there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, provide compensation to all victims of unlawful strikes, and discipline or prosecute as appropriate those responsible for conducting or ordering illegal attacks.

The Obama administration, through public statements by senior officials, has provided an outline of its legal justification for using force against al Qaeda and associated organizations. However, the administration has yet to clearly explain where it draws the line between lawful and unlawful targeted killings, Human Rights Watch said.

In asserting that targeted attacks on alleged anti-US militants anywhere in the world are lawful, the US undermines the international rules it helped craft over the past half-century. This sets a dangerous precedent for abusive regimes around the globe to conduct drone attacks or other strikes against anyone labeled a terrorist or militant, and undercuts the ability of the US to criticize such attacks.

About 40 other countries currently possess basic drone technology, and the number is expected to expand significantly in coming years. These drones are primarily used for surveillance. China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Russia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom either have or are currently seeking drones with attack capability.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

NWIRP: Media Release

NWIRP: Media Release

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Seattle, WA

Contact: Matt Adams, matt@nwirp.org, 206-957-8611

Federal Judge Certifies Class Action Asserting Right to Counsel for Immigrant Detainees with Mental Disabilities

Los Angeles, CA -- In the latest victory on behalf of unrepresented immigrants with mental disabilities held in immigration detention facilities, a federal judge has ruled that Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) and partners have been assigned to represent detainees in a three-state region as a class. The ruling arises out of a class action lawsuit filed last year on behalf of José AntonioFranco Gonzales, a severely schizophrenic Salvadoran immigrant detained without a hearing for over four years in federal immigration facilities, as well as six other named immigrant plaintiffs.

Some 33,400 immigrants are detained each day by immigration officials. While the exact number of detainees with severe mental disabilities is unclear, government estimates suggest that there are over 1,000 such immigrants detained nationwide on any given day. The federal immigration system has no standard procedures to resolve cases against detainees with mental disabilities, even those who are not competent to understand the proceedings against them. Today's ruling will allow the organizations to represent detainees with mental disabilities in Washington, California and Arizona as a class, permitting hundreds of unrepresented detainees with serious mental disabilities to obtain their day in court. The District Court has already ordered that the government find legal representation for the named plaintiffs in this case.

"The most important aspect of the ruling granting class certification isthat we are now in a position to address this problem on a systemic level," said Matt Adams, Legal Director of Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. "People with severe mental disabilities who are locked up in immigration detention are ground through this system without even understanding what is happening to them. We can now focus on fighting for the right to counsel so that they receive a fair hearing."

"The sad fact is that the government has no idea just how many detainees are languishing in immigration detention centers, unable to represent themselves or even to understand why they're there," said Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "Today's ruling will allow us to shed light on this most vulnerable population within our broken immigration detention system."

Counsel inthe case includes Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, ACLU of SouthernCalifornia, Sullivan & Cromwell, Public Counsel, Mental Health AdvocacyServices Inc., the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, the ACLU of San Diego& Imperial Counties, and the ACLU of Arizona. The case is Franco v.Napolitano.

* * *

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project promotes justice for low-income immigrants by pursuing and defending their legal status. We focus on providing direct legal services, supported by our education and public policy work. NWIRP is the only entity in the list of “Free Legal Services” that is given to individuals placed in removal (aka deportation) proceedings in Washington State.

FactCheck.org : The Whoppers of 2011

FactCheck.org : The Whoppers of 2011

The Whoppers of 2011

The year's worst political deceptions, from both sides.
Bookmark and Share

Summary

Despite what you may have heard in 2011:

  • The new health care law won’t cost many jobs (and they’ll be poorly paying jobs at that).
  • Republicans aren’t proposing to “end” Medicare (and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden has signed onto a modified version of the GOP plan).
  • Most of the “millionaires” who would pay higher tax rates under a Democratic proposal aren’t job-creating small-business owners.
  • President Obama’s mother didn’t really fight to get health insurance coverage as she was dying.

And there was plenty more spin and deception in 2011. Obama claimed he pays a lower tax rate than a teacher. Michele Bachmann endorsed a claim that HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. Joe Biden claimed rapes quadrupled in Flint, Mich., after police layoffs. And that’s just some of the nonsense we debunked.

For our full run-down of the worst political whoppers we encountered during the year, please read on to the Analysis section. And get ready for more in the presidential election year that is about to begin.

Analysis

Republican Whopper:
‘Job-Killing’ Health Care Law

The truth first: The best economic analysis of the new health care law points to the loss of a “small” number of low-paid jobs — starting in 2014. That’s when firms with 50 or more workers will be required either to provide health insurance coverage to their employees or pay a penalty.

The Congressional Budget Office also says that the law will lead to fewer people who want to work — or who will want to work as many hours as they normally would — because they’ll be better off financially, or won’t feel the need to stay on a job they don’t like just to keep their coverage.

But you would never know that if all you listened to was the constant repetition of the phrase “job-killing” by Republicans bent on repealing the law before it can take full effect.

We first wrote about this back in January, when we noted that House Republicans were attaching the misleading “job-killing” label to the law, and offering only misrepresentations of the evidence to back up their slogan. But the bogus claim has been repeated over and over all year. On Dec. 10, Rep. Michele Bachmann falsely claimed that a study showed the U.S. will “lose 1.6 million jobs over five years if we keep Obamacare” — referring to a business group’s study that did not examine the new law at all, and showed nothing of the sort. And we also found the worst part of Mitt Romney’s first TV spot wasn’t the out-of-context video editing that caused the Obama campaign to label it “dishonest,” but instead was the more substantive claim that the new law is “killing jobs.”

It may be that the constant repetition of this false claim will make a lot of voters believe it. But repeating a whopper doesn’t make it true, it just makes it a bigger whopper.

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law?
Jan. 7

More Baloney at ABC/Yahoo! Debate
Dec. 11

Romney’s Ad ‘Deceitful & Dishonest’?
Nov. 22

Democratic Whopper:
Republicans Would ‘End Medicare’

First the truth: The budget plan that Republicans pushed through the House in 2011 would have radically changed Medicare in the future — for workers now under age 55. Starting in the year 2022, the GOP plan called for new Medicare beneficiaries to purchase private insurance with the help of federal subsidies.

But the plan would have continued the present Medicare system indefinitely for those now getting benefits, and also for all those who reach age 65 during the next decade.

But the truth didn’t stop Democrats from misrepresenting the proposal shamelessly to scare senior citizens and win election votes. They tested this tactic in a May 26 special House election in New York state, running ads accusing the Republican candidate of endorsing a plan that would “essentially end Medicare” and amount to “cutting benefits for seniors,” claims that were far from the truth.

It worked: Democrat Kathy Hochul won in a district that normally leans Republican. So the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee rolled out even more misleading robotic telephone calls in 13 other House districts to soften up the Republican incumbents for 2012. These calls claimed the GOP House members cast a “vote to end Medicare.”

One independent liberal group even posted a widely seen Internet video of a man pushing a white-haired woman in a wheelchair (apparently well over age 55) to the edge of a scenic cliff and dumping her over it. It ends by asking, “Is America Beautiful without Medicare?” That bogus claim is being satirized by our new sister site, “FlackCheck.org,” which found it to be among the “Worst of the Worst” of 2011.

The truth is that not all Democrats think that changing Medicare in the way Republicans proposed is tantamount to murdering grannie. In fact, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon joined Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin on Dec. 14 to offer a bipartisan plan that is a modified version of the GOP plan Ryan authored earlier. And the New York Times noted Nov. 28 that there is growing support among some Democrats for reining in Medicare costs through a “premium support” system similar to the GOP plan if accompanied by enough safeguards.

But falsely claiming that any such change is an “end” to Medicare has already helped win one election for Democrats. So we suspect this whopper may be making our list again a year from now.

Test Market for Spin
May 19

DCCC Dials Wrong Number
June 13

Republican Whopper:
Job-Killing ‘Small-Business’ Taxes

For years Republicans have been claiming that raising taxes on high-income individuals is equivalent to raising taxes on “small businesses” and thus killing jobs. We first debunked this big exaggeration in 2004, in fact.

This year, House Speaker John Boehner carried the idea to a new extreme with a claim that more than half of those who would be hit by a tax increase on “millionaires” are small-business owners: “the very people that we’re hoping will reinvest in our economy and create jobs.”

That’s rubbish. As we pointed out, only 13 percent of those reporting $1 million or more in income have even one-quarter of their earnings from small-business sources. The truth is that for the vast majority of those making over $1 million a year — a group that includes hedge-fund managers, corporate CEOs, owners of very large businesses and even wealthy coupon-clippers — any small-business income is incidental. Even Boehner’s spokesman admitted later that the speaker had, well, misspoken.

National Public Radio reporter Tamara Keith went searching for business owners who would be affected by the “millionaire” tax, but found that both the House and Senate GOP leadership was “unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.” Undaunted, she asked for help from the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax, but they couldn’t produce any millionaire job creator willing to talk either.

She finally found three who would talk — by cleverly posting a notice on Facebook. But none of them said an increase in the personal tax rate would inhibit them from trying to create jobs, contradicting this GOP whopper. One said, “What my business does is based on the contracts that it wins and the demand for its services,” and not the tax rate the owner pays on profits.

Boehner’s Big Stretch on Small Business
Nov. 9

Keith, Tamara. “GOP Objects To ‘Millionaires Surtax’; Millionaires We Found? Not So Much.” National Public Radio. 9 Dec 2011.

Democratic Whopper:
Obama’s Dying Mother

We also discovered in 2011 that one of President Barack Obama’s favorite personal anecdotes — which he had told any number of times to sell his health-care legislation to the public — was not true.

The president told the story often during the 2008 presidential campaign and the many months before he signed the health care law. He said his mother, as she was dying, nearly was denied health insurance coverage due to the fact that her ovarian cancer was considered a preexisting condition. But in 2011, author Janny Scott published a biography, “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother.” And in it she wrote that Stanley Ann Dunham’s health insurance provider did, in fact, cover most of the medical expenses.

The author had access to Dunham’s letters to her insurance company and reported that her fight was over disability coverage (which is not affected by the new health care law) and not over medical insurance. The White House did not dispute the account.

This is not the first time Obama has been caught using an embellished anecdote to sell the massive new health care law. In 2009 — in a televised health care address to Congress and the nation, no less — he claimed an insurance company delayed covering an Illinois man’s chemotherapy and “he died because of it.” But as reporters later pointed out, the man’s coverage was reinstated. His treatment resumed, and however badly he was treated, he nevertheless survived another four years. In that case, Obama’s speechwriters relied on a mistaken news account and never bothered to check the facts, which had been aired in public hearings before Congress.

Obama’s Untrue Anecdote
July 14

Sweet: Another Stretch By Obama
Sept. 13, 2009

Too Good to Check?
Sept. 19, 2009

Republican Presidential Whoppers:
Bachmann & Cain

We could devote an entire article to the false or misleading claims that Republican presidential candidates are making — about each other, about the president or about liberals in general. But two stand out in our minds as truly memorable whoppers:

  • Bachmann’s totally groundless claim, based on a story she said a stranger told her, that HPV vaccine somehow causes mental retardation. We found no scientific evidence to support that claim. In fact, 35 million doses of the vaccine have been delivered without a single reported case of mental retardation. Bachmann was taken to task by the American Academy of Pediatrics for her “false statements” about the vaccine.
  • Herman Cain’s equally groundless claim — which he repeated on national television — that Planned Parenthood’s founder wanted to prevent “black babies from being born,” and that the organization built 75 percent of its clinics in black communities. In fact, Margaret Sanger’s actual words don’t support the twisted interpretation Cain and others have put on them. Furthermore, only 9 percent of abortion clinics are in predominately black neighborhoods.

An Antidote for Bachmann’s Anecdote
Sept. 14

Cain’s False Attack on Planned Parenthood
Nov. 1

Democratic Whopper:
Teachers Pay Higher Tax Rates Than Obama

President Obama went overboard arguing for higher tax rates on high earnings, claiming that he pays a lower tax rate than a teacher making $50,000 a year. That’s not true.

A single taxpayer with $50,000 of income would have paid less than half the effective rate paid by the Obamas in 2008, 2009 or 2010. And if the $50,000-a-year teacher was supporting a spouse and two children — like Obama — he or she would have paid no federal income taxes at all.

Obama’s Teacher Tax Whopper
Sept. 28

Assorted Absurdities

Don’t see your favorite tall tale here? You can mine our archives for rich deposits of political spin from 2011. There you’ll find (among many other items):

  • An exaggerated Democratic National Committee Web video accusing ex-Gov. Mitt Romney of far more flip-flopping than he really committed. It’s a preview of what the general election campaign will see should Romney win the GOP nomination.
  • Lots of jobs spin, from all sides. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrongly claimed that the U.S. has begun to add “millions of jobs in manufacturing.” And the Senate Republican Policy Committee admitted using a grossly over-inflated number of “potential” jobs that supposedly won’t materialize due to Obama’s oil and gas drilling policies. The Republicans conceded that they had overstated the total by more than half a million.
  • Vice President Joe Biden’s multiple whoppers about rapes in Flint, Mich., following police layoffs. He claimed variously that they went up 152 percent, tripled and even “quadrupled.” But FBI data show the number of rapes in Flint went down by 11 percent over two years. Michigan State Police figures, which include male victims, show a 9.8 percent reduction. The city supplied rape statistics to both the state and federal agencies.
  • Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s Web video claiming the U.S. poverty rate is at an “all-time high,” when it’s actually 7.3 percentage points lower than it was in 1959.
  • And what list of whoppers would be complete without Donald Trump? During his presidential fling, Trump forced Obama to release his long-form birth certificate by making a bushelful of whoppers, including these false statements: The president’s grandmother revealed Obama was born in Kenya; the official “Certification of Live Birth” that Obama released in 2008 is “not a birth certificate,” and there’s no signature or certification number on it; “nobody knew” Obama when he was growing up and “nobody ever comes forward” who knew him as a child; and birth announcements that appeared in Hawaii newspapers in 1961 “probably” were put there fraudulently by his now-deceased American grandparents.

And it wasn’t just the politicians spreading false information: Lies spread like viruses through carelessly forwarded email messages that were also copied and pasted on personal blogs and social media. We wrote in 2008: “That Chain E-mail Your Friend Sent to You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously.” And that continued to be true in 2011. Check our “Viral Spiral” page for the most current cyber-whoppers.

Our favorite example from all the delusional nonsense that circulated in 2011 was another claim — circulated by gun fanciers – that liberal billionaire George Soros was behind an investment company that has been buying many companies that make guns and ammunition. In fact, Soros has no connection to the company. Even the National Rifle Association weighed in, calling this e-rumor “completely false and baseless” and adding: “The owners and investors involved are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are avid hunters and shooters.”

Will 2012 bring more honesty and respect for facts? We certainly hope so. But it is an election year after all — so we’ll be ready for whatever that brings.

– by Brooks Jackson

Posted by Brooks Jackson on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 11:42 am Filed under Articles. tagged with , , , , , , , , , , .

Colombia Asked to Shelve Proposed Expansion of Military Jurisdiction

Colombia Asked to Shelve Proposed Expansion of Military Jurisdiction

Written by Human Rights Watch
Friday, 16 December 2011 21:47
Letter to President Santos

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to express my deep concern with the “justice system reform” bill your administration is currently promoting that would expand the scope of military jurisdiction over cases of abuses by Colombian security forces. Article 11 of the bill would amend the constitution to provide that all acts committed by active security force members during operations are presumed to be “related to service,” and therefore subject to military jurisdiction.[1]This article—which would result in cases of human rights violations by security forces being handled by the military justice system—directly violates jurisprudence by Colombia’s high courts and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as well the views espoused by other relevant international human rights bodies. Its passage would dramatically reverse recent progress Colombia has made in providing accountability for military abuses. And by virtually guaranteeing impunity for human rights violations committed by the security forces, it could ultimately expose Colombia to investigations by the International Criminal Court, including of cases of “false positives.”

The proposed justice system reform is contrary to the jurisprudence of Colombia’s Constitutional Court (CC), Supreme Court (SC) and Superior Council of the Judicature (SCJ), which have repeatedly found that the military justice system should not handle cases of grave human rights violations. While article 221 of the Colombian constitution says that military jurisdiction should be applied to crimes committed by active members of the security forces that are “related to their service,” multiple rulings and decisions by the CC, SC, and SCJ make clear that crimes against humanity, grave human rights violations, and other conducts “contrary to the constitutional function of the security forces” are never related to service, and thereby must always be investigated, prosecuted and judged by the civilian justice system.[2]

The justice system reform bill’s position that all acts committed during military operations are presumed to be related to service contravenes this jurisprudence, because it would result in the military justice system opening the initial investigations into all alleged crimes committed by security forces during operations, including flagrant human rights violations. For example, under the proposed reform, the military justice system would automatically assume jurisdiction over cases of torture and rape against civilians committed by security forces during operations. The military justice system would also automatically open investigations into cases of “false positives”–when members of the army kill civilians, dress them up in camouflage and present them as members of illegal groups killed in combat–because the victims of the extrajudicial executions are reported as killed in action. The proposal blatantly contradicts the CC, SC and SCJ’s repeated rulings and decisions that the application of military jurisdiction should be a clearly delimited exception to the general competence of civilian jurisdiction, and that in cases of doubt, civilian jurisdiction should apply.[3] As stated in a historic 1997 Constitutional Court ruling, “When there is doubt as to the competent jurisdiction, it should fall to the civilian justice system to handle the case. The relationship with an act of service must emerge clearly from the evidence in the case. Given that the military justice system constitutes the exception to the norm, it shall only have jurisdiction in cases in which it clearly appears that the exception to the principle of the natural judge should be applied.”[4]

The reform proposal also contravenes the rulings and decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which have repeatedly stated that human rights violations should not be handled by the military justice system, and that the scope of military jurisdiction should be exceptional and restrictive.[5] In one recent example, the Inter-American Court held in the November 2009 judgment, Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, that, “Regarding situations that violate the human rights of civilians, military jurisdiction cannot operate under any circumstance.”[6]As stated in the Inter-American Court’s May 2007 ruling, Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, this proscription of military jurisdiction applies to all stages of the proceedings, “The military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, if applicable, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations.”[7] In regards to Colombia in particular, the Inter-American Commission has stated that, “Colombian military criminal courts are not an appropriate forum for the examination, prosecution and punishment of human rights cases.”[8]

The jurisprudence of Colombia’s high courts and the Inter-American Court is consistent with the views of the UN and other international human rights bodies. In the draft principles on military justice adopted by the former United Nations Human Rights Commission, principle No. 9 states that, "In all circumstances, the jurisdiction of military courts should be set aside in favour of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to conduct inquiries into serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and torture, and to prosecute and try persons accused of such crimes."[9] This has also been the position of the European human rights bodies and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.[10] In regards to the crime of enforced ‘disappearance,’ it is also worth noting that article 9 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances of Persons, which Colombia has ratified, provides that, “Persons alleged to be responsible for the acts constituting the offense of forced disappearance of persons may be tried only in the competent jurisdictions of ordinary law in each state, to the exclusion of all other special jurisdictions, particularly military jurisdictions.”[11]

The very structure of the military justice system fundamentally inhibits it from independently and impartially administering justice for cases of human rights violations. The Inter-American Commission has repeatedly found that, “Given its nature and structure, military criminal justice system does not meet the standards of independence and impartiality set in article 8(1) of the American Convention… The military justice system has several unique characteristics which prevent access to an effective and impartial judicial remedy in this jurisdiction…The military justice system does not form part of the judicial branch of the Colombian state. Rather, the jurisdiction is operated by the public security forces and, as such, falls within the executive branch.”[12] Indeed, as established by article 221 of the Colombian Constitution, military courts are comprised of active or retired members of the security forces. The hierarchical nature of the military, an institution founded on a strict chain of command, clearly limits active or retired military officials’ capacity to impartially judge members of their current or former ranks.

In practice, Colombia’s military justice system has long failed to hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable. This is evidenced by the military courts’ glaring lack of results in obtaining convictions against those responsible for cases of ‘false positives’. Not only have military justice authorities failed to deliver justice for these cases, but they have also reportedly closed files without conducting a proper investigation into the allegations. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ 2010 report on the situation of human rights in Colombia, “An unknown number of cases [of extrajudicial killings] in the military justice may have been closed without taking appropriate judicial action.”[13] The Inter-American Commission also noted in its 2010 report that in Colombia, “Military judges issue archiving and nolli prosequi decisions in cases of human rights violations.”[14]

Your Defense Minister has defended the justice system reform bill by insisting that military courts will transfer cases of human rights violations to civilian courts once evidence arises demonstrating that a human rights violation has occurred. However, for the same reasons that the military justice system cannot be relied on to investigate and try cases of human rights violations, they also cannot be expected to transfer the cases to civilian jurisdiction in a timely manner that allows for an adequate criminal investigation.

Military judges lack the independence and impartiality to decide whether an alleged crime constitutes a human rights violation and duly transfer the case to civilian authorities when necessary. Moreover, the ability of military judges to make these decisions in an impartial manner is further undermined by a history of pressure and threats against military judges who have transferred abuse cases to civilian jurisdiction. For example, in its 2010 report, the Inter-American Commission said that in Colombia, it had, “Received information on acts of persecution against officials who comply with their duty to transfer cases on human rights violations to the ordinary courts.”[15]The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ 2010 report on Colombia also stated that, “Information received indicates that the transfer and dismissal of some military judges may be related to their collaboration with the ordinary system.”[16]The pressure that military judges can face when deciding on whether or not to transfer an investigation to civilian jurisdiction is illustrated by the case of former military judge Alexánder Cortés, who was removed from his post after having transferred cases of false positives to civilian jurisdiction, and subsequently fled the country because of threats on this life. In a July 2010 interview with Semana magazine, Cortés described living in the same military brigade as one of the officials he was supposed to investigate, “Right in front of my room lived one of the officials that I had to investigate, and who was implicated in false positives, ties to paramilitaries, and drug-trafficking.”[17]

Indeed, military authorities have a very poor record when it comes to promptly transferring alleged cases of human rights violations to civilian jurisdiction. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions reported in 2010 that in Colombia, “The most significant obstacle to effective prosecution of extrajudicial executions by members of the security forces are the continuing jurisdictional conflicts between [military and civilian justice] systems and the failure of military judges to transfer cases to the civilian justice system.”[18] To the same effect, both the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and US State Department reported on the decline in the number of cases of extrajudicial executions that were transferred from military jurisdiction to civilian jurisdiction in 2010.[19](The investigation and prosecution by civilian authorities of members of the armed forces credibly alleged to have committed human rights violations has been a requirement under the US State Department’s human rights certification process to release military aid to Colombia.) As of July 2011, more than 400 cases of alleged extrajudicial executions remained under military jurisdiction.

In sum, by increasing the power of military judges to determine the competent jurisdiction for crimes committed by security forces, the reform would significantly reduce the likelihood that civilian authorities investigate and prosecute cases of human rights violations. This is especially true given that the reform does not establish any effective controls to ensure that military judges will immediately transfer such cases to the civilian justice system. And even if the human rights cases were eventually transferred to civilian authorities, as the Defense Minister says will happen, their initial investigation by military authorities would result in unnecessary delays, wasting valuable time that should be used by civilian prosecutors to collect evidence during the initial stage of the investigation. Meanwhile, the perpetrators remain at large.

We assume that you took many of the points made in this letter into account when as Defense Minister, you promoted the transfer of cases of false positives to civilian jurisdiction. The transfer of cases to civilian jurisdiction signaled to the security forces that they would be held accountable for their actions and would not continue to enjoy the impunity afforded by the military justice system. The initiative played a crucial role in consolidating a dramatic reduction in reported cases of extrajudicial executions since 2008. However, this progress is precarious, and there continued to be reported cases of extrajudicial killings attributed to state agents in 2010 and 2011. Weakening accountability mechanisms for the security forces at this crucial juncture could trigger a relapse to the widespread practice of extrajudicial executions that occurred over the past decade.

We are especially concerned that article 11 of the justice system reform bill could instigate the transfer of thousands of human rights cases that are already in civilian jurisdiction back to the military justice system. Following progress made by civilian authorities in prosecuting false positives and other military abuses in recent years, the transfer of cases to military jurisdiction would greatly diminish Colombia’s ability to fulfill its international obligations to investigate and punish human rights violations. Ultimately, the transfer of thousands of military abuse cases back to military jurisdiction could seriously undermine the independence and impartiality of the proceedings, and if the proceedings are inconsistent with an intent to bring those responsible to justice could, in turn, expose Colombia to further investigations by the International Criminal Court, including of false positives.

In a November 2011 speech, you said that the only way for Colombian security forces to achieve peace and security is through “adherence to the rule of law.” While we’ve been encouraged to date by your government’s vowed commitment to the rule of law, passage of article 11 of the justice system reform bill would directly undermine this commitment. By expanding the scope of military jurisdiction and decreasing the likelihood that civilian authorities investigate and try cases of human rights violations, the reform would represent a very serious blow to accountability in Colombia.

José Miguel Vivanco

Human Rights Watch

CC: Germán Vargas Lleras, Minister of Interior

CC: Juan Carlos Esguerra, Minister of Justice and Law

CC: Juan Carlos Pinzón, Minister of Defense

CC: Viviane Morales, Attorney General

CC: Sergio Jaramillo, National Security Advisor

CC: María Ángela Holguín, Minister of Foreign Affairs


[1]Article 11, Justice System Reform, 143/2011 C, draft bill approved in third debate, December 2, 2011.

[2]See, for example, Colombian Constitutional Court, Sentence C-358/97; Colombian Constitutional Court, Sentence C-878/00; Colombian Constitutional Court, Sentence SU-1184/01; Colombian Superior Council of the Judicature, No. 110010102000200601121 00, Decision of August 14, 2006; Colombian Superior Council of the Judicature, No. 110010102000200900097 01 – 1134C, Decision of February 2009; Colombian Supreme Court, Case Number 26137, Decision of May 6, 2009.

[3]See, for example, Colombian Constitutional Court, Sentence C-358/97; Colombian Constitutional Court, Sentence C-878/00; Colombian Superior Council of the Judicature, No. 110010102000200601121 00, Decision of August 14, 2006; Colombian Superior Council of the Judicature, No. 110010102000200900097 01 – 1134C, Decision of February 2009; Colombian Supreme Court, Case Number 21923, Decision of May 25, 2006; Colombian Supreme Court, Case Number 26137, Decision of May 6, 2009.

[4]Colombian Constitutional Court, Sentence C-358/97.

[5]See, for example, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile, Judgment of September 26, 2006, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Series C. No.154, para. 131; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Series C No. 163, para. 200; Case de Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, Judgment of November 23, 2009, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Series C No. 209, paras. 272 and 274; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Admissibility Report No. 19/05. Petition 54/04, Valdemir Quispialaya Vilcapoma, Peru, February 25, 2005, para. 46. Admissibility Report N° 13/04. Petition 136/03, Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez et al., Peru, February 27, 2004, para. 59. Admissibility Report N° 41/02. Petition 11,748, José del Carmen Álvarez Blanco et al. (Pueblo Bello), Colombia, October 9, 2002, para. 24; Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Human Rights Situation in Brazil (1997), pp. 40-42.

[6]Inter-American Court, Case de Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, Judgment of November 23, 2009, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Series C No. 209, para. 274.

[7]Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Series C No. 163, para. 200.

[8]Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 43/08, Case 12.009, Leydi Dayán Sánchez, Colombia, July 23, 2008, para. 77.

[9]United Nations Human Rights Commission, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Emmanuel Decaux, Draft Principles Governing the Administration of Justice Through Military Tribunals, E/CN.4/2006/58, January 13, 2006, principle no. 9.

[10]See, for example, the Dakar Declaration and Recommendations on the Right to a Fair Trial in Africa (1999); African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights, “Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa,” DOC/OS(XXX)247, 2001 which provides that “[t]he only purpose of Military Courts shall be to determine offences of a purely military nature committed by military personnel.”This position is reaffirmed in jurisprudence such as Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, Comm. Nos. 222/98 and 229/99, (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2003); Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 224/98, (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2000). The European Court has also been critical of the use of military tribunals for the prosecution of offences other than those strictly of a military nature, in cases involving civilians, and even where the subject matter may be a matter properly assigned to a military tribunal has been repeatedly critical of the lack of independence of military tribunals. See jurisprudence of the Court in e.g. Findlay v. The United Kingdom (110/1995/616/706) Judgment February 25, 1997; Incal v. Turkey, Judgment of June 9, 1998, ECHR Reports 1998-IV,;Ergin v Turkey(47533/99) (2008) 47 EHRR 36.

[11]Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances of Persons, 33 I.L.M. 1429 (1994), entered into force March 28, 1996, ratified by Colombia on April 1, 2005, article 9.

[12]See, for example, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report No. 43/08, Case 12.009, Leydi Dayán Sánchez, Colombia, July 23, 2008, paras. 76 and 77. Report No. 63/01, Case 11.710, Carlos Manuel Prada Gonzalez and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro, Colombia, April 6, 2001, para. 41. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), pp. 175 to 186.

[13]UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia, A/HRC/16/22, February 3, 2011, para 26.

[14]Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, March 7, 2011, Chapter IV Colombia, para. 31.

[15]Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, March 7, 2011, Chapter IV Colombia, para. 30.

Phanphest Presents Lemon Juice at McCann's 11-23-11 : Mind Of Mauve

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Karmic Juggernaut / homegrownradionj.com benefit show / The Stanhope Hou...



Randy Preston--guitar/vox, James McCaffrey--guitar/keys/vox, Kevin Grossman--drums/percussion, Brian Gearty--bass

Combining elements of psychedelic and progressive rock, funk, jazz, blues, world music, and a constantly developing array of other influences, K-Juggs stands as an experiment into sonic experience.

The quartet has already shared the stage with acts such as moe., Keller Williams, Umphrey's McGee, Gongzilla, Perpetual Groove, Lotus, UMelt, and State Radio, while playing throughout the Northeast. In 2009, they were included in Relix Magazine's October issue, Comcast's Bands on Demand program, and on Keller's Cellar, Keller Williams' syndicated radio program. As of January '10, Karmic has been working with Stone Barn Records on a new album slated to be released sometime in 2011. The album is being produced by the infamous Ron Frangipane, whose credits as producer, arranger, orchestrator, and musician include John Lennon, The Rolling Stones, Janis Ian, KISS, Frank Zappa, Grace Slick, Diana Ross, The Archies, and MANY others.

http://www.karmicjuggernaut.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karmic-Juggernaut/179479245438457
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_2226240047
http://www.reverbnation.com/karmicjuggernaut
http://www.myspace.com/karmicjuggernaut
https://twitter.com/#!/KarmicJuggs

______________________________________________________


You can find out more about HomegrownRadioNJ.com here:

http://www.homegrownradionj.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/HomegrownRadioNJorg/59997559920

__________________________________________________________


You can find out about all of the amazing shows at The Stanhope House as well as learn about the incredible history of this colonial roadhouse here:

http://stanhopehousenj.com/
http://www.facebook.com/stanhopehouse
https://twitter.com/#!/StanhopeHouse

__________________________________________________________


Come be one of my muses & fan me on facebook here:

http://www.facebook.com/phinnegansvideos

__________________________________________________________

MiZ at the homegrownradionj.com benefit show at The Stanhope House 12-11...

MiZ at the homegrownradionj.com benefit show at The Stanhope House 12-11...



Mike MiZ aka Mike Mizwinski playing solo at the benefit show for homegrownradionj.com at The Stanhope House on December 11, 2011.

http://www.mikemizmusic.com
http://www.facebook.com/mizmusic
https://twitter.com/#!/mikemizmusic
http://www.myspace.com/mikemizwinski
http://artistdata.sonicbids.com/miz/shows/
http://www.youtube.com/mikemizwinskimusic
http://www.reverbnation.com/mizmusic
http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/MiZ2
http://soundcloud.com/mizmusic

The style of MiZ, the band, has been described as a fusion of folk, rock, bluegrass and blues; in short a melting pot blended into what would best be categorized as "pure Americana." The groups' founder, lead guitarist and singer/songwriter Mike Mizwinski, comes from Northeastern Pennsylvania, an area long known for its rich and vibrant talent....

[Mike has play with many bands.] During his time with Gongzilla he had the opportunity to play alongside members of Zappa, moe. Umphrey's McGee, Particle, Crosby, Stills & Nash.

Wanting to form his own band to showcase his original music, Mike used Gongzilla's hiatus as an opportunity to form MiZ. Since it's inception in 2010, MiZ has had the opportunity to open for such acts as Derek Trucks, Bob Dylan, Shawn Colvin, Leon Russell, Blue Oyster Cult, Kenny Wayne Sheppard, Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, Railroad Earth, Blues Traveler and more. In addition to MiZ, Mike currently he plays with Jam Stampede (former members of the Zen Tricksters) and Garcia Grass. Becoming well know for guitar skills and solid jams Mike's live performances are what brings fans back every time. Mike has been afforded the opportunity to share the stage with Jackie Greene (Phil and Friends), Michael Glablicki (Rusted Root), Mark Ford (Black Crowes), Marco Benevento, Umphrey's McGee, Jeff Pevar, Don Preston (Frank Zappa and the Mothers), Merl Saunders, plus members of String Cheese Incident, Particle, and moe.

East Hope Avenue has been years in the making. It is a collection of original songs written from Mike's experiences over the past decade. Accompanying Mike on the CD is the talent of Freeman White, (Donna Jean Godchaux), Brett Alexander (Badlees), AJ Jump and Bill Stetz, East Hope Avenue includes a variety other musicians Mike has played with over the years, along with guest appearances by Buddy Cage (New Riders), John Graboff (Ryan Adams and the Cardinals), Gordon Stone and Eva Katherine.

You can check out East Hope Avenue on iTunes here:

http://itunes.apple.com/ie/album/east-hope-avenue/id471483337

______________________________________________________


You can find out more about HomegrownRadioNJ.com here:

http://www.homegrownradionj.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/HomegrownRadioNJorg/59997559920

__________________________________________________________


You can find out about all of the amazing shows at The Stanhope House as well as learn about the incredible history of this colonial roadhouse here:

http://stanhopehousenj.com/
http://www.facebook.com/stanhopehouse
https://twitter.com/#!/StanhopeHouse

__________________________________________________________


Come be one of my muses & fan me on facebook here:

http://www.facebook.com/phinnegansvideos

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

BuzzUniverse at The Donegal Saloon 12-10-11 : Homer's Mountain/Too Much ...

BuzzUniverse at The Donegal Saloon 12-10-11 : Round And Round Continued

BuzzUniverse at The Donegal Saloon 12-10-11 : Round and Round



Alex Garay--Guitar/Vocals, Rosie Lazroe--Vocals, Dave Migliore--Drums/Vocals, Meredith Rachel--Violin, Greg McLoughlin-Bass/Vocals, Brian Ciufo--Saxophones/Vocals/Percussion

All show listings at http://www.buzzuniverse.com/

"Living Breathing Magic" is available now at http://bit.ly/ningxe

Proudly hailing from Elizabeth, New Jersey, BuzzUniverse refuses to be defined by a singular musical genre. Having never abandoned their progressive rock roots, BuzzUniverse ambitiously incorporate elements of traditional rock and roll, acoustic folk, South American cantatas, world rhythms and old-school funk into their own distinctive blend of classic rock. Since 2003, BuzzUniverse has been guided by the philosophy that music should have no limits and the world's musical evolution should be unflinchingly embraced. "We want to expose people to different genres of music," explains Alex Garay, BuzzUniverse's frontman and lead guitarist. "We want people to hear bluegrass, funk and New Orleans jazz and realize that the music that comes out of this little band from New Jersey comes from all over the country and all over the world."

General Manager/Press Contact : David Schultz, Rabbits Luck Management, 917-280-4329, schultz@buzzuniverse.com

Booking Agent : booking@buzzuniverse.com

http://www.buzzuniverse.com
http://www.facebook.com/buzzuniverse1
http://www.reverbnation.com/buzzuniverse
http://www.archive.org/details/BuzzUniverse
http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/buzzuniverse/id209477573
http://www.myspace.com/buzzuniverse
http://buzzuniverse.bandcamp.com/
https://twitter.com/BuzzUniverse

______________________________________________________


You can keep track of all of the great bands playing at The Donegal Saloon here:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Donegal-Saloon/152110514829906

And you can find all of my videos on facebook here:

http://www.facebook.com/phinnegansvideos

Billy Bragg - Which Side Are You On?



लव थिस सोंग - बीत इ हवे तो पिचक सिदेस!

Monday, October 24, 2011

S-Comm Silences Domestic Violence Victims

S-Comm Silences Domestic Violence Victims

Private Paramilitary Training Complex Slated for Border Hits a Hitch | the narcosphere

Private Paramilitary Training Complex Slated for Border Hits a Hitch | the narcosphere

Private Paramilitary Training Complex Slated for Border Hits a Hitch

However, Opponents of Planned Facility Remain Wary of Shell Game Shenanigans

A paramilitary service company’s plan to develop a nearly 1,000-acre military and law-enforcement training facility near the California border with Mexico is now in the process of being scuttled by a foreclosure action on the property.

At least $1 million is still owed on the property by the company, called Wind Zero, according to the current notice of default obtained by Narco News — and some sources familiar with the foreclosure process indicate the amount owed, including interest and penalties, exceeds $1.5 million.

“The note [loan] on the property is in default, and we are going through the foreclosure process,” confirms Stewart Cowan, a San Diego attorney representing the note holder, Donna Perrine, who sold the 944-acre site to Wind Zero in 2007.

A check of public records for the Wind Zero property shows that the owner also is in arrears on 2010 taxes owed to Imperial County, Calif., to the tune of nearly $2,800. David Black, a senior planner with Imperial County, says he is not aware of either the foreclosure or the taxes owed with respect to the Wind Zero project.

“I was the project planner for that project, but I have not kept up on the foreclosure or tax matters,” Black says. “If they come in to apply for building permits, then it might become an issue. But nothing has been done on the (Wind Zero) project since they received approval in December of last year.”

The proposed Wind Zero project, which would be developed in three phases at a cost of up to $100 million (some $15 million for Phase 1), has been billed by Wind Zero as a privately operated, state-of-the-art training center that would employ up to 200 people and serve as economic boon to the small California border towns of Nomirage and Ocotillo, located in Imperial County some 80 miles east of San Diego and less than a dozen miles from the Mexican border.

The paramilitary training center is slated to include numerous shooting ranges allowing for some 57,000 rounds of ammunition to be fired off daily; a mock-up of an urban neighborhood for practices assaults; a 6-mile dual-use race track for teaching defensive and offensive driving (and for private-pay recreational use); an airstrip and multiple heliports; and enough housing and RV camper space (along with a 100-room hotel) to accommodate a small battalion of warriors.

Shell Game

Despite the money problems apparently afflicting the Wind Zero project, opponents of the development indicate that there is still some concern that a paramilitary front company, such as an affiliate of Xe (formerly Blackwater), could still purchase the property out of foreclosure and proceed with the project.

In fact, the planned Wind Zero training center is not unlike a similar project proposed several years ago in southern California by Xe, then called Blackwater (which, like Wind Zero, was founded by former Navy SEALs). Blackwater pulled the plug on that controversial project in early 2008 due to community opposition.

“There have been rumors floating around that Wind Zero [led by former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb] has some type of affiliation with Xe, and that it is possible Wind Zero could sell it’s interest in the project,” says Larry Silver of the California Environmental Law Project. Silver is representing the Sierra Club and the Desert Protective Council in a lawsuit against Wind Zero and Imperial County, Calif. — which has sanctioned the development of Wind Zero’s paramilitary training center.

Attorney Cowan concedes that there is nothing to prevent a company like Xe, or an affiliate of Wind Zero, from buying the note due on the property where the Wind Zero training center is slated to be constructed.

“They could show up at the courthouse in Imperial County and buy the note at the foreclosure auction,” he says.

Narco News attempted to contact Wind Zero top gun Webb, but phone calls were not returned. According to prior media reports, Webb insists Wind Zero is not affiliated with Xe, but rather he considers the East Coast company to be a competitor.

Webb addressed the issue in an interview with the San Diego Reader in January of this year.

From the Reader story:

Anger over Wind Zero’s proposal intensified in June 2007 when Brian Bonfiglio, Blackwater’s vice president, showed up at a presentation that Wind Zero chief executive Webb was giving at a community meeting.

“There’s been a lot of negativity about this Blackwater [Xe] issue,” Webb says during a January 17 phone interview. “There’s this big conspiracy that we’re a shadow company for Blackwater, but it’s ridiculous. [Bonfiglio] showed up at the meeting, and I didn’t even know until afterwards. If we were associated, then the worst thing I could do would be to bring a member of Blackwater to a community meeting.”

Broker in the Weeds

However, sources told Narco News that in late September, about a month after the notice of default on the Wind Zero site was recorded, a broker from Texas by the name of David Keener contacted Cowan to make an offer on the property.

Cowan confirms that he was contacted by Keener, whom, he says, “made an offer on the property that was considerably less than the value of the note.”

“Donna [Perrine, the holder of the note] rejected the offer, and there was no deal made with Keener,” Cowan adds.

In a check of Texas corporation records, Narco News discovered that Keener is listed as the registered agent for MDJ Texas Reality Holdings LLC. Those same records show that MDJ is affiliated with a company called Holland Park Capital of Austin, Texas, whose registered agent is an individual named Mark Jansen.

A Form D Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities filing that Wind Zero lodged with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2009 lists Jansen as an executive officer and director of Wind Zero.

Narco News was unable to reach Jansen for comment. However, Keener, when contacted in Texas, did confirm that he knows Jansen and had a business relationship with him. However, Keener says he is now the sole owner of MDJ and it is no longer affiliated with Holland Park Capital.

Keener also says he was not representing either Jansen or Arlington, Va.-based Xe in the bid to acquire the Wind Zero property in Southern California.

Xe is owned by USTC Holding LLC, which counts as members of its board of directors former Bush Administration U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Clinton Administration General Counsel Jack Quinn, and retired U.S. Navy Admiral Bobby R. Inman. Listed as a director of Wind Zero is former Navy Captain and RAND Senior Management Systems Analyst John Birkler , according to Wind Zero's 2009 Form D filing with the SEC.

RAND bills itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, but, in reality, it has a long history of close ties to the military and private-sector warfare complex. RAND media spokesman Warren Robak told Narco News previously that “John Birkler and his involvement with Wind Zero is a private matter — it has nothing to do with RAND.”

Keener would say only that he was representing in his bid for the Wind Zero property “an investor from the East Coast who was familiar with the [Wind Zero] project.”

The environmental groups represented by Silver and the Quechan Indian Tribe (the land slated for the Wind Zero project is the site of a tribal burial ground) filed their separate lawsuits earlier this year in California Superior Court seeking a judicial order that will undue Imperial County’s approval for the planned Wind Zero project.

Silver says the Sierra Club and Desert Protective Council have no plans to drop their lawsuit, even if the Wind Zero property is sold — given the concern that a third party affiliated with either Wind Zero or Xe may still seek to purchase the property out of foreclosure (at a significantly reduced price) and move forward with the project under the existing development agreement with Imperial County.

“There is a hearing in the case set for Nov. 10, and we are prepared to ask the court to set aside the approval for the project,” Silver says. “If the judge says no, then we plan to appeal.”

A Grass-Roots Newscast Gives a Voice to Struggles - NYTimes.com

A Grass-Roots Newscast Gives a Voice to Struggles - NYTimes.com

A Grass-Roots Newscast Gives a Voice to Struggles

Hours after Amy Goodman, the host of the grass-roots newscast “Democracy Now!,” was arrested in Minnesota in 2008 while trying to cover protesters at the Republican National Convention, she was sitting in a network news studio above the convention floor, when a producer said: “I don’t get it. Why wasn’t I arrested?”

Evan Sung for The New York Times

Amy Goodman, right, interviewing Tawakkol Karman, left, a Nobel laureate, with an interpreter.

Ms. Goodman asked him, “Were you out on the streets?” No, he said, he had been in the studio the whole time. “I’m not being arrested here either,” she said she told him. “You’ve got to get out there.”

For Ms. Goodman, that exchange expresses both a shortcoming of the network newscasts that many Americans consume and a strength of “Democracy Now!,” the 15-year-old public radio and television program. The newscast distinguishes itself by documenting social movements, struggles for justice and the effects of American foreign policy, along with the rest of the day’s developments.

Operated as a nonprofit organization and distributed on a patchwork of stations, channels and Web sites, “Democracy Now!” is proudly independent, in that way appealing to hundreds of thousands of people who are skeptical of the news organizations that are owned by major media companies. The program “escapes the suffocating sameness that pervades broadcast news,” said John Knefel, a comedian and freelance writer who started listening about four years ago and now tries never to miss an episode.

Though it has long had a loyal audience, “Democracy Now!” has gained more attention recently for methodical coverage of two news events — the execution of the Georgia inmate Troy Davis and the occupation of Wall Street and other symbolic sites across the country. Ms. Goodman broadcast live from Georgia for six hours on Sept. 21, the evening of the execution, and “Democracy Now!” reporters were fanned out in Manhattan from the first day of the protests against corporate greed.

“At the time, we had no idea if the protest would even last the night, but we recognized it as potentially an important story,” said Mike Burke, a senior news producer for the program. He noted that “it took NPR more than a week to air its first story on the movement.”

Distribution for “Democracy Now!” — which is live each weekday at 8 a.m. Eastern — comes from public, community and college radio stations; public access television stations and some PBS affiliates; the noncommercial satellite networks Free Speech TV and Link TV; and from the program’s Web site, DemocracyNow.org, which streams each hourlong newscast in full.

The producers say the program is broadcast on more than 950 stations. But because the distribution is cobbled together and because the program has no commercials, no Nielsen ratings are available.

The media, Ms. Goodman said in an interview last week, can be “the greatest force for peace on earth” for “it is how we come to understand each other.” But she asserted that the views of a majority of Americans had been “silenced by the corporate media.”

“Which is why we have to take it back,” she said, echoing the sentiments of many of her fans.

Friends and former colleagues describe Ms. Goodman as ferocious and persistent, traits that have not changed since the program’s inception in 1996 on five Pacifica Radio stations.

“On the radio, she sounded at times like a giant, at others a giant slayer,” said Jeremy Scahill, now an investigative reporter for The Nation magazine, who practically begged Ms. Goodman to let him volunteer for the program in 1997. She agreed and initially paid him $40 a day from her own pocket. On Facebook he lists the program as his college education.

“What drove us was telling stories we felt were being ignored, misreported or underreported by corporate media outlets,” Mr. Scahill said.

The program slowly gained more stations and, amid a dispute with Pacifica, which was later resolved, it established itself as a nonprofit news organization in 2001. The week of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the program began to be simulcast on television. Since then, Ms. Goodman said, “the growth has just been phenomenal.”

While many media outlets were faulted for playing down antiwar protests after the attacks, “Democracy Now!” covered such events extensively.

Some fans as well as critics describe “Democracy Now!” as progressive, but Ms. Goodman rejects that label and prefers to call it a global newscast that has “people speaking for themselves.” She criticized networks in the United States that have brought on professional pundits, rather than actual protesters, to discuss the Occupy protests.

Last week, no United States television network covered the filing of a lawsuit in Canada by four men who said they had been tortured during the Bush administration and who are seeking Mr. Bush’s arrest and prosecution. But one of the men, Murat Kurnaz, a former prisoner at Guantánamo Bay, was interviewed at length by Ms. Goodman and her co-host, Juan Gonzalez.

The nonprofit nature of the program means that the producers “never have to worry about how an advertiser might feel,” avoiding potential self-censorship, Mr. Burke said. But it also sharply limits the size of the staff. The program relies on volunteers to transcribe segments and, occasionally, to translate foreign-language interviews.

Ms. Goodman regularly helps raise money for stations that broadcast the program. The Internet has given the program a global audience and the ability to reach that audience for more than an hour a day. On the evening of Sept. 21, the live stream about the execution of Mr. Davis was viewed more than 800,000 times.

The live stream attested to “the hunger for this kind of information,” Ms. Goodman said. “Yet there was no network that was there to cover this moment throughout the night.”

Except, in a sense, “Democracy Now!” was able to be that network, at least for a night.