Newsflash:
Issues End Corporate Rule End Wars and Occupations We Need To End the Disastrous Failure Of The War On Terror
Tuesday, 04 February 2014 01:28

We Need To End the Disastrous Failure Of The War On Terror

Written by 

America's military adventures have fueled a global explosion of terrorism and a historic breakdown of law and order.

Twelve years into America's "war on terror," it is time to admit that it has failed catastrophically, unleashing violence, war and instability in an "arc of terror" stretching from West Africa to the Himalayas and beyond. 

If we examine the pretext for all this chaos, that it could possibly be a legitimate or effective response to terrorism, it quickly becomes clear that it has been the exact opposite, fueling a global explosion of terrorism and a historic breakdown of law and order.The U.S. State Department's "terrorism" reports present a searing indictment of the "war on terror" on its own terms.  From 1987 to 2001, the State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism" reports had documented a steady decline in terrorism around the world, from 665 incidents in 1987 to only 355 incidents in 2001.  But since 2001, the U.S. "war on terror" has succeeded in fueling the most dramatic and dangerous rise in terrorism ever seen.

The State Department reports seem, at first glance, to show some short-term success, with total terrorist incidents continuing to decline, to 205 incidents in 2002 and 208 in 2003.  But the number of more serious or "significant" incidents (involving death, serious injury, abduction, kidnapping, major property damage or the likelihood of such results) was already on the rise, from 123 incidents in 2001 to 172 in 2003.

But then the 2004 report, due to be published in March 2005, revealed that the number of incidents had spiked to an incredible 2,177, including 625 "significant" incidents, even though the report excluded attacks on U.S. occupation forces in Iraq.  Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice took decisive action, not to urgently review this dangerous failure of U.S. policy, but to suppress the report.  We only know what it said thanks to whistleblowers who leaked it to the media, and to Larry Johnson, an ex-CIA and State Department terrorism expert and a member of Ray McGovern's Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Rice eventually released a reformatted version of the 2004 report, ostensibly replacing "Patterns of Global Terrorism" with a new report titled "Country Reports on Terrorism" that excluded all statistical data.  The State Department has continued to publish "Country Reports on Terrorism" every year, and was forced to include a "statistical annex" beginning with the report for 2005.  The reports also include disclaimers that this data should not be used to compare patterns of terrorism from one year to the next because of the "evolution in data collection methodology".  In other words, a report that used to be called "Patterns in Global Terrorism" should not be used to study patterns in global terrorism!

So, what is the State Department afraid we might find if we used it to do just that?  Let's take a look.  The politicization of these reports certainly undermines their reliability, but, as Secretary Rice understood verywell, the dramatic rise in global terrorism that they reveal is undeniable.  

The numbers obviously spiked in Iraq and Afghanistan while under U.S. occupation, so we'll exclude the figures for those periods in those countries.  The rationale for the "war on terror" was always that, by "fighting them there", we wouldn't have to "fight them here", so we'll just look at the effect "here" and everywhere else.

On that limited basis, the State Department reports nonetheless document an explosion of terrorism, from 208 incidents in 2003 to 2,177 in 2004 to 7,103 incidents in 2005. Since then, the total has fluctuated between a high of 7,251 incidents in 2008 and a low of 5,029 incidents in 2009, after President Obama's election temporarily raised hopes of a change in U.S. policy.  The State Department has not issued a report for 2013 yet, but the number of "terrorist" incidents in 2012 remained at 5,748, documenting an intractable crisis that is the direct result of U.S. policy.

The ineffectiveness of the war on terror is intricately entwined with its illegitimacy.  In my book, Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq, I argued that the illegitimacy of the hostile U.S. military occupation of Iraq was at the root of all its other problems.  The U.S. forces who illegally invaded the country lacked any real authority to restore the rule of law and order that they themselves had destroyed.  Even today, two years after expelling U.S. forces, the Iraqi government installed by the U.S. occupation remains crippled by fundamental illegitimacy in the eyes of its people.

The United States' "war on terror" faces the same problem on a global scale.  The notion of fighting "terror with terror" or a "war on terror" was always fundamentally flawed, both legally and in its prospects for success.  As Ben Ferencz, the only surviving prosecutor from the Nuremberg war crimes trials, explained to NPR on September 19th 2001, a week after the mass murders of 2,753 people in his hometown, New York City:

"It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done.  We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others.  If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don't approve of what has happened.  I wouldn't say there is no appropriate role (for the military), but the role should be consistent with our ideals… our principles are respect for the rule of law, not charging in blindly and killing people because we are blinded by our tears and our rage.  We must first draw up an indictment and specify what the crimes were, calling upon all states to arrest and detain the persons named in the indictment so they can be interrogated by U.S. examiners… I realize that (the judicial process) is slow and cumbersome, but it is not inadequate… We don't have to rewrite any rules.  We have to apply the existing rules."

Ferencz took issue with the use of terms like "war", "war crimes" and "terrorism."

"What has happened here is not war in its traditional sense…  War crimes are crimes that happen in wartime.  There is confusion there…  Don't use the term "war" crimes, because that suggests there is a war going on and it's a violation of the rules of war.  This is not in that category.  We are getting confused with our terminology in our determination to put a stop to these terrible crimes… To call them "terrorists" is also a misleading term.  There's no agreement on what terrorism is.  One man's terrorism is another man's heroism...  We try them for mass murder.  That's a crime under every jurisdiction and that's what's happened here and that is a crime against humanity."

British military historian Michael Howard told NPR that U.S. leaders were making "a very natural but a terrible and irrevocable error" in declaring a "war on terrorism."  He elaborated in a lecture in London a few weeks later:

"…to use, or rather to misuse the term "war" is not simply a matter of legality, or pedantic semantics.  It has deeper and more dangerous consequences.  To declare that one is "at war" is immediately to create a war psychosis that may be totally counter-productive for the objective that we seek.  It will arouse an immediate expectation, and demand, for spectacular military action against some easily identifiable adversary, preferably a hostile state…"

In the U.S. Congress in 2001, Barbara Lee stood alone against a sweeping Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), giving the president the authority to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" whom he judged to have "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the mass murders of September 11th.

Barbara Lee implored her colleagues not to "become the evil we deplore," but she was the only Member with the clarity and courage to vote "No" to the AUMF.  Twelve years later, she has 31 co-sponsors forH.R. 198, a bill to finally repeal the 2001 AUMF.  They include former civil rights leader John Lewis, who said recently, "If I had to do it all over again, I would have voted with Barbara Lee. It was raw courage on her part. So, because of that, I don’t vote for funding for war. I vote against preparation for the military. I will never again go down that road."

From the outset, few Americans understood that the "war on terror" was not legally a real war in which the civilian rule of law was suspended.  Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned as Deputy Legal Advisor to the British Foreign Office in protest at the U.K.'s "crime of aggression"against Iraq in 2003.  A year later, she told theIndependent, "This rather extraordinary war on terror, which is a phrase that all lawyers hate… is not really a war, a conflict against terror, any more than the war on obesity means that you can detain people."

As the Obama administration took office in 2009, an Eminent Jurists Panel convened by the International Commission of Jurists, and headed by former President of Ireland Mary Robinson issued a report on the U.S. response to terrorism since 2001.  The report concluded that the U.S. government had confused the public by framing its counter-terrorism activities within a "war paradigm."  It explained,

"The U.S.' war paradigm has created fundamental problems.  Among the most serious is that the U.S. has applied war rules to persons not involved in situations of armed conflict, and, in genuine situations of warfare, it has distorted, selectively applied and ignored otherwise binding rules, including fundamental guarantees of human rights laws."

Like Ben Ferencz, the ICJ panel insisted that established principles of law "were intended to withstand crises, and they provide a robust and effective framework from which to tackle terrorism."

But Barack Obama was an unlikely candidate to restore the rule of law to U.S. policy, to demilitarize the "war on terror" or to derail the gravy train of the largest military budget since World War II.  His long-term ties to General Dynamics CEO Lester Crown and his thorough vetting by Crown and other military-industrial power-brokers ensured that the 2008 election was the first in 14 years in which Democrats raised more campaign cash from the weapons industry than Republicans, even after the Republicans almost doubled the military budget in 8 years and nominated industry darling John McCain for president.

A persistent part of the Obama myth is his description of himself as a "constitutional law professor."  While serving as an Illinois State Senator, Mr. Obama did have a part-time job as a lecturer teaching 3 two-hour seminars per year at the University of Chicago in a program that brought politicians and other prominent people into the law school to give students a taste of the "real world."  Most of the seminars were on public interest law or racism, not constitutional law, but in the looking-glass world of Obama mythology, this has transformed him into a "constitutional law professor" for political purposes.

Obama has failed to close Guantanamo, escalated the longest and most unpopular war in U.S. history in Afghanistan, maintained the largest military budget since World War II, conducted 23,000 air strikes (mostly in Afghanistan), launched or expanded covert and proxy wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria, and deployed U.S. special forces to 120 countries.

But perhaps the signature initiative of Obama's war policy has been the expansion of assassination operations using unmanned drones and JSOC death squads.  These operations violate still-standing executive orders by previous presidents that prohibit assassination by U.S. forces or officials.  They are not legally covered by the 2001 AUMF, because very few of the people he is killing were involved in the crimes ofSeptember 11th, as former State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger pointed out to the Washington Post in 2010.

Just as Bush administration lawyers wrote memos claiming that torture was not torture, Obama's have reportedly written memos claiming that assassination is not assassination and that innocent civilians in half-a-dozen countries are somehow implicated in September 11th and therefore legitimate targets under the 2001 AUMF.  But after Bush's torture memos were widely ridiculed as legal fig-leaves to justify war crimes, the Obama administration has drawn a veil of secrecy over its assassination memos.  If Obama's legal training has taught him nothing else, it's that he can't afford to expose his illegitimate cover for war crimes to public scrutiny and global outrage.

As the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston wrote in June 2010,

"Targeted killings pose a rapidly growing challenge to the international rule of law, as they are increasingly used in circumstances which violate the rules of international law… The most prolific user of targeted killings today is the United States, which primarily uses drones for attacks… the United States has put forward a novel theory that there is a "law of 9/11" that enables it to legally use force in the territory of other states as part of its inherent right to self-defense on the basis that it is in an armed conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated forces," although the latter group is fluid and undefined.  This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defense goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the UN Charter."

The prohibition against the threat or use of force in Article 2.4 of the UN Charter is the foundation of peace in the modern world.  As Alston implied, it is either an unintended victim or an intended target of the "war on terror."  The history of U.S. war policy since the end of the Cold War suggests the latter.  U.S. officials came to see the Charter's prohibition on the threat or use of force as a constraint on their ability to exploit the "power dividend" they gained from the collapse of the Soviet Union.  For ten years, they struggled to sell the world on new interventionist doctrines of "reassurance", "humanitarian intervention", "responsibility to protect" and "information warfare."  In the Clinton administration's 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), itclaimed the right to use unilateral military force to "defend vital national interests," including "preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition…(and) ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources."

As the British Foreign Office's top Legal Adviser told his government during the Suez Crisis in 1956, "The plea of vital interest, which has been one of the main justifications for wars in the past, is indeed the very one which the U.N. Charter was intended to exclude."  So the implicit threat in Clinton's QDR was a violation the U.N. Charter, and his attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was a flagrant violation and a crime of aggression.  When British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Secretary Albright the U.K. was having difficulty "with its lawyers" over the plan to attack Yugoslavia, she told him the U.K. should "get new lawyers."  

When planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th, counter-terrorism still seemed an unlikely pretext for overturning the U.N. Charter. But, within hours, according to Under-secretary Cambone's notes obtained by CBS News, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told a meeting at the Pentagon, "Judge whether good enough hit S.H. (Saddam Hussein) at same time - not only UBL (Usama Bin Laden)… Go massive.  Sweep it all up.  Things related and not."

Twelve years later, as Michael Howard predicted, it is much harder to unscramble the consequences of America's "natural but terrible" embrace of open-ended aggression and militarism.  But underlying all the crimes and atrocities committed in our names is the fiction that we are at "war" with "terror", whatever that can possibly mean.  What it means in practice is that the U.S. government has applied an opportunistic soup of peacetime and wartime rules to justify whatever it wants to do, to use force anywhere in the world, to kill or maim anybody, to spy on anybody, to violate any treaty or human rights law and to project power anywhere, to effectively place itself beyond the rule of law.  To paraphrase Richard Nixon, "When the United States does it, that means that it is not illegal."

The analysis of international lawyers like Ben Ferencz and other experts gives us a clear road-map to ending the war on terror and starting to undo its terrible consequences. There is a surprisingly clear consensus across the political spectrum on what needs to be done.  

On the one hand, we have Noam Chomsky saying, on October 18th 2001, that, "The only way we can put a permanent end to terrorism is to stop participating in it."  On the other hand we have Eliza Manningham-Buller, the first woman to head MI5, the U.K.'s domestic intelligence agency, describing a meeting at the British Embassy in Washington on September 12th 2001, where "there was one thing we all agreed on: terrorism is resolved through politics and economics, not through arms and intelligence… I call it a crime, not an act of war… I have never thought it helpful to refer to a "war" on terror any more than a war on drugs."

Ending the failed war on terror means restoring the rule of law to U.S. policy - not by secret interpretations of extraordinary laws granting unconstitutional emergency powers, but by genuine compliance with U.S. law and international treaties like the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions.  If we allow our government to persist in this failed and disastrous policy, it will continue to corrupt and erode its own authority, it will destabilize the entire world and it will leave us defenseless in the face of real existential dangers like climate change and nuclear war.  

Nothing could be more urgent than ending the failed war on terror (FWOT).  These are the practical steps we must demand of the President and Congress:

1) Pass Barbara Lee's bill, H.R.198, to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

2) Close the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay.  Transfer accused criminals to stand trial in legitimate courts under fair trial standards, and release and compensate people wrongly imprisoned and/or tortured.

3) Halt all drone strikes, assassinations and military or paramilitary operations that violate the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions or other established principles of international law.

4) Substantially cut the U.S. military budget to end the most expensive and destabilizing unilateral arms build-up in the history of the world.

5) Acknowledge that the U.S. has committed aggression, torture and other war crimes during the past 12 years.  Restore legal accountability and compensate victims.

6) Make a new commitment to good faith diplomacy and cooperation with other countries to deal with the world's pressing political, economic, social and environmental problems, including the explosion of terrorism caused by the war on terror.    

Link to original article from AlterNet

   

Read 6623 times Last modified on Tuesday, 04 February 2014 01:38
Sandy Davies

Nicolas J "Sandy" Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.  He writes about U.S. militarism and war crimes in AlternetZ Magazine and at warisacrime.org.  He has been a PDA chapter leader in Miami since 2009.

End Corporate Rule

  • Protest Groups Call for Linking Arms on Wall Street to Stop the Destruction of the Ecosystem
    Protest Groups Call for Linking Arms on Wall Street to Stop the Destruction of the Ecosystem #FloodWallStreet – A day of non-violent direct action, Monday September 22nd: Thousands of demonstrators are planning to disrupt business-as-usual on Wall Street and at the NY Stock Exchange, sending a message to Obama and world leaders meeting at the UN Climate Summit on the 23rd: “Our economic system both causes, and profits from the crisis that is threatening humanity.”
    Written on Monday, 15 September 2014 18:37 Read more...
  • The Senate Tried to Overturn 'Citizens United' Today. Guess What Stopped Them?
    The Senate Tried to Overturn 'Citizens United' Today. Guess What Stopped Them? A majority of the United States Senate has voted to advance a constitutional amendment to restore the ability of Congress and the states to establish campaign fundraising and spending rules with an eye toward preventing billionaires and corporations from buying elections.
    Written on Saturday, 13 September 2014 14:48 Read more...
  • Bipartisan Case for a Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance
    Bipartisan Case for a Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance Following recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions dismantling our nation’s campaign finance laws, all Americans are certainly not equal on Election Day. With 5-4 split decisions, the court has given corporations the ability to spend unlimited money to persuade voters, and also declared limits on large donations to be the equivalent of infringement on speech.
    Written on Monday, 08 September 2014 21:46 Read more...
  • Coalition Asks John McCain to Support Constitutional Amendment, Hits a Glass Wall
    Coalition Asks John McCain to Support Constitutional Amendment, Hits a Glass Wall On Thursday, a broad coalition of activists met at Senator John McCain's office in an upscale building at a tony Camelback Road address to ask him to sponsor a constitutional amendment. Known as the Democracy For All amendment, it would overturn the Supreme Court 's decision on Citizens United from four years ago. You know — the decision that allowed all that money from 'corporations-are-people-too' into the political process.
    Written on Saturday, 06 September 2014 13:13 Read more...
  • Activists Deliver Amendment Petitions to 21 Senate Offices
    Activists Deliver Amendment Petitions to 21 Senate Offices

    Congress may be on recess, but activists across the country are not taking a break from the nationwide push to get big money out of politics. Today activists teamed up for a massive petition drop, delivering petitions in support of a constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United to 21 Senate offices in 15 states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington).

    Written on Friday, 22 August 2014 15:41 Read more...
  • On the Hill with Heroes and Tap Dancers
    On the Hill with Heroes and Tap Dancers I think the bad guys are sacred of the heroes and the tap dancers are managing a shuffle ball change just enough to keep in step with re-election. Thursday July 24, 2014, twenty-three heroes, Americans voting with their time to reverse the Supreme Court erosion of our equality of citizenship, congregated in the Russell Senate building waiting for Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va).
    Written on Friday, 08 August 2014 13:57 Read more...
  • Elizabeth Warren Quietly Racked Up A Nice Win
    Elizabeth Warren Quietly Racked Up A Nice Win Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) got her way on Tuesday when the Federal Reserve rejected the living will plans for most Wall Street banks.
    Written on Wednesday, 06 August 2014 22:15 Read more...
  • The Koch Brothers' Reign of Terror: How Their Great Wealth Is Buying Our Government
    The Koch Brothers' Reign of Terror: How Their Great Wealth Is Buying Our Government

    It seems like every e-mail I receive these days from a Democratic Senate candidate or Senator up for re-election this cycle includes a warning that the infamous Koch brothers will do anything, no matter the cost, to take over the US Senate - and with it, our country.

    Written on Tuesday, 05 August 2014 15:20 Read more...
  • The Ultimate Goal of the NSA is Total Population Control
    The Ultimate Goal of the NSA is Total Population Control At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US, says whistleblower William Binney – that's a 'totalitarian mentality'
    Written on Sunday, 03 August 2014 22:52 Read more...
  • Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia
    Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia

    On Thursday, a group of Democratic lawmakers proposed a law to establish a Code of Conduct  for the Supreme Court.

    It’s surely to have Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia quaking in their Tea Party boots because it would mean they would actually have to be independent of political and other influences. They would also have to have the appearance of independence.  They would have to stay away from political activity. That part would be really hard.

    Written on Sunday, 06 July 2014 14:47 Read more...
  • California makes an official call for a U.S. Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United
    California makes an official call for a U.S. Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United

    On June 23rd the State Senate passed AJR 1, making California the second state in the union to officially call for an Article V constitutional convention for the sole purpose of passing a United States constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn Citizens United v. FEC and limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process.

    Written on Thursday, 26 June 2014 13:29 Read more...
  • New Organization Hangs Sign: 'Whistleblowers Welcome'
    New Organization Hangs Sign: 'Whistleblowers Welcome'

    A new organization called ExposeFacts—backed by well-known source of The Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg—is debuting itself in Washington, DC on Wednesday as a new place where government and corporate employees aware of wrongdoing can more safely and securely report their concerns.

    Written on Sunday, 08 June 2014 13:54 Read more...
  • 'Astroturf' Groups Leading Drive to Kill Open Internet
    'Astroturf' Groups Leading Drive to Kill Open Internet

    The telecommunications industry is creating and funding front groups which pose as consumer organizations and aggressively lobby to kill net neutrality, journalist Lee Fang revealed in an article published in Vice on Friday.

    Written on Sunday, 08 June 2014 13:39 Read more...
  • John Oliver Calls on Angry Internet Trolls to Save Net Neutrality (video)
    John Oliver Calls on Angry Internet Trolls to Save Net Neutrality (video)

    It’s a sad state of affairs when a country that touts freedom of the press depends upon cable TV comedy shows to hear the real news.

    Written on Friday, 06 June 2014 04:19 Read more...
  • Oligarchy Enshrined
    Oligarchy Enshrined

    Why the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon ruling is good news for the super-rich and bad news for progressive Democrats.

    At the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, a conservative election lawyer and a baby-faced electrical engineer from Alabama with a made-for-TV Southern drawl began plotting how to unravel federal campaign finance regulations.

    Written on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 01:21 Read more...
  • Lincoln Didn't Fight the Civil War to Free the Corporations - Video
    Lincoln Didn't Fight the Civil War to Free the Corporations - Video

    This is an idea worth spreading - so - please watch & share with 5 or 10 friends. It’s important to get money out of politics and the average person back in. Also - leave a message on the YouTube and let TED know - this is one of the most important issues of the day."

    Written on Thursday, 15 May 2014 17:16 Read more...
  • Out of the Shadows: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    Out of the Shadows: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is, as they boast on its website, the world's largest business organization, as well as the nation's largest corporate lobbying group. It is also a recipient of some of the largest amounts of so-called "dark" money in the country, refusing to disclose to the public its donors or even the amounts it receives. 

    Written on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 15:56 Read more...
  • Bernie Sanders Raises Battle Cry Against Citizens United: "I Vote for Democracy!"
    Bernie Sanders Raises Battle Cry Against Citizens United: "I Vote for Democracy!"

    Citizens United is not just the default reference for US Supreme Court decisions—including the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling—that have ushered in a new era of corporate dominance of American elections. It’s the name of the conservative group that encouraged Chief Justice John Roberts and the most activist Court majority in American history to tear the heart out of what were already weak campaign finance laws.

    Written on Sunday, 13 April 2014 04:24 Read more...
  • Local protests held in response to Supreme Court donation ruling
    Local protests held in response to Supreme Court donation ruling

    PITTSFIELD -- Their signs read "Get Big Money Out of Politics," "Democracy Is Not For Sale" and "This Is What Plutocracy Looks Like." About a dozen of them stood in Park Square on Wednesday evening, one of 130 "rapid response events" coordinated nationwide to protest that morning's Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC.    

    Written on Friday, 04 April 2014 14:38 Read more...
  • With McCutcheon Ruling, An Activist Court Opts for Full-On Plutocracy
    With McCutcheon Ruling, An Activist Court Opts for Full-On Plutocracy

    Any doubts about the determination of an activist United States Supreme Court to rewrite election rules so that the dollar matters more than the vote were removed Wednesday, when McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was decided in favor of the dollar.

    Written on Wednesday, 02 April 2014 22:24 Read more...
  • TPM Interview: The Brown Grad Student Who Chased The NRA Out Of Rhode Island
    TPM Interview: The Brown Grad Student Who Chased The NRA Out Of Rhode Island

    Sam Bell is in the third year of a PhD program in geology at Brown University. Geology as in rocks. But Bell also moonlights as the the state coordinator of The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, the state affiliate of the 10-year-old Progressive Democrats of America. And in his work with The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, Bell was instrumental to the investigation that ultimately led to the National Rifle Association paying the second largest campaign finance fine in the state's history.

    Written on Thursday, 27 February 2014 22:13 Read more...
  • Thank a Postal Worker This Holiday Season
    Thank a Postal Worker This Holiday Season

    Postal workers are giving it their all this holiday season, as cards and packages and returns must be collected and delivered amidst ice storms, snowstorms and wild temperature drops.

    They deserve our thanks in 2013.

    And our support in 2014.

    Written on Thursday, 26 December 2013 23:49 Read more...
  • Fast Food Giants Gorge on Subsidies
    Fast Food Giants Gorge on Subsidies

    Thanks to a loophole that subsidizes CEO pay, McDonald's, Yum Brands, Wendy's, Burger King, Domino's, and Dunkin' Brands trimmed $64 million from their tax bills in 2011 and 2012.

    The fast food industry is notorious for handing out lean paychecks to their burger flippers and fat ones to their CEOs. What’s less well-known is that taxpayers are actually subsidizing fast food incomes at both the bottom — and top — of the industry.

    Written on Monday, 02 December 2013 23:07 Read more...
  • This Thanksgiving, Let's Celebrate AgriCULTURE, Not AgriBUSINESS
    This Thanksgiving, Let's Celebrate AgriCULTURE, Not AgriBUSINESS

    In December 1972, I was part of a nationwide campaign that came tantalizingly close to getting the U.S. Senate to reject Earl Butz, Richard Nixon's choice for secretary of agriculture. A coalition of grass-roots farmers, consumers and scrappy public interest organizations (like the Agribusiness Accountability Project that Susan DeMarco and I then headed) teamed up with some gutsy, unabashedly progressive senators to undertake the almost impossible challenge of defeating the cabinet nominee of a president who'd just been elected in a landslide.

    Written on Friday, 29 November 2013 00:06 Read more...
  • Arizona Democratic Party Shows Its Progressive Side at State Committee Meeting
    Arizona Democratic Party Shows Its Progressive Side at State Committee Meeting

    Progressive voices were heard loud and clear at Saturday’s Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) State Committee Meeting in Maricopa, Arizona.

    Unlike some past ADP meetings where progressives were ignored or where progressive resolutions were tabled and not heard by the full ADP membership, the Maricopa meeting was dominated by progressives.

    Written on Monday, 18 November 2013 20:09 Read more...
  • Can Public Banking Spur Economic Growth in Southern Arizona?
    Can Public Banking Spur Economic Growth in Southern Arizona?

    Tucson is one of the most impoverished cities in the country—for many reasons. The Arizona Legislature—driven by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and short-sighted, “small government” ideology—has routinely swept funds earmarked for counties and cities to “balance” the state’s budget or fund pet projects like lower corporate taxes. Beyond the Legislature’s negative impact on Baja Arizona, the Tucson economy is not diversified enough. Manufacturing is nearly non-existent in Southern Arizona. There is an over-reliance on defense spending, University of Arizona spin-offs, tourism, low-wage service jobs, and growth/development. 

    Written on Friday, 15 November 2013 15:56 Read more...

Sign the TPP Fast Track Petitions

MoveOn.org Petition - Congress Don't Renew Fast Track

Public Citizen Petition - Congress Must Reject Fast Track Authority

MoveOn.org Petition - Stop the Trans Pacific Partnership

CREDO Petition - Stop the Massive Corporate Power Grab

 

Find Your Elected Officials for Issues

Enter your zip+4 and find your elected officials. This link provides name, address and phone number

ButtonFindElectedOfficials

 

Progressive Central Panel on Ending Corporate Rule

Ask Bill Moyers How to Overturn Citizens United