Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Web anger over Chen Guangcheng's exit from US embassy

2 May 2012 Last updated at 11:00 ET

Web anger over Chen Guangcheng's exit from US embassy

Chen with his son and wifeChen is expected to be reunited with his wife and children

Related Stories

Chinese internet users have expressed anger, confusion and concern over Chen Guangcheng's fate after state media reported he had left the US embassy in Beijing.
Many have voiced anger at China's demand for an apology over the episode from the US.
Without giving any details on Chen except that he was "a native of Yinan County in Shandong Province", Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said he "entered the US embassy in Beijing in late April and left of his own volition after a six-day stay at the embassy", without giving any reason why he did that.
The news attracted immense attention from internet users. Despite heavy censorship on Chen's case in recent days, a large number of comments have been posted on Weibo, China's Twitter-like microblogging platform.
For many Chinese, this is the first time they have ever heard of Chen Guangcheng.
"What does this person do? How did he get into the embassy?" one confused microblogger asked.
For those who do know about Chen, the news is a cause for concern.
"Why did he leave? The Yankees are unreliable," said a Weibo user.
"Hope he and his family can go to America and live in peace," said another.
Others are confident that the US will protect Chen and his family and have proposed setting up more US missions in China to protect Chinese citizens.
A protester with a banner supporting blind rights activist Chen There have been protests supporting Chen, however this is the first time many have heard of him
"As the Americans can provide free medical care and guarantee personal safety, I strongly propose that the USA establish a consulate in every Chinese county," said microblogger "Middle School Girl".
A few nationalist voices supported the Chinese Foreign Ministry's demand that the US apologise for "interfering with China's internal affairs".
"The US has never paused its attempt to contain China and destabilise China!" said one Weibo user.
But many more microbloggers - such as Li Kaisheng, a professor at Xiangtan University in Hunan are unimpressed.
"This is shamelessness on an unprecedented level," he wrote.
"When a blind man has been subjected to long-term illegal detention and has had to turn to a foreign embassy for protection, our foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin turns a blind eye to the facts and asserts that 'China is a country under the rule of law, and its citizens' legitimate rights and interests are protected by the constitution and its laws'."
Other contributors were equally scathing.
"They always blame other countries for interfering with China's internal affairs. But why don't they ever consider why the people have lost confidence in China's own judiciary and would rather trust a foreign embassy?! Weibo user "Milktea" asked.
Some responses were noticeably cynical in their tone.
"The US should not interfere with the CCP's [Chinese Communist Party] tyranny," A microblogger who calls himself "Expecting Dawn" wrote.
"This is the CCP's turf. All people living here are slaves to the CCP and must unconditionally accept the CCP's violent rule."
BBC Monitoring selects and translates news from radio, television, press, news agencies and the internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham, UK, and has several bureaux abroad.

Monday, April 30, 2012

HILLARY, SHINE FOR U.S.



THE ASSOCIATED PRESS April 30, 2012, 2:52PM ETtext size: TT

Invisible man dominates US-China talks

President Barack Obama sidestepped a question about Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen on Monday, refusing to confirm that the blind lawyer is under U.S. protection in China or that American diplomats are attempting to negotiate an agreement for him to receive asylum.
"Obviously, I'm aware of the press reports on the situation in China, but I'm not going to make a statement on the issue," the president said at a joint news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko.
He added, "what I would like to emphasize is that every time we meet with China the issue of human rights comes up."
Obama declined to provide any information as his administration and the Chinese government sought to prevent the biggest human rights issue since Tiananmen Square demonstrations to disrupt high-level strategic and economic talks set to begin in Beijing on Thursday.
The two governments have signaled that the global economic, North Korea, Iran and Sudan hold far more significance in U.S.-Chinese relations than the fate of one man. Thus, the president's reluctance to comment on Chen's status was in keeping with a view presented in both countries that the dissident is an invisible man.
Earlier, State department spokesman Victoria Nuland was also tight-lipped.
"I have nothing for you on anything having to do with that matter," she responded repeatedly to reporters' questions before Obama's news conference. She confirmed that the top U.S. diplomat for Asia, Kurt Campbell, is in Beijing to prepare for the fourth round of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, she refused to say if he was discussing Chen and pointedly refused to utter the dissident's name.
A U.S. rights campaigner, Bob Fu, has said U.S. and Chinese officials are ironing out a deal to secure American asylum for a blind Chinese legal activist who fled house arrest, with an agreement likely before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives this week.
Campbell arrived in Beijing early Sunday, at least a day ahead of schedule and, according to activists, is in intensive discussions with the Chinese to resolve the Chen matter before Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner get there. But Nuland said the meetings will go on as planned.
"Both sides want to solve this in a low-key manner and they do not want this to dominate other issues in the (strategic and economic) dialogue so that's why they are working hard to find a speedy solution," said Bob Fu of the Texas-based rights group ChinaAid, which was involved in Chen's escape from house arrest last week and his subsequent arrival into the protection of U.S. diplomats in Beijing.
Despite the silence, the handling of his case -- the most serious U.S.-China rights crisis since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and the most serious overall since an American spy plane was forced to land on China's Hainan Island in 2001 -- will have profound ramifications on both sides of the Pacific.
Obama's options are limited. Facing a tough fight for re-election in November, he cannot afford to ignore the situation. Doing nothing to help a visually impaired, self-taught lawyer who has fought against forced abortions and corruption in China would open Obama up to attacks from his presumed Republican opponent, Mitt Romney. It would also draw intense criticism from the human rights community in the United States, one of his core constituencies.
But at the same time, pressing the issue too hard may prompt a backlash from China, on which the U.S. is increasingly reliant for foreign capital and support as it seeks to lead the global economic recovery, deal with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs and prevent a potential war between Sudan and South Sudan.
The key to resolving the situation may well rest with an aging cadre at the top of China's Communist Party, who could either promise protection for Chen and his family in China or allow him to leave the country, possibly even to Hong Kong or Macao, as they prepare for their own leadership transition later this year.
"Mr. Chen prefers to stay in China if he and his family's safety can be guaranteed. In the current environment in China that might not be possible so a viable solution is to have him and his family come to the U.S.," said Fu. He said a face-saving option may be to let Chen and his family come to the U.S. for medical treatment.
The ouster of powerful politician Bo Xilai following a deputy's visit to the U.S. consulate in Chengdu in February has already laid bare some of the party's dirty laundry ahead the changes and the Chinese will be loath to lose more face over Chen, whose case was raised repeatedly by American officials, including Clinton herself, until the information blackout began last week.
Human rights has been a distasteful issue for Beijing for decades and it has criticized the U.S. approach as lecturing. Clinton made waves on her first trip abroad as secretary of state when she said that human rights could not dominate the entire agenda with China at the expense of other pressing issues.
Her comments drew fire at the time, but the relationship has clearly evolved as global priorities have shifted.
While China in the 1990s was in need of foreign investment and diplomatic partners and was willing to send jailed dissidents into exile to get them, Beijing sees little need for such concessions now, with its diplomatic clout and coffers bulging with foreign exchange. As the first and second largest economies, the U.S. and China have intertwining interests, and as the reigning superpower and burgeoning world power, they are frequently jostling for advantage across the globe.

the video of Chen


http://youtu.be/ycMCdAtgeu0 


escaping from house arrest, blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng issued a dramatic video message calling on Premier Wen Jiabao to protect his family, punish the people who had attacked them and combat corruption, recounting alleged abuses he and his family suffered at the hands of police.
"Premier Wen, so many people do not know whether such illegal acts are the acts of corrupt local officials or commanded by the central authority. I think you must thoroughly investigate the truth and give your people a clear answer," Chen said. "If you continue to ignore this and do nothing, what will the people think?"
Chen, a 41-year-old lawyer, was jailed for four years after exposing forced sterilization and other abuses carried out by Chinese family-planning authorities, then placed under house arrest once his prison term was over. He escaped last weekend in a rescue operation mounted by his supporters.
"I finally escaped," Chen began his Friday video message to Wen.
Chen asked Wen to investigate and punish police officers who he said had repeatedly attacked his home, robbing and assaulting his family. In one instance, more than 10 men had pinned him to the ground, and beat and kicked him for four hours, Chen said.
His wife was beaten so badly that her eye socket bone was broken, but she was never allowed to call for medical treatment, he said. Chen said his child was followed to school every day by three officers. He said his mother was grabbed by the arm and thrown to the ground on her birthday, her head hitting a door.
"She accused them of the shame of hurting the old. And they actually said back to her: 'Yes, this is true! ... You old ones can’t beat the young.'" Chen said. "This is evil. Inhuman. Intolerable.
"You must see to the bottom of this," the activist said. "Even though I am free, my family ... are still in their grasp. While I was there, they were repeatedly harmed. Now that I'm gone, I can only imagine how it has blown up."
Chen's rescue appears to have been timed to coincide with U.S.-China discussions on human rights this week. His case has attracted global attention.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

video of NY Lawyer calling for prosecution of Bush Et al for war crimes

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Cheati

Iraq War Was Illegal, Had ‘No Basis In International Law’

Dutch Inquiry:

Global News, PoliticsAdd comments
“This is the authoritative view of seven commissioners including the former president of the Dutch supreme court, a former judge of the European court of justice, and two legal academics.”

See also:

- US and UK knew that Iraq Didn’t Have WMDs

- Tony Blair ‘knew Iraq did not have WMD before war started’

Inquiry says conflict had no sound mandate in international law as it emerges UK denied key letter to seven-judge tribunal

US Marines on the city limits of Kut, 100 miles south of Baghdad in April 2003 AP

The war in Iraq had “no basis in international law”, a Dutch inquiry found today, in the first ever independent legal assessment of the decision to invade.

In a series of damning findings, a seven-member panel in the Netherlands concluded that the war, which was supported by the Dutch government following intelligence from Britain and the US, had not been justified in law.

“The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy,” the inquiry in the Hague concluded. “The military action had no sound mandate in international law.”

In a further twist, it emerged that the UK government refused to disclose a key document requested by the Dutch panel.

The document – allegedly a letter from Tony Blair asking for the support of the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende – was handed over in a breach of diplomatic protocol and on the basis that it was for Balkenende’s eyes only, an inquiry official told the Guardian.

“It was a surprise for our committee when we discovered information about this letter,” said Rob Sebes, a spokesman for the Dutch inquiry. “It was not sent with a normal procedure between countries – instead it was a personal message from Tony Blair to our prime minister Jan Peter Balkanende, and had to be returned and not stored in our archives.

“We asked the British government to hand over the letter but they refused,” Sebes said.

Details of the Dutch inquiry’s findings and the refusal of the British government to disclose the letter are likely to increase international scrutiny on the Chilcot inquiry, as it emerged that the UK was instrumental in influencing the Dutch decision to back the war.

“In its depiction of Iraq’s [weapons of mass destruction] programme, the [Dutch] government was to a considerable extent led by public and other information from the US and the UK,” the Dutch report says.

“This report is an objective finding – it was not political, we searched for the truth,” said Sebes. “We think that over 10 months the seven members of committee made a real effort to make a finding of high quality.”

Philippe Sands QC, a professor of international law, who gave evidence to the Dutch inquiry, said: “There has been no other independent assessment on the legality of the war in Iraq and the findings of this inquiry are unambiguous. It concludes that the case argued by the Dutch and British governments, including the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, could not reasonably be argued.

“This is the authoritative view of seven commissioners including the former president of the Dutch supreme court, a former judge of the European court of justice, and two legal academics.”

The findings have prompted controversy in the Netherlands, where Balkenende has so far resisted calls for a formal parliamentary inquiry into his government’s decision to back the war.

However, the report is likely to influence analysis of the events in the UK, experts say, with senior judicial figures among those concerned that the Chilcot inquiry lacks the expertise on issues of legality in comparison to the Dutch panel.

“The findings of the Dutch inquiry that the war had no basis in international law are even more important for a domestic audience in Britain,” said Sands. “I do not see how the five members of the Chilcot inquiry, none of whom is legally qualified, could possibly summon the means to reach an alternative conclusion.”

Afua Hirsch, legal affairs correspondent
Tuesday 12 January 2010 19.05 GMT

Friday, April 13, 2012

Not sure what this means but I think it means restucturing debt

China’s Irrational Economic Structure Is Unsustainable
A way out is not possible under the Communist Party’s rule
By Wei JingshengCreated: February 9, 2012Last Updated: February 15, 2012
Related articles: Opinion » Thinking About China


A portrait of the economist Larry Lang, taken near his residence in Shanghai, China, in September 2006. (Mark Ralston/Getty Images)
Recently, Hong Kong economics professor Larry Lang (Lang Xianping) had some accurate comments about the current economic situation in China, pointing out that China is essentially bankrupt. However, he was not willing to link the responsibility for the economic situation to the political system, and thus was unable to provide a realistic prescription.
Nevertheless, the situation he described according to the surveyed data is indeed the real picture of China’s economy. The data may seem like exaggerations; in fact, they are not. Not only is the data true, but long ago, a lot of the information had already been haltingly delivered by other experts who are familiar with the matter. The reason that professor Lang’s comments produced a sensational effect is because he dared to voice conclusions that others have not dared.
Irrational Structures
One of his important conclusions is that the Chinese economic structure is extremely irrational and very deformed. During his closed-door speech in Shanghai last October, Lang pointed out that the Chinese people’s total consumption is a shocking 8 percent of the total GDP (Gross Domestic Product), even lower than the least developed African nation at 16 percent.
During his Shanghai lecture, he also pointed out that 70 percent of the GDP is used in construction and related industries. The words professor Lang used were “to produce reinforced concrete.” That leaves only 30 percent for all the Chinese people across the country, and most of that is exported in exchange for foreign currency.
Chinese officials have already transferred their wallets, their wives, and children to other countries that are governed well.
Most of that 30 percent went into the pockets of corrupt officials and both Chinese and foreign capitalists. Thus, the 1.3 billion Chinese people could only consume that mere 8 percent of the GDP—a living fraction lower than that of Third World countries in a nation that is known as the world’s second largest economy.
The two irrational structures—the minimal public consumption and the excessive construction—are the root cause of unsustainable development in China, as well as the root cause of most social conflicts in China. Not only is China’s economy not sustainable; its politics is unsustainable as well.
So, regardless of whoever is in power, whether the Communist Party dictatorship or a democratic replacement, that government must change the economic structure, making the whole and each detailed part more reasonable. Then, the development of China and the Chinese people’s living standard could be on the right track, the society could be in relative harmony, and politics would be relatively stable.
Otherwise, intense social and economic conflicts will inevitably lead to the collapse of the government and to social unrest.
Increase Domestic Consumption
How to change to make it reasonable? Let us examine the problems first. The two irrationals pointed out by professor Lang—minimal consumption and excessive construction—are in fact two aspects of one irrational policy.
Advertisement


From one perspective, the peoples’ consumption is too low, which results in a small domestic market. From another perspective, the government invests most of the money in real estate projects for high profit, meanwhile holding down the exchange rate in an effort to dump consumer goods, which could be used domestically, in the international market.
Some of the foreign currency gained was used for foreign goods in an attempt to increase consumption, mostly among the wealthy, but that was just a small fraction. This profiteer-type development strategy, like fishing by draining the whole pond, is the root cause that leads to deformities of the economic structure. This is the mercantilist strategy, as it is very politely referred to by international media and scholars.
Under the control of this profiteering strategy pursued by Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao, the people of China and the United States have given away high profits to the Chinese state, and the bureaucratic-capitalist class, and international capitalists that have relations with the Chinese state.
The Chinese people’s total consumption is a shocking 8 percent of the total GDP, even lower than the least developed African nation.
The result after they united together and made huge money is the impoverishment of the people in China and other countries, including the United States, thus resulting in the decline of the global consumer market, and thus the global economic recession. During this recession the most miserable ones are the Chinese people.
The consumption level of the Chinese people was designed to be at a minimum for survival. Now with the economic recession, naturally the Chinese state transfers the crisis to its poorest citizens. More and more people cannot survive by relying on their meager income. This is when politics entered a state of crisis. So adjusting the economic structure is not only what the people need, but also what any government in China would pressingly need to do.
This adjustment must start by increasing the domestic consumption of the Chinese people first. Simply put, there are two things that must be done immediately. One is to stop the real estate investment contributing to the bubble economy, and move toward investment in other consumer goods. The lower real estate prices could help to recycle the surplus of currency in circulation, and to curb inflation in China.
Another is to improve the yuan exchange rate, to increase imports to fill in the shortage of the domestic market. This can also recycle currency in circulation in the domestic market and curb inflation.
These two simple measures could both curb inflation and improve people’s living standards. The subsequent result is that China’s economic development model would gradually move toward something more reasonable, while the political crisis will tend to ease.
‘Stripped Officials’
However, the cost of these measures is what the Communist Party and its bureaucrat-capitalist class would not accept. The cost is that the state’s revenue, along with that of the bureaucrat-capitalist class and the multinational companies, would drop significantly, even becoming negative.
If the Chinese state had a democratic government that must be accountable to the people, or even if it was only a kingdom or dynasty having a leader who is not fatuous enough to be irresponsible for the regime, it would take these simple measures to save the country, unless it has already lost authority to take the measures.
Advertisement


But the current China is a deformed country, with a deformed government. The government does not need to be accountable to the people, nor responsible to the state. They are only responsible to the interest groups of their own bureaucrat-capitalist class.
When the class of rich and powerful says “no,” the government will not do anything. You need not ask them what they will do when this country collapses. That is easy. They already know this government will collapse. They have already transferred or are transferring what they treasure—their wallets, their wives, and children—to other countries that are governed well.
Even their mistresses have opened money-laundering enterprises in the West, which has traumatized anti-drug police, who wonder which kind of money is getting laundered.
So there is a modern vocabulary term in China now called “stripped officials,” along with a saying: “I am a rogue, so why should I be afraid.” Whether China collapses or not really has little to do with these communist officials.
Under the control of a bureaucrat-capitalist class, which is not responsible and does not want to be responsible, will anyone be able to pay a price of their own to save this country? So professor Lang had to use language that does not belong to a professor: “You all should go cry.”
Related Articles
Judge Quentin L. Kopp Concerned Over Chinese Regime Interference in US
Although he does not dare say the meaning clearly, his conclusion is indisputable. Without overthrowing the rule of the bureaucrat-capitalist class that is neither responsible nor wants to be responsible, there is no hope for China. So crying becomes the only option and no one can save you all.
Wei Jingsheng is a prominent Chinese dissident. Human rights prizes he has won include the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Human Rights Award in 1996, the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, and the Olof Palme Memorial Prize in 1994.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

dissolve the ccp

China’s Domestic Security Chief Fights Back
By Li Tianxiao On April 3, 2012 @ 9:06 pm In Thinking About China | No Comments

Generally, when internal affairs are unstable, a head of state wouldn’t leave the country. There are a number of reasons why Chinese leader Hu Jintao dares to attend the Nuclear Security Summit and visit three Asian countries while Party faction infighting at home is still smoldering.

One reason is that Hu is sure of his control over the country and confident in his ability to control the situation; the second is that he has been setting a trap for his enemies to come out; the third is to calm the minds of the international community; and the fourth is to obtain word from Obama about the leaked information by Wang Lijun.


Click this tag or www.ept.ms/ccp-crisis to read about the most recent developments in the ongoing power struggle within the Chinese communist regime. Intra-CCP politics are a challenge to make sense of, even for veteran China watchers. Here we attempt to provide readers with the necessary context to understand the situation. Get the RSS feed. Get the Timeline of Events. Who are the Major Players?

U.S. President Barack Obama reportedly asked Hu Jintao at the summit meeting, “How are things going at home?” Maybe he was trying to see how confident Hu is. It appears that the 10-year-long question of “Who is Hu?” will only be revealed through results on the battlefield of the Communist Party’s infighting.

Control of the PLAC

Hu seemed to achieve most of the goals he set for this trip. Especially the trap seems to be working out well, as the Jiang Zemin faction and Zhou Yongkang launched a timely counterattack as soon as Hu had left the country.

Right after Hu left China on March 26, Zhou tried to weaken Hu’s influence during the first of a series of training sessions for the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee (PLAC) heads at each level of Party organization.

The training was ordered by Hu, and was to be devoted to the study of Hu Jintao’s thought during his absence. Apparently Zhou knew nothing of it in advance, but was ordered to give the opening speech to the heads of his own organization.

Zhou, however, never mentioned Hu in his speech, and also tried to separate Hu from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee. Zhou stressed that the Party Central Committee is leading the police, judiciary, and armed police, but didn’t mention Hu.

The CCP established the PLAC, a party organ, to control the police, judiciary, and armed police systems. The Party Central Committee that Zhou referred to is the PLAC under his leadership, not the Party Central Committee led by Hu Jintao.

This quite clearly reveals Jiang Zemin’s goal of controlling the police, judiciary, and armed police systems through the PLAC and to establish a second CCP Central. Zhou was directly telling the local level PLAC heads to listen to him and not to Hu.

During the State Council meeting the same day, Wen Jiabao pointedly said that the Party’s problem is corruption, hinting to Zhou Yongkang that he has evidence of Zhou’s corruption. This showed that Wen is in command during Hu’s absence.

Control of Chongqing

After Hu left Beijing, Chongqing officially replaced the new police chief Guan Haixiang, who was installed just 44 days previously and is reportedly a member of Hu Jintao’s Communist Youth League faction. He Ting, Jiang Zemin’s son-in-law, took over as Chongqing deputy-major, party secretary, and chief of police.

This was obviously approved by Zhou Yongkang and Chongqing’s new CCP secretary Zhang Dejiang, and is an open challenge of Hu and Wen’s orders to reform Chongqing. Even as more than 50 former Bo Xilai subordinates have been detained and interrogated, the Jiang faction is still trying hard to wrestle for control over Chongqing.

Internet Control

Following Bo Xilai’s arrest, the regime’s Internet censorship seemed to have relaxed somewhat. For a few days, many “sensitive” key search terms were unblocked on Baidu. As soon as Hu had left the country, Zhou seized the opportunity to retighten control and regulate the Internet.

Li Changchun, the Politburo Standing Committee member in charge of Party propaganda, who had previously displayed an ambiguous attitude, now also responded in a show of support for Zhou. On March 26, state media Global Times initiated a stern counterattack against Internet rumors with an article titled, “Keep the social defense line against rumors.”

On March 30 and 31, respectively, both Xinhua and the People’s Daily picked up the call and issued articles denying information of a Zhou coup or that Zhou was under internal control by Hu and Wen. They warned that anyone disseminating such messages would be punished by the law.

Then suddenly Internet censorship was further tightened. Beijing police detained six people for “fabricating rumors online.” Seventy Internet companies were punished. Commentary websites on Sina and QQ.com were closed for three days, and 16 other websites were shut down.

The crackdown was obviously instigated by Zhou Yongkang, who was fighting back against Hu and Wen. Carrying out arrests and Internet blocking in such a short period of time reveals Zhou’s fear of having his crimes exposed.

Zhou’s counterattack also indicates that Zhou and the Jiang faction don’t intend to be a sitting duck.

There is now no way to turn back for both Hu and Wen.

Hu and Wen’s Next Move

Battles between Jiang and Hu have come to the final showdown stage, and China is also on the eve of drastic changes. Hu and Wen’s next move is critical. For Hu and Wen to really make a difference, what can they do now? How can they win the game?

There are actually several things that Hu and Wen can do right away.

The first step is to release human rights attorney Gao Zhisheng, and then to release all those who have innocently or arbitrarily been detained, including Falun Gong practitioners.

With the PLAC’s weakened power, this is a realistic approach for Hu and Wen to win the people’s hearts, defeat Zhou and the Jiang faction, and detach themselves from the crimes committed by the Jiang faction.

Gao Zhisheng published three open letters to the CCP in the past, with two directly addressed to Hu and Wen, in which he demanded an end of the Falun Gong persecution.

Gao’s release will be a major blow to Zhou and the Jiang faction, as it will cause a subsequent exposure of the heinous crimes by the Jiang faction and the PLAC during the persecution of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners and also people from all walks of life. It will arouse universal indignation. By doing so, Hu and Wen will be able to cut themselves free from the Jiang faction, reduce their own guilt and responsibility, and obtain the goodwill of Falun Gong practitioners. It will also win them support across the country.

How are things going at home?

-U.S. President Barack Obama asked Hu Jintao at the Nuclear Security Summit

Dismantle the PLAC

The second step Hu and Wen should take is to take back from the PLAC the power to mobilize the armed police and return it to the Central Military Commission. Retrieve the authority to mobilize the armed police from the PLAC, and then completely disband the PLAC as well as the extralegal 610 Office, which was set up by the PLAC for the exclusive purpose of persecuting Falun Gong. The elimination of these two malignant tumors, the PLAC and the 610 Office, is an act that is both expected and applauded by the public.

Next should be the arrest of Zhou Yongkang. Zhou stands accused of many heinous crimes: treason, murder, persecution, corruption, rape, and more.


Click this tag or www.ept.ms/ccp-crisis to read about the most recent developments in the ongoing power struggle within the Chinese communist regime. Intra-CCP politics are a challenge to make sense of, even for veteran China watchers. Here we attempt to provide readers with the necessary context to understand the situation. Get the RSS feed. Get the Timeline of Events. Who are the Major Players?

Lift Information Blockade

Another step is to lift the information ban in all domains to give the Chinese people access to overseas websites, satellite TV, and radio. Allowing The Epoch Times, New Tang Dynasty Television, and Sound of Hope Radio to be freely received in Mainland China will be an effective means to quickly disintegrate the Jiang faction. Hu and Wen have already tested this out a number of times on Baidu, and it has now come time for the harvest.

Dissolve the CCP

Finally, Hu and Wen must have the ultimate determination and courage to completely dissolve the CCP. By now, the majority of Chinese people have already lost confidence in the CCP and carry no hope for political reform of the Party. Therefore, statements calling for “political reform” are ineffective in China’s current social climate and cannot resolve the fundamental issues that plague Chinese society today. The true hero will be the one who complies with the public’s aspirations and the trend of history.

In fact, the CCP’s middle and upper ranks, including Hu, Wen, and Xi, are well aware of the CCP’s ultimate doom. They too know that well over one hundred million Chinese have openly quit from the CCP and its affiliated youth organizations. It has become an unstoppable movement for the Chinese people to abandon the CCP.

If Hu and Wen are able seize this momentary opportunity to promote true fundamental reform as did the former heads of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, it will benefit the people and the country. They will also save themselves from being disgraced and eliminated along with the inevitable disintegration of the CCP.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

falun gong responsible for CCP downfall started

Arrest of Chongqing’s Top Cop Suggests City’s Communist Party Leader in Jeopardy
Shake up taking place in highest ranks of Chinese regime
By Zhang Tianliang
Epoch Times Staff Created: February 12, 2012Last Updated: February 18, 2012
Related articles: Opinion » Thinking About China


Wang Lijun, former Chief of Chongqing Public Security Bureau, attends a meeting during the annual National People's Congress at the Great Hall of the People on March 6, 2011 in Beijing, China (Photo by Feng Li/Getty Images)

The shock in Chinese political circles triggered by Wang Lijun’s arrest has just begun. On Feb. 2, Wang was removed from his duty as chief of the Public Security Bureau in Chongqing, Sichuan. Rumors on the Internet say that Bo Xilai, Wang’s former superior who promoted him and trusted him with important tasks, quickly distanced himself from Wang before the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection decided to investigate Wang. If true, that would certainly fit with Bo’s perfidious personality. However, there is no chance the Commission will only want to investigate Wang.
Wang has been Bo’s right-hand man and led the charge in cracking down on the mafia. After Bo was appointed Secretary of the Chongqing City Communist Party Committee in December 2007, he moved Wang from Jinzhou in the northeastern province of Liaoning to Chongqing in June 2008. With Wang’s help, Bo cleared the old official network in Chongqing, mainly former officials under the previous party secretary, in the name of combating the mafia.
This indicates how Bo had relied on Wang. If Bo had a chance to become a member of the Central Politburo Standing Committee, he would definitely keep Wang with him. In other words, if Bo could not save Wang, he likely cannot save himself from whatever is coming.
Read the (unconfirmed) detailed story of how Wang Lijun fled to the U.S. consulate.
Bo’s Dangerous Mistakes
Everyone knows that Bo does not get along with other high-ranking Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials. On June 11, 2011, Bo led 500 members of a “red song troupe” to perform in Beijing. None of the nine members of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau showed up. Bo made a big mistake by unwittingly disclosing to the Chinese people how isolated he is among the high level officials.
After he got back to Chongqing, on Oct. 5, he placed a calligraphy autograph by Deng Ken, Deng Xiaoping’s younger brother, on the front page of the Chongqing Daily, as a way of indicating Deng’s support for him.
Advertisement


The next day, he published an exclusive interview with Hu Jinxing, the current Chinese leader Hu Jintao’s cousin, on the second page of the Chongqing Daily. In the interview, Hu Jinxing highly praised Bo’s accomplishments. Bo made a second mistake. Apparently he could not obtain Hu Jintao’s support which is why he went to Hu Jinxing.
On Nov. 10, while Hu Jintao was in Hawaii attending the APEC meeting, Bo held a large scale military maneuver in Chongqing. This was a Bo’s third mistake and exposed his die-hard determination. While Hu was out of China, Bo showed Hu his capability to mobilize the military. No matter how Bo praises the CCP and cracks down on the mafia, Hu may or may not fear him as a rival. But this time, Bo sent out the message that he has enough ability and determination for a military coup.
At this point, that the two sides would put all their cards on the table is inevitable.
Many people may not have noticed Xinhua’s report on Jan. 15, but it is significant. Two high-ranking military officials—Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiaong, Vice Chairmen of Central Military Committee, and Li Ji’nai, Director of the General Political Department of the People’s Liberation Army—declared that the military should “follow Chairman Hu’s command.” They also said their statement was to ensure that CCP’s 18th National Congress can convene successfully and that the military will, at any time under any circumstance, listen to Hu’s command.
After the military deployment was finished, on Feb. 2, Wang Lijun was removed from his position as chief of the Chongqing public security bureau.
Broken Alliance, Rapid Fall
If we analyze the chain of events chronologically, I’d like to make an assumption. Hu Jintao had already decided to get rid of Bo Xilai, and he planned to target Wang Lijun first. If Bo were to risk his own life to protect Wang, based on an agreement to cover each other’s tracks, they might still have a chance to fight against Hu. However, Bo finds betraying others so quick and easy that he immediately abandoned Wang Lijun to protect himself.
Wang was in danger of being killed at anytime after being abandoned by Bo, because he knows too much about Bo’s secrets. Therefore, the most crucial measure for him to protect himself was to leave Chongqing.
Shortly before I started to write this article, Victoria Nuland, the spokesperson of U.S. state department confirmed that Wang Lijun indeed had a conversation with U.S. consular officials in Chengdu.
I believe that Wan Lijun knew very well that it was impossible for the U.S. consulate to grant him political asylum. He most likely went to the consulate to make a scene and attract world attention. By leaving Chongqing and staying long enough in the U.S. consulate, Wang insured his safety for the time being by getting Beijing to intervene.
Several overseas news outlets have reported that the mayor of Chongqing Huang Qifan came down to Chengdu with 70 police vehicles trying to abduct Wang back to Chongqing. However, it was the disciplinary committee of the Chinese Communist Party that took Wang Lijun away. Therefore, Wang flew directly to Beijing from Chengdu’s Shuangliu airport on Feb. 8 in the morning, claiming in an open letter being circulated under his name, that he would put up a life and death struggle with Bo Xilai.
Even being a member of Politburo of the CCP Central Committee cannot guarantee one’s safety. Chen Xitong, former Party Secretary for Beijing, and Chen Liangyu, former Party Secretary of Shanghai were both taken down under the guise of anti-corruption though the real reason for their fall was more likely political infighting.
The end that awaits Bo is far worse than not being able to make it to the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau. Because Bo has proven himself to be cruel and vicious, doesn’t have any allies in the top circle, and has tried to survive in the CCP while breaking the rules of the CCP gang, I wouldn’t be surprised to see his political career come to an end or see him arrested over this incident.
The Epoch Times reported on Feb. 8: “According to leaked U.S. diplomatic cables on Wikileaks, when still Commerce Minister, Bo Xilai was angling for Vice Premier when he got shot down by Wen Jiabao at the 17th Party Congress because of international lawsuits filed against Bo by Falun Gong practitioners around the world. Bo was demoted to Party Secretary of Chongqing City as the last stop of his political career,” said the cable.
Related Articles
Wang Lijun Handed to Anti-Corruption Committee, Chinese Media Says
PM to Meet Hardliner in Chongqing as Top Cop Disappears
Bo Xilai brutally persecuted Falun Gong practitioners as mayor of Dalian city, Governor of Liaoning, and Minister of Commerce, and Wang Lijun has always been his most active henchman. They both committed crimes against humanity by systematic live organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners. Their fall is happening as part of a political struggle, but it also represents a rough sort of justice for the wrongs they have done, against Falun Gong practitioners and others as these two climbed the ladder up the ranks of the CCP.

Friday, December 16, 2011

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)


and that Republicans, is why government is so damn big - because no one disciplines themselves.

Friday, December 9, 2011

No Chinese Communist war on culture

RIght Wing Social Engineering is what Gingrich called it. And that is exactly what is is. For years the right has been distracting people from looking behind its' curtains with loud instrospective inducing complaints of "media Bias", "activist judges", and "Bleeding hearts liberals agenda", and "Overreaching government", who want to create "Death panels" to "kill grandma".


But the truth is that THEY have been the Activist judges (see Gore Vs Bush), or (CItizens United) - Companies are People? THEY have been the media bias (check out Murdoch being caught red handed eavesdropping on emails and phone calls, influencing and bribing the very people who are supposed to protect us - politicians, and law 'enforcement' officials with his extortion minded media coverage. THEY have been pursuing a right wing social agenda evidenced by Gingrich's unwelcome admission of "a right wing social engineering" project to kill medicare as we know it. THEY have been the overeaching govenment with its illegal war crimes and wars on sovereign governments, WITH EVERCHANGING RATIONALES. Karl Rove said, ( AND I PARAPHRASE) "America is an empire now . We do what we want, create the narrative we desire and you can study it."

Suck on that.

Now we have the power to create our own future of success. Especially now that we know what we have been working against. A Communist Chinese style war on our culture. So maybe you are not so lazy as the republicans would like you to think, because a "weak" person is not going to fight the above. Why was Nixon the first to visit Communist China? He was envious of their ways.

That fact is that we have only been reacting to the horrible cutthroat nature of the Republican agenda which amounts to War on the culture of good. Permanent slave state. Difference is that we have seen behind the curtain. The evidence is right there. Our eyes are open. We are not afraid any longer. NO PLANET OF THE APES MOVIE IS GOING TO STOP US NOW.

The fact is we got to this point by being TRUTHFUL, COMPASSIONATE AND TOLERANT. The way of Falun Dafa. That is what moves us forward. Try it you might like it.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Saturday, November 19, 2011

opposition research on OWS

Forum Post: Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford attack OWS
Posted 6 hours ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 10:46 a.m. EST by bensdad
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:53 AM EST by Jonathan Larsen (crossposted from MSNBC's "Open Channel" blog) A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”

The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.

CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.

According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”

The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”

Two of the memo’s authors, partners Sam Geduldig and Jay Cranford, previously worked for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Geduldig joined CLGC before Boehner became speaker; Cranford joined CLGC this year after serving as the speaker’s assistant for policy. A third partner, Steve Clark, is reportedly “tight” with Boehner, according to a story by Roll Call that CLGC features on its website.

Jeff Sigmund, an ABA spokesperson, confirmed that the association got the memo. “Our Government Relations staff did receive the proposal – it was unsolicited and we chose not to act on it in any way,” he said in a statement to "Up."

CLGC did not return calls seeking comment.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment on the memo. But he responded to its characterization of Republicans as defenders of Wall Street by saying, “My understanding is that President Obama is the single largest recipient of donations from Wall Street.”

The CLGC memo raises another issue that it says should be of concern to the financial industry -- that OWS might find common cause with the Tea Party. “Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism,” the memo says. “…This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.”

advertisement advertisement advertisement

The memo outlines a 60-day plan to conduct surveys and research on OWS and its supporters so that Wall Street companies will be prepared to conduct a media campaign in response to OWS. Wall Street companies “likely will not be the best spokespeople for their own cause,” according to the memo. “A big challenge is to demonstrate that these companies still have political strength and that making them a political target will carry a severe political cost.”
Part of the plan CLGC proposes is to do “statewide surveys in at least eight states that are shaping up to be the most important of the 2012 cycle.”

Specific races listed in the memo are U.S. Senate races in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada as well as the gubernatorial race in North Carolina.

The memo indicates that CLGC would research who has contributed financial backing to OWS, noting that, “Media reports have speculated about associations with George Soros and others.”

"It will be vital,” the memo says, “to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way.”

Friday, November 18, 2011

Police chief, NY Supreme Ct judge agree: police are causing the violence

Police chief, NY Supreme Ct judge agree: police are causing the violence

Posted by Charles II on November 17, 2011

This is an absolutely stunning interview. Judge Karen Smith completely discredits the press. Police Chief Norm Stamper indicts the police. (And separately, Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis joins Occupy Wall Street!)

AMY GOODMAN: … For a discussion on policing and the Occupy Wall Street movement around the country, we’re joined by two people. Chuck Wexler is the director of the Police Executive Research Forum. And Norm Stamper is with us, the former police chief of Seattle, who recently wrote an article for The Nation magazine, titled “Paramilitary Policing from Seattle to Occupy Wall Street.”

I want to start with Norm Stamper… Your thoughts today?

NORM STAMPER: Well, we made huge mistakes back in [the Battle of Seattle in] 1999, and I’m afraid they’re being repeated today across the country, in Seattle, in Oakland, and in all other cities where there have been confrontations between the police and members of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Norm Stamper, in your article you mention that you think that there are institutional problems, structural problems in policing, that no matter who the political leaders are or what the top brass are, that these problems continue to crop up and appear to be getting worse.

NORM STAMPER: I certainly do believe that. I think the drug war, which has put police officers against young people and poor people and people of color, the war on terrorism, the domestic dimensions of that war, have all served to increase the militarization of America’s police forces. And this is particularly tragic because, prior to these developments, we were on a path to create what I would call authentic partnerships with the community. That means no more unilateral decision making. It means, for example, today, police officers and Occupy movement leaders understanding the diffusion of that leadership, getting together and carving out rules of engagement, if you will, that will help protect public safety, public health, and also assure civil liberties, human rights and some degree of social justice.

(Click for more)

AMY GOODMAN: As I said, we’re also joined on the phone by Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum that coordinated the conference call with mayors and police officials around the country. Can you talk about what’s happening today—the Occupy Oakland, the massive police response, the kind of police response we saw in Seattle with the pepper-spraying of not only Dorli Rainey, but many other people directly in the face—the conversation that took place, and why you coordinated this call, Chuck?

CHUCK WEXLER: … I think a lot of the police officers had a lot in common with, you know, the demonstrators, in terms of the concerns about the economy and working-class people and so forth. But I think, you know, over time, in some cities, the nature of the demonstration has changed… in some cities, it has—that the hand of the police has been forced by, you know, either violence or the changing nature of what’s been happening on the ground.



AMY GOODMAN: Norm Stamper, your response?

NORM STAMPER: Well, I have great respect for Chuck, and I do believe that since 1999 and the Battle in Seattle there have been many changes. My concern is, many of those changes have been for the worse. The officers, for example, in Oakland were dressed as my police officers were in Seattle, which is, in effect, for full—in full battle gear. We were using military tactics. I authorized the use of chemical agents on nonviolent offenders. I thought I had good justification at that time. I did not. The police officer in me was thinking about emergency vehicles, fire trucks, aid cars being able to get through a key intersection. The police chief in me should have said, “This is wrong,” and vetoed that decision. I will regret that decision for the rest of my life. We took a military response to a situation that was fundamentally nonviolent, in which Americans were expressing their views and their values, and used tear gas on them. And that was just plain wrong.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Chuck Wexler, I’d like to ask you about that… the way that the—some of the police forces are dealing with the press, and of the—because the press are supposed to be there to be able to be the eyes and ears of the public in these events, but increasingly you’re getting reporters arrested….

CHUCK WEXLER: …you can have 90 percent of the people are there peacefully, and you have this small contingent—and I think, Norm, what you had in Seattle is you had this group of anarchists that somehow was able to cause such disturbances that it forced a reaction, that perhaps was an overreaction, but I don’t think the police were prepared for it….

AMY GOODMAN: So, Norm Stamper, respond to that issue, why you still think you were wrong, that you’re taking issue with Chuck Wexler here, that given the situation in 1999 you now say you did the absolutely wrong thing.

NORM STAMPER: … There is no question about what anarchists, by definition, or for that matter, even recreational rioters, who are simply sitting in a bar and see the action and get attracted to the downtown area—we had some of that—can help distract attention away from the cause itself and create major public safety issues for the police. Here’s my point: if the police and the community in a democratic society are really working hard—and it is hard work—to forge authentic partnerships rather than this unilateral, paramilitary response to these demonstrations, that the relationship itself serves as a shock absorber. Picture police officers helping to protect the demonstrators. Picture demonstrators saying, “We see people on the fringes, for example, who are essentially undemocratic in their tactics. And so, we need to work together to resolve that issue.” These resolutions are clearly not easy. One of the things that complicates the picture enormously is when a woman like Ms. Rainey is pepper-sprayed. When innocent people who are there to protest what I consider to be very legitimate grievances against corporate America, against a government that has, in many respects, been bought off by corporations, the police have a responsibility to be neutral. It should be apparent that I’m not neutral, but I’m no longer a cop. And police officers on the streets really do need to be neutral referees, and they need the help of their civilian, if I may use that term, partners.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of neutral referees, I wanted to bring a judge into this discussion, retired New York Supreme Court Judge Karen Smith, who worked as a legal observer early Tuesday morning here in New York. I saw her right on the corner of Wall Street shortly after police raided the Occupy Wall Street encampment. Judge Smith, what did you see?

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Well, I arrived about 1:30, 1:40 in the morning, got out and walked to Dey and Broadway. And the police were in full riot gear. I mean, it was a paramilitary operation if there ever was one, I mean, which sets off—here it is, 1:30 in the morning, what we call a stealth eviction, 1:30 in the morning, and they were just lined up two blocks from—on either side from the park, so that nobody could get near, this solid wall of police.

I was wearing—and I brought this—a hat, which says the “National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer.” And as you can see, in color, it’s quite bright. And at night—

AMY GOODMAN: It’s fluorescent green.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): It’s fluorescent green. And then I was wearing it, and I had a pad and a pen, and I was there to take down the names of people who were arrested so we could follow them through the system and just observe what was going on. And as I’m standing there, some African-American woman goes up to a police officer and says, “I need to get in. My daughter’s there. I want to know if she’s OK.” And he said, “Move on, lady.” And he kept pushing—they kept pushing with their sticks, pushing back. And she said—and she was crying. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, he throws her to the ground and starts hitting her in the head. And I walk over, and I say, “Look, cuff her if she’s done something, but you don’t need to do that.” And he said, “Lady, do you want to get arrested?” And I said, “Do you see my hat? I’m here as a legal observer.” He said, “You want to get arrested?” And he pushed me up against the wall.

And, you know, it was late at night. There was a lot going on. People were—all of a sudden, there was like a cordon of police pushing everybody into Dey Street between Broadway and Church. And it seemed like they were setting everybody up to get arrested. And then they started—some people broke away, some of the police, and started running after people. I moved away and then decided that I needed to get on the other side. I received a call that there were things developing on Pine and Broadway, and so I moved all the way east to go around the police and then ended up on Pine and Broadway, which is really where I ran into you.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, you had a personal interest, as well. Your son was also one of the participants in Occupy Wall Street.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Yes, my son was a—he’s a staff person for SEIU 1199. And they were there in support. They were not going to get arrested, but they wanted to show the demonstrators and the occupiers that—and they’ve been supportive all along as one of the unions. And he was there. And I was watching carefully to make sure that he did not get hurt, as well. I was very concerned.

At Pine and Broadway, it was sort of a standoff. People were—there was a lot of confusion. People didn’t know what was going on. There were some people that may have sat on some police cars just in comfort, but nobody was—I heard later on reports—talk about objectivity of the press—you know, that they were jumping up and down and they were taunting the police. The only time I ever saw on—when I first got there on Dey and Broadway, they were just saying, “Shame on you,” you know, to the police, and—but that was it. And down on Pine and Broadway, at least until about 4:30 in the morning, I didn’t see any provocation whatsoever.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And I’d like to ask Chuck Wexler, this whole issue of the police chiefs trying to exchange information, was there any involvement of the Department of Homeland Security or the federal officials in the discussions with the various police chiefs?

CHUCK WEXLER: Not on our conference call at all.



AMY GOODMAN: … But I did want to ask you, how involved is FBI and Homeland Security in these discussions, Chuck Wexler?

CHUCK WEXLER: We haven’t had—they haven’t been involved—maybe they’re involved at the local level, but nationally, at least on our conference calls, I don’t think—they didn’t have a role.

JUAN GONZALEZ: There were some press reports that there were Homeland Security presentations urging that these arrests be conducted late at night.


JUAN GONZALEZ: And Karen Smith, you retired in 2010 as a Supreme Court judge, so you obviously have dealt, over many years, with the police department and police officials. Your sense—when we spoke a couple of days ago, you also talked about your sense that there was a really hostile or tense situation from the very beginning with how the police were responding to the protesters. Could you talk about that?

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Yes, well, I don’t know if Mr. Stamper was the one who said this, but I think it was structural. You—at night, 1:00 in the morning, people dressed in riot gear. There were trucks, remember, lined up for the sanitation to just throw people’s things in—computers and everything. And now people, I’m told, they can’t get their stuff. There was a them and us. I, I mean, worked with police officers for years. There are very—I agree that there are very good ones. It’s not individuals. It’s a system that’s being set up of us and them.

And the other thing that needs to be brought out—and I think it was in the court case in front of Judge Stallman, who was a colleague of mine—is how often do you get the police and the state enforcing private property rights? The contradictions are tremendous, just that. I mean, as you pointed out in your article I read in some—and also even David Letterman last night, you know, points out, you know, it’s OK for prostitutes, drug dealers, and now we’re having our Christmas fair, where they’re putting up tents. You know, but that’s for profit. So that’s OK.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, explain that, because maybe people in other parts of the country don’t understand.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Oh, at Christmas time in New York, and I think around the country, there are these little craft things that are set up for private businesses, and they put up tents, and they’re there—they have to leave by 11:00, but they’re—

AMY GOODMAN: Tents all over, for example, Union Square.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): All over Union Square.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In the parks, yes.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): In the parks, Columbus Circle. So that’s OK. But—and I don’t know what evidence was presented, because I wasn’t in court the other day, about the so-called sanitation violations that were the basis of the state using its authority to come in. But in the end, they were enforcing private property interests. And that’s really what—the message, I think, from the whole Occupy Wall Street’s about.



AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Stephen Graham into the discussion right now. We started speaking to him yesterday. He wrote the book Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism. Just in from Britain, in Philadelphia.

STEPHEN GRAHAM: …the so-called homeland security market is a real—is in real boom town—boom time, excuse me. I mean, in a world where actual defense contracts are often being reduced, a lot of the big companies are moving into civilian applications. They’re moving into these non-lethal weapons, moving into all of the technologies of crowd control and civilian disturbance control. And that has to be added to, of course, the much bigger markets that are growing in terms of broader questions of surveillance and security for buildings, for cities, for special events, as we see these systems established more and more in terms of everyday spaces and everyday bits of cities. So, I haven’t got figures at hand, I’m afraid, but it’s multibillion-dollar markets that are projected to grow globally at very, very high rates over the next 15 years, according to some of the recent market research reports.

AMY GOODMAN: Norm Stamper, if you’re still on the line with us, former police chief of Seattle, does what Stephen Graham is saying ring a bell for you? Does it resonate with your experience?

NORM STAMPER: Well, it certainly does. I might even add to that mix the increased privatization of the prison industry in the United States, where people are in fact making huge sums of money on the backs of those arrested for nonviolent drug offenses. And we’re talking really in the millions in this country. So I think there’s that that needs to be considered, as well.

About the non-lethal tools at the disposal of local law enforcement, many of those were developed in the wake of a controversial shooting. We understand that cops got a dangerous job. It’s delicate. It’s demanding. There are situations that call for life-and-death decision making, oftentimes with no real time to contemplate options and possibilities. Let’s find non-lethal alternatives to that firearm. So, the motive is good. The question is, to what extent are those non-lethal weapons being abused today? We have seen far too many examples of tasers, for example, used in situations where no force was necessary. It’s just simply a way to get somebody to move faster or to get out of a car when they’re passively resistant.

So, it’s important, I think, to understand the complexities of everything that we’re talking about. For example, there are many compassionate, decent, competent police officers who do a terrific job day in and day out. There are others who are, quote, “bad apples.” What both of them have in common is that they occupy, as it were, a system, a structure that itself is rotten. And I am talking about the paramilitary bureaucracy….

Friday, October 21, 2011

you gotta shoot rabid dogs

Bill Dyer : 06/30/11 20:29
Mr. McCarthy, you've made a number of fine points here, but with due and genuine respect, you're confusing things that ought be kept straight.
All of what you wrote about Kadafi's history is correct. His history has been to use Libya's vast oil wealth as a state supporter and exporter of international terrorism, of which the U.S. has been the chief target.
You're also right on the mark about the weakness of his "conversion" and "cooperation." Any possibility of his continuing to justify the civilized world's forbearance, however, evaporated when he turned heavy weapons on his own population.
It astounds me that you can know, and articulate, all that history so well and yet insist that there are "no vital U.S. interests at stake."
The U.S. doesn't have a vital interest in protecting Libya's civilian population, merely a humanitarian interest; I would agree with you, I think, that such humanitarian interest is insufficient to justify American military intervention.
Be we clearly, obviously have a vital interest in ensuring that Kadafi is now removed from power. We simply cannot permit this oil-funded terror-exporting again-out-of-control madman to remain in power.
You seem to think the determination of whether we ought to remove Kadafi from power — to effect regime change — depends in turn upon whether we wish to support the particular "rebel" forces who are, mostly independently, trying to oust Kadafi. Those issues must be analyzed separately.
It's entirely possible as a logical matter — and I believe it is the most sound weighing of competing concerns — to conclude that we have a compelling American interest in changing this regime without necessarily also having a compelling interest in what comes after.
Nothing but our own sense of overarching responsibility, our own sense of ourselves as "good guys," says that we have any responsibility to rescue the Libyan populace from what comes after Kadafi.
We can break it without buying it. We can take out Kadafi and walk away. Certainly for all of world history before WW2, that was among the options for conquering nations.
What ought to happen is that we use our superior military capability — especially with regard to precision use of force with less collateral damage than our NATO allies can limit themselves to — to take out Kadafi, and then dump the result into the laps of our NATO allies, especially the French and Italians (who have the strongest historical interests in Libya) for such nation-building exercises, if any, as they deem justified by their then-existing vital interests. And their continuing interests are likely to be greater than ours because they are the traditional and logical (logistical) market for Libyan energy production.
Now of course, it may turn out that despite our NATO allies' efforts, or because of the lack thereof, Kadafi's successors turn out to be as bad or even worse than he's been. No one should try to sell any scenario for what America should do now as implying any guarantee that we won't have to effect regime change there again in the future.
But frankly, showing that we can (which everyone now knows) and will (which nobody now believes) decapitate a regime and then (mostly) walk away from the results might be a really good and cost-effective way to influence regime leaders not just in Libya but elsewhere.
We should play to our strengths. We are exceedingly good at blowing up bad guys without killing very many of the innocents with whom they surround themselves.
You seem to think this inevitably has to become a sustained, expensive counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism effort of the sort in which we've engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's just not so.
Think of it not as nation-building, but a grand SWAT-team raid, or an exercise in removing a rabid animal from a populated area. Obama may not be capable of that mental flexibility, but you certainly are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Monday, October 17, 2011

it does not make you tough to hurt these people

Occupy Wall Street: Sergeant Shamar Thomas Yells At NYPD Officers After Times Square Protest (VIDEO)

First Posted: 10/17/11 01:04 PM ET Updated: 10/17/11 01:51 PM ET



Ny News , Nypd , Wall Street Protest , New York News , Occupy Wall Street , Occupy Wall Street Times Square , Police Brutality , Shamar Thomas , United-States-Marine-Corps , New York News

SHARE THIS STORY

After the violent clashes between police and protesters at Saturday's massive Occupy Wall Street demonstration in Times Square, a marine who served in Iraq delivered an impromptu speech in front of some NYPD officers, denouncing their crowd-control methods and police brutality. "This is not a war zone!" he yells at NYPD officers. "These are unarmed people."

A crowd eventually gathers around the marine, identified as Sergeant. Shamar Thomas, who served with the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion USMC in Iraq. Thomas, a New York native, then explains that his father served in Afghanistan, his mother served in Iraq and that he doesn't like seeing cops hurting the people he and his family fought to protect:



On his YouTube channel, where the video of the speech is posted, he writes:

I took an Oath that I live by. am NOT anti-NYPD. I am anti- Police Brutality. I am no longer under contract with the USMC so I do NOT have to follow military uniform regulations. I DON'T affiliate myself with ANY GROUPS or POLITICAL ORG. I affiliate myself with the AMERICAN PEOPLE that's it. I REFUSE to affiliate with anything that SEPARATES. There is an obvious problem in the country and PEACEFUL PEOPLE should be allowed to PROTEST without Brutality. I was involved in a RIOT in Rutbah, Iraq 2004 and we did NOT treat the Iraqi citizens like they are treating the unarmed civilians in our OWN Country. No one was brutalized because our mission was to 'WIN the hearts and minds.' why should I expect anything less in my OWN Country.
Earlier this month a group of veterans calling themselves OccupyMARINES came out in support of the Occupy Wall Street protests, now entering their thirtieth day. They write on their Facebook page, "Marines support the movement. We will support demonstrators with organization, direction, supply and logistics, and leadership." It is illegal for active duty soldiers to protest in uniform. It appears all of the OccupyMarines are retired.





FOLLOW HUFFPOST NEW YORK ON
Facebook:
Like
15K
Twitter:
GET ALERTS
CONTRIBUTE TO THIS STORY
Send Corrections
Send us a Link
Contact us
Send a Tip
Send Photos/Videos
Comment