The European Union Times |
- Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
- Japan to exchange its reputation for military power
- Chris Matthews Apologizes ‘On Behalf of All White People’
- Australia Takes Strong Stance Against Papua New Guinea Boat Immigrants
- Detroit files for federal bankruptcy, marking largest case in US history
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2013 03:57 PM PDT
 The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned indefinitely. These assurances, however, were not enough to keep a group of journalists and human rights activists from filing a federal lawsuit last year, which contested the constitutionality of Section 1021, the particular provision that provides for such broad power. A federal judge sided with the plaintiffs originally by granting an injunction against Section 1021, prompting the Obama administration to request an appeal last year. On Wednesday this week, an appeals court in New York ruled in favor of the government and once again allowed the White House to legally indefinitely detain persons that fit in the category of enemy combatants or merely provide them with support. Now with this week’s appellate decision, plaintiffs intend on taking their case to the Supreme Court. Should the high court agree to hear their argument, the top justices in the US may finally weigh in on the controversial counterterrorism law. The so-called “indefinite detention” provision of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act has been at the center of debate since before President Barack Obama autographed the bill in December 2011, but a federal lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Chris Hedges and others only two weeks after it went into effect remains as relevant as ever in light of a decision delivered Wednesday by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The plaintiffs in case had previously been successful in convincing a federal district judge to keep Section 1021 from being put on the books, but the latest ruling negates an earlier injunction and once again reestablished the government’s right to indefinitely detain people under the NDAA. Tangerine Bolen, a co-plaintiff in the case alongside Hedges, told RT, “Losing one battle is not losing the war. This war is an assault on truth itself. It flaunts reason, sanity and basic decency. We will not stand down in the face of these egregious assaults on our rights and liberties.” In a statement published to TruthDig, Hedges called the ruling “distressing” and said, “It means there is no recourse now either within the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of government to halt the steady assault on our civil liberties and most basic Constitutional rights.” Section 1021 of the NDAA reads in part that the president of the US can indefinitely imprison any person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the US or its coalition partners, as well as anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the US under the law of war, “without trial, until the end of the hostilities.” The power to do as much was allegedly granted to the commander-in-chief after the Authorization to Use Military Force was signed into law shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but a team of plaintiffs have argued that Section 1021 provides the White House with broad, sweeping powers that put the First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech and assembly at risk while also opening the door for the unlawful prosecution of anyone who can be linked to an enemy of the state. Only two weeks after the 2012 NDAA was signed into law, Hedges filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration challenging the constitutional validity of Section 1021. “I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists … but that does not make me one,” he said at the time. Naomi Wolf, an American author, told the Guardian last year that she has skipped meetings with individuals and dropped stories that she believed are newsworthy “for no other reason than to avoid potential repercussions under the bill.” Hedges first filed suit on Jan 13, 2012, and was eventually joined by a number of activists, reporters and human rights workers from both the US and abroad, including Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, journalist Alexa O’Brien, Revolution Truth founder Bolen and Icelandic PM Birgitta Jónsdóttir. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against Section 1021 that May, only to make that decision permanent four months later. The Obama administration filed a stay against that injunction just days after, though, and the appeals court ruled this week that Judge Forrest’s decision must be vacated. Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, previously told RT that he expected the White House to lose the appeal. “The Obama administration has now lost three times. They lost the temporary injunction, they lost the motion for reconsideration and they lost the hearing for permanent injunction. I say three strikes and you’re out,” he said. But with the court’s 3-0 ruling this week, a federal panel concluded that the plaintiffs involved in the suit do not have standing to challenge Section 1021. In doing so, however, they offered what is the most official interpretation yet of a law that has continuously attracted criticism for nearly two years now. After years of debate, the appeals court said once and for all that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, and rehashed the Obama administration’s insistence that it simply reaffirmed rights afforded to the government through the AUMF. “Section 1021(e) provides that Section 1021 just does not speak — one way or the other — to the government’s authority to detain citizens, lawful resident aliens or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States,” the court ruled. “We thus conclude, consistent with the text and buttressed in part by the legislative history, that Section 1021 means this: With respect to individuals who are not citizens, are not lawful resident aliens and are not captured or arrested within the United States, the President’s AUMF authority includes the authority to detain those responsible for 9/11 as well as those who were a part of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners — a detention authority that Section 1021 concludes was granted by the original AUMF.” “But with respect to citizens, lawful resident aliens, or individuals captured or arrested in the United States, Section 1021 simply says nothing at all,” it concluded. The AUMF, however, is still open to interpretation. An earlier legal ruling concluded that the AUMF “clearly and unmistakable” authorized detaining those who were “part of or supporting forces hostile to the US.” Then a memo issued in March 2009 just weeks’ into Pres. Obama’s first term even added that the government has the authority “to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported” anyone engaged in hostilities against US or its partners. “In any event, the March 2009 Memo took the view that ‘the AUMF is not limited to persons captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan’ nor to those ‘directly participating in hostilities,’” the appeals court noted. When the DC Circuit weighed in further down the road, it determined that the AUMF authorized detention for those who “purposefully and materially support” those hostile forces, although this week’s ruling makes note that the Circuit Court has failed to ever figure out what “support” exactly means. “The government contends that Section 1021 simply reaffirms authority that the government already had under the AUMF, suggesting at times that the statute does next to nothing at all. Plaintiffs take a different view,” wrote the court this week. Definitions aside, however, the appeals court wrote that Hedges and his American co-plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the indefinite detention provisions since a subsection of that rule, 1021(e), frees US citizens from detention under the NDAA. “We recognize that Section 1021 perhaps could have been drafted in a way that would have made this clearer and that the absence of any reference to American citizens in Section 1021(b) led the district court astray in this case. Perhaps the last-minute inclusion of Section 1021(e) as an amendment introduced on the floor of the Senate explains the somewhat awkward construction,” wrote the court. “But that is neither here nor there. It is only our construction, just described, that properly gives effect to the text of all of the parts of Section 1021 and thus reflects congressional intent.” At the same time, though, the appeals court acknowledged that Iceland’s Jónsdóttir, co-plaintiff Kai Wargalla of Germany and other foreign persons could be detained indefinitely under the NDAA. Although Jónsdóttir has argued that her well-documented affiliation with the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks — particularly with regards to classified material its published much to the chagrin of the US government — is enough to land her in hot water, the court said indefinite imprisonment in a military jail cell is an unrealistic fear and she therefore lacks standing. Jónsdóttir, 46, has been a member of the Iceland parliament since 2009, the same year that US Army Private first class Bradley Manning began supplying materials to WikiLeaks. Jónsdóttir and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange worked directly with raw video footage supplied by Manning showing a US helicopter fatally wounding innocent civilians and journalists, which the website later released under the name “Collateral Murder.” And although Pfc. Manning is currently on trial for “aiding the enemy” by supplying WikiLeaks — and indirectly al-Qaeda — with that intelligence, the court said Jónsdóttir herself has nothing to fear. “The claims of Jónsdóttir and Wargalla stand differently. Whereas Section 1021 says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens, it does have real meaning regarding the authority to detain individuals who are not citizens or lawful resident aliens and are apprehended abroad,” the court ruled. Elsewhere, the judges wrote that the government insists that WikiLeaks and Manning provided “some support” to hostile forces by publishing classified intelligence, and that the 25-year-old Army private is indeed facing prosecution for such that could put him away for life. “One perhaps might fear that Jónsdóttir’s and Wargalla’s efforts on behalf of WikiLeaks could be construed as making them indirect supporters of al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well,” wrote the court. “The government rejoins that the term ‘substantial support’ cannot be construed so in this particular context. Rather, it contends that the term must be understood — and limited — by reference to who would be detainable in analogous circumstances under the laws of war.” Because “plaintiffs have provided no basis for believing that the government will place Jónsdóttir and Wargalla in military detention for their supposed substantial support,” the court has rejected their lawsuit. “In sum, Hedges and O’Brien do not have Article III standing to challenge the statute because Section 1021 simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens,” concluded the court. “While Section 1021 does have meaningful effect regarding the authority to detain individuals who are not citizens or lawful resident aliens and are apprehended abroad, Jónsdóttir and Wargalla have not established standing on this record. We vacate the permanent injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Meanwhile, the court’s decision did little to resolve what actually is allowed under the AUMF. In fact, the court said Section 1021 “does not foreclose the possibility that previous ‘existing law’ may permit the detention of American citizens,” making note of American Yaser Esam Hamdi and a three-year ordeal that left him without the right to habeas corpus or an attorney after he was picked up in post-9/11 Afghanistan on suspicion of terroristic ties. Instead, it confirmed that foreign citizens engaged with substantially supporting hostile forces— neither of which term is still properly defined — can be locked up in military jails. Hedges previously said that he thought that the US was already using the NDAA to put some people away. “If the Obama administration simply appealed it, as we expected, it would have raised this red flag,” Hedges said during an online Q-and-A session on Reddit when the White House last fought back. “But since they were so aggressive it means that once Judge Forrest declared the law invalid, if they were using it, as we expect, they could be held in contempt of court. This was quite disturbing, for it means, I suspect, that US citizens, probably dual nationals, are being held in military detention facilities almost certainly overseas and maybe at home.” In a statement published to TruthDig on Wednesday, Hedges said that he plans to appeal. If accepted, the case of Hedges v Obama may go all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s a decision that will weigh with the justices, however, and Hedges said they are by no means required to hear their request. “It is a black day for those who care about liberty,” wrote Hedges. In her statement to RT, Bolen rejected the notion that she and others lack standing to challenge a law that plaintiffs believe is being used in secrecy. “Good people have come forward to challenge the madness of the US government in the wake of 9/11 – people who have every reason to fear this atrocious panoply of laws and policies that are fundamentally eroding guaranteed liberties and basic human rights,” she said. “The United States Government itself is behaving as a terror. Through indefinite detention of innocent civilians at Guantanamo, secret rendition, torture, murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and illegal drone bombings – it is fundamentally eroding the rule of law while harming national security. Courts are contradicting themselves on whether the government has the right to indefinitely detain even its own citizens, Congress has supported dragnet surveillance and other assaults on everything we were founded on, and yet somehow, our fears are only ‘speculation,’” she said. Source Related Posts: |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2013 03:48 PM PDT
 Japan’s Prime Minister and leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Shinzo Abe is trying to start an active campaign to amend the Constitution of Japan, which will focus on creating a full-fledged army in Japan. However, a poll revealed that only a third of the Japanese population supported the idea. Does Japan need a full-fledged army? As many politicians say, it is a severe state of public finances, rather than the Constitution of Japan that limits Japan’s ability to maintain a military structure. Political scientists tend to believe that the price of official amendments to the basic law of the country may be too high, especially in terms of international relations. China and South Korea may interpret this move as hostile towards them on the part of Japan. In addition, Japan will no longer be able to bear the title of a “pacifist state”, which was an integral part of the country’s reputation, which, in turn, could produce a destabilizing effect on the Asian region as a whole. Japan and the defense of Senkaku Islands. A few days after being re-elected to the post of the Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe confirmed Japan’s sovereignty over the tiny eastern Senkaku islands (Diaoyu), for which two superpowers are fighting – China and Japan. In addition, Japan is in a century-old dispute with South Korea over the island called as Takeshima by the Japanese, or Dokdo – by the Koreans. It is believed that the Senkaku Islands are an integral part of Japan from the point of view of history and international law. The issue of the territorial sovereignty of the islands had not been raised before 1971, when they started talking about the possibility of the existence of oil resources there. Since then, the governments of China and Taiwan have their claims to the territory. Geographically, the Senkaku Islands are made up of small islands: Uotsuri, Katakodzima, Minamikodzima, Cuba, Taisho, Okinokitaiva, Okinominamiva and Tobise. When dividing Japanese territories after the Second World War, they, according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, were delivered under the control of the United States of America. They were returned to Japan in May, 1972. The Senkaku Islands were carefully examined by geologists and anthropologists. The results showed that the region had never been under the control of China. The Japanese Cabinet issued a decree that officially, in accordance with international law, made the Senkaku Islands a territory of Japan. Afterwards, a question appeared about the development of oil resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea. No one was interested in the islands before that. Japan – allies and opponents The real causes of Chinese-Japanese tensions originate, to some extent, from consequences of a long-standing rivalry. For example, deputy Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso has recently said that over the last fifteen hundred years, there was not even a day in history when Japan’s relations with China would be going smoothly. At present, the conflict is exacerbated with objective factors of the growth of the Chinese economy and the economic recession in Japan. Nationalism in these countries is an important ideological component, and ruling circles must prove their intransigence towards opponents. At the end of the Second World War, Japan has never fully regained its national identity. The country was reinventing itself in some degree, which included a major dilemma – the choice of allies and opponents. Japan was trying to act as a major power, and remain respectful to American interests. In the future, Japan could rearm itself and build its own nuclear weapons, which could balance its power with China. However, such a move would lead to a potentially dangerous arms race in the region. Japan could be friends with China, thus turning its back on the United States. Such a step could change the balance of forces and make China, not the U.S., a dominant superpower. In turn, the United States sees Japan and South Korea as closest allies in the Asian region that balance the growing influence of China. As for South Korea, Japan has a conflict of interests with this country over the island, which South Korea calls Dokdo and Japan – Takeshima. A visit of the South Korean president to the island caused a storm of indignation in Japan. The deterioration of relations led to material consequences. South Korea postponed the deal on sharing intelligence information about North Korea with Japan, in which the United States was interested. Japan is considering the extension of the currency swap agreement, although about five million tourists migrate between the two countries each year, and the leaders will have to overcome the odds. South Korea and Japan still can not adequately evaluate actions of the parties during the Second World War. This applies mainly to South Korea that believes that Japan apologized inadequately for using women as sex slaves during Japan’s annexation of Korea. Recently, foreign ministers Fumio Kishida and Yun Bin Xie conducted talks in Brunei, and agreed to focus on future bilateral relations. It was the first such meeting in the past nine months. Japan and South Korea are connected by means of global issues relating to nuclear and missile programs of North Korea and the growth of military and economic power of China. Meanwhile, the U.S. indirectly tries to influence the Sino-South Korean ties. China, as reported by Reuters, said it would participate in the Japan-China summit only if Tokyo recognized China’s territorial claims to the Senkaku Islands. In July of this year, at a tripartite meeting between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Japan, the United States and South Korea, three high-ranking diplomats confirmed that they did not accept North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons and urged to take concrete action on the denuclearization of North Korea. Nowadays, basic principles of self-defense of Japan are focused on the protection of its islands and marine areas in the south. The government of the country says that to oppose the conquest of the islands, Japan needs to have a full-fledged army. The country will strengthen its naval and air forces through the construction and purchase of submarines, aircraft carriers, as well as a new generation of fighters. Forbes Analyst Donald Kirk notes that Japan has been building up the capabilities of its armed forces very slowly. Japan’s defense budget has decreased by 5.2 percent in several years. Therefore, to increase the strength of its armed forces, Japan will probably have to “tighten the belt” and cut many articles of the budget. The post-war “economic miracle” of Japan became possible owing to the minimization of military spending. How can the militarization of Japan affect its economy, especially during the time of an economic crisis? This is a big question indeed. Source Related Posts: |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2013 03:34 PM PDT
 MSNBC host Chris Matthews scaled new heights of absurdity during a segment of his Hardball show when he apologized to two black guests on behalf of all white people. “I’ll just tell you one thing, and I’m speaking now for all white people but especially for (those) who have tried to change for the last 50 or 60 years and a lot of them have really tried to change – and I’m sorry for this stuff, that’s all I’m saying,” remarked Matthews. It’s unclear specifically what Matthews, speaking on behalf of all white people, was apologizing for. The ruling in the Trayvon Martin case? Black slavery? Or merely being born with white skin? In the longer segment below, the two guests relate several stories that are about black people being unfairly harassed by police – so what this has to do with “all white people” is anyone’s guess. Whatever Matthews’ incoherent babbling was supposed to mean, it’s yet another indication that the “progressive” media continues to blame white people for the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the wider problem of violence against black people, ignoring the fact that almost all black victims of murder are killed by other black people. According to Justice Department figures, 94 per cent of all blacks murdered in America every year are murdered by other black people, despite the fact that black Americans make up just 13 per cent of the US population. That’s 7,000 blacks murdered every year by other black people. In addition, as black radio host Larry Elder points out, half of the murders in America are committed by black people, meaning that when old people and minors are taken out of the equation, 3 per cent of the population, predominantly young black men, are committing nearly 50 per cent of the murders in America. This statistic seems somewhat more concerning than the nationwide hand-wringing that has taken place as a result of the actions of a hispanic neighborhood watch captain in killing one black teen. These statistics have been completely ignored and replaced by a narrative which defies logic about white people being to blame for the death of Trayvon Martin and the woes of black people in general Earlier this week, Matthews’ MSNBC colleague Michael Eric Dyson, who previously argued that it is impossible for black people to be racist, disproved his own claim when he said that more white kids need to die in order for white people to understand racism in light of the Zimmerman case, again ignoring the fact that the vast majority of blacks are murdered by other blacks. Is it really any wonder that MSNBC’s ratings are at a 6 year low when the likes of Matthews and Dyson continue to spew such unadulterated, race-baiting, baseless nonsense? Watch the full Hardball segment below. Source Related Posts: |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2013 03:13 PM PDT
Australia’s
Prime Minster Kevin Rudd (R) and his Papua New Guinea counterpart,
Peter O’Neill, sign an agreement on asylum seekers in Brisbane on July
19, 2013.
Rudd and his Papua New Guinea counterpart, Peter O’Neill, signed the Regional Settlement Arrangement on Friday in Brisbane. The arrangement comes into effect immediately. “From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugee,” said Rudd. He added that anyone assessed to be a refugee would be permanently settled in Papua New Guinea. And those whose applications are not successful would be sent back home or to third countries. In return for cooperation, Papua New Guinea will receive extra foreign aid from Australia in a range of areas including health, education and law and order. After the announcement, the Coalition for Asylum Seekers called the measure shocking, and said Canberra has decided to shirk from its responsibilities assigned under the United Nations Refugees Convention. Other lobby groups which hate homogenous countries including Amnesty International and the Refugee Rights Action Network have also criticized the deal. Australia struggles to curb a dramatic increase in the number of boats arriving in the country with illegal immigrants. More than 15,000 asylum-seekers have arrived so far this year. In 2012, the country received 16,000 asylum requests. Source Related Posts: |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2013 02:46 PM PDT
 The city of Detroit has filed for federal bankruptcy, or Chapter 9 protection, which could mean municipal employees are laid off, assets sold and services like trash collection, which have already been cut to the bone, further scaled back. Detroit has become the largest city in American history to file for bankruptcy. Kevin Orr, a bankruptcy expert hired by the state of Michigan in March to try and lead the Motor City away from a fiscal cliff, submitted the filing on Thursday, reported the AP. On the same day, Michigan governor Rick Snyder laid out the case in support of Chapter 9 protection, saying that the “decision comes in the wake of 60 years of decline for the city.” Snyder said that despite the “best efforts” by Detroit’s Office of the Emergency Manager, the city was unable to reach a restructuring plan with its debtors – leaving more than $18 billion in outstanding debts. “We must face the fact that the city cannot and is not paying its debts as they come due, and is insolvent,” added Snyder. The city of Detroit lost a quarter-million residents between 2000 and 2010, reports the AP. Boasting a population of 1.8 million in the 1950s, the municipality is now struggling to stay above 700,000 residents. An estimated 78,000 structures are currently abandoned in the city and unemployment has tripled since 2000 and, at roughly 15 percent of the population, is currently double the national average. In addition to a severe loss of population, the city faces a host of issues hampering its economic recovery including a 47 per cent delinquency rate on property taxes and a murder rate at its highest in nearly 40 years. Detroit’s tax rates are already at their ‘legal limits,’ while city expenditures have surpassed revenue for six consecutive years. According to Orr’s Thursday letter, negotiated settlements with the city’s creditors are not possible outside of bankruptcy “given the vast and fragmented pool of potential creditors.” In June Orr met with some 180 bond insurers, pension trustees, union representatives and an assortment of creditors and asked them to take about 10 cents on the dollar for the city’s debt, reports the AP. The Washington-based bankruptcy attorney hired by Michigan in March had said then that the chances of bankruptcy for Detroit were 50-50. “The average Detroiter has to understand this is a culmination of years and years of kicking the can down the road,” Orr said. Detroit had for years relied on borrowing and deferred payments to its pension funds to keep the city afloat. Source Related Posts: |
