US Justice Department report urges no prosecution over torture memos

Original article, by Bill Van Auken, via World Socialist Web Site:

A draft report by the US Justice Department on the conduct of department lawyers who wrote memos justifying torture has reportedly been embraced by the Obama administration as a means of precluding any attempt to hold them or other Bush administration officials accountable for their crimes.

Part of the 'move on, there's nothing there to see' school of handling government scandal, this move by the 'Justice' Department shows that the Obama administration is just a new face on an old coin. This shouldn't surprise us, as it's the same mindset as what faced us after Iran-Contra. The perps get away with it. And it looks like Eric Holder is going to let them.

The report by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which is charged with investigating misconduct by government attorneys, was completed last December before the Bush administration left office and handed over to the incoming Obama administration for final review and implementation.

Ah, you say, it's a Bush plan! Ah, the response is, it's a Bush plan that Obama's embracing! Not that we should be surprised. Be it the economy, the war in Iraq, the ever escalating war in Afghanistan and now Pakistan, Obama's pretty much embraced the Bushian logic on these big ticket items. Change we can believe in is turning out to be the cosmetic change of having Obama as President as opposed to Bush.

According to press reports citing unnamed government officials, the 220-page draft focuses on three lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel—John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury—who signed legal opinions, known as the “torture memos,” justifying the torture of detainees held and interrogated by the US in its “global war on terror.”

The draft reportedly finds the attorneys guilty of poor judgment and failure to provide “reasonable legal advice,” but not of conspiracy to violate US and international laws against torture.

It does not call for criminal prosecution, but rather suggests that state bar associations consider disciplinary action, at least against Yoo and Bybee. Such action could range from a formal reprimand to disbarment. Yoo is currently a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, while Bybee is a federal appeals court judge in San Francisco.

I'll let you read the rest of the article. Van Auken shows us why this decision, if not changed, is bad for the United States and it's citizens. The question which arises is did we vote to have torture swept under the rug? I don't think so, and I wouldn't think most of the 'progressive' blogosphere voted for that either. If this decision is embraced, it will be up to us to convince Congress to hold open hearings on torture with the threat of prosecution should the evidence clearly show that it is needed. Van Auken finishes with this thought:

Neither the Obama administration nor the Democratic Party has any intention of pursuing such a course. Only an independent political movement of working people directed against the entire ruling establishment can carry forward the defense of democratic rights, including the criminal prosecution of all those responsible for torture and other war crimes carried out under both the Bush and the Obama administrations.

If the Democratic Party refuses to back investigations into the lawlessness of the Bush administration, then perhaps Van Auken is correct.

The Obama recovery

Original article, by Jerry White, via World Socialist Web Site:

In an extraordinary interview published in Sunday’s New York Times magazine, President Obama outlined his vision for the US economy in a piece entitled “After the Great Recession.” The interview was conducted by economic columnist David Leonhardt after Obama had delivered a major speech on restructuring the US economy at Georgetown University on April 14.

Obama on economics! This should be good. We know he has the high finance boys in charge of the economy. Let's see what he had to say:

In the interview, Obama makes clear that there will be no serious structural reform of the banking system. Any regulatory changes introduced to rein in “some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking” that precipitated the financial crash will be designed to restore “confidence and trust” in the financial sector, including the “market for securitized products.”

Ummm...OK, so there will be some regulatory window dressing. My question is how do you restore trust to an economic sector which has taken a run at destroying the world economic system? If the same system stays in place, even with window dressing, what's to keep the bankster frauds from doing it all again?

Obama specifically rejects restoring the barrier between investment banking and commercial banking put in place by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, the most important financial regulatory reform of the Depression era. The act was one of the victims of the financial deregulation of the late 1990s, carried out by then-President Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary and current top Obama economic adviser Lawrence Summers.

Hmmm. The regulation which was put in place to keep the investment banksters from ruining commercial banking isn't going to be put back into place? I can hear the cheering on Wall Street and the City of London, but that's about it. So, Casino Capitalism it is for Obama. I wonder what he's willing to bet on our behalf.

In his Georgetown University speech, Obama outlined a reactionary program for the restructuring of American capitalism in the aftermath of the financial crash. This would involve a permanent reduction in the living standards and ratcheting up of the exploitation of the working class, and entail unprecedented cuts in basic social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. “We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity,” Obama told his audience, “where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.”

Consuming less = prosperity! How stoic of our President. But, then again, most of us aren't stoics. Prosperity = consuming more because we can afford to consume more. More to the point, real prosperity = consuming more without having to go into debt to do so.

The president returns to this theme in his interview, making clear that the days of “middle-class” wages for less-skilled and manufacturing workers are gone for good. That is the implication of his insistence that every American will need “enough post-high-school training to be competent in fields that demand technical expertise.” Without that, he declares, “it would be very hard to imagine getting a job that pays a living wage.”

Welcome to the third world. Sure, those that can afford college and post-secondary education will be able to get that added edge. The problem is, of course, that if middle class wages can't be earned by non-college level experts then how will they be able to afford to send their kids to said higher education?

Most revealing and chilling are Obama’s remarks on slashing health care costs, the centerpiece of a policy of austerity for the American people. Far from outlining a plan to provide good quality health care for all, he speaks of rationing health care for working people.

Rationing of health care, while still being forced to carry said health care. Obama, thy middle name isn't 'Progressive.' It isn't even 'Moderate.'

I'll let you read the rest, including Obama's tortured look at end of life care. Read it. Weep a bit if needed. Then take of the blue shaded glasses and look into what Obama sees as reality. His plans are OUR economic future. Too bad they sound like our failed economic past.

White closes with a strong statement of where it appears Obama wants to take us:

The interview, appearing in the midst of a heady rally on Wall Street even as unemployment, homelessness and poverty grow to near-Depression levels, is a stark demonstration of the right-wing character of the Obama administration and the class interests it serves. It shows why the bankers and speculators are celebrating an administration that dutifully serves their interests.

What is the Unites States preparing in Pakistan?

Original article, by Keith Jones, via World Socialist Web Site:

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari will undoubtedly come under renewed pressure to allow US military forces to wage war within Pakistan when he visits Washington this week for a trilateral summit meeting with President Obama and Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai.

Ah...the good war. Well, actually, the war that threatens to get out of hand and lead to a nuclear confrontation. Perhaps that is part of the calculations of our stalwart military. After all, if Pakistan or India are the first to use nukes in the area, we'd be 'free' to do so, wouldn't we?

For weeks, the US political and military establishment and the American media have been mounting an increasingly shrill campaign to bully Islamabad into fully complying with US diktats in what Washington has redefined as the AfPak (Afghanistan-Pakistan) war theater.

Rather than treat an ally as an equal, we of course put our interests in front of the interests of Pakistan. If I'm a Pakistani (and I'm not), I'm not sure I'd like such an arrangement. After all, the US does have a history of playing whatever games it likes in the region and in the country itself.

At the US’s behest, the Pakistani military has for the past 10 days been mounting a bloody offensive—including strafing by warplanes and heavy artillery—against Pakistani Taliban militia in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The offensive has caused large numbers of civilian casualties and forced tens of thousands of poor villagers to flee.

You would think that would please Washington...

At an April 29th press conference, Obama described Pakistan’s civilian government as “very fragile” and not having “the capacity to deliver basic services” to its people, or to gain their “support and loyalty.” But he praised the Pakistani military and the “strong” US-Pakistani “military consultation and cooperation.”

I'll let you read the rest of the article. What we're looking at is an explosive situation, needless to say. If the Pakistani government doesn't please it's masters in Washington, it's out of business and the military takes back over. We know this song and dance, it's part of the US's toolbox. The question then would be how would the 140 million Pakistanis react. Also, does an unstable Pakistan make us any safer (not that our safety is any real concern of the military these days). And what happens should any future Pakistani government be overthrown by a popular revolt? Do we move in to occupy the country? Jones finishes with what seems to be an obvious point:

The Obama administration and the Pentagon are clearly weighing their options in respect to Pakistan and its role in the US thrust for geo-political advantage in oil-rich Central Asia. One thing is certain: What they are preparing will lead to greater violence and suffering for the people of the region and will further subvert the democratic will and aspirations of the Pakistani people.

Victory at Visteon

Original article, by Sadie Robinson, via Socialist Worker (UK):

Visteon workers have won a major victory against one of the biggest and most powerful multinational companies in the world – Ford.

Visteon was a parts manufacturer for Ford, who had been spun off from Ford. The workers were told that they would stay on their Ford contracts for the duration of their employment at Visteon.

The workers used to be employed by Ford until 2000 and were sacked at the end of last month. Ford tried to avoid its responsibilities, claiming that it owed the workers nothing.

Did the Visteon workers sit back and do nothing? Did they just twiddle their thumbs? No. They occupied and stuck various of the Visteon factories! It was their action that got them their due severance. If they had done nothing, Ford would have been off the hook.

But workers’ action has forced Ford to offer hundreds of thousands of pounds in redundancy packages. Many workers will get £40,000 or more. It is one of the biggest payouts that Ford has ever offered.

My note: GBP = $1.49 as of today.

I'll let you read the rest of the article. Robinson makes a major point in that Unite (the major British Union) could have joined in the action, but chose not to. Could the workers' jobs have been saved if the action would have spread? We won't know now. But, suffice it to say, the Visteon workers took direct action on their cause and won at least their due redundancy payouts. It's a start. The article ends with this hopeful thought from one of the workers:

“We have realised our power now,” added Marcia. “At first when we were sacked, we just went home as we thought we couldn’t do anything. But then you get home and look at your kids and think, how am I going to feed them?

“You realise you have to fight. When we’re in a group we can move mountains.”

Socialist Worker (UK) suggests you read these articles for the whole story:

The following should be read alongside this article:

» Revealed: Ford-Visteon planned closure 8 years ago

» Visteon workers’ action has Ford on run

» Belfast Visteon: Four weeks in occupation

» Support grows for crucial dispute

What Causes War!

Original article (originally published in Socialist Fight, Vol. 3 No. 3, May 1961) by Ted Grant via the Ted Grant archives:

Michael Foot writes in the Tribune of Friday 14th April (note: 1961) on the question of the cause of the Second World War. He says in reviewing the book by A. J. P. Taylor: “Had the British statesmen of the thirties been capable of this exercise they could easily have stopped the Second World War by discovering what Mr. Taylor discovered: that Hitlerism right up till 1939, was the most gigantic bluff of all time.”

That almost sounds reasonable. Let's face it, Hitler probably wanted to put off war as long as possible so that the Reich could continue arming itself to an ever greater extent. As Grant will point out, though, war was needed to continue to feed the German economic expansion.

It is true that Hitler—and the German imperialism he represented—were not solely responsible for the war. Just as the First World War was caused not by the wickedness of the Kaiser, but by the rivalry for world domination by British and German imperialism, and the impasse of the capitalist system of that time, so the Second World War was not the result of the evil intentions of even such a monster as Hitler. It was caused by the stage of development reached by Europe at that time and the struggle for markets, raw materials and colonies between Germany and Britain at that particular period. The Daily Telegraph pointed out on the eve of the war that competition between Germany and Britain on the markets of the world had reached a greater depth and pitch than on the eve of the 1914 war.

Indeed! Look at our two current wars. They just happen to be in one of the great oil producing regions of the world (Iraq), and one of the gateways to the Caspian basin (Afghanistan). The war to 'free' Kosovo from the grips of Serbia just happened to open up some of the largest mineral deposits in the world to the capitalist avengers. Needless to say, the propaganda arm of the US government has stayed busy keeping up the war on terror meme.

But the rise of Hitler in Germany was caused by the crisis of capitalism in Germany. Let us never forget that Hitler had the backing of all the main imperialist powers, including Britain, America and France. The ruling class of these countries fearing the socialist revolution in Germany, reluctantly backed the Nazis. This explains the refusal of the British and French imperialists to take action at the time of the Nazi occupation of the Rhineland, and of German rearmament. They were afraid of social revolution in Germany. They also believed that they could use Hitler for war against the Soviet Union in order to destroy “Bolshevism”—i.e. in this context the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union by means of armed intervention.

Bingo. When capitalism hits the wall in a country, that country's capitalism has to expand beyond it's borders. Globalization, which is coordinated economic imperialism by the major capitalist states (including China!), is the modern equivalent of said expansion beyond ones own borders. But, as we should have expected, capitalism's globalization made capitalism's failure have global impact. Social revolution is brewing once again throughout the world.

It is impossible to understand the policies of all the powers, including the policy of Hitler or “bluff”, without understanding the class basis of society. Allied imperialism backed Hitler, rearmed Hitler, supported Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese militarists because of fear of the consequences of their downfall, it was out of fear of the downfall of the capitalist system that they “grovelled” before Hitler in Munichism, etc.

I'll let you finish the article. It's a quite fascinating piece of analysis, and I think it hits the nail on the head. In today's world, though, war brings a special problem. Nuclear weapons. And, in fact, we may well be seeing the Afghan war expand directly into Pakistan, a nuclear power. While war may not be accidental, nuclear war can happen though mistakes and misjudgements. This is what we are facing as we head into the summer of 2009.

Grant ends with a sobering appraisal:

The lesson is clear. Imperialism has provoked two slaughters of the peoples. A third looms ahead for the future—unless the working class draws the lesson of these events. Wars—especially world wars—are not accidental. An accident can cause war if all the other conditions for war are present. But there is no such thing as an “accidental war”. The only way to end the possibility of such madness as fascism and war is to destroy the system which inevitably leads to these horrors.

Keep this in mind in the coming days, weeks, months and years as our long war progresses.

The story of May Day

Original article, subtitled Elizabeth Schulte tells the history of May Day, a socialist holiday founded to honor the Haymarket Martyrs and celebrate international workers' solidarity, via Socialist Worker (US):

"THERE WILL be a time when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you strangle today." Those were the last words of August Spies, one of four innocent men executed for an explosion at Chicago's Haymarket Square in May 1886.

Today is Loyalty Day in the US. It was set up to counterbalance May Day, which is celebrated as International Workers' Day in much of the rest of the world. Our day to honor workers is Labor Day in September. It's interesting that International Workers' Day was set up, in part, to honor those who were executed after the Haymarket affair, and that this day is barely recognized as such here in the US.

The real "crime" for which Spies and his comrades were condemned was being labor militants fighting for workers' rights and the eight-hour day. The national strike for the eight-hour day that they organized was called for May 1, 1886--it was the first May Day.

What? You thought the eight hour work day was something the bosses gave us out of the goodness of their hearts? If you do/did, check your propaganda susceptibility meter.

U.S. LABOR history is filled with examples of the employers' willingness to use any weapon in their arsenal--from the courts to police billy clubs to the gallows--to put down working-class rebellion. But the fight for the eight-hour day in the 1880s also shows workers' determination to resist--and the leading role that left-wing ideas can play in the struggle.

Struggle is what we will always face when dealing with the corporate/financial oligarchy. You struggle for what you get from them, while they reap the rewards of your labor. And, if situations occur where the bosses need some cash from the government, you as a worker are expected to get your pay and benefits cut (if not your job), while the government cash spigot is opened to save the bosses backside.

The eight-hour movement began in 1884 when the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (the predecessor to the American Federation of Labor) passed a resolution at its Chicago convention that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labor from and after May 1, 1886."

I'll allow you to read the rest of the article. Schulte writes well, and covers the history of Haymarket and it's aftermath quite well. She ends with a quote from August Spies before he was executed:

If you think that by hanging us, you can stamp out the labor movement...the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the millions who toil in want and misery expect salvation--if this is your opinion, then hang us! Here you will tread upon a spark, but there and there, behind you and in front of you, and everywhere, flames blaze up. It is a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out.

Amen!