The Common Ills: 2019-07-28

Saturday, August 03, 2019

Iraq

Tulsi Gabbard is an Iraq War veteran, so is Adam Kokesh. Unlike Tulsi, Adam's spoken out against the war.

Tulsi's problem with the Iraq War today appears to be that it's never-ending.

‏Verified account @adamkokesh

I've heard some Ls support @TulsiGabbard in @TheDemocrats primary bc she's most anti-war even though she's pro-militarism & a big govt liberal. This is dangerously misguided. If you have Trump vs anti-war Dem, we have one less issue to take D votes w. Support our own! @LPNational

24 replies10 retweets53 likes

As Adam observes, she is pro-militarism.

That would go a long way towards explaining why she refuses to challenge Joe Biden but instead has made herself over into an apologist for Joe. As Marcia points out, Tulsi gets a lot of donations from the defense industry -- which would explain her pro-militarism stance.

Tulsi wants to talk about who's getting funded by whom but she doesn't think it's strange that she's taking money from the defense industry?

She talked a good game, didn't she?

She can defend Joe Biden because she doesn't care about Iraq, she doesn't care about the Iraqi people.

The editorial board of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL observes:

Yet when criticized about his 2002 vote for the Iraq war, Mr. Biden had a memory lapse.
“I did make a bad judgment, trusting the President [George W. Bush] saying he was only doing this to get inspectors in and get the U.N. to agree to put inspectors in,” Mr. Biden said. “From the moment ‘shock and awe’ started, from that moment I was opposed to the effort, and I was outspoken as much as anyone at all in the Congress and the Administration.”

Mr. Biden forgets that he was also a loud critic of Saddam Hussein, had been so for many years, and also worried that the dictator might have weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knew that the vote in 2002 was about authorizing a potential military intervention.

That's who Tulsi defends. William Rivers Pitt (TRUTHOUT) explains:

At almost the same time as active combat was reinitiated in Iraq, the U.S. opened a parallel front in what became known as the war on terror, this time in Afghanistan. In the 17 years since our conflict in that country began, hundreds of thousands of civilians have also been killed or displaced, and thousands of U.S. and coalition troops have been killed or wounded.
The dying has not ended in Iraq or Afghanistan.
“At least two Iraqi people were killed and 20 others injured in a suicide bombing near a Shiite mosque in southwestern Baghdad,” Iraqi News reported on July 15. “Violence in the country has surged further with the emergence of Islamic State extremist militants who proclaimed an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in Iraq and Syria in 2014.”

The violence in Afghanistan, too, is ongoing. “Last year was the deadliest year for civilians during the entirety of the Afghan conflict,” reports The Washington Post, “with 3,804 civilian deaths and 7,000 wounded.” On Monday, two U.S. soldiers were killed in Urozgan province, bringing the total number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year to 14.
“The number of civilians injured or killed in US air strikes in Afghanistan has almost tripled in the first six months of this year compared to the same period last year, according to the UN,” reports The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. “Among the civilian casualties recorded by [The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan] so far this year are ten children, all members of the same family, who were killed with at least three others in a US strike in Kunduz.”
The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become the Forever War, and it is not the first of its kind.

At some point, maybe Tulsi will give a speech -- or at least a few sentences -- about the Iraqis killed in the Iraq War or is just all about her all the time?

Has she ever even spoken about any of the prime ministers of Iraq? About the government? Someone who really is anti-war would have a lot to say, strangely though, she has nothing. Over at ARAB WEEKLY, Tallha Abdulrazaq offers:

The laughable thing is that, even if a handful of people in the Iraqi government wanted to end the IRGC proxies running amok across Iraq, the very arms of government and the security forces are filled to the brim with Iranian agents.
Take Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, for example. Following Saudi and US pressure, he recently ordered all militias to either disarm and join the political process or merge into the Iraqi armed forces. Not only is Abdul-Mahdi’s suggestion unworkable, because it does not remove the problem of Iranian influence, the militias have ignored previous calls to disarm.
Abdul-Mahdi was a high-ranking member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, itself an Iran-incubated Shia Islamist political project that sought to implement Iran’s brand of Khomeinism in Iraq.

Is it therefore any surprise at all that the Iraqi government, when led by the likes of Abdul-Mahdi and countless other elites who owe their loyalty to Iran, will act in Tehran’s best interests at the expense of Washington’s or indeed the Iraqi people’s?

The following sites updated:

Record Support in Congress for Bill to Protect Abortion Access

From the Center for Reproductive Rights:

The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2019 (H.R. 2975) has surpassed 200 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, more signers than ever before

(PRESS RELEASE) The Center for Reproductive Rights applauds the more than 200 Members of Congress who have signed on to cosponsor the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2019, a bill to preserve equal access to abortion everywhere. As of today, the Women’s Health Protection Act has 203 cosponsors in the House of Representatives.

The Women’s Health Protection Act was introduced in the House by U.S. Representatives Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), and Marcia Fudge (D-OH) on May 23, 2019 with 173 original cosponsors. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced an identical bill in the Senate with 42 original cosponsors.

The Women’s Health Protection Act establishes a statutory right for health care providers to provide, and their patients to receive, abortion services free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans.
“Surpassing the two hundred cosponsor mark in the House is a tremendous milestone for the Women’s Health Protection Act, and it puts the bill one step closer to a hearing and a vote,” said Lourdes Rivera, Senior Vice President of U.S. Programs at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “By signing on to support this bill, these Members of Congress are doing their part to ensure that the right to abortion recognized by Roe remains a reality for all people, no matter where they live.”

The surge in support comes as state legislatures continue to pass restrictive abortion laws designed to dismantle the constitutional protections recognized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and repeatedly upheld by the Court since then. Despite these legal guarantees, 18 states have enacted 46 new laws this year that prohibit or restrict abortion, including nine unconstitutional pre-viability bans on abortion.

The Women's Health Protection Act would prohibit bans and medically unnecessary restrictions that single out abortion and impede access to care. These include six-week, eight-week, and 15-week bans, requirements that providers give patients medically inaccurate and false information, and state-mandated medical procedures including unnecessary ultrasounds.

The Women’s Health Protection Act is supported by the Act for Women campaign, a broad coalition of more than 100 organizations committed to reproductive health, rights, and justice. The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Act for Women campaign are encouraging supporters to ask their Representative and Senators to cosponsor the Women’s Health Protection Act at

ActForWomen.org/take-action.

Congresswoman Chu and Senator Blumenthal first introduced the Women’s Health Protection Act in 2013 in the 113th Congress where it had 132 cosponsors in the House of Representatives and 35 in the Senate. It has been introduced every Congress since, with more cosponsors each term.
For a complete list of cosponsors, visit Congress.gov.

###

Press Contact:

Kelly Krause, kkrause@reprorights.org, (917) 637-3649

NYCLU Statement on Judge’s Recommendation to Fire NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo

From the ACLU:

media@aclu.org

125 Broad Street

18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

United States

(212) 549-2666

August 2, 2019

NEW YORK - The judge presiding over the disciplinary trial of Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer who killed Eric Garner, recommended today that the cop be fired for his role in Garner’s death.
The final decision now lies with NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill who has no timeline to accept or reject the judge’s decision.

The NYCLU issued the following statement from Executive Director Donna Lieberman in response:

“With arms wrapped around his neck, Eric Garner uttered his last words, “I can’t breathe,” almost five years ago. Since then, his family has been tirelessly searching for justice. While today’s decision is not the final verdict, it further cements what the public has called for: Daniel Pantaleo must face consequences for subjecting Garner to excessive and lethal force in violation of his sworn duty as an officer.

“The Commanding Officer in charge of training recruits at the Police Academy testified at the trial that she believed Pantaleo used an illegal chokehold, a potentially lethal use of force that is banned by the NYPD because the danger it poses cannot be justified in any setting, much less with an unarmed person in a non-violent situation.

“Pantaleo should never wear a police officer’s uniform ever again. But this case goes beyond just one officer. Commissioner O’Neill owes it to the Garner family and all of New York to ensure that this will never happen again. When an officer violates their own policies and kills a person they were sworn to protect, it should not take five years for any measure of accountability.

“If the NYPD wants to rebuild trust with the communities it serves, it must show the city of New York that police officers aren’t above the law.”

Federal Court Rules that Challenge to Trump’s Asylum Turnback Policy Will Move Forward

From the Center for Constitutional Rights:

press@ccrjustice.org

Judge Denies Government’s Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Brought on Behalf of Asylum Seekers

July 30, 2019, Los Angeles – A federal district court has rejected the government’s second attempt to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's unlawful turnbacks of asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border – including its attempt to choke off asylum applications through a so-called “metering” process.

"We have seen the tragic human consequences of the Turnback Policy on thousands of vulnerable people who, after making a long, harrowing journey to escape their persecutors, face bullying and rejection by Customs and Border Protection officers who simply tell them to turn around and wait in very dangerous conditions,” said Erika Pinheiro, litigation and policy director of plaintiff Al Otro Lado, an immigration legal services provider with offices in Mexico and California. “We are grateful that the court recognized that the administration cannot evade its legal obligations by denying access to the asylum process."

“This is an important ruling in our fight against CBP turnbacks of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border through metering and other tactics, said Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC’s) Immigrant Justice Project. “This policy was one of the first of many implemented by this administration in the course of its ongoing war on asylum seekers. It is also a serious setback to the government’s efforts to undermine and evade our country’s domestic and international legal obligations, all while demonizing asylum seekers in the public’s eye.”

The lawsuit, AOL v. McAleenan, challenges the government’s efforts to impede access to the asylum process at the U.S. southern border.

"This decision powerfully affirms the force and scope of this nation's binding commitment to the principles of asylum and due process and resoundingly rejects this significant part of the administration's multi-faceted attack on asylum seekers -- and our law," said Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The U.S. government is legally obligated to protect individuals who qualify as asylum seekers. However, the Trump administration is doing everything it can to sidestep these obligations, strip the most vulnerable populations of their rights, and convince the American public via a campaign of misinformation that they lack capacity to process asylum seekers at the southern border.

In May, attorneys representing the SPLC and Center for Constitutional Rights argued against the government’s motion to dismiss. The SPLC, Center for Constitutional Rights, and the American Immigration Council filed the lawsuit, Al Otro Lado v. McAleenan, No. 3:17-cv-02366 (S.D. Cal.), in July 2017 on behalf of individual asylum seekers and Al Otro Lado. In November 2018, the organizations added additional individual plaintiffs who had been subjected to the administration’s metering process.

The ruling can be seen here. For more information, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page.

###

About the Center for Constitutional Rights

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach. Learn more at ccrjustice.org.

Follow the Center for Constitutional Rights on social media: Center for Constitutional Rights on Facebook, @theCCR on Twitter, and ccrjustice on Instagram.

About the SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Alabama with offices in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. For more information, visit www.splcenter.org.

About the Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative

The SPLC represents immigrants facing deportation in five different detention centers. Learn more about the SPLC's Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative.

About the American Immigration Council

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications. Follow the latest Council news and information on ImmigrationImpact.com and Twitter @immcouncil.

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach. Learn more at ccrjustice.org.

Tribunal Federal dicta que cuestionamiento a restricciones en la política de asilo de Trump seguirá adelante

From the Center of Constitutional Rights:

press@ccrjustice.org

Juez niega la moción del gobierno para desestimar la demanda radicada en nombre de quienes solicitan asilo

30 de julio, 2019, Los Ángeles – Un tribunal federal de distrito ha rechazado el segundo intento del gobierno por desestimar la demanda que cuestiona las restricciones ilegales por parte de la administración de Trump con respecto a quienes solicitan asilo y se presentan en los puertos de entrada a lo largo de la frontera de Estados Unidos y México – inclusive su intento de obstruir solicitudes de asilo a través de un supuesto proceso de “medición” (que limita la cantidad de personas que pueden pedir asilo por día).

“Hemos visto las trágicas consecuencias de las restricciones en la política de Trump en miles de personas vulnerables que, después de hacer un largo y desgarrador viaje para escapar de sus perseguidores, enfrentan acoso y rechazo por parte de los oficiales de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza que simplemente les dicen que se volteen y esperen en condiciones muy peligrosas”, dice Erika Pinheiro, directora de Litigio y Políticas del demandante Al Otro Lado, un proveedor de servicios legales de inmigración con oficinas en México y California. “Agradecemos que el tribunal reconozca que la administración no puede evadir sus obligaciones legales negando acceso al proceso de asilo”.

Melissa Crow, abogada supervisora senior con Immigrant Justice Project de Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC), dijo: “Esta es una decisión importante en nuestra lucha contra las restricciones en Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza para quienes solicitan asilo en la frontera de Estados Unidos y México a través del proceso de ‘medición’ y otras tácticas. Esta política fue una de las primeras de muchas que esta administración ha implementado en el transcurso de su continua guerra contra quienes solicitan asilo. También es un retroceso grave para los esfuerzos gubernamentales por socavar y evadir las obligaciones legales internacionales y domésticas, todo mientras se demoniza ante el ojo público a quienes solicitan asilo”.

La demanda, AOL v. McAleenan, cuestiona los esfuerzos del gobierno por impedir el acceso al proceso de asilo en la frontera del sur de Estados Unidos.

“Esta decisión afirma enfáticamente la fuerza y la dimensión del compromiso vinculante de esta nación con los principios de asilo y debido proceso, y rechaza rotundamente esta parte significativa del ataque multifacético de la administración contra quienes solicitan asilo – y nuestra ley”, dijo Baher Azmy, director legal de Center for Constitutional Rights.

El gobierno estadounidense está legalmente obligado a proteger a los individuos que califiquen como personas en busca de asilo. Sin embargo, la administración de Trump está haciendo todo lo que puede por esquivar estas obligaciones, despojar a las poblaciones más vulnerables de sus derechos y convencer al público estadounidense con una campaña de desinformación basada en que no tienen la capacidad para procesar a quienes solicitan asilo en la frontera del sur.

En mayo, abogados en representación de SPLC y Center for Constitutional Rights argumentaron en contra de la moción del gobierno para desestimar la demanda. SPLC, Center for Constitutional Rights y American Immigration Council presentaron una demanda, Al Otro Lado v. McAleenan, No. 3:17-cv-02366 (S.D. Cal.), en julio de 2017 en nombre de personas en busca de asilo y Al Otro Lado. En noviembre de 2018, las organizaciones añadieron demandantes individuales que habían sido sometidos al proceso de medición de la administración.

La decisión del tribunal se puede ver aquí. Para más información, visite la página del caso de Center for Constitutional Rights.

###

Acerca de Center for Constitutional Rights

Center for Constitutional Rights trabaja con comunidades bajo amenaza para luchar por justicia y liberación a través del litigio, la abogacía y las comunicaciones estratégicas. Desde 1966, Center for Constitutional Rights ha enfrentado sistemas opresivos de poder, inclusive el racismo estructural, la opresión por género, la desigualdad económica y las extralimitaciones del gobierno. Más información en ccrjustice.org.

Siga a Center for Constitutional Rights en las redes sociales: Center for Constitutional Rights en Facebook, @theCCR en Twitter y ccrjustice en Instagram.

Acerca de SPLC

Southern Poverty Law Center, con base en Alabama y oficinas en Florida, Georgia, Luisiana, Misisipi y Washington D.C., es una organización sin fines de lucro de derechos civiles que se dedica a luchar contra el odio y el fanatismo, y a buscar justicia para los miembros más vulnerables de la sociedad. Para más información, visite www.splcenter.org.

Acerca de Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative

SPLC representa a inmigrantes en casos de deportación en cinco centros de detención diferentes. Aprenda más acerca de Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative de SPLC.

Acerca de American Immigration Council

American Immigration Council trabaja para fortalecer a Estados Unidos a través de cómo Estados Unidos piensa sobre y actúa hacia los inmigrantes y la inmigración, y de trabajar hacia un sistema de inmigración más justo que abra sus puertas a quienes necesiten protección y que dé rienda suelta a la energía y las habilidades que traen los inmigrantes. Council trabaja para reunir a personas que solucionan problemas y emplea cuatro estrategias coordinadas para abogar por derechos—litigio, investigación, abogacía legislativa y administrativa, y comunicaciones. Siga las últimas noticias e información actualizada acerca de Council en ImmigrationImpact.com y Twitter @immcouncil.

###

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach. Learn more at ccrjustice.org.