Thursday, April 29, 2021

RSN: FOCUS: Jonathan Chait | Ted Cruz Called Corporate Whore by Ted Cruz


 

Reader Supported News
29 April 21


48 Hours To Go and Barely Any Donations

We’re under 48 hours to go in April, we haven’t covered our budget and there are “2” donations total so far. 6,500 people have already visited RSN today. If “30” had donated it would be a successful day of fundraising.

“30” people can’t donate? Why?

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


Update My Monthly Donation


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611

 

Reader Supported News
29 April 21

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


COME ON FOLKS, HELP THE PEOPLE WHO HELP: Yes Reader Supported News really is supported entirely by the community it serves. Entirely. That is really how we do it. It’s people like you who just step us and say, “Okay I’ll Make a Donation.” The people helping are people are just like you. Step up the way they do. You’ll feel better. Thank you! / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


FOCUS: Jonathan Chait | Ted Cruz Called Corporate Whore by Ted Cruz
Sen. Ted Cruz. (photo: Tom Williams/Getty)
Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine
Chait writes: "Several weeks ago, a Republican strategy memo urged the party to publicly posture against corporate America, and use its opposition to the party's voter-suppression agenda to drive individual donations."

everal weeks ago, a Republican strategy memo urged the party to publicly posture against corporate America, and use its opposition to the party’s voter-suppression agenda to drive individual donations. Ted Cruz, who always takes the party’s messaging to the most extreme possible level, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal angrily telling his corporate buddies that they can’t buy him off any longer.

Cruz singles out the pro-voting-access stance of his (apparently former) allies as an irreparable breach. What’s interesting is Cruz’s own confession that, right up to this very moment, he was a servile lackey to his corporate masters, doing their bidding for money:

This is the point in the drama when Republicans usually shrug their shoulders, call these companies “job creators,” and start to cut their taxes. Not this time.

This time, we won’t look the other way on Coca-Cola’s $12 billion in back taxes owed. This time, when Major League Baseball lobbies to preserve its multibillion-dollar antitrust exception, we’ll say no thank you. This time, when Boeing asks for billions in corporate welfare, we’ll simply let the Export-Import Bank expire.

Yes, you read that right. The Republican posture toward corporations that betray the public trust, Cruz admits, is usually to shrug it off and praise them as job creators. Even corporations that, by Cruz’s account, cheat on their taxes and get unjustified handouts from Congress!

This was Cruz’s own policy. Indeed, he was doing it as recently as yesterday:

Now he is a changed man.

This next passage is even more incredible. Cruz confesses that he accepted millions of dollars of cash from firms, in return for allowing them to attack American values and destroy American jobs:

In my nine years in the Senate, I’ve received $2.6 million in contributions from corporate political-action committees. Starting today, I no longer accept money from any corporate PAC. I urge my GOP colleagues at all levels to do the same.

For too long, Republicans have allowed the left and their big-business allies to attack our values with no response. We’ve allowed them to ship jobs overseas, attack gun rights, and destroy our energy companies.

I am not exactly a fan of the modern Republican Party, and even I think it’s a little unfair and reductive to accuse them of allowing firms to destroy American jobs simply so they can vacuum up campaign donations. But Cruz is confessing to this. Not on a secretly recorded conversation. In public!

If Cruz’s tone of forced, macho indignation seems a little familiar, you may recognize it from his famous response to Donald Trump’s campaign claims that his father killed JFK and his wife is ugly. He pointed manfully at the camera and called Trump a “sniveling coward.”

A few months later, Cruz was back to being Trump’s loyal supplicant and excusing all his crimes. So, if the corporations aren’t taking Cruz’s threats seriously, you probably can’t blame them.

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN


Update My Monthly Donation 





RSN: FOCUS: Charles Pierce | The Conservatism Tim Scott Fronted on Wednesday Is All Empty Slogans and Culture-War Banner-Waving

 


 

Reader Supported News
29 April 21


Come On Folks, Help the People Who Help

Yes Reader Supported News really is supported entirely by the community it serves. Entirely. That is really how we do it. It’s people like you who just step us and say, “Okay I’ll Make a Donation.”

The people helping are people are just like you. Step up the way they do. You’ll feel better.

Thank you!

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


Update My Monthly Donation

If you would prefer to send a check:

Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611

 

Reader Supported News
29 April 21

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


48 HOURS TO GO AND BARELY ANY DONATIONS — We’re under 48 hours to go in April, we haven’t covered our budget and there are “2” donations total so far. 6,500 people have already visited RSN today. If “30” had donated it would be a successful day of fundraising. “30” people can’t donate? Why? / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


FOCUS: Charles Pierce | The Conservatism Tim Scott Fronted on Wednesday Is All Empty Slogans and Culture-War Banner-Waving
Sen. Tim Scott. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)
Charles Pierce, Esquire
Pierce writes: "I am taking an informal poll. What is the over/under on how many weeks it will take his political party to do something that makes Senator Tim Scott look like a chump?"

I truly don’t know how Republicans manage this kind of cognitive dissonance without gears and springs popping out of their ears.


 am taking an informal poll. What is the over/under on how many weeks it will take his political party to do something that makes Senator Tim Scott look like a chump? On Wednesday night, the president gave a speech brimming with empathy and optimism, with just enough sharp edges (“White supremacy is terrorism”; “Trickle-down economics have never worked.”) to show that he meant what he was saying. The instant polls have indicated that the president parked his speech deep in the centerfield bleachers. And the assembled Republicans reacted in real time in such a fashion that they’re all going to be visited by three spirits next December 24. And Scott was the one designated to front all this misery in response. He gave a speech brimming with misinterpretation and doubt. There has never been a blanket so wet as the one in which Scott wrapped himself Wednesday night.

But President Biden promised you a specific kind of leadership. He promised to unite a nation. To lower the temperature. To govern for all Americans, no matter how we voted. This was the pitch. You just heard it again. But our nation is starving for more than empty platitudes. We need policies and progress that bring us closer together. But three months in, the actions of the president and his party are pulling us further and further apart.

The president is dividing us by pushing policies approved of by well north of 60 percent of us? I truly don’t know how they manage this kind of cognitive dissonance without gears and springs popping out of their ears. Scott went on to praise the Republican response to the pandemic while denouncing the relief bill that passed this year. I have 600,000 reasons why that is misguided. But it was on voting rights that Scott allowed himself to front for something that is truly vile.

I’m an African-American who has voted in the South my entire life. I take voting rights personally. Republicans support making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. And so do the voters. Big majorities of Americans support early voting and big majorities support voter ID, including African-Americans and Hispanics. Common sense makes common ground. But today, this conversation has collapsed. The state of Georgia passed a law that expands early voting; preserves no-excuse mail-in voting, and, despite what the president claimed, did not reduce Election Day hours.

If you actually read this law, it’s mainstream. It will be easier to vote early in Georgia than in Democrat-run New York. But the left doesn’t want you to know that. They want people virtue-signaling by yelling about a law they haven’t even read. Fact checkers have called out the White House for misstatements. The president absurdly claims this is worse than Jim Crow.

The Brennan Center has pointed out that, since last November, states with Republican legislators have introduced 361 bills in 47 states, all of which will make voting in 2022 more difficult than it was in 2020. This is on top of all the laws passed since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Many of the proposed laws are virtually identical. Scott wants us to believe that all of this is not what it seems—that it's coincidental.

The conservatism for which Scott fronted on Wednesday night is an exhausted set of empty slogans that fewer and fewer people believe anymore. Culture-war banner-waving is all they have left that has any life in it, and any blood running through it. And sooner or later—sooner, I think—his political party is going to do something that makes Senator Tim Scott look like a chump, and there’s nothing that can stop that now.

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation




RSN: The US May Still Be Helping Saudi Arabia in the Yemen War After All

 

 

Reader Supported News
29 April 21

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


2 DAYS TO GO, HELP WITH THIS FUNDRAISER! — We have two days to go in April and we are really hurting for basic funding. Slow down, pull over and help out. It really matters. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


The US May Still Be Helping Saudi Arabia in the Yemen War After All
Newly graduated officers of the Royal Saudi Air Force in Riyadh. The F-15 fighter jets behind them are American-made and maintained. (photo: Fayez Nureldine/Getty)
Alex Ward, Vox
Ward writes: "In February, President Joe Biden announced that he was ending America's 'offensive' support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, six years into the conflict that has killed around 230,000 people and triggered the world's worst humanitarian crisis."

The US authorized contractors to service Saudi warplanes. Some of those warplanes fight in the Yemen war.

n February, President Joe Biden announced that he was ending America’s “offensive” support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, six years into the conflict that has killed around 230,000 people and triggered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Instead, the US role would be limited to “defensive” operations “to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people.”

There’s just one problem: The line between “offensive” and “defensive” support is murky, and critics argue even the limited support the US is providing still helps Riyadh carry out its offensive bombing campaign in Yemen.

Since 2015, the US has supported the Saudi-led coalition’s fight against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Until November 2018, that support included refueling Saudi warplanes that dropped bombs on Yemen — many of which killed civilians, including children. The Trump administration ended that practice after increased pressure from activists and lawmakers about Riyadh’s brutal conduct in the conflict.

But the US continued to provide logistical and intelligence support for the Saudi war effort and planned to sell billions in advanced weapons like precision-guided missiles to the Saudis.

With Biden’s new policy, the US would stop all of the above and solely help Saudi Arabia defend its territory against threats from the Houthis and elsewhere. As an example of the danger Riyadh faces, a Pentagon spokesperson told reporters that the Saudis have suffered over 100 cross-border air attacks with missiles and drones since January.

Biden’s policy sounds straightforward enough. For the past few months, the US made a clean break and no longer provides assistance to Riyadh’s ongoing strikes inside Yemen, right?

Not quite. That’s because the “defensive” support the US is still providing includes greenlighting the servicing of Saudi aircraft.

Multiple US defense officials and experts acknowledged that, through a US government process, the Saudi government pays commercial contractors to maintain and service their aircraft, and those contractors keep Saudi warplanes in the air. What the Saudis do with those fighter jets, however, is up to them.

The US could cancel those contracts at any time, thus effectively grounding the Saudi Air Force, but doing so would risk losing Riyadh as a key regional partner.

The reality of the situation, then, is squishy enough that the administration says it’s following Biden’s directive and securing its interests in the Middle East, while critics say that Biden’s team is indirectly supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive operations inside Yemen.

The issue isn’t really a he-said/she-said or who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s a question of how you look at the entirety of America’s role in the war.

“It’s a definitional and kind of theological argument,” said David DesRoches, a professor at the National Defense University in Washington, DC, a Pentagon-funded school.

The Biden administration finally clarified its support of Saudi’s military

It took a long time to get a straight answer as to how, exactly, the US was assisting Saudi Arabia after Biden’s February announcement.

Lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked Tim Lenderking, the State Department’s special envoy for Yemen, last Wednesday about the new policy. His response was wanting. He said he was “not totally in the loop” and that the panel should ask the Pentagon for specifics.

A reporter the next day asked Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, who oversees all US troops in the Middle East, to provide some clarity. He responded that, when possible, the US military provides the Saudis with warning of any incoming attacks on Saudi Arabia that the US has detected coming from Yemen.

“The principal thing I do with the Saudis is I give them advanced notice when I’m able to do that,” he said, adding that the US provides no intelligence, surveillance, or reconnaissance support inside Yemen. “I would characterize our support as essentially defensive in nature.”

I wanted to know specifically whether the US provides any maintenance, logistical, or refueling support for Saudi warplanes, so on Friday, I asked chief Defense Department spokesperson John Kirby those questions during a regular briefing. His staff got back to me with an answer over the weekend.

“The United States continues to provide maintenance support to Saudi Arabia’s Air Force given the critical role it plays in Saudi air defense and our longstanding security partnership,” said Navy Commander Jessica McNulty, a Pentagon spokesperson.

While more specific than the administration had been to date, that statement still wasn’t entirely clear. Was the US military directly providing that support? And did the maintenance go to Saudi fighter jets, its missile defense system, or both?

So I asked McNulty to clarify her statement, which she did on Monday in an email. “[The] Department of Defense supports Saudi aircraft maintenance through Foreign Military Sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for which Saudi Arabia bears the costs and implementation is conducted by DoD contractors,” she wrote.

That means Riyadh, with its own money and at no cost to the US taxpayer, uses a US government program to procure maintenance for its warplanes. (That service likely was included when the Saudis bought the American-made warplanes.) It may not be the US military providing direct support, then, but the service was still greenlit by the US.

This doesn’t please critics of the war and America’s role in it. A Democratic congressional aide complained, “Oh, great, the ‘they’re civilian contractors’ line,” adding that a US-approved service to provide maintenance and spare parts for Saudi aircraft is tantamount to America backing Riyadh’s offensive plans.

Others agreed. “The recent admission by the Department of Defense that US companies are still authorized to maintain Saudi warplanes ... means that our government is still enabling the Saudi operations, including bombings and enforcing a blockade on Yemen’s ports,” Hassan El-Tayyab, the legislative manager for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation lobbying group, told me. “The administration should use its existing authority to block US military contractors from aiding the Saudi war effort in Yemen.”

Later on Monday, I asked Kirby, the top Pentagon spokesperson, to address those concerns.

“What the president has decided is that the support we’re giving [Saudi Arabia] will be primarily for their self-defense, and not further participating in the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive operations inside Yemen,” he told me and other reporters in a regular briefing.

“I understand where the question’s going,” he continued, “that maintenance support for systems could be used for both purposes” — that is, offensive and defensive operations. But, he said, the US is doing what it’s doing because “we have a military-to-military relationship with Saudi Arabia that is important to the region and to our interests, and we have a commitment to help them defend themselves against what are real threats.”

Okay, so what does this all mean? Is the US participating in Saudi-led offensive operations in Yemen or not? The unsatisfying answer: possibly, but if so, not directly.

The US probably supports some Saudi offensive operations. But canceling the maintenance contract has drawbacks.

There are two main issues here: 1) How do you define an offensive versus defensive operation? and 2) what would the US government canceling the maintenance contract actually mean?

The first question is extremely hard to answer, experts say. “I haven’t heard anybody clearly explain the difference between offensive and defensive operations,” the National Defense University’s Des Roches told me.

That makes sense, especially when you consider that Saudi Arabia doesn’t have an Offensive Air Force and a Defensive Air Force. It just has the one aerial service that the US supports.

Still, the offensive part is relatively straightforward: The Saudis find a Houthi target inside Yemen they want to hit, and they bomb it.

But it gets more complicated when you consider what “defensive” might mean. As the Houthis continue to launch missile and drone attacks inside Saudi Arabia, Riyadh might decide to strike a few of the Houthis’ launch points to dissuade further assaults.

Would such a move be defensive or offensive? It’s unclear.

What is clear is that without the US-approved maintenance of Saudi fighters, Riyadh wouldn’t really have the option of launching such retaliatory responses. “They’d be able to fly two out of every 10 aircraft,” said Des Roches. That would give the Houthis an edge in the ongoing fight.

Which leads to the second question: What if the US canceled the maintenance contract?

The Biden administration has the right to do that, experts say, but the consequences of that decision might lead Riyadh to no longer consider the US a reliable partner. That outcome could see Washington lose a key regional friend, a bulwark against Iran, and a nation that lets America station troops in its territory.

Would potentially losing Saudi Arabia as a partner be worth essentially grounding its air force? The Biden administration seems to have calculated that it’s not.

Put together, it seems likely that US-authorized contractors maintaining Saudi warplanes are indirectly involved in helping the Saudis carry out “offensive” operations, however one defines them. “If we’re servicing the planes that are fighting the war, we’re still supporting the war,” said the Democratic congressional aide. That the contract remains in place, after all, is a policy decision. The US could also decide to maintain other equipment and provide training instead of keeping Saudi aircraft in the sky.

But it’s also true that without the maintenance support, Saudi Arabia would be further exposed to all kinds of attacks from the Houthis (and others). And after nixing the contract, the decades-old ties between Washington and Riyadh might not just spiral downward but sever entirely.

Biden’s definitive line between offensive and defensive support isn’t as clean as he may have hoped. The question is if he’ll do anything about it.

READ MORE


Rep. Jamal Bowman. (photo: Caroline Bergman/Getty)
Rep. Jamal Bowman. (photo: Caroline Bergman/Getty)


Progressive Democrats Praise Biden on Covid but Call for Bolder Action
Adam Gabbatt, Guardian UK
Gabbatt writes: "The progressive wing of the Democratic party praised Joe Biden for his handling of the Covid-19 crisis in a response to the president's first address to Congress, but urged the president to be bolder in tackling the climate crisis and economic inequality, and to do more to address 'the burning crisis of structural racism in our country.'"
READ MORE


Glenda Brown Thomas displays a photo of her nephew, Andrew Brown Jr., on her cellphone at her home last week in Elizabeth City, N.C. Brown was shot and killed by sheriff's deputies attempting to execute a warrant. (photo: Allen G. Breed/AP)
Glenda Brown Thomas displays a photo of her nephew, Andrew Brown Jr., on her cellphone at her home last week in Elizabeth City, N.C. Brown was shot and killed by sheriff's deputies attempting to execute a warrant. (photo: Allen G. Breed/AP)


NC Judge Delays Public Release of Bodycam Footage of Andrew Brown Jr.'s Death
Laurel Wamsley, NPR
Wamsley writes: "A judge in North Carolina ordered law enforcement body camera footage of the death of Andrew Brown Jr. disclosed to his family, but not released to the public until completion of a state investigation into Brown's death."
READ MORE


Amazon workers demonstrate support for forming union. (photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)
Amazon workers demonstrate support for forming union. (photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)


Union's Evidence in Amazon Vote 'Could Be Grounds for Overturning Election,' US Labor Board Says
Nandita Bose, Reuters
Bose writes: "Evidence submitted by a retail union that raised objections to Amazon.com Inc's conduct at this month's union election in Alabama 'could be grounds for overturning the vote', the National Labor Relations Board said on Wednesday."
READ MORE


Travis McMichael (from left), his father, Gregory McMichael, and William ‘Roddie’ Bryan face federal hate crime charges in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, a Georgia man who was killed while out for a run last year. (photo: Glynn County Ga. Detention Center/AP)
Travis McMichael (from left), his father, Gregory McMichael, and William ‘Roddie’ Bryan face federal hate crime charges in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, a Georgia man who was killed while out for a run last year. (photo: Glynn County Ga. Detention Center/AP)


3 Men Indicted on Federal Hate Crime Charges in Ahmaud Arbery Killing
Emma Bowman, NPR
Bowman writes: 

 grand jury has charged three Georgia men with federal hate crimes and attempted kidnapping in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man who was shot while jogging last year.

Gregory McMichael, 65; his son, Travis McMichael, 35; and William "Roddie" Bryan, 51, were each charged with one count of interference with rights and with one count of attempted kidnapping, according to a Justice Department statement.

Travis and Gregory McMichael also face charges of using guns to inflict violence.

The indictment alleges the defendants used force and threats to intimidate and interfere with Arbery's right to use a public street because he was Black.

The McMichaels chased Arbery through a suburban neighborhood outside Brunswick, Ga., yelling at him, cutting off his jogging route with their truck and threatening him with guns.

Arbery died during that encounter on Feb. 23, 2020. When a video capturing the confrontation was leaked and posted online that May, sparking widespread outrage, the case investigation sped up.

All three men were later charged in state court. They face state charges including murder, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. A trial date has not yet been set for that case.

Attorneys representing Travis McMichael told NPR in a statement they were upset "that the Justice Department bought the false narrative that the media and state prosecutors have promulgated."

"There is absolutely nothing in the indictment that identifies how this is a federal hate crime and it ignores without apology that Georgia law allows a citizen to detain a person who was committing burglaries until police arrive," attorneys Bob Rubin and Jason Sheffield said.

Bryan's attorney, Kevin Gough, told NPR that he is disappointed with the Justice Department's decision to pursue federal charges.

"Roddie Bryan has committed no crime," Gough said in a statement. "We look forward to a fair and speedy trial, and to the day when Mr. Bryan is released and reunited with his family."

Gregory McMichael's attorneys, Frank and Laura Hogue, did not immediately respond to NPR email and voicemail messages seeking comment.

READ MORE


Ensaf Haidar, wife of imprisoned Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi, protests for his release. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Alamy)
Ensaf Haidar, wife of imprisoned Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi, protests for his release. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Alamy)


Saudi Blogger Raif Badawi Is in Prison for Calling for Religious Freedom. The US Has Given Saudi Arabia a Free Pass for Too Long
Gayle Manchin and Nadine Maenza, TIME

or years, successive U.S. administrations have given Saudi Arabia a free pass to harass, arrest and even execute those who do not accept the government’s official interpretation of Hanbali Sunni Islam. One such case is peaceful blogger Raif Badawi, who is serving a 10-year sentence for a series of blog posts calling for freedom of religion or belief in the kingdom.

Despite years of international concern over the case, Badawi remains in prison. The Biden Administration is recalibrating the U.S.-Saudi relationship and has indicated that human rights will be at the center of its foreign-policy objectives. As such, it should react forcefully to the ongoing persecution of Badawi and other religious dissidents in Saudi Arabia, including applying the new Khashoggi visa bans where applicable.

Badawi is not the only one who has faced severe violations of his religious freedom. Recently freed activist Loujain al-Hathloul was arrested in 2018 following peaceful advocacy against religious guardianship laws. She was allegedly subjected to torture in prison, pressured to sign a false confession and remains under a travel and media ban. Shi’a Sheikh Mohammed bin Hassan al-Habib remains in prison after calling for greater rights for Shi’a Muslims. Poet Ashraf Fayadh is also still in jail on an eight-year sentence for allegedly questioning religion and spreading atheist thought.

Even among these egregious cases, Badawi’s stands out. Sentenced in 2014 to 10 years in prison and 1,000 whip lashes, Badawi has been refused access to crucial medicine, thrown in solitary confinement and denied contact with his family. In January 2015, he was given 50 whip lashes publicly outside a mosque in Jeddah.

The Saudi government’s continued detention of Badawi is a test case for the Biden Administration’s willingness to use the new “Khashoggi Ban,” which allows the State Department to deny U.S. visas to those who “suppress, harass, surveil, threaten, or harm journalists, activists, or other persons perceived to be dissidents for their work.” The Saudi government’s disregard for these serious American concerns destabilizes the U.S.-Saudi relationship. It also undermines ongoing social and economic reform efforts initiated by King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the last few years.

Giving the Saudi government a free pass to violate freedom of religion or belief without consequences is not a sustainable U.S. policy. The future of our relationship must be premised on respect for and protection of internationally recognized human rights and the political inclusion of dissidents who might otherwise adopt more radical positions. An inclusive vision for Saudi Arabia’s future would no doubt hasten a recovery from the economic effects of COVID-19 and spur greater international business investment in the kingdom.

As such, the Biden Administration should disrupt this concerning trend of impunity in three ways. First, it should lift the waiver on sanctions to which Saudi Arabia would otherwise be subjected as a designated Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for religious freedom violations. Second, it should hold accountable high-level Saudi officials directly responsible for egregious religious freedom violations using the Khashoggi Ban and Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Finally, President Joe Biden and Secretary Antony Blinken should call publicly for Saudi Arabia, during this month of Ramadan, to grant clemency to Raif Badawi, and cease persecuting peaceful dissidents on spurious legal charges.

READ MORE


Idaho Department of Fish and Game biologist Lacy Robinson pulls on gloves as she prepares to release a male wolf pup back to its den in the North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River drainage on May 12, 2014. (photo: Becky Kramer/The Spokesman-Review)
Idaho Department of Fish and Game biologist Lacy Robinson pulls on gloves as she prepares to release a male wolf pup back to its den in the North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River drainage on May 12, 2014. (photo: Becky Kramer/The Spokesman-Review)


Idaho Lawmakers Pass Bill to Kill Most of State's Wolf Population
Dan Whitcomb, Reuters
Whitcomb writes: "Idaho lawmakers have approved a bill authorizing the state to kill up to 90% of its wolf population, a measure championed by farmers and cattle ranchers that will become law if signed by the governor in the coming days."

Governor Brad Little has not indicated whether or not he supports the legislation and a spokeswoman said the office did not comment on bills awaiting his signature. The first-term Republican has six days to sign or veto the measure, which becomes law if he takes no action in that time.

The Idaho House of Representatives this week voted 58-11 to approve the fast-tracked legislation, which passed the state senate last week with backing from the agricultural sector, who say the wolves are killing or scaring off sheep, cattle and other farm animals.

"They're destroying ranchers; they're destroying wildlife," Idaho State Senator Mark Harris told his colleagues in support of the bill last week, according to the New York Times.

Idaho Fish and Wildlife in 2002 established a Wolf Conservation and Management plan that calls for the state to maintain a population of at least 150 wolves. Harris said that number had grown to ten times that number, or more than 1,500, at last count.

Wildlife conservation groups have called on Little to veto the legislation.

"The bill will waste millions of dollars of public funds on killing wolves, and threatens to ultimately return the species to the endangered species list and federal management," the Western Watersheds Project said in a statement on behalf of three conservation groups.

Gray wolves were delisted from the Endangered Species Act last year by the U.S. Department of the Interior, which said the population had sufficiently recovered to no longer warrant protection.

If Little signs the legislation, the state would be permitted to hire contractors to kill the wolves and hunters would have no limits on the number they could target.

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation





RSN: You Don't Actually Need to Reach Across the Aisle, Mr. Biden

 

 

Reader Supported News
29 April 21


2 Days to Go, Help With This Fundraiser!

We have two days to go in April and we are really hurting for basic funding. Slow down, pull over and help out.

It really matters.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


Update My Monthly Donation


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611




 

Reader Supported News
28 April 21

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


IF YOU NEVER DONATE — COME ON WITH IT, PLEASE! — In the category of people who can afford make a modest donation but never do lies the answer to all the funding problems this organization will ever have. If you can afford a modest donation, make it. That really fixes the donation problems quickly. With urgency. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


You Don't Actually Need to Reach Across the Aisle, Mr. Biden
President Biden met with a bipartisan group of politicians to discuss the American Jobs Plan in April. (photo: Amp Alfiky/The New York Times)
John Lawrence, The New York Times
Lawrence writes: "There is nothing wrong with being partisan."

resident Biden’s first address to a joint session of Congress, on Wednesday night, will be scrutinized to assess his commitment to working with Republicans. There is nothing wrong with reaching across the aisle to seek common ground.

But insisting on bipartisanship — given the major policy divide between the parties on economic recovery, tax reform, climate change and health care — usually guarantees gridlock (which promotes voter cynicism) or actions that are watered down and ineffective (which are condemned by everyone, right and left).

There is nothing wrong with being partisan. Over a century ago, Representative Jacob Fassett, a New York Republican, counseled, “We were all elected by partisans because we were partisans, and as such represented party purposes as expressed by party platforms,” adding that a politician should “have opinions and convictions” and not “be a political chocolate éclair.”

READ MORE


The search warrants mark a major turning point in the long-running investigation against Rudy Giuliani. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
The search warrants mark a major turning point in the long-running investigation against Rudy Giuliani. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)


Federal Investigators Raid Rudy Giuliani's Manhattan Apartment
Kelly McLaughlin and Sonam Sheth, Business Insider

ederal investigators raided former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's Manhattan apartment on Wednesday and seized his electronic devices, The New York Times reported. The Associated Press has since confirmed the news.

Investigators executed the raid after obtaining a search warrant, and it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation into Giuliani's foreign dealings in Ukraine, sources told The Times. The outlet reported that investigators had been trying to secure a search warrant against Giuliani for months but that former President Donald Trump's Justice Department quashed their efforts.

The investigation into Giuliani, who serves as Trump's personal lawyer, resumed in earnest last month, and the Justice Department lifted its objection to the warrant after Merrick Garland was confirmed as attorney general.

Prosecutors have been scrutinizing Giuliani's activities in Ukraine since at least 2019 and are said to be examining if he broke foreign lobbying laws while working as Trump's lawyer. The FBI's investigation also includes a counterintelligence aspect that veteran prosecutors said suggests the FBI may see Giuliani as a national security threat.

Two sources familiar with the investigation told The Times that investigators are looking into Giuliani's role in the recall of former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovitch, who was a foreign service officer for 33 years before being abruptly removed from her post in spring 2019.

In October 2019, Yovanovitch appeared for a nine-hour, closed-door deposition on Capitol Hill related to the first impeachment inquiry into Trump. In her opening statement, she said that then-Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan told her she "had done nothing wrong" but that there was a "concerted campaign" to oust her, and that the department had been "under pressure from the President to remove [her] since Summer of 2018."

Shortly before news of the investigation into Giuliani broke, two of his associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were arrested — also in October 2019 — on suspicion of trying to funnel foreign money into a pro-Trump super PAC and other entities to gain leverage in US political circles. Prosecutors also allege Parnas and Fruman tried to influence US-Ukraine relations.

CNN reported that investigators from the Manhattan US attorney's office approached Kevin McCallion, an attorney in New York, earlier in 2019 to ask about Giuliani's link to Parnas and Fruman.

Giuliani has admitted that he sought dirt on political adversaries, including President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, along with Yovanovitch, and had contact with former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko. He has also been instrumental in amplifying the lie that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 US presidential election — a bogus talking point that was started by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself.

And last year, The Washington Post reported that US officials warned the White House that Russian intelligence services were using Giuliani to funnel disinformation to Trump.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) stipulates that American citizens notify the Justice Department of any contacts they have with foreign governments or officials, and if they interact with the US government or media at the direction of those officials.

Giuliani has denied any wrongdoing.

READ MORE


Alameda Police Department officers attempt to take 26-year-old Mario Gonzalez into custody, April 19, 2021. (photo: AP)
Alameda Police Department officers attempt to take 26-year-old Mario Gonzalez into custody, April 19, 2021. (photo: AP)


Police Asphyxiate Another Unarmed Man by Kneeling on Him, This Time in CA
Juliet Williams, Associated Press
Williams writes: "Police in the San Francisco Bay Area city of Alameda have made public body cam footage showing officers pinning a Latino man to the ground for more than five minutes during an arrest last week that ended in his death."

Mario Gonzalez, 26, stopped breathing after an April 19 scuffle with police at a park in Alameda.

A police statement said Gonzalez had a medical emergency after officers tried to handcuff him, but his family contends he was killed by police who used excessive force.

The nearly hourlong video from two officers’ body cameras released late Tuesday shows police talking to Gonzalez in a park after receiving 911 calls that he appeared to be disoriented or drunk. Gonzalez seems dazed and struggles to answer questions.

When Gonzalez doesn’t produce any identification, the officers are seen on video trying to force his hands behind his back to handcuff him but he resists and they take him to the ground.

The officers repeatedly ask him for his full name and birthdate even as they have him pinned on the ground.

“We’re going to take care of you, OK, we’re going to take care of you,” one officer says on the video.

“I think you just had too much to drink today, OK? That’s all,” the same officer says. Later, he adds, “Mario, just please stop fighting us.”

Gonzalez, who weighed about 250 pounds (113 kilograms), is seen on the video grunting and shouting as he lies face down on wood chips while the officers restrain him. One officer puts an elbow on his neck and a knee on his shoulder.

“He’s lifting my whole body weight up,” an officer says at one point.

One officer also appears to put a knee on his back and leaves it there for about four minutes as Gonzalez gasps for air, saying “I didn’t do nothing, OK?”

Gonzalez’s protests appear to weaken and after about five minutes he seems to lose consciousness.

Shortly before he stops breathing, one officer asks the other: “Think we can roll him on his side?”.

The other answers, “I don’t want to lose what I got, man.”

Apparently seeking reassurance, the first officer asks “we got no weight on his chest?” then repeats “No! No weight ... no weight.”

“He’s going unresponsive,” one officer says.

The video shows officers rolling Gonzalez over and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. He was later pronounced dead at a hospital.

The incident happened a day before former Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder and manslaughter for pinning George Floyd to the pavement with his knee on the Black man’s neck in a case that triggered worldwide protests, violence and a furious reexamination of racism and policing in the U.S.

Gonzalez had a 4-year-old son and also was the main caretaker of his 22-year-old brother, who has autism, his family said.

An autopsy is pending to determine the cause of his death but family members of Gonzalez on Tuesday told reporters that the officers were to blame, saying they escalated what should have been a minor, peaceful encounter with the unarmed man.

“The police killed my brother in the same manner they killed George Floyd,” said his brother, Gerardo Gonzalez.

“He’s a lovely guy. He’s respectful, all the time,” said Mario’s mother, Edith Arenales. “They broke my family for no reason.”

Alameda “is committed to full transparency and accountability in the aftermath of Mr. Gonzalez’s death,” the city said in a statement.

Gonzlez’s death is under investigation by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, the county district attorney’s office and a former San Francisco city attorney hired by the city to lead an independent probe, the statement said.

The three officers involved in the arrest have been placed on paid leave during the investigation.

READ MORE


US Border Patrol agents conduct intake of border crossers at the Central Processing Center in McAllen, Texas. (photo: AP)
US Border Patrol agents conduct intake of border crossers at the Central Processing Center in McAllen, Texas. (photo: AP)


ACLU Calls on Biden Administration to Close Dozens of ICE Detention Facilities
Nicole Sganga and Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News
Excerpt: "The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday urged the Department of Homeland Security to close dozens of immigration detention facilities as part of a renewed push for President Biden to follow through on several campaign pledges now that he's been in office for 100 days."

he American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Wednesday urged the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to close dozens of immigration detention facilities as part of a renewed push for President Biden to follow through on several campaign pledges now that he's been in office for 100 days.

In a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas shared first with CBS News, the ACLU identified 39 detention centers used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that it believes should be shut down due to reports of abuse against detainees, limited access to lawyers and insufficient justification for opening them.

"With lower ICE arrest rates and already-reduced levels of detention arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, ICE is currently paying to maintain thousands of empty beds, at enormous taxpayer expense — wasting hundreds of millions of dollars that would be better spent on alternatives to detention and other programmatic priorities," the ACLU wrote in its letter Wednesday.

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Biden vowed to utilize alternatives to holding immigrants in detention and to end contracts with for-profit prison companies, which operate many of the more than 200 facilities ICE can use to hold detainees.

The ACLU's letter urged Mayorkas to "dramatically downscale" immigration detention "in light of the historically low number of people in ICE detention."

The number of ICE detainees has reached a historic low under the Biden administration, dating back two decades. Currently, there are roughly 15,000 people in ICE detention, including about 1,500 parents and children in holding facilities for families, according to government data.

Mayorkas said during an interview in March that "a detention center is not where a family belongs." In a March 5 court filing at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the Biden administration announced plans to wind down the long-term detention of migrant families.

In March, ICE tapped a Texas-based nonprofit to house some migrant families in hotels in Texas and Arizona. Interim ICE Director Tae Johnson said then that the contract would provide more than 1,200 beds.

But 100 days into office, Mr. Biden is yet to keep all of his campaign promises. In January, the Biden administration ordered the Department of Justice to end its reliance on private prisons, but it has yet to make any announcements regarding for-profit immigration detention centers.

"The Biden administration's exclusion of immigration detention facilities in its executive order made no sense given everything we know about human rights abuses occurring at the hands of private contractors who got an incentive to maximize profits in immigration detentions as well as within the criminal legal setting," Naureen Shah, senior advocacy and policy counsel at the ACLU, told CBS News.

"The administration also failed to put under immediate review all of the contracts ICE has with state and local agencies, where we've seen grave human rights abuses in the hands of local sheriffs or county officials," Shah continued.

As of April 10, ICE listed a total of 141 detention facilities in its public database. But in fiscal year 2019, ICE held detention contracts or agreements with 233 facilities, 185 of which it used to hold detainees, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released earlier this year. The GAO investigation also revealed the federal government's procedural missteps, costing taxpayers millions of dollars for unused beds after entering into 43 contracts with guaranteed minimum payments.

"We've got this really new unique moment in time where ICE detention levels are far lower than they were under the Trump administration. And yet we still have this infrastructure that exists to detain tens and tens of thousands of people every day," Shah told CBS News. "So why do we have all these empty beds in this network of more than 200 facilities around the country?"

In its report, the GAO wrote that "[a]s of May 11, 2020, ICE was paying for 12,027 empty beds a day, on average, at a cost of $20.5 million for the month." The report also found that in the same month, ICE forked over an additional $41.2 million in "flat rates" to 11 facilities while using only 38% of the beds it paid for. The result was an average of $1.5 million spent per day on guaranteed minimum bed space not in use by the federal government.

The agency entered into 40 agreements for new detention space between fiscal year 2017 and May 2020, including 28 with guaranteed minimum payments, in addition to new deals with state and local officials who outsourced facilities to private companies.

ICE also put detainees at risk by placing them in potentially inadequate facilities with known histories of detainee deaths, escapes, and excessive force, the report indicated.

"Fiscal Year 2020 was the deadliest year in ICE detention in 15 years," the ACLU said in a statement to CBS News. "Last year alone, we saw reports of increased use of force, solitary confinement, patterns of sexual abuse, forced sterilization, and an utter failure to protect people from COVID-19."

In its appeal to the Biden administration, the ACLU has called on DHS to shut down 39 facilities in the near term. Among the top ten listed is the La Palma Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona.

Earlier this month, DHS' top watchdog found widespread mistreatment of immigrants at the facility in Eloy, citing nearly 1,300 grievances from immigrants held there.. DHS' Office of the Inspector General said detainees depicted "an environment of mistreatment and verbal abuse."

After immigrants held at the for-profit prison company held peaceful protests in April 2020 over concerns that staff were not providing the necessary personal protective equipment, migrants told inspectors detention center personnel deployed pepper spray to quell one of the protests on April 13, which was also captured by surveillance footage.

The ACLU argues that while mistreatment at ICE facilities pre-dates the pandemic, COVID-19 outbreaks among detainees exacerbated already tenuous health and hygiene practices. "ICE just didn't take COVID seriously enough," Shah said. "That's why we've seen facilities where dozens, sometimes hundreds of people with COVID-19." As of April 23, 1,147 detainees currently in custody tested positive for COVID-19, roughly 7% of the overall population in ICE facilities, according to data published by the agency.

Also on the list are the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida, and Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, California. An internal audit by ICE's Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) in February 2021 found the former had "inoperable" telephones and toilets, as well as a blanket ban on all marriage requests, preventing at least one migrant from tying the knot.

Seven out of 12 detainees interviewed by ODO officials at the Calexico facility in a February 2021 inspection characterized contact with ICE officers as "irregular and sporadic." One immigrant interviewed told inspectors that while in a medical facility for treatment of his mental health challenges, he was twice placed in "observation," and kept in a room naked for two to three days at a time. At least one detainee required immediate suicide prevention and intervention following allegations of self-harm.

The letter signed by the ACLU also calls on the Biden administration to close facilities in remote locations with limited access to legal counsel, a step the non-profit believes aligns with the president's frequent refrains on restoring human dignity. "We think a lot of people — including a lot of people in this administration — agree that if you're seeking asylum, you should at least have a lawyer who can help you navigate this Byzantine system," Shah noted.

The availability of immigration attorneys within 100 miles of detention centers opened under the Trump administration ranked among the lowest of all detention facilities nationwide, a 2020 report by the ACLU found, deeming the remote locations "justice free zones." Under U.S. law, immigrants in removal proceedings are not guaranteed a lawyer at the government's expense.

CBS News has reached out to DHS and ICE for a response to the ACLU's letter.

READ MORE


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., walks through Statuary Hall at the US Capitol in Washington, D.C., on March 10, 2021. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., walks through Statuary Hall at the US Capitol in Washington, D.C., on March 10, 2021. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)


Contributions to Swing District Democrats by AOC Add Obstacle for Challengers
Eva Putzova, The Intercept
Putzova writes: "The contributions also signal a retreat from the theory of change upon which Ocasio-Cortez originally ran."


uring the last election cycle, I challenged my member of Congress, ex-Republican-turned-Blue-Dog Tom O’Halleran, in a Democratic primary. Primary challenges are notoriously difficult, and getting a campaign off the ground is often impossible. And while I fell short, winning more than 40 percent of the vote in the district signaled to me the people in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District are ready for more progressive representation.

As I’m considering my second attempt for the congressional seat, encouraged by the support we garnered, hardened by the previous experiences, and enlightened by a better understanding of how the establishment machine works, I’m concerned that a new development is adding yet another obstacle. At the end of March, approaching the first quarter fundraising deadline, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used her Courage to Change PAC to make political contributions to dozens of Democrats who had won close races in 2020.

We take these contribution exchanges among members of Congress as normal. To change the policies, we have to change the rules of politics. Our electoral politics are so corrupted by corporate money that we don’t even pause at the money laundering practice among the members of Congress.

The contributions also signal a retreat from the theory of change upon which Ocasio-Cortez originally ran. The idea then was that progressive and populist ideas had mass appeal and could win not just in deep blue districts, but in red seats and swing districts too. That was the animating idea behind Brand New Congress and its offshoot, Justice Democrats. Do we no longer believe that?

The most fundamental problem I see, when you solicit contributions for your congressional campaign or a leadership PAC like Courage to Change, is that supporters have every reason to believe it’s to get you reelected or to fulfill your PAC’s mission. The Courage to Change PAC is quite specific about the use of the funds: “Contributions will be used to make early investments in progressive challengers that can even the playing field against established incumbents, and bolster progressive leaders in Congress who take difficult but righteous stands. All endorsees will embody the ideals of racial, social, economic, and environmental justice. Courage to Change will refuse all corporate PAC donations, as will our candidates.” There’s no question that Ocasio-Cortez’s leadership PAC’s recent contributions go against the PAC’s stated purpose.

To be fair, you’d be hard pressed to find any member of Congress who has not given or received contributions from their colleagues’ candidate committees, but just because the practice is so widespread (and legal) doesn’t make it right. I have yet to see any member of Congress stating in their fundraising letters, social media ads, or any solicitation that the money will be used for a contribution to another candidate’s campaign. In 2020, my anti-war heroine Rep. Barbara Lee contributed her congressional campaign money to my opponent just as Ocasio-Cortez did in 2021. Ironically, before these contributions were made, I listed both representatives as my role models on Ballotpedia’s 2019 candidate connection survey. I share many, if not most, of their policy positions but disagree with their approach to transforming the political system by supporting those who work actively against our political agenda.

If you want to give contributions to your colleagues to support them, you can use your personal funds. Or you can use your fundraising power to make a case to your supporters to contribute to your peers in Congress directly. There’s something extra troubling about bundling small-dollar contributions from progressives into $5,000 checks to members of Congress raising much of their campaign funding from corporate PACs. As a campaign, we have never accepted and would never accept a contribution from any political action committee or candidate committee no matter their ideology, because the source of the money is no longer transparent. If we want to fight money in politics, we should live by the standards we claim to support.

The second issue with these contributions as gestures of support is the motivation. These representative-to-representative contributions are certainly not about actual funding of campaigns. In addition to the in-district name identity advantage and access to voters and various institutional constituencies, every incumbent has a substantial fundraising capacity and an extensive donor base. It’s about signaling — but what and to whom?

Why would one member of Congress have a need to formalize their support for another through a contribution? Are they expecting support for their bills, and is it right to buy the support this way? Are they signaling to the Democratic Party that they stand by the electoral strategy to support the incumbent? Are they sending a message to potential challengers to stay away from primarying the incumbent? By refusing to pay Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dues when first elected, Ocasio-Cortez bravely declared that she would not play by the party rules that hurt primary progressive challengers, but the effect of supporting corporate Democrats individually seems awfully similar to just paying DCCC dues.

Ocasio-Cortez’s contribution to my former opponent and the incumbent in Arizona’s 1st District has definitely had a chilling effect on me as I get closer to my decision on whether to run or not. It’s still very early in the election cycle, but with such a strong first campaign showing, we might be up for a second round. Still, when the entire ecosystem of organizations behind the party establishment is joined by a progressive superstar like Ocasio-Cortez, all tipping the scales in unison in favor of incumbents, it’s very hard to take this message as anything but that a progressive challenger is not welcome in this race against a Blue Dog. The contribution from Ocasio-Cortez sends a signal to voters that my former opponent holds similar enough values that it’s worth it for her to support him. In some races, Democrats considered that message a political liability and angrily returned her money. In a Democratic primary, however, the signal can only aid an incumbent, making it harder for a challenger to cut through the noise and draw clear distinctions in the minds of voters.

If we progressives are serious about fighting money in politics, we should model transparency, integrity, and consistency in politics to shape the political culture into one where corruption, including the kind that’s institutionalized and legalized, is unacceptable. Unless we change the rules of politics, we will not get rid of profit in health care, bring about economic justice to our communities, act fast enough to stabilize the climate, deinstitutionalize racism, nor will we question U.S. hegemony as the guiding foreign affairs doctrine.

READ MORE


Monument to the victims of the massacre of El Mozote. (photo: Ernesto Zelaya/Wikimedia)
Monument to the victims of the massacre of El Mozote. (photo: Ernesto Zelaya/Wikimedia)


US Government Hid Presence of US Advisor in El Mozote Massacre, Expert Says
teleSUR
Excerpt: "U.S. expert witness Terry Karl Monday revealed in El Salvador that a U.S. military advisor witnessed the massacre of some 1,000 unarmed people at the hands of the Salvadoran Army in the El Mozote locality, in 1981."

This revelation exposes U.S. involvement in the Salvadoran civil war and the reasoning behind Washington covering up the massacre perpetrated by the Salvadoran Army.

.S. expert witness Terry Karl Monday revealed in El Salvador that a U.S. military advisor witnessed the massacre of some 1,000 unarmed people at the hands of the Salvadoran Army in the El Mozote locality, in 1981.

This revelation given during pretrial hearings in El Salvador exposes U.S. involvement in the Salvadoran civil war and the reasoning behind Washington covering up the massacre perpetrated by the Salvadoran Army.

According to Karl, U.S. Master Sergeant Bruce Hazelwood was at El Mozote with Salvadoran Lieutenant Colonel Domingo Monterrosa, who led the massacre on the ground.

"The presence of a U.S. military advisor was illegal," the expert said and assured that the U.S. and El Salvador covered up the massacre, in which most of the victims were children so that aid from the U.S. would not be cut off.

"I won't say Monterrosa didn't order it," Hazelwood testified under seal in 1982, before the United Nations (UN) Truth Commission that investigated crimes against humanity perpetrated during the Salvadoran civil war (1980-1992).

According to Karl, the Salvadoran Army had as a "main target" the Morazan Department, where El Mozote is located, because it feared that the territory would become The Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) guerrilla's rearguard.

"El Salvador implemented a strategy of extermination, without differentiating between combatants and civilians," Karl condemned.

READ MORE


California State Parks District superintendent Chris Spoher, center, walks through Big Basin Redwoods State Park in Boulder Creek, Calif., Thursday, April 22, 2021. (photo: Nic Coury/AP)
California State Parks District superintendent Chris Spoher, center, walks through Big Basin Redwoods State Park in Boulder Creek, Calif., Thursday, April 22, 2021. (photo: Nic Coury/AP)


Resilient Redwood Forest a Beacon of Hope for California
Martha Mendoza, Associated Press
Mendoza writes: "Eight months after a lightning siege ignited more than 650 wildfires in Northern California, the state's oldest park - which was almost entirely ablaze - is doing what nature does best: recovering."

Big Basin Redwoods State Park is closed, but during a backcountry guided tour earlier this week, clusters of chartreuse shoots were budding on blackened redwood branches and trunks. Bright yellow bush poppies, white violets and star lilies dotted the scorched landscape. Hillsides of purple California lilac shrubs were fixing nitrogen in the soil. And new Knobcone pine trees, which need temperatures above 350 degrees to pop open their cones and drop their seeds, were sprouting.

“I think nature is finding a way,” State Parks senior environmental scientist Joanne Kerbavaz said.

Scientists, parks advocates and conservations say the resiliency of Big Basin Redwoods State Park is cause for hope well beyond the Santa Cruz mountains. In California, COVID-19 infections and deaths have dropped rapidly as a widespread vaccine rollout appears to be turning the corner. And in the burned communities that lost homes in last year's fires, construction vehicles crowd narrow roads to lay new foundations.

At first glance, Big Basin Redwoods State Park is a mess. The entire 18,000-acre (7,284-hectare) park, which has about 1 million visitors a year, burned hard and fast for 24 hours and is still smoldering in a few spots, causing nearly $200 million in damage.

More than 100 structures were destroyed, including the historic park headquarters, tent cabins, picnic tables, viewing platforms and trail railings. Dozens of bridges are gone, and logs litter the forest floor. In some places, smoldering subterranean root balls are still smoking, leaving dangerous underground ash pits, Kerbavaz said.

Since last August, damage assessors have been trying to identify what toxins, hazards and other waste needs to be removed. The park doesn’t look much different than it did a week after the fire, when an Associated Press reporter and photographer hiked the renowned Redwood Trail and confirmed that most of the ancient redwoods, about 2,000 years old and among the tallest living things on Earth, had survived.

The next eight to 10 months will be spent cleaning up the park, hauling out hulks of charred vehicles, rubble from collapsed roads and bridges and damaged campground structures. It will be up to a year before the public is allowed any safe access on trails beyond a small coastal area of Rancho Del Oso, which should open around Memorial Day, State Parks District Superintendent Chris Spohrer said.

But no one should expect a straight rebuilding of what was lost, he said.

“Everything is on the table,” Spohrer said. “We need to be setting expectations for the public that when they come back, it will not look the same.”

When Big Basin opened in 1902, it marked the genesis of redwood forest conservation. But ideas about buildings, layout and land use have changed over 119 years.

“Think of it as reimaging and re-envisioning, not rebuilding,” Spohrer said.

Conservationists and advocates support a wide open planning process. They also urge quick action because state and federal officials are currently funding wildfire recovery efforts and new infrastructure projects, a rare opportunity to tap into taxpayer dollars for public lands.

“I’d hate to ever suggest we think that a fire is a good thing, but there is no question it wiped the slate clean — and that’s something you just don’t see in any other existing park,” said Sara Barth, executive director of Sempervirens Fund, which in 1900 spearheaded efforts to protect six square miles (15.5 sq. km.) of old-growth redwood forest that is now in the center of Big Basin.

The state now can consider ways to make it more equitable and accessible to people who haven’t, in the past, been visiting, Barth said.

“When Big Basin was established, it was a beacon for the state parks system,” she said. “In this fire and rebirth, you have an opportunity again.”

Sam Hodder, president of Save the Redwoods League, said the public can take inspiration as the forest quickly recovers.

“The trees themselves will tell about resilience and recovery and the broader California landscape,” he said. “While this is a difficult and heartbreaking situation to be in, it does give us an opportunity to think about doing things differently, that takes into consideration climate resilience and acknowledges that fire is an inevitable inhabitant of this landscape.”

Redwoods are designed to be fire resistant. In old-growth forests, most trees have burn scars dating back hundreds of years.

On Aug. 19, 2020, as trees ignited and animals fled, the only sounds in Big Basin were the roar of wildfire and the thundering crash as large trees fell.

These days, tree tops are filled with birdsong. And on the forest floor, the lizards, skinks and salamanders that buried themselves deep in decayed organic matter as fire rolled by above are clambering back into the creeks.

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation





The GOP just tried to kick hundreds of students off the voter rolls

    This year, MAGA GOP activists in Georgia attempted to disenfranchise hundreds of students by trying to kick them off the voter rolls. De...