16 March 23
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Massive Human Slaughter
By Marc Ash
From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/031703A.shtml / Via, Scoop.co.nz
Sunday 16 March 2003
What George W. Bush and Tony Blair are planning is the greatest act of human slaughter since Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge orchestrated the Cambodian genocide in the mid 1970s. That act killing some 1.5 to 2 million largely defenseless and quite peaceful Cambodians.
Civilian Iraq is utterly defenseless and totally unprepared for the carnage that is about to be visited upon them. It is murder plain and simple, murder on an unimaginable scale.
There is no "war" looming, no "conflict" with Iraq, and no "standoff." What exists is a vast military force poised to inflict death and destruction on a major population center. Those who live there will attempt to defend themselves, but they will fail, and the dead will cover the ground like a fallen forest.
Should this act of insanity proceed, it will stand as one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever recorded. Know now, it can be stopped.
This deadly drama now playing out on the United Nations stage is not for diplomacy or disarmament or for some vague resolution. They joust for one thing: the hearts of common men. All that stands between Baghdad and unprecedented destruction is our favor, and nothing more.
The world does not oppose America; it opposes unbridled aggression. While their leaders disagree on what course to take, the people of France, England, Spain and the United States do not. It is not the collective will of these nations that Baghdad be destroyed and it's sons and daughters slain. We are tolerant and reasonable; we will allow the process of inspections to proceed. Men like Bush and Blair, small in numbers and spirit, beat the drum for invasion in the hopes that many will follow. If those many stand firm, their call will go unanswered.
The blood of innocents once shed cannot be unshed. Should the US military set about killing these people, the deed remains our doing for all time. We are given now a precious moment for reflection. Let us use it wisely. The voices of true American friends all over the world are clearly calling to us: Be patient... work as a group... you are not alone. Let us not taint the American experience for all time by answering, instead, a drumbeat to madness.
We hear day after day that "Time is running out." Running out on what, on who? On Saddam Hussein? On a five thousand year old city? On 24 million men, women and children? Or is time running out on the spirit of America? On the soul of our people? Why is it that the world no longer cherishes American values? Could it be because we no longer cherish them ourselves?
The right way is the American way. America's great gift to the world is fair play and due process. Democracy is not a sales slogan. It is a commitment to tolerating dissent and yielding to consensus. Genocide, on the other hand, is true anarchy.
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
READ MORE
Matthew Kacsmaryk listens during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Dec. 13, 2017. (photo: Screenshot/Senate Judiciary Committee)
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, nominated to the bench by former President Donald Trump, will hear arguments Wednesday on whether to suspend the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the drug mifepristone – an approval that is decades old but has taken on added significance since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Even before Kacsmaryk opens the hearing in his Amarillo, Texas, courtroom, the case has been rocked by reports that he sought to delay the announcement of its timingbecause of what he described as security threats. That move prompted a backlash from media outlets, including the publisher of USA TODAY, which asserted that the delay was unconstitutional.
What to know about Judge Kacsmaryk and the abortion pill case in his court
- U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, will hold a hearing at 10 a.m. EDT Wednesday to listen to arguments in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. The plaintiffs in the case are asking the court to temporarily suspend FDA approval of mifepristone.
- Kacsmaryk, a Trump nominee, previously worked for First Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group that has shepherded many successful religious-based challenges through federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
- In part because the case has drawn significant attention, it is inspiring a renewed debate over "judge shopping," when plaintiffs choose a court – and sometimes, indirectly, a judge – that they hope will be sympathetic to their position.
Who is Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk?
Kacsmaryk, a Florida native born in 1977, worked as a federal prosecutor in Texas before joining First Liberty Institute during the Obama administration. The conservative legal group has been involved with several major Supreme Court cases dealing with religion, including last year's decision in support of a high school football coach who lost his job after praying midfield following games.
Kacsmaryk was nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2017. His confirmation in 2019 was opposed by abortion rights groups and LGBTQ advocates, who noted that he once signed a letter that described being transgender as a "mental disorder." He was confirmed on a mostly party-line vote, with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, joining Democrats in opposition.
Kacsmaryk ruled against President Joe Biden's effort to end a Trump-era immigration policy that ordered asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico as they waited for their U.S. court hearings. The Supreme Court, in its final opinion of the term that ended in June, reversed course and ruled that the Biden administration could end the program.
What is 'judge shopping'?
Lawyers have long sought to file their cases with a judge they suspect will be receptive. But some legal experts argue repeat litigants are manipulating a system in which some federal courts have only one judge assigned to hear cases. Rather than having a judge assigned at random, they're often guaranteed to get the judge they want.
Kacsmaryk sits in one of those single-judge divisions.
"Choosing this particular court was no accident," said Lorie Chaiten, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project.
Whatever Kacsmaryk decides will almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, arguably the most conservative appeals court in the nation. And then there's a good chance the case will move on to the Supreme Court, potentially on its emergency applications docket.
"The general view is that it would be better if the rules would not depend on the forum and the outcome would not depend on the decisionmaker," said New York University School of Law professor Marcel Kahan.
But Kahan cautioned against reading too much into the impact of a first decision.
"These cases are subject to appeal," he said. "This judge is not going to decide the ultimate issue."
Why did Kacsmaryk want to delay publicizing the abortion pill hearing?
Kacsmaryk wanted to delay publicizing the timing of Wednesday's hearing, The Washington Post and other media have reported, because of the intense debate around the issue. The Post and others, citing unnamed sources, said Kacsmaryk was concerned about a "barrage" of death threats directed at the courthouse in Amarillo.
A number of media companies, including Gannett, which publishes USA TODAY, filed an objection with the court Monday.
"Across the ideological spectrum, the public is intensely interested in this case," the letter read. "The court’s delayed docketing of notice of Wednesday's hearing, and its request to the parties and their counsel not to disclose the hearing schedule publicly, harm everyone, including those who support the plaintiffs’ position and those who support the defendants' position."
Hours later, Kacsmaryk issued an order disclosing the timing of hearing.
READ MORE 
'The public will be shocked at the totality of the circumstances,' a lawyer for the man’s family said this week. (photo: Meherrin River Regional Jail)
“The public will be shocked at the totality of the circumstances,” a lawyer for the man’s family said this week.
On Wednesday morning, the county prosecutor alleged in court that Irvo N. Otieno was being admitted to Central State Hospital by Henrico County Sheriff’s Office deputies when he was handcuffed and held down for 12 minutes on the floor, according to ABC 8 News.
The county coroner’s preliminary findings were that Otieno died of asphyxiation by manner of homicide, according to ABC 8 News.
Prosecutors alleged that three deputies pepper-sprayed Otieno and punched him in the torso while in his cell, according to the local TV station.
But perhaps most shockingly, they also claimed that deputies washed and returned the handcuffs to their cruiser, and waited over three hours to report his death to state police.
Video of the incident—captured by hospital security cameras—has not yet been released.
“The family is deeply disturbed by how Irvo was treated and when the full story comes out, the public will be shocked at the totality of the circumstances and the abuse that Irvo underwent,” family attorney Mark Krudys told the Times-Dispatch on Tuesday.
The deputies charged are: Randy Boyer; Dwayne Bramble; Jermaine Branch; Bradley Disse; Tabitha Levere; Brandon Rodgers, and Kaiyelle Sanders. They’ve all been charged with second-degree murder in connection with the death of 28-year-old Otieno of Henrico County, Virginia.
“Randy Joseph Boyer did, as a principal in the first or second degree, feloniously and unlawfully kill and murder Irvo Otenio in the second degree,” reads one charging document obtained by the Times-Dispatch.
The sheriff’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
According to reports by ABC 8, the defense attorney for Branch—the only attorney present on Wednesday on behalf of a deputy—said that the use of force, including kneeling on the 28-year-old’s chest, was justified because deputies were struggling to control Otieno.
Otieno, an athlete and honor student, began to suffer from mental health issues when he was a college student in California. He was soon diagnosed with bipolar and anxiety disorder, according to his family’s account to the Times-Dispatch. Family also told the paper that Otieno’s mother had called a doctor the day of her son’s arrest, hoping to find him help during an especially severe mental health episode.
But when local Henrico county police appeared at the home, they were not initially there to help. While Ouko initially assumed they were responding to her pleas, instead she found out he was a suspect in a burglary.
They eventually called in help to transport him to a hospital, where Otieno apparently “became physically aggressive towards officers”, according to police, after which he was charged with three counts of assault and booked into jail instead.
There, his mother told the Times-Dispatch, he did not receive medication. Two days later, he was transported to Central State Hospital, where he died on March 6—allegedly at the hands of the sheriff’s office.
While details on Otieno’s death and the sheriff’s department’s involvement are still lacking, on Tuesday multiple deputies were taken into custody and charged with second-degree murder.
They have been placed on administrative leave, according to a statement released by Henrico County Sheriff Alisa A Gregory, who also wrote they are “cooperating fully” with the investigation.
“The events of March 6, at their core, represent a tragedy because Mr. Otieno’s life was lost,” read the statement. “This loss is felt by not only those close to him but our entire community.”
It is unclear whether the leave is paid.
READ MORE 
Daniel Kelly, the conservative candidate for the Wisconsin supreme court, speaks at a training session for local Republicans in Waukesha in 2019. (photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)
‘An organized group of insurrectionists’ is seeking to swing a vote with big implications for voting rights, redistricting and abortion
The contributions, in support of the conservative candidate Daniel Kelly, come amid a race that has broken national campaign spending records. According to a campaign finance tracker by the Brennan Center for Justice, political ad orders for the liberal county judge Janet Protasiewicz and conservative Kelly have reached at least $20m in anticipation of the 4 April general election.
The Wisconsin supreme court is currently made up of three judges who lean liberal and four conservatives. Whoever replaces the conservative retiring justice Patience Roggensack will determine the ideological composition of the court, which has been dominated by the right wing for 15 years. At stake in the Wisconsin supreme court race are redistricting, abortion rights, and voting rights and elections policy. And these decisions go beyond the state: Wisconsin has been a critical swing state in recent presidential elections, so its voting policies affect more than just state residents.
Among the election-denying funders behind Kelly’s run are anti-abortion thinktanks and Super Pacs, conservative billionaires and a constellation of groups funded by the Wisconsin shipping supply tycoon Richard Uihlein.
Meanwhile, prominent election denier Charlie Kirk of the rightwing Turning Point USA has voiced support for Kelly’s campaign. Kirk has been blamed for funding the travel of a large number of the Capitol rioters on January 6.
“There is an organized group of insurrectionists who are trying to actively fund candidates for elected office, including judgeships,” said Jeremi Suri, a professor of public affairs and history at the University of Texas-Austin.
The funding comes after prominent election deniers lost their efforts in the 2022 midterms to oversee elections in swing states including Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
“I don’t think the insurrectionists have given up,” Suri said. “They’re still looking for candidates, and they’re particularly interested in someone like Kelly, who, if he can get on the supreme court, will have a 10-year term and will be pretty much unaccountable.”
Looming behind the biggest campaign splurges is Richard Uihlein, heir to the Schlitz beer fortune and founder of Uline, a shipping supply company based in Wisconsin. Uihlein has gained notoriety for his financial support of groups involved with the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot and thinktanks that stoked unfounded fears of election fraud during and following the 2020 election – including the Conservative Partnership Institute and the Federalist Society.
Campaign finance reports show the group Fair Courts America, Inc, which is largely bankrolled by Uihlein, spent at least $1.5m in independent expenditures on pro-Kelly television ads before the 21 February primary. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Fair Courts America has booked more than $3.9m in ads scheduled to run by 4 April.
Uihlein’s influence in the Wisconsin supreme court race extends beyond Fair Courts America. Restoration Pac, a funding vehicle that Uihlein has poured millions into, finances other pro-Kelly groups, including Women Speak Out Pac. Reports show Women Speak Out Pac has spent more than $100,000 on the primary and general election so far.
American Principles Project Pac, which has reported contributing more than $66,000 on pro-Kelly digital advertising before the primary, is also funded by Restoration Pac.
Although Uihlein dollars figure prominently in the Wisconsin supreme court race, the billionaire is one of multiple mega-donors behind Restoration Pac. The Florida private equity billionaire John Childs contributed at least $800,000 to the Pac in 2022, according to filings with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Childs has also contributed to America First Action, the Super Pac that supported Trump’s 2020 run for office.
The Texas billionaire Brett Hendrickson, who has contributed to the campaigns of the Missouri congressman Eric Burlison, Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina and the Illinois congresswoman Mary Miller, has also contributed to Restoration Pac. Burlison, Budd and Miller have all aligned themselves with Trump in questioning the results of the 2020 election.
According to campaign finance filings, the Federalist Society chairman, Leonard Leo, contributed $20,000 to Kelly’s campaign – the maximum amount an individual donor can contribute to a supreme court campaign in Wisconsin. In addition to his work with the Federalist Society, Leo has ties to the Concord Fund and the 85 Fund, groups that have pushed the widely disputed independent state legislature theory that claims state legislatures have full jurisdiction to conduct federal elections.
Also donating the maximum $20,000 to Kelly’s campaign was Diane Hendricks, chairwoman of the multibillion-dollar building company ABC Supply. According to the FEC, Hendricks has also donated at least $4m to Trump’s 2020 America First Pac, and more than $500,000 to Trump Victory and Make America Great Again, Again! Inc.
The deluge of cash from the same groups that financially supported election denialism and Trump’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election also played an outsize role during the 2022 elections. Billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Trump-allied conservative strategist Larry Ellison, for example, reportedly spent more than $40m during the 2022 election cycle.
A bombshell report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel raised questions about Kelly’s own participation in 2020 attempts to overturn the presidential election. Kelly, the report found, had provided special counsel to the Republican party, advising on the subject of fake electors. He has also been paid close to $120,000 for his work on “election integrity” by the Republican National Committee and state GOP.
Given that the winner of the supreme court race will help decide the future of legal abortion in Wisconsin, money has poured into the race on both sides of the abortion fight. Planned Parenthood Pacs promised more than $1m for Protasiewicz and the anti-abortion Women Speak Out Pac has spent at least $100,000 on pro-Kelly materials. The anti-abortion groups and funders behind Kelly’s campaign have also taken part in efforts to cast doubt on the 2020 election results – highlighting the common cause rightwing Christian activists have found with election deniers.
On a 21 February episode of the Charlie Kirk Show, Julaine Appling – president of the Christian, anti-abortion Wisconsin Family Council – endorsed Kelly while invoking fears of electoral fraud.
“Just take the ballot harvesting,” said Appling. “That was something that the liberals were pushing and pushing and doing these bizarre things during the 2020 election that were clearly outside the law.”
Wisconsin Family Action, Inc, which Appling also heads, has reported about $6,000 in independent expenditures to support Kelly’s election.
Kirk, who founded Turning Point USA and played a prominent role in mobilizing protestors for rallies that preceded the insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, concurred.
“Dan Kelly is the best of all of them.”
READ MORE
People hold up signs at a news conference, Friday, March 3, 2023, in Houston while protesting the proposed takeover of the city's school district by the Texas Education Agency. (photo: Juan A. Lozano)
The announcement, made by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s education commissioner, Mike Morath, amounts to one of the largest school takeovers ever in the U.S. It also deepens a high-stakes rift between Texas’ largest city, where Democrats wield control, and state Republican leaders, who have sought increased authority following election fumbles and COVID-19 restrictions.
The takeover is the latest example of Republican and predominately white state officials pushing to take control of actions in heavily minority and Democratic-led cities. They include St. Louis and Jackson, Mississippi, where the Legislature is pushing to take over the water system and for an expanded role for state police and appointed judges.
In a letter to the Houston Independent School District, Morath said the Texas Education Agency will replace Superintendent Millard House II and the district’s elected board of trustees with a new superintendent and an appointed board of managers made of residents from within the district’s boundaries.
Morath said the board has failed to improve student outcomes while conducting “chaotic board meetings marred by infighting” and violating open meetings act and procurement laws. He accused the district of failing to provide proper special education services and of violating state and federal laws with its approach to supporting students with disabilities.
He cited the seven-year record of poor academic performance at one of the district’s roughly 50 high schools, Wheatley High, as well as the poor performance of several other campuses.
“The governing body of a school system bears ultimate responsibility for the outcomes of all students. While the current Board of Trustees has made progress, systemic problems in Houston ISD continue to impact district students,” Morath wrote in his six-page letter.
Most of Houston’s school board members have been replaced since the state began making moves toward a takeover in 2019. House became superintendent in 2021.
He and the current school board will remain until the new board of managers is chosen sometime after June 1. The new board of managers will be appointed for at least two years.
House in a statement pointed to strides made across the district, saying the announcement “does not discount the gains we have made.”
He said his focus now will be on ensuring “a smooth transition without disruption to our core mission of providing an exceptional educational experience for all students.”
The Texas State Teachers Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas condemned the takeover. At a news conference in Austin, state Democratic leaders called for the Legislature to increase funding for education and raise teacher pay.
“We acknowledge that there’s been underperformance in the past, mainly due to that severe underfunding in our public schools,” state Rep. Armando Walle, who represents parts of north Houston, said.
An annual Census Bureau survey of public school funding showed Texas spent $10,342 per pupil in the 2020 fiscal year, more than $3,000 less than the national average, according to the Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Rice University in Houston.
The state was able to take over the district under a change in state law that Houston Democratic state Rep. Harold Dutton Jr. proposed in 2015. In an op-ed piece in the Houston Chronicle on Monday, Dutton said he has no regrets about what he did.
“We’re hearing voices of opposition, people who say that HISD shouldn’t have to face consequences for allowing a campus to fail for more than five consecutive years. Those critics’ concern is misplaced,” Dutton wrote.
Schools in other big cities, including Philadelphia, New Orleans and Detroit, in recent decades have gone through state takeovers, which are generally viewed as last resorts for underperforming schools and are often met with community backlash. Critics argue that state interventions generally have not led to big improvements.
Texas started moving to take over the district following allegations of misconduct by school trustees, including inappropriate influencing of vendor contracts, and chronically low academic scores at Wheatley High.
The district sued to block a takeover, but new education laws subsequently passed by the GOP-controlled state Legislature and a January ruling from the Texas Supreme Court cleared the way for the state to seize control.
“All of us Texans have an obligation and should come together to reinvent HISD in a way that will ensure that we’re going to be providing the best quality education for those kids,” Abbott said Wednesday.
Schools in Houston are not under mayoral control, unlike in New York and Chicago, but as expectations of a takeover mounted, the city’s Democratic leaders unified in opposition.
Race is also an issue because the overwhelming majority of students in Houston schools are Hispanic or Black. Domingo Morel, a professor of political science and public services at New York University, said the political and racial dynamics in the Houston case are similar to instances where states have intervened elsewhere.
“If we just focus on taking over school districts because they underperform, we would have a lot more takeovers,” Morel said. “But that’s not what happens.”
READ MORE 
Jair Bolsonaro has been ordered to hand over jewelry reportedly gifted by the Saudi Arabian government. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
The former president faces scrutiny for reports that his administration attempted to bring $3.2m in jewellery to Brazil.
The decision on Wednesday by Brazil’s federal audit court comes days after Brazilian police launched an investigation into an alleged attempt to illegally bring a set of jewellery, valued at more than $3.2 million, into the country.
Those baubles, destined for the then-president and his wife Michelle, were intercepted in 2021 by customs officials. But authorities are hoping to recover a second set of jewellery, valued at an estimated $75,000, that is believed to have entered the country undetected.
Both sets of jewellery were reportedly offered as gifts by Saudi Arabia’s government.
Wednesday’s court order gives Bolsonaro five days to turn over any Saudi-offered jewellery in his possession, as well as two guns he received from the United Arab Emirates in 2019.
In addition, the order initiates an audit of all the official gifts Bolsonaro obtained during his presidency, which lasted from 2019 to 2022.
The court further declared that the seized $3.2m jewellery package would remain in custody at the presidential offices. Members of Bolsonaro’s administration had previously tried without success to release the jewellery while the far-right politician was in office.
The package includes a diamond necklace, ring, watch and earrings from the luxury Swiss jeweller Chopard. The jewellery had been discovered in the backpack of an aide to Bolsonaro’s energy minister, as the staffer returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia.
Under Brazilian law, public officials can only keep gifts that are “both highly personal and of minimal monetary value”, the court’s president Bruno Dantas said in the public hearing.
Travellers entering Brazil with goods worth more than $1,000 are also required to declare them and pay hefty import taxes.
Bolsonaro’s administration could have brought the items into the country tax-free as official gifts to the nation. However, they would have belonged to the presidential palace collection, not the president and his family.
Dantas said the presidential palace was “the rightful owner” of the items in question.
The issue has dominated headlines in Brazil since it was first reported in early March in the Estado de Sao Paulo newspaper.
Last week, Justice Minister Flavio Dino announced a probe into the jewellery scandal, calling on police to explore whether Bolsonaro’s staff tried to cross the border “without complying with legal procedures” for government gifts or high-value items.
Bolsonaro has denied any involvement in illegal activity, telling CNN Brazil he was being “crucified” for a gift he neither requested nor received.
However, on Monday his lawyer acknowledged the second set of gifted jewellery, saying in a letter to police he would provide an account of those gifts.
Bolsonaro has been living in the US since late December, shortly before his successor, the left-wing politician Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was set to take office. Lula defeated Bolsonaro in a run-off election for the presidency in October.
Bolsonaro, however, has yet to concede defeat. He and his political allies have claimed without evidence that Brazil’s voting system was prone to fraud, leading some supporters to call for a military coup against Lula’s presidency.
Bolsonaro is being investigated for any involvement in a January 8 attack that saw his supporters storm key government buildings in the capital Brasília.
READ MORE
A Western Arctic Caribou Herd as seen from the sky in 2011. (photo: Jim Dau/Alaska Department of Fish and Game)
The groups say the administration’s environmental review did not account for the full climate impact of the project.
The approval of a massive new source of carbon is in direct conflict with President Joe Biden’s promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 in the U.S. transition to clean energy.
“It’s shocking that Biden greenlit the Willow project despite knowing how much harm it’ll cause Arctic communities and wildlife,” said Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in the press release. “Now we have to step up and fight for these priceless wild places and the people and animals that depend on them. It’s clear that we can’t count on Biden to keep his word on confronting climate change and halting drilling on public lands.”
A separate legal challenge has been filed by Trustees for Alaska on behalf of Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic and conservation groups.
“Millions of people — from Indigenous groups to former vice-president Al Gore — have come out in opposition to the project. The Department of the Interior has substantial concerns about the Willow project and the harm it could cause to the climate, wildlife, and people,” said Natalie Mebane, climate campaign director for Greenpeace USA, in the press release. “This is a make-or-break moment for the president’s climate legacy. He needs to listen to the people, his own departments, and himself when he says we have an obligation to confront the climate crisis. The first step is for him to follow the science and stop approving oil and gas projects.”
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) first approved the Willow project in 2020, during the Trump administration. Following a challenge by Alaska Native and conservation groups, approval for the project was thrown out by the court in 2021.
BLM was instructed by the court to conduct a reassessment of the full climate impacts of the project, as well as to consider alternatives that would decrease its overall impacts.
The press release from Earthjustice said that when Willow was again approved on March 13, 2023, the Biden administration failed to adhere to the instructions of the court, and provided a similarly insufficient environmental analysis.
The approved Willow project includes an air strip, gravel roads, hundreds of miles of ice roads, three drilling sites, an operations center and central processing facility. The operations by ConocoPhillips would permit roads and drilling in one of the most sensitive and crucial areas in the Arctic, the Teshekpuk Lake special area.
“We are enraged that the administration has again approved Willow despite the clear threats posed to the Western Arctic’s vulnerable environment and communities,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director at Friends of the Earth, in the press release. “Our prior victory forcing BLM to re-do its environmental analysis should have proven that more must be done to protect our last remaining wild places from Big Oil’s exploitation. We can only hope that the court sees this for what it is: another unlawful, faulty, and disastrous decision that must be stopped.”
Willow’s approval will further endanger ecologically important areas that protect threatened polar bears and other wildlife already struggling to adapt to climate change.
This crucial reserve is not only home to polar bears, but to the Teshekpuk Lake and Western Arctic caribou herds — which migrate through the region and which Alaska Native communities in the northern and western parts of the state rely on for subsistence — as well as musk oxen and hundreds of thousands of migratory birds.
“The Biden administration’s approval of ConocoPhillips’ Willow project in the western Arctic of Alaska is a disappointing leap backwards,” said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Defenders of Wildlife’s Alaska program director, in the press release. “This would further imperil climate-sensitive wildlife including threatened polar bears, lock in oil and gas drilling and massive greenhouse gas emissions for decades, and offset the administration’s priority to rein in climate change.”
The lawsuit also points out that the Biden administration failed to consider future climate pollution from development that will only be possible once the infrastructure from Willow has been built.
Willow has been characterized as “the next great Alaska hub” by ConocoPhillips to its investors, the press release said.
“The science is clear. We cannot afford any new oil or gas projects if we are going to avoid climate catastrophe. Approving what would be the largest oil extraction project on federal lands is incredibly hypocritical from President Biden who in his State of the Union called the climate crisis an existential threat,” Mebane said in the press release.
The approval of Willow by the BLM ignores appeals to stop the project from the nearby community of Nuiqsut, as well as around 5.6 million others who oppose the project.
“The Biden administration has failed to listen to the science, the voices of Native leaders in the region and millions of people across America who have pleaded for the protection of air quality, subsistence resources and the global climate by rejecting Willow,” said Karlin Itchoak, senior regional director, Alaska Region, of The Wilderness Society, as Reuters reported.
The Willow project will produce 286.6 million tons of carbon emissions over the next 30 years, which is equal to putting another two million cars on the roads annually.
“There is no question that the administration possessed the legal authority to stop Willow — yet it chose not to,” said Erik Grafe, deputy managing attorney in Earthjustice’s Alaska regional office, in the press release. “It greenlit this carbon bomb without adequately assessing its climate impacts or weighing its options to limit the damage and say no. The climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges we face, and President Biden has promised to do all he can to meet the moment. We’re bringing today’s lawsuit to ensure that the administration follows the law and ultimately makes good on this promise for future generations.”
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.