Sandra Finley

Oct 162016
 

I’ve followed developments in North Dakota starting back when oil spills did a number on the water that these people are dependent upon.   They came together to try and stop events that make their homes uninhabitable.   Excellent and dedicated people doing what you or I might do under similar circumstances.

The story is a repeated one.  The oil and gas companies – – “petro-chemical industry” – – with impunity poison water supplies, destroying the health of local people and the environment they are dependent upon for living.  The result is impoverished, diseased people (and creatures).  Do a “search” on this blog for (among other stories)

All the same story.  With thousands of repeats globally.

At some point, unthinking people are going to wake up and realize that THEIR disease and developmental problems are the consequence of poisons that are going into THEIR environments, slowly, stealthily over decades.   Makes me think we can expect more, not fewer, confrontations and violence – – really, it’s people fighting for their lives.   There is no human life where there is no water;  there is no healthy life where there is polluted, poisoned water (and air, land, and food).

Bless the North Dakotans and those who have come to aid them in their battle.

And bless those who filmed (more than one event)  – – I can’t help but think that the overwhelming presence of riot police, the overhead surveillance by helicopters. and the armoured personnel carriers amassed at the most recent scene would have deteriorated had it not been for the filming.  Especially with the authorities themselves so willing to completely disregard the rule of law.

 

Huffington Post initiated this reporting.  Common Dreams picked it up.  Copies of both articles are below.

I am  shocked that the Police and Attorney General of North Dakota not only think they CAN, but actually DO IT – – charge people  (Amy Goodman, Deia Schlosberg – – journalists – -, Shailene Woodle and others) for filming the protests.   It backfired:  there have been more than 14 million views of one of the videos alone.

 

A documentarian arrested while filming an oil pipeline protest on Tuesday has been charged with three felony conspiracy charges ― and could face decades in prison if convicted.

 

Deia Schlosberg accepting an Emmy in 2014.

Deia Schlosberg accepting an Emmy in 2014. (Photo: Danny Moloshok/AP)

 

Deia Schlosberg, the producer of the upcoming documentary “How to Let Go of the World and Love All Things Climate Can’t Change,” was detained while filming a protest against TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline in Walhalla, North Dakota. Activists at the event, associated with the group Climate Direct Action, shut down the pipeline, which carries oil from Canadian tar sands to the U.S, for about seven hours.

Two of the protestors, Michael Foster and Samuel Jessup, were also charged and Schlosberg’s equipment and footage from the event was confiscated. Schlosberg said shortly after being released on bond that she couldn’t comment on her arrest until she spoke to a lawyer.

She has been charged with three felonies: conspiracy to theft of property, conspiracy to theft of services and conspiracy to tampering with or damaging a public service. Together, the charges carry 45 years in maximum prison sentences.

Josh Fox, the director of the film and two others related to fossil fuels, including the Academy Award-nominated “Gasland,” said Schlosberg wasn’t participating in the protest herself but acting as filmmaker to document the event. Her arrest appears to reflect a “deliberate” targeting of reporters, he said.

“They have in my view violated the First Amendment,” Fox said, referring to the state’s Pembina County Sheriff’s Department. “It’s fucking scary, it knocks the wind of your sails, it throws you for a loop. They threw the book at Deia for being a journalist.”

Ryan Bialas, state’s attorney for Pembina County, told The Huffington Post there was no such targeting and said the event at the pipeline was “not a protest” but “a criminal action.”

“People are free to come and protest as much as they want in my county, I just ask they don’t damage any property in doing so,” Bialas said in an email. He also noted his office has offered to return Schlosberg’s equipment and footage and he has “no interest” in keeping it.

Credit: Robyn Beck/Getty Images
Thousands marched against the Dakota Access Pipeline in early September. They were met with guards carrying pepper spray and using attack dogs.

 

The arrest is the latest in a series of high-profile criminal charges filed in North Dakota. Police arrested actress Shailene Woodley and 27 others this week for trespassing while protesting the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline.

And authorities issued an arrest warrant for criminal trespassing for Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! last month, who filmed a thousands-strong Native American-led protest in September, which was met with guards wielding pepper spray and attack dogs.

Goodman announced this week she will surrender to authorities on Monday “to fight this charge … a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

Fox said the actions in North Dakota were “mind boggling” and he hasn’t seen “any other state behave this way.”

“Normally you get a warning,” he said, referencing other direct-action protests. “In North Dakota, you don’t. If you were trespassing, you leave and they arrest you anyway.”

He has been circulating a letter calling for the charges against Schlosberg to be dropped. Signatories include actress Daryl Hannah, musician Neil Young, activist Bill McKibben and actor Mark Ruffalo.

Bialas said he was unaware of the criminal action against both Woodley and Goodman and that his office does “not “target activists, journalists or media.”

COMMON DREAMS
Filmmaker Faces 45 Years in Prison for Reporting on Dakota Access Protests

“They threw the book at Deia for being a journalist.”

by  Nika Knight, staff writer

In an ominous sign for press freedom, documentary filmmaker and journalist Deia Schlosberg was arrested and charged with felonies carrying a whopping maximum sentence of up to 45 years in prison—simply for reporting on the ongoing Indigenous protests against fossil fuel infrastructure.

Schlosberg was arrested in Walhalla, North Dakota on Tuesday for filming activists shutting down a tar sands pipeline, part of a nationwide solidarity action organized on behalf of those battling the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“The actions of the North Dakota Police force are not just a violation of the climate, but a violation of the constitution.”
—Josh Fox, Gasland filmmaker

The filmmaker was held without access to a lawyer for 48 hours, her colleague Josh Fox wrote in the Nation, and her footage was confiscated by the police.

Schlosberg was then charged Friday with three felonies, the Huffington Post reported: “conspiracy to theft of property, conspiracy to theft of services and conspiracy to tampering with or damaging a public service. Together, the charges carry 45 years in maximum prison sentences.”

“They have in my view violated the First Amendment,” Fox told the Huffington Post, referring to the state’s Pembina County Sheriff’s Department. “It’s fucking scary, it knocks the wind of your sails, it throws you for a loop. They threw the book at Deia for being a journalist.”

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden observed that Schlosberg faces more years in prison than he does for leaking secret documents about the NSA’s mass surveillance program in 2013:

“Deia isn’t alone,” observed Fox in an op-ed in the Nation. “The arrest of journalists, filmmakers, and others witnessing and reporting on citizen protests against fossil-fuel infrastructure amid climate change is part of a worrisome and growing pattern.”

Indeed, the news of Schlosberg’s arrest followed Democracy Now‘s Amy Goodman announcement earlier this week that she will return to North Dakota to combat charges she faces as a result of reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline protest last month.

“Goodman, whose camera crew filmed a private security team attacking peaceful Native American protesters with dogs and pepper spray, faces charges of criminal trespassing—which many have said amounts to an assault on press freedom,” as Common Dreams reported.

It also emerged late Saturday that a North Dakota state prosecutor has dropped the trespassing charge and is seeking instead to charge Goodman with participating in a “riot,” Democracy Now reported.

“I came back to North Dakota to fight a trespass charge. They saw that they could never make that charge stick, so now they want to charge me with rioting,” said Goodman. “I wasn’t trespassing, I wasn’t engaging in a riot, I was doing my job as a journalist by covering a violent attack on Native American protesters.”

A warrant for Goodman’s arrest was issued September 8.

Meanwhile, actor Shailene Woodley was arrested Monday while live-streaming a prayer action at a Dakota Access construction site. “She was singled out, the police told her, because she was well-known and had 40,000 people watching live on her Facebook page,” Fox wrote. “Other filmmakers shooting protest actions along the pipeline have also been arrested.”

“Journalism is not a crime; it is a responsibility,” Fox said in a press statement about this pattern of arrests. “The actions of the North Dakota Police force are not just a violation of the climate, but a violation of the constitution.” 

Supporters have created a petition calling on the authorities in North Dakota to drop charges against Schlosberg, Goodman, and other journalists arrested for doing their work and reporting on the protests against Dakota Access.

Neil Young, Mark Ruffalo, Daryl Hannah, and other celebrities have also signed an open letter to President Barack Obama and North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple, calling on the leaders to intervene and for Schlosberg’s charges to be dropped. The charges were “unfair, unjust, and illegal,” the letter said, according to Reuters.

“This is not only about reporting on the climate-change movement,” Fox argued in the Nation. “Journalists have also been arrested reporting on Black Lives Matter, the movement for Native rights, and many other important movements the corporate media fails to cover. The First Amendment and the Constitution are at stake in this case. If we lose it, we lose America too.”

Oct 102016
 

RELATED:   A worthwhile PBS documentary, The Choice for American voters in the upcoming presidential election is found at #4 (the Clinton-Trump duo) in  Surveying the landscape of the empire.   

A deficit in the documentary:  it assumes there are only 2 choices.

 

NADER ARTICULATES ANOTHER OPTION:

  (From  http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/email-madness-ralph-nader-farewell-to-the-upright-piano-gopnik-on-being-a-parent-1.3782876/ralph-nader-on-the-ethics-of-voting-for-a-third-party-candidate-if-polls-show-donald-trump-might-win-1.3782887

Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader gives the thumbs up to supporters, November 7, 2000 at the National Press Club in Washington.

Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader gives the thumbs up to supporters, November 7, 2000 at the National Press Club in Washington. (Michael Smith/Newsmakers)

 Listen 28:17

This week, the Democrats embarked on a full-court press to convince those tempted to vote for a third party candidate in the presidential election, not to do it.

In about five weeks, either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald John Trump will win that race. The outcome, however, may well depend on how many votes are cast for neither of them.

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson composite

Green Party presidential nominee, Dr. Jill Stein, and Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, did not meet the qualification criteria to participate in the first presidential debate. (Alex Brandon/AP, Lucas Jackson/Reuters)

According to the most recent polls, support for the leader of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson, is hovering at around eight per cent of the popular vote. Green Party leader, Dr. Jill Stein, who has been a guest on The Sunday Edition, has about four per cent.

Those may seem like insignificant numbers, but in a tight two-way race, they could make a difference.

If the Democratic Party cannot save the country from the worst Republican Party in history with the worst candidate in history…then they should look in the mirror.– Ralph Nader

More than one political analyst is reminding voters of the outcome in the 2000 election. Republican candidate George W. Bush was declared the winner; the Democrats’ Al Gore was the loser; and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader was dubbed “the spoiler.”

Many believe that had Nader not been on the ballot, Al Gore would have become president, saving the world from the war in Iraq, and even the creation of ISIS.

Nader not only dismisses the notion that he’s responsible for the election of George Bush, he argues that third and fourth party candidates are essential for a healthy democracy. He continues to call on voters to disrupt the current political system.

Ralph Nader is an activist, a lawyer and the author of several books. The most recent is called Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think.

Click  Listen 28:17   to hear Michael’s interview with Ralph Nader. 

Oct 102016
 

Written in 1898:

I thought, on the contrary, that a revolutionary paper must be, above all, a record of those symptoms which everywhere announce the coming of a new era, the germination of new forms of social life, the growing revolt against antiquated institutions.  These symptoms should be watched, brought together in their intimate connection, and so grouped as to show to the hesitating minds of the greater number the invisible and often unconscious support which advanced ideas find everywhere, when a revival of thought takes place in society.  To make one feel sympathy with the throbbing of the human heart all over the world, with its revolt against age-long injustice, with its attempts at working out new forms of life,– this should be the chief duty of a revolutionary paper. It is hope, not despair, which makes successful revolutions.” 

            from MEMOIRS OF A REVOLUTIONIST by Peter Kropotkin  (Russia)     From the posting:    2005  . . .  Successful Revolutions

 

As I survey the landscape of the empire, I see symptoms that should be watched and brought together in their intimate connection to the work by people around the world, for the rescue of just society.

Their intimate connection?   in this time of a revival of thought?

Their stories help shed the propaganda that has shaped our nations,  the myths of the clans or tribes to which we “belong”.   We open ourselves to discovering the path forward. 

 

I express my gratitude by passing along the work of  3  players in the drama, concluding with the Trump-Clinton duo, their unwitting contribution to the Successful  Revolution.   5 players altogether.

 

 1.     Viet Thanh Nguyen

(Do a web search.   You will be blown away by what Viet Thanh Nguyen has accomplished  – – a major contributor to the Good of the World.)

2016-10-02 Excerpt from interview with winner of 2016 Pulitzer Prize,  Vietnamese-American author  Viet Thanh Nguyen. his book “The Sympathizer”.

The following is excerpted from the preceding link.   If you have time,  listen to the interview.  Viet Thanh Nguyen’s family became refugees when Saigon fell.   From a young age he lived in the U.S.   He is not without memories of the carnage which in the interview is condensed to   all the stories and  emotions and subjectivities that I was witness to as a kid among the Vietnamese people . . . 

. . .    I also took from it that there was no place in this American imagination, this American memory and history for Vietnamese people like me.  Or that our place was a very problematic place.   It was to be killed or silenced or victimized but in any role we were there simply as a backdrop for an American drama.  This was a very difficult thing to deal with because obviously growing up in a Vietnamese community we were not the backdrop of our own lives.   The war was central to us.

I always knew that this was actually also a crucially important war for us and that all the stories and  emotions and subjectivities that I was witness to as a kid among the Vietnamese people were not being heard or seen or understood by the larger American community.   And how Americans saw this war was also in many ways how the world was seeing it because of the power of American culture and the way that American stories were disseminated because of that power.

Wachtel (interviewer):   Yes because unusually as you point out, here history was written by the losers.

Viet Thanh Nguyen:    Yeah, this is one of the ironies.  I think it has to do with the unique nature of the United States and the wars that it has been fighting since WW2 or the Korean War.

Basically the U.S. is a global power after WW2 and it’s fighting all these wars.   It hasn’t won a war since WW2.

Korean War was a stalemate.

Vietnam war was a defeat.

Every major war since then can hardly be declared as a victory.

What this means is that even if the U.S. doesn’t win wars  its global power, its military power, combined with its economic power and its soft power through Hollywood and the public culture industry means that it can tell its own stories in its own ways and spread them all over the world and everybody all over the world has to confront them because that’s how pervasive American culture is.

Wachtel:  even the naming of the war.   To North Americans it’s called the Vietnam war but in Vietnam it’s often referred to as the American war and you say that both are in fact misnomers.   . . .  (more at  interview, winner of 2016 Pulitzer Prize, Viet Thanh Nguyen.)

 

Viet Thanh Nguyen tells us important truths about the wars and landscape of the empire.  We cannot stop the mindless death and destruction if our minds are clouded by pervasive myths and propaganda. 

From Walden Bello,  Revisiting the Battle of Seattle (Item #2 below), 

Seattle was what Hegel called a “world-historic event.”   Its enduring lesson is that truth is not just out there, existing objectively and eternally.  Truth is completed, made real, and ratified by action.

Thank-you,  Viet Thanh Nguyen, for helping to complete the truth, make it real and publish it.

I will use your work in the actions to reclaim Mother’s Day, as it was originally intended,  before it was appropriated by commercial interests  – –  a movement to stop the killing of our children.     (2007-05-14 Origin of Mother’s Day, 1870  &   Jezile, Son of Man)

2.   Walden Bello

See   2016-08-25 Revisiting the lessons of the Battle of Seattle and its aftermath, by Walden Bello.   

As mentioned under #1,  Bello tells us that truth is created – – ratified by action.   It seems evident to me that more and more people are truth-telling, whether it be about the absurdities of our economic system, failing regulatory systems, corruption in many quarters,  our role in war (we aren’t saintly peace-keepers or deliverers of democracy)  . . . invisible and often unconscious support  for the successful revolution.  

3.    Chinua Achebe

Things Fall Apart, author Chinua Achebe. Insights re violence in our communities.  

From the Continent of Africa.   Here’s the thing:  Chinua Achebe  (deceased in 2013)  may be invisible to many of us because he’s African.  But he is widely known internationally.   Africa struggles, but there are large numbers of empowered people because of his work.  We are strongly bonded through Chinua Achebe who offers us the same gifts.

 I selected two points made by him in a 2008 BBC interview.   If memory serves correctly, he talks about denial at one point.   I wonder about our denial, whether about what Viet Thanh Nguyen offers us, or about this from Chinua Achebe:

. . .  actually the story of Okonkwo (Things Fall Apart) is almost like a parallel story to the story of his community.    His community is not very gentle in its behaviour.  The cruelty that we see in Okonkwo is actually a reflection of cruelty in the society itself.    The crimes Okonkwo commits, in the sort of cosmic sense, the crime against women – –  in a way his community is also guilty of this.  It’s not  a question of which one was it that caused the falling apart.  It’s this complex of events.  And then you add onto it the invasion of the community by Europe.  So it’s when you put all this together that you say, this is why things fall apart   . . .

(Viet Thanh Nguyen of a later generation might have said “add onto it the invasion of the community by Europe and then by violent U.S. culture”.

From the Q & A:

QUESTION:   In the final chapter – –  lamenting the plight of the people,  said that things were falling apart because people were turning away from the old ways and were readily accepting the ways of the missionaries.  You recently mentioned that you couldn’t return to Nigeria  because things were getting worse and worse.  And I just wanted to know what you attribute as the reason for things falling apart in present-day Nigeria?

ANSWER:   My analysis is that it’s bad leadership.    By leadership I don’t mean just one person, the president or the prime-minister, but I mean a whole class of leaders,  leaders in different spheres who have fallen short of their responsibility.   If you look at what is going on now in Nigeria I sometimes wonder   Where are the people?  I mean educated people.  Nigeria has the resources, human and material,  to a degree that would make many, many countries envious  and yet   why are they allowing themselves to be bullied,  to be  bullied by one dictator or a bunch of dictators?   I don’t know   I think we have not got it right.

More at   Things Fall Apart.  

4.  Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

EXPOSING THE LANDSCAPE OF THE EMPIRE   

In the context of unconscious support for successful revolution, who better than presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?   In last night’s debate (2016-10-09)  Trump called out the truth on Clinton and in some instances on himself.  (Example:  loopholes that allow the wealthy, including himself, to not pay income tax.  The laws aren’t changed because the wealthy fund Hillary.  He is an indirect beneficiary.) 

The PBS programme Frontline aired the documentary film  The Choice 2016. 

FRONTLINE goes behind the headlines to investigate what has shaped Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — where they came from, how they lead . . .

Clinton and Trump emerge as powerful Metaphors for what America has become (violent – the dropping of bombs on Libya is Hillary’s doing; a system of political economy in shambles; the subversion of values and the duping by false “celebrity” status).   I thank them for their contributions to the truth-telling work of Viet Thanh Nguyen, Chinua Achebe, Walden Bello and others.

I think  The Choice 2016  is well-done, worth your time to watch.  It discloses information about Trump that is additional disturbance to what I knew (not a lot!  I don’t watch much TV).

To me, Hillary Rodham Clinton has become one of those tragic figures in history.   She started from a place of good intent.  In the end she has been devoured by the events along her path, by her ambition, and by the system.  Most awful is her gleeful reaction, on camera, to the dropping of the bombs on Libya which she orchestrated.   It is clear that Obama bowed to her advice (in her role of Secretary of State) to carry out the bombing.  Power run amok.   Things Fall Apart.

The particular duo slugging it out for the presidency, Trump and Clinton,  are airing the truth about the empire.   People won’t put up with it.  Or, at least they should not.

For the record of those symptoms which everywhere announce the coming of a new era.   /Sandra

– – – – – – – – – – – –

P.S.   As pointed out in the Comments below (thank-you!),  The Choice is not limited to Clinton or Trump.    See  Ralph Nader CBC interview. On ethics of voting for third-party candidate, if polls show Donald Trump might win. Well done!

Oct 062016
 

“Things Fall Apart”, a novel by Nigerian author Chinua Achebe given to me 35 years ago.

Chinua Achebe died in 2013, in Boston.

I hate to offer only two insights from his impressive legacy.   Maybe the links will compensate.

On the subject of violence in our communities,  wherever in the world they may be:

from   Chinua Achebe talking about Things Fall Apart  to the BBC World Service, World Book Club in 2008:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01lhl6g

 . . .  actually the story of Okonkwo (Things Fall Apart) is almost like a parallel story to the story of his community.    His community is not very gentle in its behaviour.  The cruelty that we see in Okonkwo is actually a reflection of cruelty in the society itself.    The crimes Okonkwo commits, in the sort of cosmic sense, the crime against women – –  in a way his community is also guilty of this.  It’s not  a question of which one was it that caused the falling apart.  It’s this complex of events.  And then you add onto it the invasion of the community by Europe.  So it’s when you put all this together that you say, this is why things fall apart   . . .

From the Q & A:

QUESTION:   In the final chapter – –  lamenting the plight of the people,  said that things were falling apart because people were turning away from the old ways and were readily accepting the ways of the missionaries.  You recently mentioned that you couldn’t return to Nigeria  because things were getting worse and worse.  And I just wanted to know what you attribute as the reason for things falling apart in present-day Nigeria?

ANSWER:   My analysis is that it’s bad leadership.    By leadership I don’t mean just one person, the president or the prime-minister, but I mean a whole class of leaders,  leaders in different spheres who have fallen short of their responsibility.   If you look at what is going on now in Nigeria I sometimes wonder   Where are the people?  I mean educated people.  Nigeria has the resources, human and material,  to a degree that would make many, many countries envious  and yet   why are they allowing themselves to be bullied,  to be  bullied by one dictator or a bunch of dictators?   I don’t know   I think we have not got it right.

(To listen to the full interview:   http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01lhl6g)

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The New Yorker

After Empire
Chinua Achebe and the great African novel.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/26/after-empire

 This is lengthy.  It has more depth than many of the articles written about Achebe.    I hope the link remains good!

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

May 27, 2013

Chinua Achebe: A literary legend

http://www.developmenteducation.ie/blog/2013/05/chinua-achebe-a-literary-legend/ 

Chinua Achebe (pronounced Chee-noo-ah Ah-chay-bay) is considered by many critics and teachers to be the most influential African writer of his generation. His writings, including the novel Things Fall Apart, have introduced readers throughout the world to creative uses of language and form, as well as to factual inside accounts of modern African life and history. Not only through his literary contributions but also through his championing of bold objectives for Nigeria and Africa, Achebe has helped reshape the perception of African history, culture, and place in world affairs.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

WIKIPEDIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinua_Achebe

Things Fall Apart is a milestone in African literature. …. has sold more than 8 million copies worldwide.[3] .,, Time Magazine included the novel in its TIME 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005.[9] The novel has been translated into more than fifty languages, and is often used in literature, world history, and African studies courses across the world.

. . .   Much of the critical discussion about Things Fall Apart concentrates on the socio-political aspects of the novel, including the friction between the members of Igbo society as they confront the intrusive and overpowering presence of Western government and beliefs.  Ernest N. Emenyonu commented that “Things Fall Apart is indeed a classic study of cross-cultural misunderstanding and the consequences to the rest of humanity, when a belligerent culture or civilization, out of sheer arrogance and ethnocentrism, takes it upon itself to invade another culture, another civilization.”[10]

. . . Before Things Fall Apart was published, Europeans had written most novels about Africa, and they largely portrayed Africans as savages who needed to be enlightened by Europeans. Achebe broke apart this view by portraying Igbo society in a sympathetic light, which allows the reader to examine the effects of European colonialism from a different perspective.[6] He commented, “The popularity of Things Fall Apart in my own society can be explained simply… this was the first time we were seeing ourselves, as autonomous individuals, rather than half-people, or as Conrad would say, ‘rudimentary souls’.”[7]

Oct 062016
 

It is my pleasure to alert you to this interview and to Harold’s book, “Firewater”.  I am looking forward to reading it.

Harold is an unassuming intelligence.  We haven’t talked much, I don’t know him well,  but here once again I find myself wishing there were more Harold Johnsons in our midst.  He makes good sense; we would be more sane.

Indigenous people need a new story around alcohol, says Firewater author Harold R. Johnson.

Indigenous people need a new story around alcohol, says Firewater author Harold R. Johnson. (Courtesy of Harold R. Johnson)

Listen 23:50

Read story transcript    (the transcript is copied below, in case the link becomes invalid.)

There’s a difficult conversation Harold R. Johnson wants to start — a new narrative about alcohol and Indigenous people, and the hardships drinking causes for many in Johnson’s Cree community.

Johnson is setting out to combat the centuries-old stereotype of the “drunken Indian.” He says it’s an image with colonialist roots — but one which many Indigenous people have internalized.

“I had a kid on one of the reserves tell me…that to be a real Indian you have to drink,” Johnson tells The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

Firewater bookcover

Johnson approaches this subject with experience — as a crown prosecutor in northern Saskatchewan’s Treaty 6 territory — and he says the first step forward is to acknowledge hard truths.

“If we don’t talk about it, it’s just going to continue,” says Johnson. He has written his book, Firewater: How Alcohol Is Killing My People (And Yours), hoping to start a conversation that he considers long overdue.

“In my community, we don’t want to talk about  it publicly because we’re afraid people are going to point their fingers at us and call us ‘lazy, dirty, drunken Indians’.”

But he says he can no longer stay silent. Two of Johnson’s own brothers have been killed by drunk drivers.

“I’ve buried two brothers. I’ve buried many relatives. I’m not speaking figuratively — I’ve dug graves.”

Johnson estimates that one out of every two deaths in the Treaty 6 Territory is alcohol-related — and from talking to leaders in the communities, he’s afraid that estimate is low.

He tells Tremonti that the people who need to be part of this discussion publicly are the 35 per cent of Indigenous people in Canada who don’t drink at all — who are silently sober.

“I am trying to encourage those silently sober to speak up.”

Johnson says he isn’t bringing all the solutions to the table — he thinks Indigenous communities have the answers, if only the conversation gets rolling.

“I firmly believe the solution is talking about it.”

Listen to the full conversation at the top of this web post.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Karin Marley.

TRANSCRIPT
Indigenous people need to tell their stories of sobriety, says lawyer

Guests: Harold R. Johnson

AMT: Still to come there are some disruptive technologies Uber, AirBnB, that leave entire industries forever changed. And then there’s the disruptive medical technology that could forever change your own idea of who we are. We’ll hear about some breakthroughs in the meeting of mind and machine in about half an hour. But first, the bottle and the damage done.

SOUNDCLIP

To see a house full of drunken Indians consisting of men, women and children is a most unpleasant sight. For in that condition, they often wrangle, pull each other by the hair and fight. That sometimes 10 or 12 of both sexes may be seen fighting each other promiscuously, until at last they all fall on the floor one upon another, some spilling rum out of a small kettle or dish which they hold in their hands, while others are throwing up what they’ve just drunk.

AMT: That historic journal entry from the fur trader Daniel Williams Harmon dates back to the early 19th century. Yet here in the 21st century, the author and lawyer Harold R. Johnson includes it in his new book about Indigenous people and alcohol. The anecdote shows just how long the pernicious stereotype of the so-called quote, drunken Indian has been with us. But Harold R. Johnson includes that uncomfortable anecdote for another reason, precisely because it’s hard to hear. It’s difficult to talk about alcohol and the hardships it still causes many Indigenous communities today, and yet it’s a subject Harold R. Johnson approaches with experience as a Crown Prosecutor in Treaty 6 territory. And with the conviction that the first step forward must meet to acknowledge hard truth. He’s a graduate of the Harvard Law School. He’s a member of the Montreal Lake Cree Nation. His book is entitled Firewater: How Alcohol is Killing My People and Yours. Harold R. Johnson joins us from Saskatoon. Hello.

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: Good morning Anna-Maria.

AMT: Why does this story, as you call it the quote, dirty lazy drunken Indian story, have so much power even today?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: It’s never gone away. It has been a constant, since first contact through the residential school era, all through colonialism. It is still being repeated. We’ve internalized it, made the story our own. Our own people believe the story. I had a kid on one of the reserves tell me just a couple of years ago that to be a real Indian you have to drink.

AMT: Hmm. Well, I want to talk about the people in your community and your community is Treaty 6 area in northern Saskatchewan, right?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: That’s correct. The Woodland Cree signed an adhesion to Treaty 6 in 1889.

AMT: And how many people in the Treaty 6 community roughly?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: I’m estimating about 20, 25,000 people.

AMT: OK, because you write specifically about people in your community. What do you hear from people in that community, the Treaty 6 community, about how they view their relationship to alcohol?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: I had an elder give me a call when he heard that I was starting to work on this and he wanted me to know about drinking in the La Ronge area. He told me that back in the forties and fifties there was some drinking, sometimes an Indian would sell their treaty rights so they could legally go in the bar. And sometimes other Indians would ask them to buy beer for them. But it was a sometimes thing. I checked with other elders and that seems consistent. This first elder told me that real drinking didn’t start until 1966 with the opening of the Anglo-Rouyn mine north of town. And the miners came to town and had a party on the reserve 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And the entire purpose was to get Indian women drunk. There was another party going on at the same time, the smoke jumpers, and again they only invited women to their parties. And the elder told me that if any man showed up at those parties, there was usually a fight so they just quit going. There was a third group of people preying on Aboriginal women at that time, the American tourists were flying in on private planes. They didn’t bring their families with them but they brought the hard liquor. That’s where people remember seeing rum and whiskey and vodka for the first time. If you want to destroy a people, you destroy the women first.

AMT: You have calculated the rate of alcohol related deaths in your community. What have you found?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: My estimate is one in two. And it’s based on the leading cause of death in my territory right now is injury. So that’s car accidents, ski doo accidents, drownings, stabbings, shootings, beatings, house fires, suicide, freezing to death. And we know that that’s all alcohol. The second leading cause of death is heart disease and we know that binge drinking causes heart disease. And all those guys my age who didn’t shut it down or continue to binge drink are now falling over dead of heart attacks. And the third leading cause of death is cancer. And we know that alcohol causes all sorts of cancers. Add to that children who don’t get proper nutrition because their parents are drinking. Add to that alcohol and FASD, and add to that alcohol attacks the immune system and people who drink too much have what is referred to as failure to thrive. Put all of those together, and my estimate is one in two. And I’m afraid that that estimate is low. I was in a community last winter, it’s a community of 880 people. A minister stood up at the meeting and said we had 66 funerals here in 2015 and 60 of them were because of alcohol.

AMT: Hmm. But those are your calculations, are there numbers available like that? Has anyone looked at this, like, the way you did?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: I can’t get the numbers. I’m trying to get the numbers. We know in justice, where I spent a lot of time that 95 per cent of the people who come to court were intoxicated at the time of their offense. But when you look at the numbers, alcohol is so natural, normal and necessary in our society that people don’t write it down. It’s not recorded. You look at the police records and you can’t find that number there because the police don’t write it down because it’s so normal. The same thing in health care.

AMT: And you make the point in your book that it’s just assumed that at an arrest or at an emergency health–

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: Yes.

AMT: How has alcohol affected you and your family?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: I’ve buried two brothers. I’ve buried many relatives. I’m not speaking figuratively, I’ve dug graves. My father died when I was eight years old. He died of a heart attack. I have two childhoods. My father and mother didn’t drink in the first eight years of my life. There was rarely any alcohol in our home. My father died, circumstances changed. Alcohol became much more prevalent in the second half of my childhood.

AMT: You’ve outlined theories about how Indigenous people can move forward and away from alcohol that is killing so many people. You talk about victim, grief, and trauma models and you have a problem with them. Take me through. You’ve got a couple of models, let’s start there. The victim, grief, and trauma models. What have you observed and what are you thinking?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: So this victim’s story, to tell us that the reason that Aboriginal people are in the situation that they’re in is because of a history of colonization, that it’s because of residential school, that it’s because of government policy, that it’s all of these things that are outside of our control are killing us. Placebo and nocebo. We know placebo, if I give you a sugar pill and tell you that this is medicine and it’s going to make you feel better if you take it, 35 to 50 per cent of people experience a reduction in symptoms. The same thing occurs with nocebo. And in this case I give you a sugar pill and tell you that it’s poison and it’s going to make you sick. And if you take it, you’re probably going to get sick. That’s the power of story. So a nocebo story, and that’s what it is, is the story that heals you or kills you. I’m not saying that residential school wasn’t real. That was real, that happened, but we can’t fix it. We can’t go back and change residential school and to be told these stories over and over again is just making it worse.

AMT: Well there’s another example to use. The widely held understanding that alcoholism is a disease. What problems do you see with that?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: We keep being told that alcoholism is a disease. When you check into it, disease is a metaphor for what they’re seeing, it’s not like smallpox. Smallpox killed many of us, alcohol is killing just about as many now. But alcohol doesn’t work the same as smallpox or TB. I see alcohol more like a repetitive strain injury. You use it too often, too much and you injure yourself. It changes the way that you look at it. If addiction is a disease, then there’s nothing I can do about it. It’s God’s will that I got it. If alcoholism is an injury that I did to myself, then I can change it. If I tell myself, if I do this too often and too much I can hurt myself, I might change the way that I drink. It’s in the story that we tell ourselves.

AMT: Is the key problem you see in Indigenous communities actually alcoholism or is it binge drinking?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: It’s binge drinking. What I saw in the courts was 15 to 20 per cent of the people who came to court were obsessive compulsive drinkers. 80 to 85 per cent of people who came to court just drank too much that one time and did something really stupid, up to and including committing an atrocity. If we’re looking just at addictions, we’re looking at just a small portion of it.

AMT: Well, and I want to take a little further look into the justice system, because that’s the other model. You talk about the law enforcement model of how drunkenness or alcoholism is treated by the system. Talk to me about what you see?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: If we go back in the common law, we find a statement that says He who killeth while drunk, sober shall hang. So we’ve got lots of experience with alcohol and crime, and I am still prosecuting people who got drunk and killed each other. The justice system is a complete failure. It is not going to solve our problems with alcohol. And that is our major problem.

AMT: And you see those cases where people get drunk and kill each other, but you see other cases where people misbehave because of drunkenness and then have the book thrown at them, am I correct?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: That happens. I was talking with a defense lawyer a little while ago and we were talking about murders and alcohol and I asked them how many murders have you defended where alcohol wasn’t involved? And he remembered one. And as a prosecutor I could remember doing one that didn’t involve alcohol. And we were walking away and he said, but with regard to sex assault, I don’t remember any, and I don’t remember any either. With sex assault, it was always alcohol was involved.

AMT: And so how do you think the justice system needs to change to deal with that?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: There is a model out of South Dakota called 24/7 that needs to be looked at a lot more closely. That 24/7 program out of South Dakota, if you are on an order for driving under the influence or domestic violence involving alcohol, you are required to attend at a police station twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening, and blow into a breathalyzer. If you fail to show up or you have alcohol in your system, you go to jail automatically for up to two days. So immediate detection, immediate consequences. The breach rate for both failing to attend and for having alcohol in the system is less than 1 per cent. I would love to see a breach rate of less than 1 per cent. So it works. And what’s really amazing about the 24/7 program is the Rand Institute went and studied it and they found that there were positive health results. The death rate from alcohol in South Dakota is down because of the 24/7 program. And they were able to show that because each county went into the program at different times, so they’re able to trace it across the state. If we could do that in Canada, where it probably going to require legislative change.

AMT: And you’re speaking, of course, as both a crown prosecutor and a member of the Indigenous community, thinking this could actually move something forward.

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: Maybe we could do something positive with law.

AMT: Well, let me ask you. Has there been enough discussion in your community about the problems caused by alcohol?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: No, we’re trying to open up the conversation. Let’s talk about it. Let’s bring it out into the light and talk about it. It’s really hard for white people to talk about Indians and alcohol, because the fear that someone is going to point a finger at them and call them racist. The opposite occurs in my community, where we don’t want to talk about it publicly, because we’re afraid people are going to point their fingers at us and call us lazy, dirty, drunken Indians. I firmly believe that the solution is in bringing it out and talking about it. And the people will find the answers. I’m not offering a whole bunch of solutions. I’m not going to go and tell my people you have to do a, b, c, and things will get better. We’ve had people come into our communities forever telling us how to do things and having solutions for us. And then they leave and the solutions don’t work. The solutions will come from the people, but we have to have a conversation first.

AMT: Well, so how can we talk about the problems caused by alcohol in Indigenous communities without falling into the trap of racist remarks, or the again, the quote, the drunken Indian stereotype. By being honest, just courageously going forward and talking about it. We don’t have to use race as part of it. What I’m seeing in northern Saskatchewan is that the severe problems started in 1966. So this happened on my watch, this is in my lifetime that it’s changed. There’s a history of alcohol in white culture that goes back thousands of years, the same problems exist in white culture. I’ve seen statistics that say that 25 per cent of deaths worldwide are because of alcohol. So this isn’t an Indian problem. It’s amplified in my communities, but it’s not our problem.

AMT: And why are you speaking out?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: Because nobody else is. I don’t want to talk about this. I’ve got a whole bunch of things I’d love to do. I’d love to be writing fiction. I’d love to be trapping and fishing and doing all of the things that I really enjoy doing, but nobody else is talking about it. And if we don’t talk about it, it’s just going to continue and I’m just tired of digging graves.

AMT: In your book you include a letter from an author and an Indigenous law professor by the name of Tracey Lindberg, talking about sobriety and her own sobriety. Let’s listen to her reading parts of that letter.

SOUNDCLIP

TRACEY LINDBERG: I stopped drinking about 25 years ago. Until then I engaged in what was quite likely binge drinking. My relationship with booze began in grade eight. Boys with licenses picked up girls without and gave us alcohol. My first drink was vodka. By the time I went to graduate school, I was drinking or bingeing two days a week. By the time I was practicing law, three days a week, at least. In the practice of law and as the only Indigenous person in the firm that I worked for, alcohol became the lubricant through which I could unpeel my layer of Other and become one with the firm. It was me and I made a choice and the choice was to make friends through boozing with them. I made a decision because I love to drink. I made a decision because I needed to drink. This I knew was going to get harder and harder to do as time went by. This I also knew was a choice at that time, a luxury, the choice to stop. But in the future it might not be something I could stop. So I stopped. I continued going to ceremonies, I felt good. I quit drinking entirely. I felt better. And I had to learn how to socialize. I’m still not good at it without alcohol. Had to learn to hug without alcohol. Had to define and parse my spare time without alcohol. I do miss the denizens of the bars I haunted. Do miss that easy drunky friendship amongst drunken strangers. I miss the excitement of music in small rooms, yelled conversations and weird semi-hallucinatory observations. The nation that I work with never required that I quit. I quit because they don’t drink. Because I wanted no one to have to pay my way in ceremony but me. Because I wanted to be a sober advocate for them, because I wanted to be free. Freedom is walking away and doing better. I’m free.

AMT: That is Tracey Lindberg reading her own words. Harold R. Johnson, why is it important to hear her story?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: We need all of the artists to tell sober stories. We need to bring back all of the Wisakedjak and [unintelligible] stories, all of those traditions, in a way that helps people to change the story that we tell ourselves.

AMT: So in other words when you have so many people who are not drinking, they need to share that so others can know that?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: There’s a statistic that’s rarely mentioned, 35 per cent of Aboriginal people in Canada don’t drink at all. We are completely abstinent, but we are silently sober. I am trying to encourage those silently sober to speak up. Show what it’s like to walk a sober life.

AMT: And you also suggest the idea of sober houses. How would that work?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: This is something that came out of our discussions last winter. What we learned when we’re asking questions, what was the hardest part about sobering up? We were told, I lost all my friends or I found out who my real friends were. And we take people out of our communities and we send them off to detox centres and rehab centres, and they come back into the communities and they come back to the same house, the same families, the same situation. And we have a success rate of about 2 per cent. If we had a sober house and you put a sign on your door, people walking by would see the sign and it be similar to the block parent idea. It would be a safe place to go. Someplace where there was no drinking, no pressure to drink. You could just play cards and visit and watch television and be amongst sober people.

AMT: And then give each other strength.

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: We turn our communities into treatment centres, we didn’t have to send people away.

AMT: You tell the story of a man who begged you to put him in jail, because he wanted to stay sober. He couldn’t find any other way. I’ve known him for a long time and I’ve frequently asked the judge to send him to jail, because it was pointless to put him on a probation order or any order that required him to not drink. And if he wasn’t drinking he wouldn’t cause any trouble. I’d see him around the communities, I’m the crown prosecutor, but he’d come up and shake my hand and talk to me. Once he told me, he was really proud he says I’m scheduled to go in for rehab. And I didn’t see him for a while and then I saw him one day in front of the post office and he came up and asked me to send him to jail. Because he’d been to rehab and he came back to the communities and he fell in with his friends again. And he was drunk, and he knew that if he didn’t stop drinking he was going to die.

AMT: So if there was a sober house for him to go to, he would have been OK.

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: He’s doing better now.

AMT: Mm.

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: He’s found sober friends to be around.

AMT: You have put your job as a crown prosecutor on hold temporarily for a project in two northern Saskatchewan Indigenous communities. Tell us what you’re working on.

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: I’m on a special project with the deputy ministers of Saskatchewan to create community alcohol management plans and to socialize a concept of sobriety. I have three women behind me. My wife Joan, Carla Frohaug and Sue Carriere, and with three strong women behind me I can’t fail. I am the voice and they do all of the work and all of the research. And we’ve created a community alcohol management plan for those communities. It belongs to them. It’s not ours, it’s not the government’s. We talk to people, we talked to as many people as we could in creating the plan. We tried to hold community meetings, but it didn’t work. Every time we scheduled a community meeting, the building we were using would be required for a funeral or a wake and quite often those funerals and wakes were for people who died from drinking. So we had to change our strategy, we created surveys, and we knocked on doors. We talked to churches, we talked to sweat lodge keepers, and pipe carriers and anybody who would talk to us.

AMT: And what were you asking them? What should we do about alcohol?

AMT: And what would they tell you?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: 100 per cent of people said that alcohol was a problem in our communities. About 95 per cent said that it was getting worse. They would like to see changes to government policy. They’re telling us that we need to restrict supply. That there’s too many liquor stores and they’re open too long. There was support for increased taxation on alcohol. A lot of lives could be saved by just increasing the tax by 2 per cent. There’s no single answer.

AMT: You have written this book as a conversation among Indigenous people and you say that non-Indigenous people are welcome to listen. What do you want those of us who are not Indigenous to think about or do when we listen to you talking about this?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: Mm. That’s hard. You are not responsible. Don’t feel guilty about it. Speak honestly about it. Talk about your own issues with alcohol. Be part of the conversation.

AMT: Where do you want this conversation in your own community to go then?

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: I don’t know where it’s going to go. All I know is that it’s not going anywhere if we keep silent about it. I have no way of seeing the future. I just want my people to have hope and that we change our story and that our story becomes one of hope. It’s the hopelessness that I see killing everybody.

AMT: So again, if the narrative changes and more people talk about it, there’s more hope than everyone being silent.

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: That is my dream.

AMT: Harold R. Johnson thanks, thanks for your ideas and for sharing them with us today.

HAROLD R. JOHNSON: And thank you for having me on Anna-Maria. It has been an honour.

AMT: Harold R. Johnson, Crown Prosecutor and the author of Firewater: How Alcohol Is Killing My People and Yours. He joined us from Saskatoon. If you want to share your thoughts on the conversation about alcohol and Indigenous people visit our cbc.ca/thecurrent. Click on the Contact link and send us an email. You can find us on Facebook or tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. And if you’re joining us partway through, download the podcast cbc.ca/thecurrent, find our podcast there. Coming up next, putting our minds together to solve some big problems. We’ll hear about the neurotechnology that is linking different people’s brains together. I’m Anna-Maria Tremonti, this is The Current on CBC Radio One.

Oct 032016
 

The interview by Eleanor Wachtel is far-ranging and informative.

I transcribed the short portion (appears below) in which Vietnamese-American author,  Viet Thanh Nguyen,  discusses a perception of American wars that is not universal.   I think this other perception with its variations is spreading.  (Ref  2016-03-22 There are two sides to the story. Why do we hear only one? (Terrorists & Context: CIA – examples Mossadegh, Lumumba, Arbenz, Guevera, Allende)

The audio link to the full interview,  and more info from the website also appears below.

Recommend:   Do a web search.   You will be blown away by what Viet Thanh Nguyen has accomplished  – – a major contributor to the Good of the World.

 

Viet Thanh Nguyen

Listen to the full interview,  52:08

His ambitious, disturbing, and darkly comic novel, The Sympathizer, won the 2016 Pulitzer Prize.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

SHORT EXCERPT  TRANSCRIBED   (followed by more info from the website)

Wachtel (Interviewer):    ”  . . .   from around the age of twelve you became an avid student of the war that brought your family to America.  …

Viet Thanh Nguyen:    I certainly grew up knowing that there had been a war and that it had shaped my family fundamentally.  And that it was something that was a major issue not just for the Vietnamese people I was growing up among, but among Americans as well and there was no way to get away from that because it was so omnipresent in American culture.

So it was easy to see Apocalypse Now at a very young age because that was what was available in the video store to rent.   It was easy to go out to movies and watch Platoon by Oliver Stone   . . .  what was also easy was my deliberate decision to go into the Library and read as much as I could about the Vietnam War  . . .  I was reading novels, histories, along with watching these Hollywood films.   . . .  that really indelibly shaped my understanding of both American culture and the Vietnam war.  . . . oftentimes very traumatic to deal with

That was the beginning of a lifetime journey although I didn’t know it at the time when I was a kid

Wachtel:  what did you take from the movies, for instance Coppola’s 1979 film Apocalypse Now ?

Viet Thanh Nguyen:    I took from it that obviously this war was enormously important for Americans;  they were spending all this time making these movies and watching them.

I also took from it that there was no place in this American imagination, this American memory and history for Vietnamese people like me.  Or that our place was a very problematic place.   It was to be killed or silenced or victimized but in any role we were there simply as a backdrop for an American drama.  This was a very difficult thing to deal with because obviously growing up in a Vietnamese community we were not the backdrop of our own lives.   The war was central to us.

I always knew that this was actually also a crucially important war for us and that all the stories and  emotions and subjectivities that I was witness to as a kid among the Vietnamese people were not being heard or seen or understood by the larger American community.   And how Americans saw this war was also in many ways how the world was seeing it because of the power of American culture and the way that American stories were disseminated because of that power.

Wachtel:   Yes because unusually as you point out, here history was written by the losers.

Viet Thanh Nguyen:    Yeah, this is one of the ironies.  I think it has to do with the unique nature of the United States and the wars that it has been fighting since WW2 or the Korean War.

Basically the U.S. is a global power after WW2 and it’s fighting all these wars.   It hasn’t won a war since WW2.

Korean War was a stalemate.

Vietnam war was a defeat.

Every major war since then can hardly be declared as a victory.

What this means is that even if the U.S. doesn’t win wars  its global power, its military power, combined with its economic power and its soft power through Hollywood and the public culture industry means that it can tell its own stories in its own ways and spread them all over the world and everybody all over the world has to confront them because that’s how pervasive American culture is.

Wachtel:  even the naming of the war.   To North Americans it’s called the Vietnam war but in Vietnam it’s often referred to as the American war and you say that both are in fact misnomers.

Viet Thanh Nguyen:    Yeah, they both are.  The war involved more than just the United States and Vietnam  It involved Laos and Cambodia.  These countries were not just postscripts or sideshows;  they were equally involved in the war.

They were devastated by what happened and both Vietnam and the U.S. were responsible for extending the war into these two countries, along with China and the Soviet Union.   So it was also a global war.  This was a hot war taking place in the middle of a cold war.  All these countries were meddling in this region.

Laos and Cambodia paid the heaviest prices for what happened.

But for the Americans to call it the Vietnam War  and for the  Vietnamese to call it the American War means that both countries can forget what happened to Laos and Cambodia.  It serves both their interests to forget.

Listen to the full interview,  52:08

= = = = = = = = = = =  = = =

BACK TO THE WEB-SITE INFO:

Viet Thanh Nguyen was born in what was previously known as South Vietnam in 1971. Four years later, after the fall of Saigon, his family was forced to flee to the United States as refugees, eventually settling in California. His first novel The Sympathizer, is an ambitious, disturbing novel that explores the aftermath of the Vietnam War through the eyes of a Communist Party spy who escapes Saigon for California, where he carries on his double life through assassinations and the making of a Hollywood war film.

The Sympathizer, was on 30 “best of the year” lists and won numerous awards, including the 2016 Pulitzer Prize. Nguyen spoke to Eleanor Wachtel from Los Angeles.

On the degradation of Vietnamese “boat people”

By 1978 Vietnam was a poor country. People were starving, there was a lot of desperation and the victorious Vietnamese government was persecuting people who had been affiliated with the defeated regime. People started fleeing the country, and for most people — tens of thousands of people — their only option was to flee by boat.

It was a huge issue for the Vietnamese refugee community to see their compatriots going through this horrible experience. There are some estimates that half the people who took to the seas by boat didn’t make it to their destination. So as a boy, I was aware that the rest of the world saw the Vietnamese people in this way, as victims of war and as “boat people,” as the press labeled them. But this seemed really inadequate to me, because I knew the complexities of Vietnamese life and I knew that thinking of them as “boat people” automatically was demeaning. It brought pity to them and in some cases helped to rescue them, but it was also a way of relegating them to a really abject status. There had to be another way to think of these people. So I choose to think of them as heroic. They undertook a really risky journey, knowing that these were the odds, and to see them purely as victims was woefully inadequate.

So I try to contest this term, try to get readers to think about what it was like to be a refugee. And obviously while writing that, I was cognizant of the fact that we’re still seeing refugees today, and that much of the rest of the world, when they look at refugees, they continue to see them as abject victims.

The shattering effects of war on families

I think this experience of having people separated from their families and having families divided is actually not that unusual. Many Vietnamese families that I know endured similar kinds of experiences. In some cases, families were able to reunite, but sometimes they remained divided for decades. My father didn’t see his siblings for 40 years, from 1954 until the early 1990s, when my family returned. My mother didn’t see her family for 20 years, and they didn’t see my adopted sister [who stayed in Vietnam to watch the family property when the rest of the family fled to the U.S. in 1975] during that time either. We didn’t talk about it. It was a very sensitive subject. Even today, my parents don’t really talk about it.

A refugee child, growing up in two worlds

I was growing up in San Jose in a Vietnamese household. My world, domestically, was all about Vietnamese people. But then I had to venture out, to go to school, and I watched American movies and TV shows in my free time. So that was my exposure to American culture. It was a very bifurcated kind of existence, and I think that was actually very common for people of my generation. We had to live in these two worlds. Our parents and our grandparents were not living in the American world — they were trying to avoid it as much as they could.

I was intimately familiar with the Vietnamese world, but at the same time I was also intimately familiar with the English-language world. So no matter where I was, I couldn’t help but bring that other world with me. Of course I would understand the customs, the history my parents were trying to relay to me. But at the same time I would also look at them as if they were foreign, because I couldn’t help but see them through the eyes of what I imagined the American world to be.

Viet Thanh Nguyen’s comments have been edited and condensed.

Music to close the interview: “Một cõi đi về” composed by Trịnh Công Sơn, performed by Diva Viet. 

Sep 282016
 

Thanks to Janet,  an excellent article.  A couple things first:

 

I wondered,  Who is Walden Bello?

He is an intrepid activist, teacher, scholar.  One in that legion of dispersed leaders who make me believe that my small contributions will help to drive the changes we so badly need.

About Walden Bello,  see  http://www.waldenbello.org/about-walden/ 

 

Background to the Battle in Seattle, you may be interested:

2010-04-29 Is it armies and war that win civil rights (democracy)?    Soundtrack for a Revolution.    (speaks to one of the biggest myths of our time.)

2010-05-07 David Korten, Agenda for a New Economy. The revolt against Wall Street, Around the world.

2016-07-08 Rulers cannot rule unless we agree to let them rule. Democracy overtaken by Corporatocracy = coup d’état. Citizens fight to regain democracy = Revolution (insurgency) . Corporatocracy fights to hold on = counter insurgency.

2008-11-23 Battle in Seattle, the movie. Highly recommended. Resistance WTO, SPP.

2016-02-06 “Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion”, by Randal Marlin

 

And now to THE ARTICLE by Walden Bello!

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

Revisiting the lessons of the Battle of Seattle and its aftermath

https://www.tni.org/en/article/revisiting-the-lessons-of-the-battle-of-seattle-and-its-aftermath

25 August 2016

Walden Bello shares some reflections on the meaning of Seattle for change in knowledge systems, discusses how despite the deep crisis of neoliberalism, finance capital has managed to retain tremendous power, and appeals for a new comprehensive vision of the desirable society.

Speech delivered at the opening plenary session of the 111th Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington State Convention Center, August 19, 2016

WTO protests in Seattle, November 30, 1999 Pepper spray is applied to the crowd. / Photo credit Steve Kaiser @Wikicommons

 

I had many lessons from the Battle of Seattle, and one of them is that policewomen can deal it out as good as any policeman. I got beaten up, badly but obviously not fatally by one of Seattle’s Best. Yesterday, I decided go down memory lane and visit the scene of the crime. I remember seeing Medea Benjamin of Code Pink being treated fairly roughly and I rushed forward to try to get the police to stop it. At that point, a policewoman rushed me and started beating me with her baton while dragging me and dumping me on the street, with the coup de grace being a well planted kick to my derriere. But that was not the biggest blow of all. The biggest was to my ego: I was beaten and kicked but was seen as not fit to be arrested.

 

Like Caesar, I will divide my talk into three parts. First, some reflections on the meaning of Seattle for change in knowledge systems. Second, a discussion of how despite the deep crisis of neoliberalism, finance capital has managed to retain tremendous power. Third, an appeal for a new comprehensive vision of the desirable society.

Seattle and the Crisis of Neoliberalism

 

We are all familiar with Thomas Kuhn’s theory of how change takes place in the physical sciences. Dissonant data can no longer be accommodated in the old paradigm until someone comes out with a new one where they can be explained. Social scientists have appropriated Kuhn in their efforts to explain the displacement and replacement of hegemonic thinking in politics, economics, and sociology. I think that while, as in the case of the displacement of Keynesianism in the late seventies and of the rational choice and efficient market hypothesis during the recent financial crisis, the role of dissonant data has been exhaustively studied, explanations of change in knowledge systems have failed to adequately take into account the role of collective action.

 

The Battle of Seattle underlines in my view the very critical, if not decisive role of collective mass action in displacing knowledge systems. Let me explain.

 

It is now generally accepted that globalization has been a failure in terms of delivering on its triple promise of lifting countries from stagnation, eliminating poverty, and reducing inequality. The ongoing global economic crisis, which is rooted in corporate-driven globalization and financial liberalization, has driven the last nail into the ideology of neoliberalism.

 

But things were very different over two decades ago. I still remember the note of triumphalism surrounding the first ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in Singapore in November 1996. There, we were told by representatives of the U.S. and other developed countries that corporate-driven globalization was inevitable, that it was the wave of the future, and that the sole remaining task was to make the policies of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the WTO more “coherent” in order to more swiftly get to the neoliberal utopia of an integrated global economy.

 

Indeed, the momentum of globalization seemed to sweep everything in front of it, including the truth. In the decade prior to Seattle, there were a lot of studies, including United Nations reports, that questioned the claim that globalization and free market policies were leading to sustained growth and prosperity. Indeed, the data showed that globalization and pro-market policies were promoting more inequality and more poverty and consolidating economic stagnation, especially in the global South. However, these figures remained “factoids” rather than facts in the eyes of academics, the press, and policymakers, who dutifully repeated the neoliberal mantra that economic liberalization promoted growth and prosperity. The orthodox view, repeated ad nauseam in the classroom, the media, and policy circles was that the critics of globalization were modern-day incarnations of Luddites or, as Thomas Friedman disdainfully branded us, believers in a flat earth.

 

Then came Seattle in 1999. After those tumultuous days in this city, the press began to talk about the “dark side of globalization,” about the inequalities and poverty being created by globalization. After that, we had the spectacular defections from the camp of neoliberal globalization, such as those of the financier George Soros, the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, and the star economist Jeffery Sachs. The intellectual retreat from globalization probably reached its high point of sorts in 2007 in a comprehensive report by a panel of neoclassical economists headed by Princeton’s Angus Deaton and former IMF chief economist Ken Rogoff, which sternly asserted that the World Bank Research Department—the source of most assertions that globalization and trade liberalization were leading to lower rates of poverty, sustained economic growth, and less inequality—had been deliberately distorting the data and/or making unwarranted claims.

 

True, neoliberalism continues to be the default discourse among many economists and technocrats. But even before the recent global financial collapse, it had already lost much of its credibility and legitimacy. What made the difference? Not so much research or debate but action. It took the anti-globalization actions of masses of people in the streets of Seattle, which interacted in synergistic fashion with the resistance of developing country representatives here in the Sheraton Convention Center and a police riot, to bring about the spectacular collapse of a WTO ministerial meeting and translate those factoids into facts, into truth. And the intellectual debacle inflicted on globalization by Seattle had very real consequences. Today, the Economist, the prime avatar of neoliberal globalization, admits that the “integration of the world economy is in retreat on almost every front,” and a process of “deglobalization” that it once considered unthinkable is actually unfolding.

 

Seattle was what Hegel called a “world-historic event.” Its enduring lesson is that truth is not just out there, existing objectively and eternally. Truth is completed, made real, and ratified by action. In Seattle, ordinary women and men made truth real with collective action that discredited an intellectual paradigm that had served as the ideological warden of corporate control.

 

I would not say that neoliberalism was defeated in Seattle. But, to use a war metaphor, Seattle was certainly the Stalingrad of neoliberalism. It would take another decade before it would be definitively rolled back, and it took the global financial crisis to do this, with its sweeping away of the Rational Choice Theory and the Efficient Markets hypothesis that had been the cutting edge of the globalization of finance.

 

Finance Capital’s Persistent Structural Power

 

But the rollback of the neoliberal paradigm is only half the story. Even with its ideational crisis, the forces of global capital have waged a fierce rearguard battle. As an example of this let me just take the case of finance capital’s successful effort to resist any change in the face of the naked necessity and social consensus for comprehensive reform.

 

When the ground from under Wall Street opened up in autumn 2008, there was much talk of letting the banks get their just desserts, jailing the “banksters”, and imposing draconian regulation. The newly elected Barack Obama came to power promising banking reform, warning Wall Street, “My administration is the only thing that stands between you and the pitchforks”.

 

Yet nearly eight years after the outbreak of the global financial crisis, it is evident that those who were responsible for bringing it about have managed to go completely scot-free. Not only that, they have been able to get governments to stick the costs of the crisis and the burden of the recovery on their victims.

 

How did they succeed? The first line of defense for the banks was to get the government to rescue the banks from the financial mess they had created. The banks flatly refused Washington’s pressure on them to mount a collective defense with their own resources. Using the massive collapse of stock prices triggered by Lehman Brothers going under, finance capital’s representatives were able to blackmail both liberals and the far-right in Congress to approve the US$700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Nationalization of the banks was dismissed as being inconsistent with “American” values.

 

Then by engaging in the defensive anti-regulatory war that they had mastered in Congress over decades, the banks were able, in 2009 and 2010, to gut the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of three key items that were seen as necessary for genuine reform: downsizing the banks; institutionally separating commercial from investment banking; and banning most derivatives and effectively regulating the so-called “shadow banking system” that had brought on the crisis.

 

They did this by using what Cornelia Woll termed finance capital’s “structural power”. One dimension of this power was the US$344 million the industry spent lobbying the U.S. Congress in the first nine months of 2009, when legislators were taking up financial reform. Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, alone received US$2.8 million in contributions from Wall Street in 2007–2008. But perhaps equally powerful as Wall Street’s entrenched congressional lobby were powerful voices in the new Obama Administration who were sympathetic to the bankers, notably Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Council of Economic Advisors’ head Larry Summers, both of whom had served as close associates of Robert Rubin, who had successive incarnations as co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, Bill Clinton’s Treasury chief, and chairman and senior counsellor of Citigroup.

 

Finally, the financial sector succeeded by hitching the defense of its interests to one of the few remaining resonant assumptions of an otherwise crumbling neoliberal ideology: that the state is the source of all things bad that happens in the economy. While benefiting from the government bailout, Wall Street was able to change the narrative about the causes of the financial crisis, throwing the blame entirely on the state.

 

This is best illustrated in the case of Europe. As in the U.S., the financial crisis in Europe was a supply-driven crisis, as the big European banks sought high-profit, quick-return substitutes for the low returns on investment in industry and agriculture, such as real-estate lending and speculation in financial derivatives, or placed their surplus funds in high-yield bonds sold by governments. Indeed, in their drive to raise more and more profits from lending to governments, local banks, and property developers, Europe’s banks poured US$2.5 trillion into Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain.

 

The result was that Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio rose to 148 percent in 2010, bringing the country to the brink of a sovereign debt crisis. Focused on protecting the banks, the European authorities’ approach to stabilizing Greece’s finances was not to penalize the creditors for irresponsible lending but to get citizens to shoulder all the costs of adjustment.

 

The changed narrative, focusing on the “profligate state” rather than unregulated private finance as the cause of the financial crisis, quickly made its way to the USA, where it was used not only to derail real banking reform but also to prevent the enactment of an effective stimulus programme in 2010. Christina Romer, the former head of Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimated that it would take a US$1.8 trillion to reverse the recession. Obama approved only less than half, or US$787 billion, placating the Republican opposition but preventing an early recovery. Thus the cost of the follies of Wall Street fell not on banks but on ordinary Americans, with the unemployed reaching nearly 10 percent of the workforce in 2011 and youth unemployment reaching over 20 percent.

 

The triumph of Wall Street in reversing the popular surge against it following the outbreak of the financial crisis is evident in the run-up to the 2016 presidential elections. The U.S. statistics are clear: 95 percent of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top 1 percent; median income was US$4,000 lower in 2014 than in 2000; concentration of financial assets increased after 2009, with the four largest banks owning assets that came to nearly 50 percent of GDP. Yet regulating Wall Street has not been an issue in the Republican primary debates while in the Democratic debates, it has been a side issue, despite the valiant efforts of candidate Bernie Sanders to make it the centerpiece.

Bernie Sanders Rally in Denver, Colorado at the Colorado Convention Center. / Photo credit Hans Watson @Flickr

 

The political institutions of one of the world’s most advanced liberal democracies were no match for the entrenched structural power of the financial establishment. As Cornelia Woll writes, “For the administration and Congress, the main lesson from the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 was that they had only very limited means to pressure the financial industry into behavior that appeared urgently necessary for the survival of the entire sector and the economy as a whole”.

 

In Greece, the austerity policies provoked a popular revolt – expressed in the June 2015 referendum on the bailout in which over 60 percent of the Greek people rejected the deal – but in the end their will was trampled on as the German government forced Tsipras into a humiliating surrender. It is clear that the key motives were to save the European financial elite from the consequences of their irresponsible policies, enforcing the iron principle of full debt repayment, and crucifying Greece to dissuade others, such as the Spaniards, Irish, and Portuguese, from revolting against debt slavery. As Karl Otto Pöhl, a former head of Germany’s Bundesbank, admitted some time back, the draconian exercise in Greece was about “protecting German banks, but especially the French banks, from debt write-offs”.

 

Yet, the victory of the banks is likely in the end to be pyrrhic. The combination of deep austerity-induced recession or stagnation that grips much of Europe and the U.S. and the absence of financial reform is deadly. The resulting prolonged stagnation and the prospect of deflation have discouraged investment in the real economy to expand goods and services.

 

With the move to re-regulate finance halted, the financial institutions have all the more reason to do what they did prior to 2008 that triggered the current crisis: engage in intense speculative operations designed to make super-profits from the difference between the inflated price of assets and derivatives based on assets and the real value of these assets before the law of gravity causes the inevitable crash.

 

The non-transparent derivatives market is now estimated to total US$707 trillion, or significantly higher than the US$548 billion in 2008. According to one analyst, “The market has grown so unfathomably vast, the global economy is at risk of massive damage should even a small percentage of contracts go sour. Its size and potential influence are difficult just to comprehend, let alone assess.” Former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the SEC, agreed, telling one writer that none of the post-2008 reforms has “significantly diminished the likelihood of financial crises”.

 

The question then is not if another bubble will burst but when. And for us here, the key lesson is that in spite of the ideological discrediting of neoliberalism and popular anger at the depredations of the banks, the structural power of capital remains immense and has prevented any significant financial figure from being jailed, much less allowed significant reform.

 

The Need for A New Comprehensive Vision

 

My sense is that the persistence of Capital’s structural power is related to the fact that while the combination of objective developments, intellectual critique, and collective action eroded the legitimacy of neoliberalism, we have had a signal failure to articulate the bold alternative that can match the depth of the crisis of capitalism that we are in.

 

There is great, seething discontent out there, at the multiple crises triggered by capitalism. I wish, however, one could say, as one great revolutionary did at another time and place, “There is great tumult under heaven, the situation is excellent.” Unfortunately, the situation is not excellent, since many of those who have been run over by corporate-driven globalization are turning to demagogues and ideologues of the right such as Donald Trump, Marin Le Pen, and, in my own country, President Rodrigo Duterte, who has managed to convince a large section of the citizenry that crime and drugs are the root of the country’s problems and that the main cure for the ills of the country is to kill ‘em all, pushers and users alike. In this regard, let me say that the US and Europe have no monopoly on dangerous right wing demagogues with a heated, angry mass base, a great many of them resentful people from the suffering middle classes, who want simple solutions and are willing to countenance violence to bring about the leader’s version of heaven on earth. The key difference at this point is that your demagogues are still on the sidelines chopping at the bit to grab power while ours has already come to power by electoral means.

 

Undoubtedly, part of the problem is the failure of the traditional forces of the left to educate their core bases of support, such as the white working class. Another part has been the inability to integrate minority populations into the ranks of the left, which has traditionally been the home of the disenfranchised and marginalized, forcing some to turn to radical fundamentalist groups such as ISIS. Thus the very real hurts imposed on so many sectors by corporate-driven globalization have been successfully joined to myths about displacement and crime by immigrants, on the one hand, and to the very real failures of immigrant integration, on the other. Donald Trump, Marin Le Pen, and ISIS have been very astute in taking advantage of the openings that were made by the left, by those who brought about the Seattle debacle of neoliberalism, by those who had been in the forefront of the anti-globalization and the Occupy Movement. These people have been eating our lunch.

 

I will not go further into the sociological reasons for their success and our failure, since many others have done that, but I do want to raise one question, and that is whether it is not overdue for us to take on the super-ambitious task of creating that overarching vision, language, and program to spell out the alternative and flesh it out. Bernie Sanders started this brave task by calling for “democratic socialism,” something that has resonated in the Philippines and the global South. I think it is urgent that we flesh it out since the other side is already fleshing out their alternative in the form of Trumpism or National Frontism or Brexitism, a task which marries some of our intellectual critique of capitalism with the highly charged emotional appeal to return to an idealized past of white homogeneity, cultural purity, or religious uniformity. I think it is urgent that we overcome our fears of articulating Grand Narratives and lay out a vision that lays out the overcoming of the present world blighted by Capital through common struggle, with the end being the construction of societies that harness men and women’s deepest instinct–to use a loaded word—and that is, cooperation. Needless to say, such an endeavor must also be one that acknowledges the limitations, failures, and distortions of past efforts at building post-capitalist societies, especially when it came to dealing with issues of democracy, gender, and the environment.

 

I am not usually a bible quoting speaker, but there is definitely something profound in that passage in Proverbs 29:18: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” It would be tragic if people were left to the phlegmatic alternatives posed by the historically bypassed Social Democrats in Europe, the tiresome Clintons in the United States, and uninspiring elite-run reform movements in the global South. Such political alternatives are no match for the counterrevolutionary movements that are on the march.

Sep 082016
 

by W.J. Hennigan

Faisal bin Ali Jaber

Three military veterans once involved in the U.S. drone program have thrown their support behind a Yemeni man’s legal fight to obtain details about why his family members were killed in a 2012 strike.

The veterans’ unusual decision to publicly endorse the lawsuit against President Obama and other U.S. officials adds another twist to Faisal bin Ali Jaber’s four-year quest for accountability in the deaths of his brother-in-law and nephew, who he believes needlessly fell victim to one of the most lethal covert programs in U.S. history.

The former enlisted service members told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a recent filing that they believe the 2012 drone strike serves as a case study of how mistakes frequently occur in the nation’s targeted-killing program, where life-or-death decisions are based upon top-secret evidence.

The veterans say they “witnessed a secret, global system without regard for borders, conducting widespread surveillance with the ability to conduct deadly targeted killing operations.”

Though the veterans did not disclose any personal knowledge of the strike that is alleged to have killed Jaber’s relatives, they claim the military frequently labels the deaths of unknown victims as “enemy kills.”

Separately, a 24-page report released Thursday by the Santa Monica-based Rand Corp. found that despite recent information released by the Obama administration on U.S. policies about targeted drone killings, the process still involves ambiguities in interpretations of international law and too many generalities.

“I’m a believer that transparency is essential in public debate in order to make the right decisions,” said Lynn Davis, the study’s lead author and former State Department undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs. “The need for transparency is all the more important in an election year with the knowledge that this program will be handed to a new administration.”

The veterans’ 17-page filing urges the court to overturn a previous decision to throw out Jaber’s case. The filing is signed by Cian Westmoreland, a former Air Force technician who worked on communications equipment that enables drones to fly by remote control;  Lisa Ling, an Air National Guard technician who worked on intelligence equipment; and Brandon Bryant, an Air Force sensor operator who controlled cameras on drones.

In an interview, Westmoreland said the American public and innocent victims of the drone program deserve to know how decisions are made.

“People have the right to know how a screw-up can lead to the death of their family members,” Westmoreland said. “This is about accountability, transparency and how we, as a military, can learn from our mistakes.”

Ling said that as a veteran, she has an interest in promoting transparency for any U.S. drone strikes that may have been carried out in violation of domestic or international law. “Faisal deserves the truth,” she said in an interview.

People have the right to know how a screw-up can lead to the death of their family members.

— Cian Westmoreland, former Air Force technician

 

The filing, called an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief,  comes as the Obama administration has promised greater transparency and oversight on the counter-terrorism strikes that have targeted thousands of Islamic militants in remote corners of the globe. The shadow campaigns are being carried out in many countries where the U.S. has not declared war, including Yemen, Pakistan, Libya and Somalia. The drone program in those countries is run by the CIA and the U.S. military’s secretive Joint Special Operations Command.

The White House, Air Force and Justice Department declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

Jaber, a 58-year-old engineer from Sana, Yemen, who now lives in Montreal, has visited Washington and met with members of Congress and the Obama administration to describe why he thinks his brother-in-law, Salem bin Ali Jaber, a Muslim imam, and his nephew, Waleed bin Ali Jaber, a police officer, were mistakenly targeted.

Jaber said his brother-in-law had given a sermon in Khashamir to denounce Al Qaeda’s ideology. Days later, on Aug. 29, 2012, Salem met several men who came to the village in central Yemen, and brought Waleed in case anything went wrong.

That summer evening, as villagers watched near the local mosque, four missiles exploded while the men spoke under a palm tree. Jaber believes the visitors were Al Qaeda members, and his relatives were collateral damage.

He said he was later handed a plastic bag by Yemeni government officials with $100,000 in freshly minted, sequentially marked $100 bills wrapped in rubber bands.

Reprieve, an international humanitarian group, sued the U.S. government for wrongful death on June 7, 2015, alleging the drone strike constituted an extrajudicial killing in violation of customary international law.

The lawsuit was dismissed in February on the grounds that ruling on the case “would require the court to second-guess the executive’s policy determinations in matters that fall outside of judicial capabilities.”

Jaber, who appealed the lower court ruling on Aug. 22, said in an interview he has not spent the $100,000 and does not want more money from the U.S. government. He wants an apology.

The administration, in most cases, has refused to acknowledge the existence of the drone program or answer questions about how decisions were made about who is targeted. That began to change this year as the administration started to reveal more about the program, making good on Obama’s promise for greater transparency and oversight in a May 2013 speech at National Defense University.

Last month, the White House released a redacted version of its “playbook” for the lethal U.S. drone program, which set a legal framework for deciding whom to kill, where and under what circumstances. The 18-page document was drawn up in May 2013.

In July, the White House revealed that 64 to 116 civilians had been wrongly killed in 473 strikes launched between the time Obama was inaugurated and the end of last year. The president also issued an executive order promising to “acknowledge U.S. government responsibility for civilian casualties.”

Jaber said his case offers the first chance for Obama to make good on his executive order.

william.hennigan   AT    latimes.com

Twitter: @wjhenn

Protected: the kid 1

 Personal  Enter your password to view comments.
Sep 052016
 

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Protected: the kid 2

 Personal  Enter your password to view comments.
Sep 052016
 

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.