Facing the Facts About Gun Violence in the U.S.

We Are All Becoming Cassandras

 "About three decades ago, climate change also became a major public issue, with scientists, politicians, and environmental organizations issuing prophetic statements about the extreme dangers ahead. Today, following a remarkable display of inaction, massive wildfires and floods sweep across nations, the polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, and millions of climate refugees are fleeing for their lives."

"Substantial majorities of people polled around the world also feel seriously endangered by climate change. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey of people in 26 nations in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa found that a median of 68 percent regarded climate change as a 'major threat,' 20 percent as a 'minor threat,' and only 9 percent as 'not a threat.' "

"When it comes to nuclear weapons, polls have shown that most people favor eliminating them. A 2018 public opinion survey in 21 nations worldwide found that large majorities in nearly all the nations supported the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Recently, public opinion surveys in Europe, Japan, and Australia reported similar results."

"The COVID-19 pandemic also sparked an exceptionally strong demand for remedial action. In late 2021, an Ipsos survey of people in 15 nations found overwhelming numbers intending to be vaccinated in a variety of nations, including Brazil (89 percent), Italy 85 percent), China (82 percent), Spain (82 percent), Mexico (80 percent), South Korea (80 percent), Canada (79 percent), Australia (78 percent), and Japan (74 percent)."

"Even so, governments have not taken adequate action to stave off the catastrophes of nuclear war, climate change, and disease pandemics. Why?"

"One key factor is the control of public policy by self-interested economic forces. Seeking lucrative military contracts from the U.S. government, giant corporations campaign relentlessly for the building of new nuclear weapons. In 2020. the major nuclear weapons contractors in the United States employed 380 lobbyists and spent $60 million on lobbying, with great success."

"Nor should we forget the immense role that wealthy fossil fuel corporations have played in sabotaging action to avert climate catastrophe. Although ExxonMobil and other oil companies knew decades ago about what their products were doing to the environment, they funded a massive misinformation campaign designed to deny the findings of climate science, subvert public opinion, and block international treaties that could curb greenhouse gas emissions. Thus far, they have been very successful."

"As for the giant pharmaceutical companies, they treat the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to reap vast profits. Public health, of course, is dependent upon the worldwide distribution of antiviral vaccines as quickly as possible. But the corporations manufacturing the vaccines, determined to maximize their income, refuse to waive their patent rights, thus preventing other companies or governments from producing or distributing the vaccine and, thereby, competing with them. In this scarcity, they sell the vaccines to the highest bidders among governments -- overwhelmingly those of the richest nations. Consequently, as if August 30, 2021, 57 percent of people in high-income countries had received at least one dose of the vaccine, while only 2 percent had received it in low-income nations."

"A second key factor behind the inadequate response to these crises is the absence of a system of global governance. Even when the baneful influence of a system of powerful corporate entities is overcome, on occasion, in individual nations, there is no structure that can take remedial action on a global basis."

"Consequently, until corporate influence is curbed and the United Nations strengthened, our modern Cassandras' warnings seem likely to go unheeded."

"Curiously, though, there is a major difference between the Cassandra of the Greek myths and her modern counterparts. In the myths, Cassandra was ineffective because she was simply not 'believed.' By contrast, most people 'do' believe our modern Cassandras and want action taken to avert catastrophe."

(Source: Rearranged excerpts taken from: Lawrence Wittner, "We are All Becoming Cassandras: Leaders Must Heed the People on Climate, Disarmament, and Pandemic ," History News Network.)

Ready, aim, fired: Can Biden rescue the Nuclear Posture Review?

When Leonor Tomero, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 5, 2021, she aroused the ire of Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), by explaining that her job was to coordinate the review process, consider the risks and benefits of current declaratory policy, assess alternative options, and not impose any personal views she might have. Cotton said he was 'now troubled by the direction' of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).The response of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was: "What kind of a 'robust' nuclear posture can supposedly deter World War III but not withstand some hard questions about whether all 3,800 nuclear bombs and warheads in the US stockpile (as well as as the 400 ICBMs, 280 SLBMs, 66 strategic bombers, and 14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines that carry them) are vital to that mission, to say nothing of affordable?"

"The writing was on the wall back in January 2021, when Adm. Charles Richard, commander of US Strategic Command, told the Defense Writers Group that the objective of the NPR should be 'validation, that we like the strategy we have. ... [T]nation has had basically the same strategy dating back to the Kennedy administration. It's been repeatedly validated through multiple administrations. It would be useful to do that again. And then to be satisfied that the capabilities we have are able to accomplish that again.' For Richard, the most senior military officer with operational responsibility over the nuclear arsenal , undertaking any kind of serious, thorough evaluation of nuclear requirements, let alone exploring any potentially beneficial alternatives to a strategy that, in his words, hasn't changed for 60 years, was wholly unnecessary. The question now [for Biden] is whether he will accept an NPR that is likely to do far, far less or find a way to ensure he receives actual policy options to pursue, rather than a nuclear fait accompli that changes little or nothing."

"Back to basics. What would an honest and productive NPR look like? Rather than starting with the unquestioned assumption that all the weapons we have and everything we're already doing to upgrade them is essential and effective, it would go back to first principles to identify the fundamental national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States 'before' proposing a strategy for how nuclear weapons can help to achieve some of them. Next the review would identify specific military targets to support that strategy, targets to support that strategy, assess the best weapons for those targets, and determine the precise force posture and deployment numbers to hold those targets at risk. Finally, it would quantify the amount of money required to accomplish all of this -- including designing, building, testing, and maintaining the warheads and all the supporting infrastructure -- both today and well into the future. It would also be managed not just by the Defense Department but jointly with the State Department (to fully assess diplomatic and arms reduction concerns) and the Energy Department (to better include the perspectives of those charged with actually maintaining the nuclear warheads and the facilities that sustain them). And it would allow academics and non-governmental experts (including retired governmental and military officials) opportunities to contribute their knowledge and experience before any drafts are written.  

Failing to do that will continue to perpetuate the so-called nuclear triad based on the longstanding but unsubstantiated (and unprovable) belief it is absolutely necessary to our deterrent posture.

  

House Resolution to Hold Mark Meadows in Contempt

 To fulfill its investigative responsibilities, the Select Committee needs to understand the events and communications in which Mr. Meadows reportedly participated or that he observed.

"Mr. Meadows was one of the relatively small group of people who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House and with then-President Trump. Mr. Trump was with or in the vicinity of then-President Trump on January 6 as he learned about the attack on the U.. Capitol and decided whether to issue a statement that could stop the rioters.

In fact, as the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received many messages encouraging him to have Mr. Trump issue a statement that could end the violence, and one former White House employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times and told him, '[you] guys have to say something. Even if the president's not willing to put out a statement, you should go to the [cameras] and say, 'We condemn this. Please stand down.' 'If you don't, people ae going to die.'

Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, 'nonstop' throughout the day of January 6, and among other things, Mr. Meadows apparently knows if and when Mr. Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the National Guard's response to the Capitol riot. 

Mr. Meadows exchanged text messages with, and provided guidance to, an organizer of the January 6th rally on the Ellipse after the organizer told him that '[t]hings have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction. Please.'

Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to protect 'pro-Trump people' and that many more would be available on standby.

Mr. Meadows received text messages and emails regarding apparent efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain States to send alternate slates of electors to Congress, a plan which one member of Congress acknowledged was 'highly controversial' and to which Mr. Meadows responded, 'I love it.' Mr. Meadows responded to a similar message by saying '[w]e are' and another such message by saying 'Yes. Have a team on it.'

Mr. Meadows forwarded claims of election fraud to the Acting leadership of DOJ for further investigation, some of which he may have received using a private email account and at least one of which he had received directly from people associated with Mr. Trump's election campaign.

He also reportedly introduced Mr. Trump to then-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. Mr. Clark went on to recommend to Mr. Trump that he be installed as Acting Attorney General and that DOJ should send a letter to State officials urging them to take certain actions that could affect the outcome of the November 2020 election by, among other things, appointing alternate slates of electors to cast electoral votes for Mr. Trump rather than now-President Biden.

Mr. Meadows participated in meetings and calls during which the participants reportedly discussed the need to 'fight' back against 'mounting evidence' of purported voter fraud after courts had considered and overwhelmingly rejected Trump campaign claims of voter fraud and other election irregularities. He participated in one such meeting in the Oval Office with Mr. Trump and Members of Congress, which he publicly tweeted from his personal Twitter account shortly after. He participated in another such call just days before the January 6 attack with Mr. Trump, Members of Congress, attorneys for the Trump re-election campaign, and 'some 300' State and local officials to discuss the goal of overturning certain States' electoral college results on January 6, 2021."

Imagine a World With US-China Cooperation

 "On September 10, 2021, during an important diplomatic meeting that occurred by telephone, U.S. President Joseph Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed the necessity of a better relationship between their two nations. According to the official Chinee summary, Xi said that 'when China and the United States cooperate, the two countries and the world will benefit; when China and the United States are in confrontation, the two countries and the world will suffer.' He added: 'Getting the relationship right is... something we must do and must do well.'

At the moment, however, the governments of the two nations seem far from a cooperative relationship. Indeed, intensely suspicious of one another, the United States and China are sharpening their military spending, developing new nuclear-weapons, engaging in heated quarrels over territorial issues, and sharpening their economic competition. Disputes over the status of Taiwan and the South China Sea are particularly likely flashpoints for war.

But imagine the possibilities if the United States and China cooperate. After all, these countries possess the world's two largest military budgets and the two biggest economies, are the two leading consumers of energy and have a combined population of nearly 1.8 billion people. Working together, they could exercise enormous influence in world affairs.

Instead of preparing for a deadly military confrontation -- one that appeared perilously close in late 2020 and early 2021 -- the United States and China could turn over their conflicts to the United Nations or other neutral bodies like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations for mediation and resolution. Aside from averting a potentially devastating war, perhaps even a nuclear war, this policy would facilitate substantial cuts in military spending, with savings that could be devoted to bolstering UN operations and funding their domestic social programs.

Instead of the two countries obstructing UN action to protect international peace and security, they  could fully support it -- for example, by ratifying the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Instead of continuing as the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, these two economic giants could work together to fight the escalating climate catastrophe by reducing their carbon footprint and championing international agreements with other nations to do the same.

Instead of blaming one another for the current pandemic, they could work cooperatively on global public health measures, including massive production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and research on other potentially horrendous diseases.

Instead of engaging in wasteful economic competition and trade wars, they could pool their vast economic resources and skills to provide poorer nations with economic development programs and direct economic assistance. Instead of denouncing one another for human rights violations, they could admit that they both had oppressed their racial minorities, announce plans for ending the mistreatment, and provide reparations to their victims."

(Source: Lawrence Wittner, "Imagine a World With US-China Cooperation," Common Dreams, October 11, 2021.)

Imagine...

...No 'modernization' of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs);

...No First Use of nuclear weapons;

...No nuclear missiles with their bombs on hair-trigger alert;

...No nuclear war 'football' travelling with the U.S. President all the time;

...The U.S. joining over 50 nations in signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, because nukes are now illegal.

The foregoing is a summary of Peace Action of Michigan's August 6, 2021 Zoom, which included a Power Point presentation.

US Sanctions Policies Desperately Need Accountability

 "In the 20 years since 9/11 and the start of the 'Global War on Terror,' sanctions have become one of the most dominant tools in the U.S. foreign policy tool chest. Yet despite limited evidence of success and abundant evidence of serious consequences, the U.S. government does little to evaluate the impact these blunt instruments have on civilian populations or even on the U.S. foreign policy objectives. Congress has a  chance to change that.

An amendment to the FY2022 National Defense Authorization  Act detailing that role, offered by Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), and passed by the House of Representatives in September, will likely become law if a conference committee decides to retain it in the NDAA's final version. A coalition of humanitarian, peacebuilding, human rights, and other civil society groups have been advocating for impact assessments for years and are now calling on the conference chairs to retain the provision.

The amendment would require the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the president and other relevant agencies, to report to Congress on the humanitarian impacts of comprehensive U.S. sanctions, including the ability of civilian populations to access water, food, sanitation, and public health, and their impact on the delivery of humanitarian aid and development projects. It would also require more transparency around exemption for humanitarian aid, and other exceptions to sanctions as well as an assessment of whether sanctions are achieving stated foreign policy goals.

Until now, only independent assessments have shed light on the true impacts of U.S. sanctions. Human Rights Watch has documented how sanctions have been depriving Iranians of their right to health, deterring financial institutions from facilitating transactions in Iran necessary for importing medicine and medical equipment, and necessary for international NGOs to pay their staff and keep their operations afloat.

Korea Peace Now, a global movement of women mobilizing to end the Korean War, has documented the gendered impacts of sanctions on North Korea, showing that the economic pressure sanctions impose on society 'tends to exacerbate rates of domestic violence, sexual violence, and the trafficking and prostitution of women.'

Particularly concerning is the wide gap between the academic consensus on sanctions and the political reliance on these tools. Empirical studies have shown repeatedly that -- with few exceptions -- sanctions rarely achieve their foreign policy objectives. Sanctions against North Korea failed to prevent it from advancing its nuclear weapons program, while serving its government as a rallying cry against the United States. Sanctions against Iran have yet to compel it to return to the nuclear agreement, unsurprisingly given that the sanctions were reimposed in violation of that accord.

A recent Ipsos poll commissioned by the American Friends Service Committee found that a majority of Americans (53 percent) agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they interfere with humanitarian aid, and COVID relief efforts (compared to 26 percent who disagreed, and 21 percent who didn't know). It also found that a plurality (49 percent) agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they damage economic activity and livelihoods of ordinary citizens (28 percent disagreed and 23 percent didn't know); and 48 percent agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they violate international legal principles (30 percent disagreed, and 22 percent didn't know)."

(Source: Daniel Jasper and Gabe Murphy, "US sanctions policies desperately need accountability," RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT, October 18, 2021.)

Losing Abortion Rights in Supreme Court Case

"The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade protected a women's right to an abortion without excessive restrictions. But the high court is now considering arguments in another case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, that gives the conservative majority their most significant chance in decades to gut the Roe precedent. In oral arguments, the six conservatives seemed open to allowing a Mississippi law that bars abortions after 15 weeks to stand, undermining the core principles of the Roe verdict.

The court is not expected to rule on the case for months; typically, justice wait to release opinions in their most explosive cases until the end of their yearly term in June.

But the scenario in which justices overturn Roe is one for which conservatives have been preparing for decades, by laying a foundation of laws that either sought to bring a challenge to the high court or snap into effect once abortion laws changed

Twelve states -- Arkansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah -- have passed laws that would bar all or nearly all abortions, written in a way that would bar all or nearly all abortions, written in a way that would allow them to take effect after the Supreme Court overturns Roe, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights research institution. 

'Those laws vary by state, but they all have language that describes how they would take effect,' said Elizabeth Nash, director of state issues at the Guttmacher Institute. Some require the state attorney general to certify that the Supreme Court's decision allows that state to ban abortions.

Eight states -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin -- still have abortion bans on their books that were passed years, and sometimes decades, before Roe was decided. Texas has a similar law that is under injunction by a federal court.

But if the precedent is struck down, those laws would be enforceable once again, and the Supreme  Court ruling would likely allow Texas's law to take effect.

'If Roe is overturned, then states with pre-Roe bans could take the steps necessary to implement them,' Nash said.

Those states, some of which have laws that both predate and post-date the Roe decision, are home to a collective 51 million women. Georgia, Ohio and South Carolina, which have each passed restrictions on abortion that were ruled unconstitutional under Roe, but could be reinstated depending on the court's ruling, are home to another 14 million women.

Collectively, the 65 million women who live in states where abortion restrictions would take effect in a post-Roe world represent almost 40 percent of the 165 million women who live in the United States."

Source: Reid Wilson, "65 M women could lose abortion rights in Supreme Court case," The Hill, 12/3/21.

Facing the Facts About Gun Violence in the U.S.

 "A day after another tragic school shooting, I just finished teaching a criminology class about gun violence and how to reduce it in the U.S. I found that my students have many misconceptions about the scope and nature of the problem. I believe they are not alone, and that these misconceptions that many others may hold work against the development of thoughtful and effective policy. Although whole volumes can and have been written about this. I share here just a few observations.

First, many have no idea of how many people are injured or killed by gun violence in the U.S. annually. According to the CDC, more than 45,000 people were killed by gun violence in the U.S. in 2020, an increase in recent decades. This is an average of more than 120 gun-related deaths per day. It includes a 30 percent increase in homicides from the previous year. Between 2015 and 2019 there were 2,606 gun deaths by law enforcement alone. These numbers should be shocking, with the gun-related homicide rates 25 times greater than other wealthy nations.

Second, most are unaware that the biggest percentage of gun-related fatalities come from suicide. Nearly two-thirds of deaths by gun are suicides, an average of approximately 64 per day. Likewise, accidental injuries and deaths are far more frequent in the U.S. than in other wealthy counties. a study by researchers from the University of  Pennsylvania and Columbia University found that between 2009 and 2017, there was an annual average of 85,700 ER visits for non-fatal injuries. ABC News developed a Gun Violence Tracker and found that for the week of November 19 to 25, 2021,there were 345 deaths and 623 injuries due to firearms in the U.S.

Third, the cost of gun violence is astronomical. The U.S, spends nearly one billion dollars annually on immediate healthcare cost alone, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. The costs are far greater when you factor in long-term physical and mental heath care, as well as criminal justice and other  costs.

Fourth, while mass shootings typically dominate the conservation about gun control, they represent less than three percent of annual gun-related deaths. Further, the primary reason for mass shootings in the U.S. is domestic violence. Similarly, much attention has been paid to active shooter situations, with some potentially problematic policy implications, yet these represent just one percent of gun deaths.

Fifth, while many emphasize gun deaths in big cities like Chicago, approximately half of homicides by gun occur in suburban and rural areas.  In addition, gun injuries are widespread and not exclusive to big cities. While Black males are disproportionately victims of intentional shootings, White males in rural communities are over-represented in suicide by gun. 

This is not an exhaustive list of misconceptions, nor does it offer solutions. My hope in teaching and writing about this is that, if we all discuss real data, perhaps then we can identify more appropriate policies and practices, which might include gun control, educational programs, mental health assistance and more." 

Footnote:

[1] Laura Finley, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology. Published by OregonPeaceWorks, December 3, 2021.

Jon Burge: The Notorious Chicago Police Commander

 (This posting was first done on May 27, 2015. I am posting this once again because it points out the serious consequences that can result from police commanders using torture to extract confessions).

"On November 2, 1983, Darrell Cannon found himself in the Chicago Police Department's Area 2 headquarters with a shotgun stuck in his mouth as a white officer yelled 'Blow that nigger's head off.' The officer pulled the trigger, but no round was fired, so he pulled it again. But the shotgun wasn't loaded, it was just one of tactics that the three officers present that day would use in trying to get a murder confession out of their suspect." Another was applying repeated electric shocks to the penis and testicles until the suspect finally confessed. [1]

Darrell Cannon was one of at least 110 African American men who experienced similar forms of torture at the hands of CPD commander Jon Burge, and the detectives who reported to him. Twenty of those coerced into false confessions were still in prison as of the date of the original posting.

It wasn't until 2008 that Burge was arrested on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice related to one of the lawsuits filed against him. He was convicted two years later, and served four and a half years in prison before being released in 2014.

I was peripherally involved in the case of one of Burge's tortured victims, who was on Death Row at the time, as I rode on a family-chartered bus to serve as a supporting witness in an Illinois Supreme Court hearing on his case. Later, as chair of Illinois Peace Action, I spoke at a rally held for this same person. This person, whose name I don't remember, was released from Death Row into general society, because there was no evidence to tie him to the murder for which he was convicted.

Burge has proved to be an expensive hire for the city of Chicago. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has agreed to pay $5.5 million to victims of police torture under Burge, and his associate officers from charges of torturing people in their custody. $22 million is the amount of pension costs paid to Burge and his torture associates over the years. An estimated fifty to sixty-five people are eligible for reparations, including job training and tuition, for their treatment at the hands of Burge and associates.

If there is a silver lining in the immense damage caused by Jon Burge and his underlings, it is that the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance consisting of three overarching components: public recognition of the torture, including job placement, mental-health services for victims, and free tuition to city city colleges; and a $5.5 million fund for financial reparations. Chicago public schools are also required to teach the history of Burge's torture in the eighth and tenth grades.

By the Numbers; Blocking Texas's Abortion Law; and "Botched Executions"

 I. Drone Strikes

14K - Number of confirmed US drone strikes in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan since 2004.

90% - Approximate percentage of the more than 200 people killed in Afghanistan by strikes during one five-month period of a Special Operations campaign, who were not the intended targets.

45 - Number of months ex-NSA analyst Daniel Hale could spend in prison for leaking information about US drone attacks, including the previous fact.

17 - Minimum number of documents Hale leaked to reporters.

8 - Number of people prosecuted by the US  government for leaking to journalists since 2017. Source: Jarod Facundo, The Nation).

II. Sexual Misconduct

$300k - Amount Congress paid in sexual harassment and sexual discrimination settlements from 2003 to 2018.

52 - Number of senators wo voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991 after Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment. 

11 - Number of women that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo harassed, according to the state attorney general's investigation.

26 - Number of women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct. (Source: Gloria Oladipo, The Nation ).

III. Blocking Texas Abortion Law

In early October, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman blocked a controversial Texas law banning abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, saying that "a person's right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established." His ruling added that "depriving citizens of this right" would be "flagrantly unconstitutional."

The order came in response to the Biden administration's emergency request to prevent Texas from enforcing the law as the court considers a Justice Department lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. The Supreme Court narrowly allowed it to take effect about a month ago.

The order from Pitman noted that Texas requested that the state be allowed to appeal the injunction before it takes effect. 

"The State has forfeited the right to any accommodation by pursuing an unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right," Pitman wrote.

"The other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide," he added. "This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right."

The law has prohibited most abortions in Texas since September. Specifically, it banned abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which typically takes place around six weeks -- and before some women know they are pregnant. 

Whole Woman's Health, a network of abortion clinics that operates in Texas, said it would resume abortions after up to 18 weeks of pregnancy "as soon as possible," according to '19th News.'

Prior to Pitman's order, some speculated that abortions may still not resume, as providers fear legal repercussions in the absence of a more long-term ruling, according to 'The Associated Press.'

IV. The Inexact Science of Legally Killing People

(This blog was originally posted  on May 29, 2014, under buckupdems. It has relevance today.) "Since the restoration of capital punishment in 1976, the Death Penalty Information Center has recorded at least forty-five 'botched executions': 73 percent of which were by lethal injection." [1]

Due in part to the unwillingness of countries without the death penalty to supply drugs that will be used in U.S. executions, states are taking "increasingly secretive and extralegal steps," to procure the drugs used in lethal injections, "including using discontinued and illegally obtained drugs and drugs purchased at unregulated 'compounding pharmacies'." [2] These pharmacies are basically experimenting with drug combinations that might work in executions.

There are a couple of great ironies brought to light by the botched execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma. Lockett injured his arm on the day of the execution, and he was very uncooperative during other medical procedures performed that day. Richard Kim observes that Lockett probably received more government healthcare on the day of his execution than most Oklahomans do in a year.

The other irony is that 22 states other than Oklahoma have also refused to expand Medicaid and 19 of them practice the death penalty, leading Kim to ask the question: "Why are some states so willing to spend a great deal of time and effort to maintain the machinery of death for so few, and so unwilling to make the same kind of investment in improving the health and lives of so many?" 

V. Arbitrary IQ Tests a No Go as Execution Standard

By a 5-4 decision, the U.S, Supreme Court ruled that state laws that draw a bright line on IQ test results as an execution standard are unconstitutional. Florida has a law stating that an inmate who scores above 70 on an IQ test cannot be considered to be intellectually disabled, thus, he/she is execution material.

The case -- Hall v. Florida -- broke down into a frequently seen 4 to 4 liberal/conservative split, with the frequent swing vote, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion. Kennedy said: "Persons facing this severe sanction must have a fair opportunity to show that the constitution prohibits their execution." The majority opinion also alluded to the IQ test score being imprecise and that other states are using a range of scores, a few points above or below 70, or rely on other factors to make the execution decision.

Justice Samuel A. Alito wrote the minority opinion, and he contented that voiding Florida's clear standard was conceptually unsound and would cause confusion; also, he argued that the decision to define mental retardation had initially been left up to the states.

The effect of the decision in the Hall v. Florida case makes it a little more difficult to execute a person who is near the line of being declared intellectually disabled or not.

Footnotes

[1] Richard Kim, "The Oklahoma Way of Death,' The Nation, May 26, 2014; [2] Ibid.; [3] Ibid.

 annual conventions. In the business sessions, we debated resolutions which stated our positions on peace and justice issues. We also set policy for the coming year. Hosting these sessions helped me become quite comfortable in speaking in public settings.

VIII. A Thumbnail Sketch of Social Security Work

In my work at Social Security, I spent 15 months teaching the full panoply of Social Security law, rules and regulations. When I took the 13-week course to become a claims authorizer, I had, I believe, at least four instructors, who taught their specialties. The new administrator decided to have one instructor teach the  entire course. After my teaching assignment, I was promoted to technical assistant, in which position I spent most of the rest of my career checking the work of claims authorizers. 

One assignment I received came after I spent a week at our headquarters in Baltimore, a part of which was to prepare me to lead a task force devoted to finding who should be credited with Social Security earnings. Since Social Security numbers were being sold to [mostly Mexican immigrants], it was a draining  experience to find the proper recipients.

IX. University Park Activity

While living in University Park, Illinois for about a decade, I was president of the Little League baseball association, the youth football association, and an elementary school PTO where our children were educated. 

At another level of activity, I served as the chair of the committee in charge of maintaining all of our recreational facilities. As part of President Lyndon Johnson's model cities program, under the name of Park Forest South, we had a lake and a model farm with animals under our jurisdiction.

I played a role in bringing community TV to our village, but more importantly, I served on the village board's representative to a consortium of south suburban villages, which exchanged ideas on how best to use community TV. Later, I was elected as a village trustee.

X. An Addendum on Print Evidence

I realize that I failed to identify the two prints, print examiner Laffey claimed to have found on the Degnan note. He found on June 28, a print of the little finger with attached palm print on the front of the note, matching Heirens. On July 12, he found on the back of the note, a partial palm print that matched Heirens' palm.

It is ironic that Laffey couldn't even initially get prints due to the oil coating, yet he was later to get two prints; also, it took him about a week less than six months to get one print identification. He found the second Heirens' print on the same day, July 12th, that the CPD reversed itself, and said the Brown print actually did match that of Heirens. Latent print examiner Steven Schachte couldn't find any Heirens' prints on the front of the note, and he made no mention of palm prints. When State's Attorney Tuohy made his closing remarks in the sentencing hearing on September 5th., he said that all they had on Heirens was a single fingerprint.

XI. A Closing

In the sentencing hearing on September 5, 1946 -- Bill Heirens never had a criminal trial, but prosecutors were required to present the evidence they would revealed if there had been a criminal trial -- State's Attorney Touhy praised Heirens' defense team for "finding it possible to aid in a final and a just determination of this entire matter. Without the aid of the defense, there would be no answer for the death of Josephine Ross. Also, without defense aid there might be sincere public doubt about the guilt of Heirens in the killing of Degnan and Brown."

The defense started cooperating with the prosecution on July 7, 1946.

I realize I have given Marquis specialists a lot of material to deal with. I trust they can separate wheat from chaff. Before getting a response, I will start work on trimming down this material so that it can be used as a Personal Narrative for submission to media outlets.

 On May 9,1992, Elizabeth M. Biestek, of our committee and three other examiners concluded during a handwriting workshop that the "handwriting on the Suzanne Degnan ransom note and on the Frances Brown wall do not compare favorably with the handwriting sample attributed to William Heirens and were most probably written by someone other than William Heirens."

Another handwriting analyst, Mary Frances Means, told the 'Chicago Daily News that there was no possibility that the same person who wrote the ransom note did the wall writing."

When 'PrimeTime Live', the ABC television program, Hired David Grimes, a handwriting analyst with twelve years of experience with the FBI, he became the tenth analyst the program interviewed who found no similarity in the two writings.

George W. Schwartz Was hired by the prosecution to attempt to link the ransom note to Bill Hierens. Reviewing the note and various papers written by Heirens, Schwartz concluded that "individual characteristics in the two writings do not compare in any respect." Dissatisfied with that assessment, State's Attorney Tuohy then hired Herbert J. Walter. In July 25, 1946, Walter contradicted himself and contended that the two writings were done by the same person, when on January 8, 1946, he told the 'Herald American' that there were a "few similarities" and a "great many dissimilarities." 

VI. Excelled as a School Teacher

The Personal Narrative I received said I "excelled" as a school teacher. That characterization without any context doesn't mean very much. I will allude first to the extra-curricular work I did when teaching at Lathrop High School in Fairbanks, Alaska. Fairbanks had a juvenile jury program, and since I taught  American Government, some of my junior and senior students were on the juvenile jury. I became a member of the management team in my first year there. In my second year, I became the director of the program.

We would meet in an used courtroom after school hours, with a judge present to monitor sentences  being handed out. The jury would debate and propose sentences to teenagers who had been convicted of misdemeanors. As an example of the kinds of sentences handed out, a high schooler who had illegally passed a stopped school bus, was sentenced to ride an early-morning bus for a month, and get out at every stop to ensure that safety conditions were being met.

Since Lathrop was to host the competition for high school wrestlers in Alaska, the sports director and varsity basketball coach, named "Joe," called me in and asked me: "Lauri, how would you like to run the high school wrestling competition?" I said I had some limited knowledge of high school wrestling. Joe said: "Lauri, you'll learn." I had interviewed with Joe to coach the junior varsity basketball team, and either he was impressed with me, or he didn't want to get stuck with the job.

Subsequently, I secured a TV time slot, and I took two Lathrop wrestlers with me to illustrate   wrestling holds and explain how points were scored. I also helped a local radio station with their coverage of the early bouts.

Just to illustrate that my experience at Lathrop wasn't an outlier, while teaching eight grade at Wallace, Michigan, 15 miles from the Wisconsin border, I ordered all of the school's sports equipment, coached the junior high basketball team, added some instruction in the arts and geography, which were not  subject areas required by the Wallace school board. On year I even wrote the Christmas play.

VII. Peace and Justice Additions

I followed the sequence of being secretary, co-chair and chair at a south suburban (Chicago) chapter of SANE/Freeze, which had chapters all over the nation proposing to stop building any more nuclear weapons. I followed the same sequence of offices after the name change to Peace Action in about 1997, after which I was elected to Illinois Peace Action. I served seven+ years as co-chair and chair. 

I was elected to the national Peace Action Board in March 1994, and continue to still be on it today. One of my functions as the chair of the Operations Committee was to enforce our attendance policy. Our committee also made recommendations on maintaining board diversity, and we did a major rewrite of our Bylaws while I was chair. However, how I lost my fear of public speaking was mostly because as chair of Operations I had to run the business portion of our annual conventions. In the business sessions, we debated resolutions which stated our positions on peace and justice issues. We also set policy for the coming year. I became quite comfortable in speaking in public settings.

VIII. A Thumbnail Sketch of Social Security Work

A Follow-up on the Personal Narrative Sent to Me

 Overview. I cannot sign this Personal Narrative sent to me because it contains some information that is inaccurate; there is no information on the deeply flawed finger and palm prints, which require much deeper examination; and William (Bill) Heirens' confessions are replete with denials, two versions of the same happening, and his hard-to believe made-up stories.

It is not sufficient to state I excelled as a teacher without giving some context to that assessment. The same can be said about, first, SANE/FREEZE, and then Peace Action. And I participated in a great number of activities in University Park, Illinois.

In the second paragraph of the Personal Narrative mailed me, I am identified as a committee member of the Illinois Parole Board (it is actually named the Prisoner Review Board). I was never a member of that board. When I read Dolores Kennedy's book entitled: "William Heirens: His Day in Court" -- Kennedy was Heirens biographer and friend -- I was stunned by reading Bill Heirens' confessions in the back of Kennedy's book. I contacted Dolores, and she told me that she was putting together a committee that would try to find out if Heirens committed any of the three murders to which he confessed. She told me that I would be named the confession analyst on the committee.

I. Second Paragraph of the Personal Narrative

I cannot confirm that Bill Heirens suffered "further punishment at the hands of police officers." He issued a statement reading: "I had been grilled incessantly by police and prosecuting officials in an effort to make me confess to murder; I was forced to undergo interrogation under sodium pentothal and under two lie detectors." Neither of the two lie detector  tests found Heirens to have a guilty conscience.

Bill Heirens told me that the  reason for confessing was the daily fear that while in custody that serious harm could come to him if he continued to deny charges.

The last sentence in the second paragraph should be deleted, as law enforcement in Illinois was pretty much united in opposition to Heirens getting out of prison, or getting a new trial. I don't think I moved the needle on this strong opposition. I can't even confirm that my book garnered "significant support in Mr. Heirens innocence."

II. The Story of the Migrating Print(s)

Before getting into the stories of the migrating print(s) in the Degnan case, and the "bloody" print in the Frances Brown case, I will give a thumbnail sketch of the three murders.

Suzanne Degnan was a six-year-old, who was taken from her north side Chicago bedroom on the early morning of January 7, 1946. She was strangled and then carried to an unlocked apartment  basement, where her body was cut up, and the parts distributed to either four or five sewer openings. A torn piece of paper demanding $20,000 was found on Suzanne's bedroom floor.

Frances Brown, a former member of the Women's Reserve of the United Naval Reserves (WAVE) was killed on December 10, 1945. Written with red lipstick on an apartment wall was a message reading: "For heaven's sake catch me Before I kill more. I cannot control myself."

Josephine  Ross was stabbed and beaten to death on June 5, 1945. There was no evidence tying Bill Heirens to the Ross killing, and the only evidence tying Heirens to the Brown killing was a 
'bloody" fingerprint on Brown's bathroom door jamb.

The story of the migrating print(s) on the Degnan ransom note started when Chicago police found an oily piece of paper demanding $20,000 as ransom. After the discovery of the Degnan note, Commissioner Prendergast of the Chicago Police Department informed the press that the top CPD fingerprint examiner, Sergeant Thomas Laffey, 'had been unable to get prints because the note was  covered with an oil solution.' The FBI informed the CPD that its experts found two "fairly large and classifiable fingerprints" on the note. Significantly important for future claims of print findings, the FBI did not annotate the presence of any palm print.

On June 26, 1946, Bill Heirens was arrested for the burglary of the north side apartment of Joanne Pera. Someone suggested that his fingerprints be compared to the prints on the ransom note, and the single print found in the Brown apartment. On June 28th, Laffey announced that Heiren's prints matched a partial fingerprint located on the front of the note. The CPD told the press that Heiren's prints did not match the Brown print and he was no longer a suspect in the Brown murder.

On July 12, 1946, the CPD reversed itself and said that Heiren's prints matched the Brown print. On July 13, the CPD announced that Laffey had found a second Heirens' print. The finding on the Heirens' print was probably done on July 12, the day that the CPD did its reversal on the Brown print. The long interval between the findings of the Heirens' prints raised a serious question that Laffey or someone else in the CPD had transposed a print taken after Heirens was arrested. 

The Friends of Bill Heirens retained Steven Schachte to perform an analysis of the fingerprint evidence used to convict Bill Heirens in 1946. Schachte had been a latent print examiner for the Indianapolis Police Department for 17 years, and attended two latent print schools conducted by the FRI. Following is his  examination: "I examined the police photographs of the Degnan ransom note for evidence of latent fingerprints Unlike the police reports of two of Bill Heiren's fingerprints on the front of the ransom note, the evidence is clear that the prints on the front of the note are unidentified and not Bill Heiren's. I did locate an identifiable print on the back of the note, but this print is unmentioned in police or court documents."

In this letter to the Prisoner Review Board sent on February 22, 1995, Schachte closes it by saying that: "Of course, a fingerprint may be transferred from one object to another object, making it appear that the second object was touched."

Transposing fingerprints is relatively simple. A cellophane strip is placed over a suspect's prints obtained by the police, and then pressed on an incriminating object.

The extent to which the CPD was willing to go to find incriminating prints of Bill Heirens is illustrated by the Estelle Carey case. A high official in the CPD assured the press that a palm print of a 13-year-old Bill Heirens had been found in the residence of the murdered prostitute, Estelle Carey. The CPD had to pull back its claim when it was discovered that Heirens was in an Indiana school for boys at the time. 

Although Bill Heirens never had a trial in which evidence against him could be tested, prosecutors are required to present the evidence they would have used if there was a criminal trial. When States Attorney William Tuohy made his closing remarks at the sentencing hearing on September 5, 1946, he said: "All the prosecutors had in the Degnan case was a partial fingerprint and that on the ransom note." Touhy made no mention of a palm print, which Sergeant Laffey had claimed to have found.

III. The "Bloody" Brown Print

CPD Chief of Detectives Storms was noted for describing the print on Frances Brown's bathroom door jamb as "bloody." Newspapers in Chicago used words such as "smeared," "obscured,' and "blurred." In the same letter in which Schachte commented on the Degnan ransom note, he headed his comments on the Brown print as II. Bloody Print. Schachte continued: "The print on the doorjamb that is identified as a latent print of Bill Heirens is problematic.

First, it does not appear to be bloody or set in blood. But more importantly, the print is unlike latent prints commonly found at crime scenes. Rather than being an impression on the jamb casually left by an exiting offender, this print appears to have been 'rolled on its side.' That is to say that I can observe a great many ridges on the left side that would not be normal in a plain impression."

On June 28 the CPD found that Bill Heirens' prints did not match the Brown print, and changed its mind about two weeks later.

IV. Serious Flaws in the Murder Confessions

I have previously mentioned the many denials/omissions, two versions of the same happening, and what were obvious "made-up" stories by Bill Heirens. It is difficult to be precise when dealing with several categories in which one tries to fit parts of the confession in.

In the category of Denials/Omissions, in the Suzanne Degnan case,  there were 23 times that Heirens said "no," "I don't know," or "I don't remember." In the Frances Brown case there were 17 such replies in this category. In the Josephine Ross case there were 10 such replies. Many of the Degnan Denials/Omissions came in regard to the cutting up and carrying to sewer openings, parts of Suzanne Degnan's body. Heirens denied everything about these activities.

Among the three murder confessions there were 12 instances in which two versions of a happening were given.

In Account Inaccurate claims being made, and denial was not an issue, there were 7 in the Degnan case, 10 in the Brown case, and 3 in the Ross case. 

In August after the Heirens' confession was published, Heirens had to physically re-enact his confessed crimes, there were 12 more questions asked about the murder of Frances Brown. These 12 questions added three key inconsistencies with the much longer initial interrogation.

V. The Handwriting Comparisons

Regarding the comparison of the red lipstick writing and the writing on the ransom note, Elizabeth Biesteh, the handwriting and documents examiner on our committee, went to a symposium in which she and three other examiners found no similarities in the two writings. Counting David Grimes, the examiner hired by the 'Primetime Live' TN program,  a total of ten examiners found no similarities in the two writings. The 11th examiner, Herbert J. Walter, paid $100 a day by the state, concluded in July 1946 that Bill Heirens may have written both messages. Walter was seriously compromised, however, as he had told the 'Herald American' that the two writings had a "few superficial similarities," and a "great many dissimilarities."

VI. Excelled as a School Teacher

The Professional Narrative I received said I "excelled" as a school teacher. That characterization without any context doesn't mean very much. I will allude first to the extra-curricular work I did when teaching at Lathrop High School in Fairbanks, Alaska. Fairbanks had a juvenile jury program, and since I taught American Government, some of my junior and senior students were on the juvenile jury. I became a member of the jury in my first year there. In the next year, I became the director of the program.

We would meet in an unused courtroom after school hours, with a  judge present to monitor sentences handed out. The students would debate and propose sentences to teenagers who had been convicted of misdemeanors. As an example of  the kinds of sentences handed out, a high schooler who had illegally passed a stopped school bus was sentenced to ride an early-morning bus for a month, and get out at every stop to ensue that safety conditions were being met.

Since Lathrop was to host the competition for high school wrestlers in Alaska, the sports director and varsity basketball coach, named "Joe," called me in and asked me: "Lauri, how would you like to run the high school wrestling competition?" I said I had some limited knowledge of high school wrestling. Joe said: "Lauri, you'll learn." I had interviewed with Joe to coach the junior varsity, and he either was impressed with me, or he didn't want to get stuck with the job.

Subsequently, I secured a TV time slot, and I took two wrestlers with me to illustrate wrestling moves, and explain how points were scored. I also helped a local radio station with their coverage of the early bouts.

While teaching eight grade at Wallace, Michigan, 15 miles from the Wisconsin border, I ordered all of the school's sports equipment, coached the junior high basketball team, added some instruction in the arts and geography, which were not required subject areas by the Wallace school board. 

Informed Comments on Abolishing Wasteful Space Force

 Washington, D.C. - On September 22, 2021, Representative Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) introduced the 'No Militarization of Space Act,' to abolish the costly and unnecessary Space Force.

"The long-standing neutrality of space has fostered a competitive, non-militarized age of exploration every nation and generation has valued since the first days of space travel. But since its creation under the former Trump administration, the Space Force has threatened longstanding peace and flagrantly wasted billions of taxpayer dollars," said Rep. Huffman. "It's time we turn our attention back to where it belongs: addressing urgent domestic and international priorities like battling COVID-19, climate change, and growing economic inequality. Our mission must be to support the American people, not spend billions on the militarization of space."

"The Space Force has quickly become a taxpayer boondoggle that adds layers of bureaucracy and waste to an already-bloated defense budget. Representative Huffman's legislation would eliminate the Space Force before it's too late to do so, possibly saving billions of dollars in the process. NTU applauds Representative Huffman for introducing this bill," said Andrew Lautz, Director of Federal Policy at National Taxpayers Union.

"Outer space must be de-militarized and kept as a realm for peaceful exploration," stated Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action. "The Space Force is an absurd, duplicative waste of taxpayer dollars, and richly deserves the ridicule it has garnered. Peace Action, the largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization in the US, commends and endorses Rep. Huffman's 'No Militarization of Space Act' to abolish the Space Force."

"Militarization space is an unconscionable waste of tax dollars, and it risks extending the worst mistakes of history to the final frontier by inviting conflict  and escalation. Americans don't want more wasteful military spending, which means Congress should pass the No Militarization of Space Act before the Space Force budget inevitably skyrockets," said Sean Vitka, senior policy counsel for Demand Progress.

This legislation would put an end to the ill-considered rush into establishing a new military service, the Space Force, and save taxpayers billions of dollars in unnecessary spending. Eliminating Space Force in a year and transferring all authorities and functions back to the appropriate commands of the armed  Forces is the most fiscally responsible thing to do. To be clear, the U.S. must be a leader in space, but creating a whole new service wasn't going to accomplish that; it was just going to create a costly new bureaucracy," said Steve Ellis, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Background

"The U.S. Space Force was established on December 20, 2019 with the enactment of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act -- despite the country's commitment under the Outer Space Treaty of 1967,which restricts the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space and banned military maneuvers on celestial bodies..."

The Militarism of Sports and the Redefinition of Patriotism

 The following is a reprint of a piece written by William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), who is a  TomDispatch regular. It was also published in a Michigan Peace Action newsletter.

Since 9/11, sports and the military have become increasingly fused in this country.

Even when taxpayers aren't footing the bill for displays of massive American flags or camouflage-printed uniforms, the melding of sports and the military should be seen as inappropriate, if not insidious...

Nowadays, it seems as if professional sports simply couldn't occur without some notice of and celebration of the U.S. military, each game being transformed in some way into yet another Memorial Day or Veterans Day lite...

When I watched this year's version of the game, however, I didn't relive my youth; I relived my military career. As a start, the previous night featured a televised home-run derby. Before it even began, about 50 airmen paraded out in camouflage uniforms, setting the stage for everything that would follow. (As they weren't on duty, I couldn't help wondering why they found it appropriate to don such outfits.) Part of T-Mobile's "#HatsOff-4 Heroes" campaign, this mini-parade was justified in the name of raising money to support veterans, but T-Mobile could have simply given the money to charity without any of the militarized hoopla that this involved.

Highlighting the other pre-game ceremonies the next night was a celebration of Medal of Honor recipients. I have deep respect for such heroes, but what were they doing on a baseball diamond? The ceremony would have been appropriate on, say, Veterans Day in November. Those same pre-game festivities included a militarist montage narrated by Bradley Cooper (star of "American Sniper"), featuring war scenes and war monuments while highlighting the popular catchphrase "freedom isn't free." Martial music accompanied the montage along with a bevy of flag-waving images. It felt like watching a twisted version of the film "Field of Dreams," reshot so that soldiers, not baseball players, emerged early on from those rows of Iowa corn stalks and stepped onto the playing field. 

What President Biden Needs to Do

 Following is a beginning checklist that President Biden needs to do on nuclear weapons-related issues:

1. Extend the New START Treaty with Russia to limit the deployed nuclear weapons and delivery systems to 1,550 and 700 respectively. President Biden and Russian President Putin reached an agreement to unconditionally extend the treaty for the full five years. Now the presidents can negotiate reductions. 

2. Re-enter the Iran Nuclear Deal. It was working before Trump abandoned it.

3. Scrap plans for a new generation of nuclear weapons at an unaffordable cost of $1.7 trillion.

4. Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first. Congress should pass "No First Use" (NFU) legislation. Senator Debbie Stabenow should continue her co-sponsorship of NFU.

5. President Biden should declare that he does not have the authority to launch nuclear weapons, because only Congress can declare war.

6. Take U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert to avoid human mistakes and political miscalculations.

7. Embrace the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) that made nuclear bombs illegal on January 22, 2021.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force on January 22, as 52 countries have signed it. Now, nuclear weapons are illegal under international law, and nations who have them, develop them, use them, or even threaten to use them, are breaking the law. Sadly, none of the nine nuclear powers are on board with the TPNW.

The TPNW can eventually lead to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. There is no greater, immediate threat to our very existence than nuclear weapons. And now they are banned. The Treaty puts nuclear weapons in the same category as land mines, chemical weapons, and poison gas. 

The Pentagon's investments in fighting and foolishly trying to win a nuclear war should be halted. The U.S. should actively negotiate with the other nuclear-armed states for a verifiable, enforceable agreement to dismantle the almost 14,000 nuclear warheads that still remain.

These are not new ideas. In 1970, all of the five nuclear powers agreed to eliminate their nuclear arms in exchange for other nations forgoing the development of such weapons. But the nuclear powers refused to give up their enormous power, and bowed to their military-industrial- political powers. The "good faith" negotiations have never occurred.

Although there are nine nuclear-armed powers today, the rest of the world has said, "Enough! Enough of this terror!"

Learning the Lessons of Afghanistan

Massachusetts Peace Action is not a newcomer to the issues raised by the Afghanistan war. We helped organize our first of many protests against the Afghanistan war on September 1, 2001, before it started. 

U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, though "covert", started in 1978. The progressive, secular government we helped to destroy was modernizing the country and advancing the rights of women. Its overthrow was considered a U.S. victory in the Cold War.

In Syria, our government and its allies financed and armed groups with an ideology even more backward and violent than the Taliban. Together with Turkey, we continue to this day to protect their enclave, effectively controlled by al Qaeda, in northwestern Syria.

Now, after $1 trillion and countless lives wasted on the 2002-2021 Afghanistan war, and 42 years of American interference in that country, we must help America learn the lessons of this disaster.

The U.S. must stop making war on Afghanistan. No drone strikes, bombings, special forces, or aid to rebel groups.

Engage with the Taliban and establish normal relations with the new government. Pay reparations to the Afghan people for the harm we have caused. Accept all Afghan refugees.

Support regional diplomacy by convening Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and others to guarantee  neutrality, and support the stability and development of Afghanistan.

Clean house in Washington. Conduct a thorough investigation of the lies, fraud and mismanagement. Remove all the lying and incompetent generals and national security officials who managed the war for the past 20 years.

End other U.S. interventions in the Middle East by withdrawing troops from Syria and Iraq, ending arms sales and military assistance to Saudi Arabia,  UAE, and Israel, ending sanctions on Syria and Iran, and rejoining the Iran nuclear deal.

Repeal the 2001 and 20002 authorizations for use of military force. Pass the National Security Powers Act (S.2391) to ensure that any future military interventions, arms sales, and sanctions are approved by Congress and have limited terms.

Deeply cut the military budget and use the funds made available to resettle refugees, launch a global COVID-19 vaccination drive, greatly reduce inequality in our country, and address the climate catastrophe.

The debacle of four American presidents' policies in Afghanistan is a wake-up call. We must learn the lessons, change course, rebuild our wounded society, and re-engage with the word on the  basis of respect and equality, rather than arrogance.

I have presented the full Massachusetts Peace Action statement, except for minor corrections to ensure grammatical clarity; however, I would not endorse the second paragraph ,due to a lack of knowledge of its accuracy. In the paragraph beginning with "Engage with the Taliban," I would remove the word "normal", because very little the Talban does is normal. In that same paragraph, I would substitute for the word "all", "vetted and approved." Overall, the peace group presents a very useful road map for needed policy changes.

Media Commentary on Trump and His Enablers in Early 2021

 The Trump Watch: Media commentary on Trump and his enablers, quoted either in the January 22, or February 15-22 issues of TIME magazine, or quoted separately.

# From Trump's January 6 speech: "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country       anymore."

# "Trump's congressional enablers are complicit in the deadly violence," said the 'St. Louis Post Dispatch.' "Senators Josh Howley, Ted Cruz, and other 'two-faced lying populist politicians' failed to 'stand-up' and condemn Trump's dangerous rhetoric. Now they deserve to be cast into political purgatory." 

# "These same Republicans are suddenly calling for 'unity' and 'healing,' said The Washington Post.com.' "There is a minimum price of entry for reconciliation: Issue an 'unequivocal acknowledgment' that there was no vote rigging and that Joe Biden won 'fair and square.' " 

# Paul Waldman wrote in 'The Washington Post. com': "Their rage will only increase. We may be facing an era in which 'right-wing domestic terrorism' is a regular feature in our politics."

# "The blame game runs far deeper than Trump," says Zack Beauchamp in 'Vox.com.' "The Capitol Hill mob was the culmination of years of mainstream Republican politics, For years, the GOP has vilified Democrats as extremists who represent an extensional threat to Americans, and whose election victories are inherently fraudulent."

# Theunis Bates, the managing editor of 'Elite's Letter,' wrote: "Yet the people who stormed Congress weren't some alien other, but everyday Americans who -- fed a diet of conspiracy theories -- believed they were doing the patriotic thing."

# Kali Holloway, "The Failed Coup," The Nation, December 14-21, 2020. "Bill Barr poked his partisan nose where no outgoing attorney general had during an election, with a memo urging federal lawyers to look into Trump's groundless accusations of vote tabulation irregularities." Trump is still tweeting that mail-in voting is a 'sick joke,' and falsely insisting 'I WON THE ELECTION!' "  

"From the sidelines, he is cheering on street violence by MAGA thugs, and branding political opponents as unAmerican." "After this year's presidential contest, 70 percent of Republican voters surveyed said it was not 'free and fair,' up from 35 percent before the election." "Now, Republicans are casting Black and Brown citizens as illegitimate voters to invalidate the Biden presidency." "Trump will keep denigrating democracy to elevate himself. Yet again, this president's selfish gains will be America's loss."

# Luke Mogelson, "The Storm," The New Yorker, January 25, 2021. - "It was a peculiar mixture of emotion that had become familiar at pro-Trump rallies since he lost the election: 'half mutinous rage, half gleefulls (?) of excitement' at being licensed to act on it. The profanity signaled a final jettisoning of whatever residual deference to political norms had survived the past four years."

The final installment in the myths of the Mueller report

 Myth 6. Because Trump was unsuccessful in ending the investigation, he couldn't have obstructed justice.

RESPONSE: The report finds substantial evidence that Trump asked McGhan to fire Mueller. McGhan said he was prepared to resign rather than comply. Because the law punishes attempts, Trump's effort      to end the investigation constitutes obstruction of justice, even though McGhan did not follow through on the order. In addition, Mueller found that all elements of obstruction were satisfied with regard to Trump's efforts to limit the investigation to future elections: Trump directed then Attorney General Jeff Sessions to 'unrecuse' himself from the investigation and to publicly announce that the investigation would focus only on future elections. If successful, this effort would have prevented us from learning the truth about Russia's efforts to attack the 2016 election.

Myth 7. A President cannot obstruct justice as a matter of law when he is exercising executive power.

RESPONSE: Mueller found that this theory, advanced by Barr in an unsolicited 19-page memo before he became Attorney General, was inconsistent with the law the Constitution and the foundational notion of separation of powers. The Constitution requires not just that the President execute the law, but also that he do so "faithfully." As Mueller and his team stated, subjecting the President to obstruction [of the] law is consistent with the principle of our government that "no person in this country is so high that he is above the law." Even under Barr's theory, a President commits illegal obstruction when he engages in conduct that is outside his executive power, like directing a witness to create a false document, as Mueller found that Trump did with McGhan.

Myth 8. Mueller wanted Barr to make the call on whether Trump committed obstruction.

RESPONSE: Mueller didn't invite Barr to make a decision about prosecuting obstruction. He left it to prosecutors who could decide whether to pursue charges after Trump left office and to Congress, which has impeachment power. Barr's peremptory dismissal of obstruction happened with no explanation of how he was able to resolve the evidence of obstruction when Mueller could not. Since then, more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors, including us, have signed a letter stating that the evidence establishes multiple counts of obstruction of justice.

The myths about the Mueller report that just won't die, continued

 This is a continuation of the myths about the Mueller report, with the first two already posted.

Myth 3. Case closed. No do-overs.

RESPONSE: Mueller investigated the case under criminal statutes, which is a narrow window of inquiry. Congress has a broader responsibility to determine whether the President committed high crimes and misdemeanors for which impeachment is appropriate.

Myth 4. Focus on obstruction detracts from focus on Russia.

RESPONSE: Focusing on obstruction is focusing on Russia. Mueller concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a 'sweeping and systematic fashion.' The report documents Trump's efforts to end or curtail the investigation, his refusal to be interviewed, and written answers that Mueller found 'inadequate.' It also notes that members of the campaign lied, refused to answer questions and deleted communications. Obstruction is a crime precisely because those who engage in it seek to keep investigators from arriving at the truth. As Mueller wrote in Volume I of the report, pertaining to a conspiracy with Russia, 'given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would have shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.' Efforts to obstruct the investigation may have shielded not only the conduct of members of Trump's campaign, but also active measures by Russia to interfere with our election.

Myth 5. If there was no underlying crime, there can be no obstruction of justice.

RESPONSE: Obstruction of justice included not just completed acts but also attempts. Regardless of Trump's motive -- perhaps to conceal his payments to silence Stormy Daniels, perhaps to avoid the appearance that his election was illegitimate because it was achieved with assistance from a foreign adversary -- his efforts to interfere with Mueller's investigation legally amounts to obstruction of justice, even under the narrow definition and high standard of proof Mueller used. Of course, crimes 'were' charged against 37 individuals and entities, including more than two dozen Russian nationals.