Through the Valley of SWAT: America's Homegrown Counterinsurgents

To Terrify and Occupy: How the Excessive Militarization of the Police is Turning Cops Into Counterinsurgents

by Matthew Harwood  - TomDispatch

Jason Westcott was afraid.

One night last fall, he discovered via Facebook that a friend of a friend was planning with some co-conspirators to break in to his home. They were intent on stealing Wescott's handgun and a couple of TV sets. According to the Facebook message, the suspect was planning on “burning” Westcott, who promptly called the Tampa Bay police and reported the plot.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, the investigating officers responding to Westcott’s call had a simple message for him: “If anyone breaks into this house, grab your gun and shoot to kill.”

Around 7:30 pm on May 27th, the intruders arrived. Westcott followed the officers’ advice, grabbed his gun to defend his home, and died pointing it at the intruders. They used a semiautomatic shotgun and handgun to shoot down the 29-year-old motorcycle mechanic. He was hit three times, once in the arm and twice in his side, and pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital.

The intruders, however, weren’t small-time crooks looking to make a small score. Rather they were members of the Tampa Bay Police Department’s SWAT team, which was executing a search warrant on suspicion that Westcott and his partner were marijuana dealers. They had been tipped off by a confidential informant, whom they drove to Westcott’s home four times between February and May to purchase small amounts of marijuana, at $20-$60 a pop. The informer notified police that he saw two handguns in the home, which was why the Tampa Bay police deployed a SWAT team to execute the search warrant.

In the end, the same police department that told Westcott to protect his home with defensive force killed him when he did. After searching his small rental, the cops indeed found weed, two dollars' worth, and one legal handgun -- the one he was clutching when the bullets ripped into him.

Welcome to a new era of American policing, where cops increasingly see themselves as soldiers occupying enemy territory, often with the help of Uncle Sam’s armory, and where even nonviolent crimes are met with overwhelming force and brutality.

Tomgram: Matthew Harwood, One Nation Under SWAT

Think of it as a different kind of blowback. Even when you fight wars in countries thousands of miles distant, they still have an eerie way of making the long trip home.

Take the latest news from Bergen County, New Jersey, one of the richest counties in the country. Its sheriff’s department is getting two mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs -- 15 tons of protective equipment -- for a song from the Pentagon. And there’s nothing special in that. The Pentagon has handed out 600 of them for nothing since 2013, with plenty more to come. They’re surplus equipment, mostly from our recent wars, and perhaps they will indeed prove handy for a sheriff fretting about insurgent IEDs (roadside bombs) in New Jersey or elsewhere in the country. When it comes to the up-armoring and militarization of America’s police forces, this is completely run-of-the-mill stuff.

The only thing newsworthy in the Bergen story is that someone complained. To be exact, Bergen County Executive Kathleen Donovan spoke up in opposition to the transfer of the equipment. “I think,” she said, “we have lost our way if you start talking about military vehicles on the streets of Bergen County.” And she bluntly criticized the decision to accept the MRAPs as the “absolute wrong thing to do in Bergen County to try to militarize our county.” Her chief of staff offered a similar comment: “They are combat vehicles. Why do we need a combat vehicle on the streets of Bergen County?”

Sheriff Michael Saudino, on the other hand, insists that the MRAPs aren't “combat vehicles” at all. Forget the fact that they were developed for and used in combat situations. He suggests instead that one good reason for having them -- other than the fact that they are free (except for postage, gas, and upkeep) -- is essentially to keep up with the Joneses. As he pointed out, the Bergen County police already have two MRAPs, and his department has none and, hey, self-respect matters! (“Should our SWAT guys be any less protected than the county guys?” he asked in a debate with Donovan.)

A striking recent report from the American Civil Liberties Union indicates that, as in Bergen County, policing is being militarized nationwide in all sorts of unsettling ways. It is, more precisely, being SWATified (a word that doesn’t yet exist, but certainly should). Matthew Harwood, senior writer and editor for the ACLU, as well as TomDispatch regular, offers a graphic look at just where policing in America is heading. Welcome to Kabul, USA. Tom

 

 

To Terrify and Occupy: How the Excessive Militarization of the Police is Turning Cops Into Counterinsurgents

by Matthew Harwood

 

The War on Your Doorstep

The cancer of militarized policing has long been metastasizing in the body politic. It has been growing ever stronger since the first Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams were born in the 1960s in response to that decade’s turbulent mix of riots, disturbances, and senseless violence like Charles Whitman’s infamous clock-tower rampage in Austin, Texas.

While SWAT isn’t the only indicator that the militarization of American policing is increasing, it is the most recognizable. The proliferation of SWAT teams across the country and their paramilitary tactics have spread a violent form of policing designed for the extraordinary but in these years made ordinary. When the concept of SWAT arose out of the Philadelphia and Los Angeles Police Departments, it was quickly picked up by big city police officials nationwide. Initially, however, it was an elite force reserved for uniquely dangerous incidents, such as active shooters, hostage situations, or large-scale disturbances.

Nearly a half-century later, that’s no longer true.

In 1984, according to Radley Balko's Rise of the Warrior Cop, about 26% of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 had SWAT teams. By 2005, that number had soared to 80% and it’s still rising, though SWAT statistics are notoriously hard to come by.

As the number of SWAT teams has grown nationwide, so have the raids. Every year now, there are approximately 50,000 SWAT raids in the United States, according to Professor Pete Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University’s School of Justice Studies. In other words, roughly 137 times a day a SWAT team assaults a home and plunges its inhabitants and the surrounding community into terror.

Upping the Racial Profiling Ante

In a recently released report, “War Comes Home,” the American Civil Liberties Union (my employer) discovered that nearly 80% of all SWAT raids it reviewed between 2011 and 2012 were deployed to execute a search warrant.

Pause here a moment and consider that these violent home invasions are routinely used against people who are only suspected of a crime. Up-armored paramilitary teams now regularly bash down doors in search of evidence of a possible crime. In other words, police departments increasingly choose a tactic that often results in injury and property damage as its first option, not the one of last resort. In more than 60% of the raids the ACLU investigated, SWAT members rammed down doors in search of possible drugs, not to save a hostage, respond to a barricade situation, or neutralize an active shooter.

On the other side of that broken-down door, more often than not, are blacks and Latinos. When the ACLU could identify the race of the person or people whose home was being broken into, 68% of the SWAT raids against minorities were for the purpose of executing a warrant in search of drugs. When it came to whites, that figure dropped to 38%, despite the well-known fact that blacks, whites, and Latinos all use drugs at roughly the same rates. SWAT teams, it seems, have a disturbing record of disproportionately applying their specialized skill set within communities of color.

Think of this as racial profiling on steroids in which the humiliation of stop and frisk is raised to a terrifying new level.

Everyday Militarization

Don’t think, however, that the military mentality and equipment associated with SWAT operations are confined to those elite units. Increasingly, they’re permeating all forms of policing.

As Karl Bickel, a senior policy analyst with the Justice Department’s Community Policing Services office, observes, police across America are being trained in a way that emphasizes force and aggression. He notes that recruit training favors a stress-based regimen that’s modeled on military boot camp rather than on the more relaxed academic setting a minority of police departments still employ. The result, he suggests, is young officers who believe policing is about kicking ass rather than working with the community to make neighborhoods safer. Or as comedian Bill Maher reminded officers recently: “The words on your car, ‘protect and serve,’ refer to us, not you.”

This authoritarian streak runs counter to the core philosophy that supposedly dominates twenty-first-century American thinking: community policing. Its emphasis is on a mission of “keeping the peace” by creating and maintaining partnerships of trust with and in the communities served. Under the community model, which happens to be the official policing philosophy of the U.S. government, officers are protectors but also problem solvers who are supposed to care, first and foremost, about how their communities see them. They don’t command respect, the theory goes: they earn it. Fear isn’t supposed to be their currency. Trust is.

Nevertheless, police recruiting videos, as in those from California’s Newport Beach Police Department and New Mexico’s Hobbs Police Department, actively play up not the community angle but militarization as a way of attracting young men with the promise of Army-style adventure and high-tech toys. Policing, according to recruiting videos like these, isn’t about calmly solving problems; it’s about you and your boys breaking down doors in the middle of the night.

SWAT’s influence reaches well beyond that. Take the increasing adoption of battle-dress uniforms (BDUs) for patrol officers. These militaristic, often black, jumpsuits, Bickel fears, make them less approachable and possibly also more aggressive in their interactions with the citizens they’re supposed to protect.

A small project at Johns Hopkins University seemed to bear this out. People were shown pictures of police officers in their traditional uniforms and in BDUs. Respondents, the survey indicated, would much rather have a police officer show up in traditional dress blues. Summarizing its findings, Bickel writes, “The more militaristic look of the BDUs, much like what is seen in news stories of our military in war zones, gives rise to the notion of our police being an occupying force in some inner city neighborhoods, instead of trusted community protectors.”

Where Do They Get Those Wonderful Toys?

“I wonder if I can get in trouble for doing this,” the young man says to his buddy in the passenger seat as they film the Saginaw County Sheriff Office’s new toy: a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. As they film the MRAP from behind, their amateur video has a Red Dawn-esque feel, as if an occupying military were now patrolling this Michigan county’s streets. “This is getting ready for f**king crazy times, dude,” one young man comments. “Why,” his friend replies, “has our city gotten that f**king bad?”

In fact, nothing happening in Saginaw County warranted the deployment of an armored vehicle capable of withstanding bullets and the sort of improvised explosive devices that insurgent forces have regularly planted along roads in America’s recent war zones. Sheriff William Federspiel, however, fears the worst. "As sheriff of the county, I have to put ourselves in the best position to protect our citizens and protect our property," he told a reporter. "I have to prepare for something disastrous."

Lucky for Federspiel, his exercise in paranoid disaster preparedness didn’t cost his office a penny. That $425,000 MRAP came as a gift, courtesy of Uncle Sam, from one of our far-flung counterinsurgency wars. The nasty little secret of policing’s militarization is that taxpayers are subsidizing it through programs overseen by the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Justice Department.

Take the 1033 program. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) may be an obscure agency within the Department of Defense, but through the 1033 program, which it oversees, it’s one of the core enablers of American policing’s excessive militarization. Beginning in 1990, Congress authorized the Pentagon to transfer its surplus property free of charge to federal, state, and local police departments to wage the war on drugs. In 1997, Congress expanded the purpose of the program to include counterterrorism in section 1033 of the defense authorization bill. In one single page of a 450-page law, Congress helped sow the seeds of today’s warrior cops.

The amount of military hardware transferred through the program has grown astronomically over the years. In 1990, the Pentagon gave $1 million worth of equipment to U.S. law enforcement. That number had jumped to nearly $450 million in 2013. Overall, the program has shipped off more than $4.3 billion worth of materiel to state and local cops, according to the DLA.

In its recent report, the ACLU found a disturbing range of military gear being transferred to civilian police departments nationwide. Police in North Little Rock, Arkansas, for instance, received 34 automatic and semi-automatic rifles, two robots that can be armed, military helmets, and a Mamba tactical vehicle. Police in Gwinnet County, Georgia, received 57 semi-automatic rifles, mostly M-16s and M-14s. The Utah Highway Patrol, according to a Salt Lake City Tribune investigation, got an MRAP from the 1033 program, and Utah police received 1,230 rifles and four grenade launchers. After South Carolina’s Columbia Police Department received its very own MRAP worth $658,000, its SWAT Commander Captain E.M. Marsh noted that 500 similar vehicles had been distributed to law enforcement organizations across the country.

Astoundingly, one-third of all war materiel parceled out to state, local, and tribal police agencies is brand new. This raises further disconcerting questions: Is the Pentagon simply wasteful when it purchases military weapons and equipment with taxpayer dollars? Or could this be another downstream, subsidized market for defense contractors? Whatever the answer, the Pentagon is actively distributing weaponry and equipment made for U.S. counterinsurgency campaigns abroad to police who patrol American streets and this is considered sound policy in Washington. The message seems striking enough: what might be necessary for Kabul might also be necessary for DeKalb County.

In other words, the twenty-first-century war on terror has melded thoroughly with the twentieth-century war on drugs, and the result couldn’t be anymore disturbing: police forces that increasingly look and act like occupying armies.

How the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice Are Up-Armoring the Police

When police departments look to muscle up their arms and tactics, the Pentagon isn’t the only game in town. Civilian agencies are in on it, too.

During a 2011 investigation, reporters Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz discovered that, since 9/11, police departments watching over some of the safest places in America have used $34 billion in grant funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to militarize in the name of counterterrorism.

In Fargo, North Dakota, for example, the city and its surrounding county went on an $8 million spending spree with federal money, according to Becker and Schulz. Although the area averaged less than two murders a year since 2005, every squad car is now armed with an assault rifle. Police also have access to Kevlar helmets that can stop heavy firepower as well as an armored truck worth approximately $250,000. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1,500 beat cops have been trained to use AR-15 assault rifles with homeland security grant funding.

As with the 1033 program, neither DHS nor state and local governments account for how the equipment, including body armor and drones, is used. While the rationale behind stocking up on these military-grade supplies is invariably the possibility of a terrorist attack, school shooting, or some other horrific event, the gear is normally used to conduct paramilitary drug raids, as Balko notes.

Still, the most startling source of police militarization is the Department of Justice, the very agency officially dedicated to spreading the community policing model through its Community Oriented Policing Services office.

In 1988, Congress authorized the Byrne grant programs in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which gave state and local police federal funds to enlist in the government’s drug war. That grant program, according to Balko, led to the creation of regional and multi-jurisdictional narcotics task forces, which gorged themselves on federal money and, with little federal, state, or local oversight, spent it beefing up their weapons and tactics. In 2011, 585 of these task forces operated off of Byrne grant funding.

The grants, Balko reports, also incentivized the type of policing that has made the war on drugs such a destructive force in American society. The Justice Department doled out Byrne grants based on how many arrests officers made, how much property they seized, and how many warrants they served. The very things these narcotics task forces did very well. “As a result,” Balko writes, “we have roving squads of drug cops, loaded with SWAT gear, who get money if they conduct more raids, make more arrests, and seize more property, and they are virtually immune to accountability if they get out of line.”

Regardless of whether this militarization has occurred due to federal incentives or executive decision-making in police departments or both, police across the nation are up-armoring with little or no public debate. In fact, when the ACLU requested SWAT records from 255 law enforcement agencies as part of its investigation, 114 denied them. The justifications for such denials varied, but included arguments that the documents contained “trade secrets” or that the cost of complying with the request would be prohibitive. Communities have a right to know how the police do their jobs, but more often than not, police departments think otherwise.

Being the Police Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry

Report by report, evidence is mounting that America’s militarized police are a threat to public safety. But in a country where the cops increasingly look upon themselves as soldiers doing battle day in, day out, there’s no need for public accountability or even an apology when things go grievously wrong.

If community policing rests on mutual trust between the police and the people, militarized policing operates on the assumption of “officer safety” at all costs and contempt for anyone who sees things differently. The result is an “us versus them” mentality.

Just ask the parents of Bou Bou Phonesavanh. Around 3:00 a.m. on May 28th, the Habersham County Special Response Team conducted a no-knock raid at a relative’s home near Cornelia, Georgia, where the family was staying. The officers were looking for the homeowner’s son, whom they suspected of selling $50 worth of drugs to a confidential informant. As it happened, he no longer lived there.

Despite evidence that children were present -- a minivan in the driveway, children’s toys littering the yard, and a Pack ‘n Play next to the door -- a SWAT officer tossed a “flashbang” grenade into the home. It landed in 19-month-old Bou Bou’s crib and exploded, critically wounding the toddler. When his distraught mother tried to reach him, officers screamed at her to sit down and shut up, telling her that her child was fine and had just lost a tooth. In fact, his nose was hanging off his face, his body had been severely burned, and he had a hole in his chest. Rushed to the hospital, Bou Bou had to be put into a medically induced coma.

The police claimed that it was all a mistake and that there had been no evidence children were present. “There was no malicious act performed,” Habersham County Sheriff Joey Terrell told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “It was a terrible accident that was never supposed to happen.” The Phonesavanhs have yet to receive an apology from the sheriff’s office. “Nothing. Nothing for our son. No card. No balloon. Not a phone call. Not anything,” Bou Bou’s mother, Alecia Phonesavanh, told CNN.

Similarly, Tampa Bay Police Chief Jane Castor continues to insist that Jay Westcott’s death in the militarized raid on his house was his own fault. "Mr. Westcott lost his life because he aimed a loaded firearm at police officers. You can take the entire marijuana issue out of the picture," Castor said. "If there's an indication that there is armed trafficking going on -- someone selling narcotics while they are armed or have the ability to use a firearm -- then the tactical response team will do the initial entry."

In her defense of the SWAT raid, Castor simply dismissed any responsibility for Westcott’s death. “They did everything they could to serve this warrant in a safe manner,” she wrote the Tampa Bay Times -- “everything,” that is, but find an alternative to storming the home of a man they knew feared for his life.

Almost half of all American households report having a gun, as the ACLU notes in its report. That means the police always have a ready-made excuse for using SWAT teams to execute warrants when less confrontational and less violent alternatives exist.

In other words, if police believe you’re selling drugs, beware. Suspicion is all they need to turn your world upside down. And if they’re wrong, don’t worry; the intent couldn’t have been better.

Voices in the Wilderness

The militarization of the police shouldn’t be surprising. As Hubert Williams, a former police director of Newark, New Jersey, and Patrick V. Murphy, former commissioner of the New York City Police Department, put it nearly 25 years ago, police are “barometers of the society in which they operate.” In post-9/11 America, that means police forces imbued with the “hooah” mentality of soldiers and acting as if they are fighting an insurgency in their own backyard.

While the pace of police militarization has quickened, there has at least been some pushback from current and former police officials who see the trend for what it is: the destruction of community policing. In Spokane, Washington, Councilman Mike Fagan, a former police detective, is pushing back against police officers wearing BDUs, calling the get-up “intimidating” to citizens. In Utah, the legislature passed a bill requiring probable cause before police could execute a no-knock raid. Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank has been a vocal critic of militarization, telling the local paper, “We’re not the military. Nor should we look like an invading force coming in.” Just recently, Chief Charlie Beck of the Los Angeles Police Department agreed with the ACLU and the Los Angeles Times editorial board that “the lines between municipal law enforcement and the U.S. military cannot be blurred.”

Retired Seattle police chief Norm Stamper has also become an outspoken critic of militarizing police forces, noting “most of what police are called upon to do, day in and day out, requires patience, diplomacy, and interpersonal skills.” In other words, community policing. Stamper is the chief who green-lighted a militarized response to World Trade Organization protests in his city in 1999 (“The Battle in Seattle”). It’s a decision he would like to take back. “My support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose,” he wrote in the Nation. “Rocks, bottles and newspaper racks went flying. Windows were smashed, stores were looted, fires lighted; and more gas filled the streets, with some cops clearly overreacting, escalating and prolonging the conflict.”

These former policemen and law enforcement officials understand that police officers shouldn't be breaking down any citizen's door at 3 a.m. armed with AR-15s and flashbang grenades in search of a small amount of drugs, while an MRAP idles in the driveway. The anti-militarists, however, are in the minority right now. And until that changes, violent paramilitary police raids will continue to break down the doors of nearly 1,000 American households a week.

War, once started, can rarely be contained.

Matthew Harwood is senior writer/editor at the American Civil Liberties Union and a TomDispatch regular. You can follow him on Twitter @mharwood31.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook and Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me.

Copyright 2014 Matthew Harwood

NDP MP Rankin Answers Consituent Concern Over Party's Gaza Position

[Letter from NDP MP Murray Rankin]

by "Murray Rankin"

Dear [JB],

Thank you for writing to me. Like you, I am very concerned by the recent violence in Gaza and Israel. No one can remain insensitive to such a terrible situation affecting innocent civilians, with hundreds killed and millions living in fear for their safety. This situation is unacceptable to me, just as it is unacceptable to you.

I want to be very clear about what my NDP colleagues and I have said and done in response.

The suggestion that the NDP has been silent or indifferent about Palestinian suffering is not correct. I am  proud to belong to a party – the only political party in Canada – that consistently defends human rights and international law and works in support of a peaceful two-state solution in the Middle East. The current situation in Gaza is no exception. The NDP has criticized the indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas. We have also criticized the unacceptable number of civilian casualties from Israeli attacks, including the horrifying shelling of a UN facility sheltering refugees in Gaza.

I would encourage you to read NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar’s most recent statement.

My NDP colleagues and I will continue to call for international law to be respected by all parties. Since the conflict began, the NDP has publicly called for an immediate ceasefire and the protection of civilians, for Canada to contribute humanitarian support for civilians in Gaza, for all parties to abide by international law, and for the unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance within Gaza, including food, fuel and medical treatment.

The NDP has called on the Canadian government to take a leadership role in the protection of civilians, securing an immediate ceasefire and working towards a lasting, negotiated settlement to the conflict. In line with the NDP position and longstanding Canadian policy, we will continue to push the government to oppose settlements in the occupied territories, which are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a serious obstacle to a just and lasting peace, and to support a negotiated two-state settlement.

Since the start of the current conflict, we have put out repeated statements, social media messages and comments to the media responding to events and calling on Canada to support diplomatic efforts for an immediate ceasefire, including by working to ensure the unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance within Gaza and promote the sustained reopening of crossing points, in keeping with UN Security Council resolution 1860 (2009).

NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar wrote to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird to criticize cuts to Canadian support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and call for Canada to support the UNRWA emergency appeal for the Gaza Strip.


 For your reference, here are a few relevant excerpts from media interviews:

"We totally disagree with the government's approach. We think it's not balanced. We think that we should be telling our friends, Israel and [Prime Minister] Netanyahu in particular, that he's not doing enough to protect civilians. ... We disagree with Mr. Netanyahu and his approach, because notwithstanding their claim to trying to be careful, we've seen too high of civilian casualties and it's unacceptable." – The Hill Times (30/07/14):

“Israel should be doing more to de-escalate and taking more care in dealing with civilian casualties. ... The government shouldn’t be simply rubber stamping everything that comes from (Israeli Prime Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu. We should be telling him that there are too many civilian casualties and it’s unacceptable. We also have to think in terms of the Israelis who are living in fear … living in constant fear is not acceptable either.” – Ottawa Citizen (28/07/14)

“We do not have a responsible foreign policy when it comes to this issue. We’re not actually playing a constructive role. No one is going to call us to help negotiate things behind the scenes because of our stated position.” – Ottawa Citizen (15/07/14)

We believe that the Canadian government must pursue a balanced and responsible position focused on civilian protection and supporting international efforts for an immediate and lasting ceasefire, and that the Conservative government’s failure to strike any balance during this conflict has further diminished Canada’s international reputation. The principled NDP position has been recognized by representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Canadian Council of Imams, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Islamic Society of North America.

“I particularly value your insights and principled position pertaining to Palestinian rights and our pursuit of a just peace. I remain confident of your continued support and constructive efforts in elping us achieve our freedom, self-determination, and global recognition." – Executive Committee Member of the Palestine Liberation Organization Hanan

Ashrawi, in a letter to NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar.

“We are writing this letter in recognition of your just and fair policy pertaining to the Israeli Palestinian crisis. Your party has placed equal value on both Israeli and Palestinian lives and has bravely stood for ending the bloodshed, upholding human rights and abiding by international law. We the undersigned organizations applaud your position.”  – Canadian Council of Imams (CCI); Canadians in Support of Refugees in Dire Need (CSRDN); Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); Muslim Medical Association of Canada (MMAC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Conservative government’s unbalanced response to this conflict is wrong.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I want you to know that I will continue to work with my NDP colleagues to press the government of Canada to take a leadership role in demanding the protection of innocent civilians, securing a lasting ceasefire and working towards a just and comprehensive peace.

Sincerely,

"Murray Rankin"

Will "Polluter Pay" in Mount Polley Tailings Spill?

Mount Polley Bankruptcy Could Leave BC Public Footing Cleanup Bill

by Peter Ewart - Common Sense Canadian

The clean-up costs for the massive tailing pond spill at Imperial Metals’ Polley Mountain mine have been estimated by some to range between $50 and $500 million. In addition, legal action will undoubtedly be launched by individuals, businesses, and First Nations in the region which could result in hundreds of millions more in costs.
Resident Rod Marining surveys the damage.

And then there are law firms launching suits on behalf of Imperial stockholders who have suffered huge stock losses when the company’s stock plunged over 40%. Whatever the final amount, the issue comes down to – Who is going to pay?

On August 8, BC Environment Minister Mary Polak said: “We have a polluter-pay model in British Columbia and we expect the company will be the one paying for the cleanup and recovery” and that she has “heard commitments that [the company] is ready, willing and able to continue to fund what they need to”.

However, comments from Imperial Metals president Brian Kynoch suggest that the situation may be a lot more dicey than this optimistic statement from the Minister. According to one news report, Kynoch has committed to paying for the clean-up “to the best of [his] ability”. But in contrast to Mary Polak’s statement that the company is “ready, willing and able” to pay for the spill, Kynoch is more equivocal and doubts that the company’s insurance will be high enough to cover the cost (for more on the insurance issue see Aug. 12 column).

 

Imperial in financial Catch-22

After indicating that the company does not have the money in the bank at this time, Kynoch goes on to say that, “If it’s $400 million, then we are going to have to get mines generating to make that money to do the cleanup.”

But there is a problem here when Kynoch says that we need to “get mines generating” the cleanup funds. For one thing, as noted before in 250 News on Aug. 7th, company financial statements of previous years reveal that the Mount Polley mine itself was being used to generate “cash flow” for the company’s new Red Chris mine in northwestern BC, as well as other Imperial operations. Yes, the Red Chris mine is nearing finish as is its extension to the Northwest Transmission Line, and presumably will generate substantial amounts of revenue down the road. But completion of the construction, as well as start-up funds, will be required for a while before that happens, especially since negotiations are still going on between Red Chris and that Tahltan First Nation regarding the mine.

So the Red Chris mine will still need cash flow from other parts of the company. But the Mount Polley mine, which has been a cash cow for Red Chris, will likely not be in operation until the end of the year or later. In the meantime, clean up and associated costs for the spill will be mounting by the day. To compound the problem, Imperial Metals’ other operating mine, Huckleberry Mine (which Imperial has a 50% stake in), was down for several months earlier this year because of equipment failure. The company has a lot of debt, and, as one financial analyst says, “the shutdown of Mount Polley will stretch thin an already tight balance sheet”.

Red Chris: The sharks are circling

 

Red Chris Mine (Unuk River Post)

So how will the financial oligarchs who dominate the Canadian and global mining industry view this dicey situation? Speaking plainly, some are no doubt looking at how to hive off the lucrative Red Chris mining asset and other Imperial assets from the Mount Polley operation, which is already nearing the end of its life as a mine and will be beset with clean-up costs and lawsuits for years to come. Indeed, a number of big companies were in fierce competition to gain control of the Red Chris property several years ago, but Imperial Metals eventually won out. Now the situation has changed and the sharks are circling again as can be seen by recent business analyst speculation on how Red Chris might be torn away.

But could this conceivably happen? Could the Red Chris mine and other Imperial assets be siloed or separated off from a Mount Polley mine that is burdened with debt and lawsuits? Could then the Mount Polley operation (or even Imperial Metals itself) eventually go bankrupt requiring public funds to clean up the mess and leaving plaintiffs twisting in the wind?

 

Each Imperial mine is its own separate company

The first thing to get straight is that, although the Mount Polley mine and the Red Chris mine are all part of the parent company Imperial Metals and are subsidiaries of it, they exist as separate companies. For example, the Mount Polley mine is owned by the Mount Polley Mining Corporation (Imperial Metals acquired majority ownership back in the 1990s) and the Red Chris mine is owned by the Red Chris Development Corporation. In turn, both are wholly owned by Imperial Metals.

To many, it would seem logical that any debt or obligations incurred by the Mount Polley Mining Corporation should fall on the parent company Imperial Metals and its wholly owned subsidiaries such as Red Chris Development Corporation. But that is not necessarily the case according to current corporate law and government policy.

For example, a few years ago in BC, there was a tank car spill on a railway and the parent railway company and its 100% owned subsidiary company (which actually operated the railway) were sued. But the BC Provincial Court ruled “that the parent company wasn’t liable for the subsidiary’s environmental offences” because it merely owned the railway and didn’t operate it (Environmental Compliance Insider).

But wait. If we examine Business Registry records regarding Imperial Metals and its subsidiary companies, we find that there are several overlapping members of the Boards of Directors, i.e. several of the Imperial Metals directors sit on the board of Mount Polley Mining Corporation and the same is true for some of the company officers. Doesn’t this prove something in terms of potential responsibility?

Not in this particular railway case. The court found that it didn’t matter that there were overlapping directors. The parent company got off Scot free (although this does not always happen).

BC public could be left out in the cold

In such a circumstance, it is within the realm of possibility that the subsidiary company could then go bankrupt and leave the plaintiffs and the people of BC out in the cold.

And yes, corporate reorganizations do happen all the time where assets are hived off. Indeed, Imperial Metals, facing bankruptcy back in the early 2000s, did exactly that in a court-sanctioned restructuring which saw subsidiary oil and gas companies and assets shifted into a separate company from its mining assets (which were facing difficulty at that time as a result of low metal prices).

In any case, a better situation for the workforce, local communities and businesses, First Nations communities and the people of British Columbia will be that Imperial Metals and its subsidiaries remain intact and continue operating under strict public oversight, as well as with First Nations and community consent. It is especially important that Red Chris Development Corporation is not sold off by Imperial Metals and that the Mount Polley Mining Corporation is not hived off and put into bankruptcy.

 

Red Chris revenue should support Polley cleanup

As revealed in Imperial’s Annual Reports, the Mount Polley mine provided cash flow for the Red Chris mine construction and all sorts of profits for Imperial shareholders. Now it is Red Chris and Imperial’s turn. Clean-up costs and legal costs can be expected to go on for years. Rather than being sold off for a song and taken over by global financiers, the revenue from the lucrative Red Chris mine must be used to pay for these costs now and in the future. As previously noted, Imperial Metals’ president Brian Kynoch appears to support that course of action.

In terms of Imperial’s current financial woes, an immediate solution could be for Imperial’s largest investors, several of whom have very deep pockets, to step up to the plate and provide financing to stabilize the company’s situation. These dominant investors, who have directors connected to them on Imperial’s board, have profited greatly from Imperial’s operations in the past and should have been aware of the risks the Mount Polley mine was taking.

It is clear that vigilance is needed in this fast moving situation. For its part, the provincial government must make it very clear to Imperial Metals, as well as those who may be considering carving the company up, that it will not go along with any financial maneuvers that will hurt or endanger the interests of the people of BC or hinder the clean-up and financial reparations.

Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca

American Petro Dollar Will Ultimately Prevail Russia Trade War

My Money’s on Putin

by Mike Whitney - CounterPunch

“History shows that the United States has benefited politically and economically from wars in Europe. The huge outflow of capital from Europe following the First and Second World Wars, transformed the U.S. into a superpower … Today, faced with economic decline, the US is trying to precipitate another European war to achieve the same objective.”

– Sergey Glazyev, Russian politician and economist

“The discovery of the world’s largest, known gas reserves in the Persian Gulf, shared by Qatar and Iran, and new assessments which found 70 percent more gas in the Levantine in 2007, are key to understanding the dynamics of the conflicts we see today. After a completion of the PARS pipeline, from Iran, through Iraq and Syria to the Eastern Mediterranean coast, the European Union would receive more than an estimated 45 percent of the gas it consumes over the next 100 – 120 years from Russian and Iranian sources. Under non-conflict circumstances, this would warrant an increased integration of the European, Russian and Iranian energy sectors and national economies.”

– Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine

The United States failed operation in Syria, has led to an intensification of Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine. What the Obama administration hoped to achieve in Syria through its support of so called “moderate” Islamic militants was to topple the regime of Bashar al Assad, replace him with a US-backed puppet, and prevent the construction of the critical Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline.

That plan hasn’t succeeded nor will it in the near future, which means that the plan for the prospective pipeline will eventually go forward.

Why is that a problem?

It’s a problem because–according to Dr. Lehmann–”Together with the Russian gas… the EU would be able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas via Iranian and Russian sources.” As the primary suppliers of critical resources to Europe, Moscow and Tehran would grow stronger both economically and politically which would significantly undermine the influence of the US and its allies in the region, particularly Qatar and Israel. This is why opponents of the pipeline developed a plan to sabotage the project by fomenting a civil war in Syria.

Here’s Lehmann again:

“In 2007, Qatar sent USD 10 billion to Turkey´s Foreign Minister Davotoglu to prepare Turkey´s and Syria´s Muslim Brotherhood for the subversion of Syria. As we recently learned from former French Foreign Minister Dumas, it was also about that time, that actors in the United Kingdom began planning the subversion of Syria with the help of “rebels”’ (Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine)

In other words, the idea to arm, train and fund an army of jihadi militants, to oust al Assad and open up Syria to western interests, had its origins in an evolving energy picture that clearly tilted in the favor of US rivals in the region. (Note: We’re not sure why Lehmann leaves out Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the other Gulf States that have also been implicated.)

Lehmann’s thesis is supported by other analysts including the Guardian’s Nafeez Ahmed who explains what was going on behind the scenes of the fake civil uprising in Syria. Here’s a clip from an article by Ahmed titled “Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern”:

“In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had “cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations” intended to weaken the Shi’ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. “The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria,” wrote Hersh, “a byproduct” of which is “the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups” hostile to the United States and “sympathetic to al-Qaeda.” He noted that “the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria”…

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business”, he told French television:

“I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.”

… Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years”, starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.”
(“Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern“, The Guardian)

Apparently, Assad was approached by Qatar on the pipeline issue in 2009, but he refused to cooperate in order “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally.” Had Assad fallen in line and agreed to Qatar’s offer, then the effort to remove him from office probably would have been called off. In any event, it was the developments in Syria that triggered the frenzied reaction in Ukraine.

According to Lehmann:

“The war in Ukraine became predictable (unavoidable?) when the great Muslim Brotherhood Project in Syria failed during the summer of 2012. …In June and July 2012 some 20,000 NATO mercenaries who had been recruited and trained in Libya and then staged in the Jordanian border town Al-Mafraq, launched two massive campaigns aimed at seizing the Syrian city of Aleppo. Both campaigns failed and the ”Libyan Brigade” was literally wiped out by the Syrian Arab Army.

It was after this decisive defeat that Saudi Arabia began a massive campaign for the recruitment of jihadi fighters via the network of the Muslim Brotherhoods evil twin sister Al-Qaeda.

The International Crisis Group responded by publishing its report ”Tentative Jihad”. Washington had to make an attempt to distance itself ”politically” from the ”extremists”. Plan B, the chemical weapons plan was hedged but it became obvious that the war on Syria was not winnable anymore.” (“The Atlantic Axis and the Making of a War in Ukraine“, New eastern Outlook)

There were other factors that pushed the US towards a conflagration with Moscow in Ukraine, but the driving force was the fact that US rivals (Russia and Iran) stood to be the dominant players in an energy war that would increasingly erode Washington’s power. Further economic integration between Europe and Russia poses a direct threat to US plans to pivot to Asia, deploy NATO to Russia’s borders, and to continue to denominate global energy supplies in US dollars.

Lehmann notes that he had a conversation with “a top-NATO admiral from a northern European country” who clarified the situation in a terse, two-sentence summary of US foreign policy. He said:

“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.

This is the crux of the issue. The United States is not going to allow any state or combination of states to challenge its dominance. Washington doesn’t want rivals. It wants to be the undisputed, global superpower, which is the point that Paul Wolfowitz articulated in an early draft of the US National Defense Strategy:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

So the Obama administration is going to do whatever it thinks is necessary to stop further EU-Russia economic integration and to preserve the petrodollar system. That system originated in 1974 when President Richard Nixon persuaded OPEC members to denominate their oil exclusively in dollars, and to recycle their surplus oil proceeds into U.S. Treasuries. The arrangement turned out to be a huge windfall for the US, which rakes in more than $1 billion per day via the process. This, in turn, allows the US to over-consume and run hefty deficits. Other nations must stockpile dollars to purchase the energy that runs their machinery, heats their homes and fuels their vehicles. Meanwhile, the US can breezily exchange paper currency, which it can print at no-expense to itself, for valuable imported goods that cost dearly in terms of labor and materials. These dollars then go into purchasing oil or natural gas, the profits of which are then recycled back into USTs or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, bonds, real estate, or ETFs. This is the virtuous circle that keeps the US in the top spot.

As one critic put it: “World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy.”

The petrodollar system helps to maintain the dollar’s monopoly pricing which, in turn, sustains the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It creates excessive demand for dollars which allows the Fed to expand the nation’s credit by dramatically reducing the cost of financing. If oil and natural gas were no longer denominated in USDs, the value of the dollar would fall sharply, the bond market would collapse, and the US economy would slip into a long-term slump.

This is one of the reasons why the US invaded Iraq shortly after Saddam had switched over to the euro; because it considers any challenge to the petrodollar looting scam as a direct threat to US national security.

Moscow is aware of Washington’s Achilles’s heel and is making every effort to exploit that weakness by reducing its use of the dollar in its trade agreements. So far, Moscow has persuaded China and Iran to drop the dollar in their bilateral dealings, and they have found that other trading partners are eager to do the same. Recently, Russian economic ministers conducted a “de-dollarization” meeting in which a “currency switch executive order” was issued stating that “the government has the legal power to force Russian companies to trade a percentage of certain goods in rubles.”

Last week, according to RT:

“The Russian and Chinese central banks have agreed a draft currency swap agreement, which will allow them to increase trade in domestic currencies and cut the dependence on the US dollar in bilateral payments. “The draft document between the Central Bank of Russia and the People’s Bank of China on national currency swaps has been agreed by the parties…..The agreement will stimulate further development of direct trade in yuan and rubles on the domestic foreign exchange markets of Russia and China,” the Russian regulator said.

Currently, over 75 percent of payments in Russia-China trade settlements are made in US dollars, according to Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper.” (“De-Dollarization Accelerates – China/Russia Complete Currency Swap Agreement“, Zero Hedge)

The attack on the petrodollar recycling system is one of many asymmetrical strategies Moscow is presently employing to discourage US aggression, to defend its sovereignty, and to promote a multi-polar world order where the rule of law prevails. The Kremlin is also pushing for institutional changes that will help to level the playing field instead of creating an unfair advantage for the richer countries like the US. Naturally, replacing the IMF, whose exploitative loans and punitive policies, topped the list for most of the emerging market nations, particularly the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) who, in July, agreed to create a $100 billion Development Bank that will “will counter the influence of Western-based lending institutions and the dollar. The new bank will provide money for infrastructure and development projects in BRICS countries, and unlike the IMF or World Bank, each nation has equal say, regardless of GDP size.

According to RT:

“The big launch of the BRICS bank is seen as a first step to break the dominance of the US dollar in global trade, as well as dollar-backed institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, both US-based institutions BRICS countries have little influence within…

“This mechanism creates the foundation for an effective protection of our national economies from a crisis in financial markets,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said.”
(“BRICS establish $100bn bank and currency pool to cut out Western dominance“, RT)

It’s clear that Washington’s aggression in Ukraine has focused Moscow’s attention on retaliation. But rather than confront the US militarily, as Obama and Co. would prefer, Putin is taking aim at the vulnerabilities within the system. A BRICS Development Bank challenges the IMF’s dominant role as lender of last resort, a role that has enhanced the power of the wealthy countries and their industries. The new bank creates the basis for real institutional change, albeit, still within the pervasive capitalist framework.

Russian politician and economist, Sergei Glazyev, summarized Moscow’s approach to the US-Russia conflagration in an essay titled “US is militarizing Ukraine to invade Russia.” Here’s an excerpt:

“To stop the war, you need to terminate its driving forces. At this stage, the war unfolds mainly in the planes of economic, public relations and politics. All the power of US economic superiority is based on the financial pyramid of debt, and this has gone long beyond sustainability. Its major lenders are collapsing enough to deprive the US market of accumulated US dollars and Treasury bonds. Of course, the collapse of the US financial system will cause serious losses to all holders of US currency and securities. But first, these losses for Russia, Europe and China will be less than the losses caused by American geopolitics unleashing another world war. Secondly, the sooner the exit from the financial obligations of this American pyramid, the less will be the losses. Third, the collapse of the dollar Ponzi scheme gives an opportunity, finally, to reform the global financial system on the basis of equity and mutual benefit.”

Washington thinks “modern warfare” involves covert support for proxy armies comprised of Neo Nazis and Islamic extremists. Moscow thinks modern warfare means undermining the enemy’s ability to wage war through sustained attacks on it’s currency, its institutions, its bond market, and its ability to convince its allies that it is a responsible steward of the global economic system.

I’ll put my money on Russia.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

Fate of Gaza Detainees Uncertain

Fate of Gaza detainees in Israel uncertain as 26 named

by Charlie Hoyle - Ma'an

BETHLEHEM - The number and whereabouts of Palestinians detained in Gaza during Israel's ground operation remain uncertain, as a rights group compiled an initial list of prisoners thought to be held by Israel.

The Al-Mezan Center For Human Rights and their lawyer Muhammad Jabarin said Monday that 26 Palestinians are being held in Ashkelon jail.

Jabarin told Ma'an that some of the detainees have been presented with charges such as belonging to an illegal organization -- referring to Palestinian political parties -- while the rest are undergoing interrogation and have been denied access to a lawyer.

At least 15 Palestinians have been held under the Unlawful Combatants Law and then released, the lawyer said.

The law allows the detention without trial of Gazans for an unlimited period of time and provides even less protection than administrative detention orders, which are issued in the occupied West Bank.

Mahmoud Abu Rahma, the director of communications for Al-Mezan, told Ma'an that three prisoners were released Sunday but re-arrested at the Erez crossing. He says the lack of access means it is difficult to establish why those named were arrested and how many more are in jail.

Israeli media have hinted that some were released in the Shalit exchange deal in 2011, but Abu Rahma says that the Unlawful Combatants law allows Israeli soldiers to arrest anyone they want until the case is reviewed by an Israeli court.

In some cases, Palestinians are arrested in areas where the Israeli army comes into contact with the civilian population in areas such as Beit Hanoun, where there were numerous reports of home raids in Israel's latest assault.

Initial accounts also suggest that many of those detained underwent physical and psychological torture, Abu Rahma said.

Arbitrary nature of arrests

Addameer prisoner rights group says that at least 250 Palestinians were arrested during Israel's ground operation in Gaza, with 150 detained on July 24 alone.

Randa Wahbe, an advocacy officer with the group, told Ma'an that in some cases Israeli soldiers failed to check the identity of those detained and arrested the relatives of Palestinians recently killed in Israeli attacks.

"Imprisonment is used as a policy of colonization. The ability to arrest as many people as possible moves them away from living normal lives, from building up their society, and fighting for self determination," Wahbe said.

Adalah rights group said that it has no idea about the number of Gaza detainees being held in Israel, having received no response to a petition filed to Israel's Supreme Court.

Laywer Sowsan Zaher told Ma'an that in many cases detainees were forcibly stripped of their clothing and shoes while being arrested, while other photographic evidence indicates that they were blindfolded.

"In many of these circumstances when Israel initiates a war or when they initiate military action, even in the West Bank, such detentions are done in a cruel and degrading way that breaches the rights of detainees," Zaher says.

A large number of detainees were also released after interrogation, a sign that shows the arrests were arbitrary, she says.

Israel's Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by rights group Hamoked to obtain the names of those detained, saying that they would only release information if the family in Gaza requested information about a missing relative.

Given the chaos created by Israel's offensive, it is difficult for families to determine whether a missing relative has been buried under rubble or detained.

During last week's court hearing, Hamoked representatives were not allowed to talk, in an atmosphere described by the group's director as a "circus."

One of the judges also claimed amid the shouting that no other state would treat its prisoners as well as Israel, effectively rejecting claims of illegal arrest and torture.

"They just took whoever they could get their hands on to get information, and maybe if they had to exchange bodies. It was just arbitrary," Dalia Kerstein, the director of Hamoked, told Ma'an.

According to Kerstein, on June 2 there were 201 administrative detainees being held in Israeli jails and by the beginning of August that number had doubled to 449, although it is hard to verify names.

The court told Hamoked that no detainees from Gaza are being held under the Unlawful Combatants Law and are currently in the Israeli Prison Service.

A spokeswoman for the institution, Sivan Weizman, could not provide details about detainees from Gaza, although she said they are spread out over several prisons.

"I can't tell you exactly who we have here from the Gaza operation. All the time there are prisoners, I suppose some of them are still here," she told Ma'an.

"Maybe there are detainees that have not come to the IPS (Israeli Prison Service)," she added.

The names of the 26 detained are as follows:

1. Afif Al-Jarah
2. Abd Al Rahman Ba’lousheh
3. Hassan Al-Astal
4. Mohammad Al-Agha
5. Ahmad Abu Lahia (the lawyer told him he will be released soon)
6. Ibrahim Abu Lahia
7. Mohammad Al-Qadra
8. Hatem Abu Rida
9. Mohammad Al-Najjar
10. Nidal Abu Rida
11. Mohammad Abu Darraj
12. Mohammad Abu Teer
13. Mohammad Abu Rida
14. Issa Al Najjar
15. Iyad Abu Rida
16. Mourad Amir Al Amour
17. Mohammad Salem Al Amour
18. Mohammad Abd Al Aziz Abu Ta’ameh
19. Moumen Al Najjar
20. Jihad Haddad
21. Mohammad Ramadan
22. Samir Al Najjar
23. Abdallah Al Najjar
24. Ibrahim Abu Shaweesh
25. Abd Al Qader Shalouf
26. Abd Al Naser Shalouf

BC Gov. Assures Fish Safe to Eat, While Mining Minister Insists Toxic Spill Like Normal "Avalanches"

Mount Polley Mine Tailings Pond Breach – Fish Consumption Deemed Safe

by BC Government Agencies

Following consultation and discussion with a number of agencies regarding the impacts of the Mount Polley Mine's tailings pond breach on the human health risks associated with eating fish, Interior Health’s Medical Health Officer (MHO) has deemed all fish outside of the revised August 12 “Do Not Use” water advisory as safe for human consumption.

Individuals should refrain from consuming fish from the remaining impact zone, which includes Polley Lake, Hazeltine Creek, and a small portion of Quesnel Lake that has a visible sediment plume.

“I recognize the important role fishing plays to local residents, First Nations community members, and visitors impacted by the Polley Mine spill and I wholeheartedly appreciate the concerns that are being expressed regarding safety,” said Dr. Trevor Corneil, Medical Health Officer, IH.

“I have consulted with numerous experts in this field, and I am reassured that the current fish living in these waterways, and those that may travel through it via the Fraser River or spawn in it are safe to consume.”

The decision on fish consumption was made after review of water and sediment sample results, which show fish were not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants from the mine breach. Fish testing currently underway continues to demonstrate no immediate harm to any local fish.

Prior to reaching this decision, Interior Health's MHO consulted extensively with officials from the Ministry of Environment (MoE) Water Quality Division, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) Fish and Wildlife, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Cariboo Regional District (CRD), and Northern Health Authority(NHA) and engaged in discussions with the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA).

As a precautionary measure and as part of ongoing monitoring, the MoE will continue to conduct tissue sampling of a variety of fish species. At the request of First Nations communities, the FNHA will be resourcing salmon tissue sampling using an independent assessor to interpret and share results.

 In addition, the MoE, CRD, and IH are developing a longer-term sampling plan recognizing the potential for cumulative impact of certain contaminants on fish. Interior Health will continue to monitor these sample results from a human health risk perspective.

“The CRD is pleased to see these results, as well as the collaboration that has occurred through Interior Health and the joint - agency advisory group,” says CRD Chair Al Richmond. 

“The protection and safety of fish and recreational fishing activities are important to residents and First Nations not only in the CRD area, but to residents in B.C. I am optimistic this direction from Dr. Corneil will assist in returning a sense of normalcy to our communities."

For Immediate Release
August 12, 2014

All British Columbians Are Downstream From Polley Spill

Are Fraser Sockeye Downstream from Polley Spill Safe to Eat?

by Alexandra Morton

The latest Canadian mine tailing pond spill into a B.C. waterway occurred last week near Likely, B.C. Prior to August 4, Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley gold and copper mine tailing pond was contained behind a gigantic wall of sand. There were warnings by employees and government that the tailing pond was over-filled and could rupture. The warnings were ignored and now much of this toxic material is in Quesnel Lake.

Quesnel Lake flows into the Fraser River, which flows throughout British Columbia, through the city of Vancouver into the Strait of Georgia.

This spill is not over. Material from the tailing pond continues to escape, lake bottoms have currents that will continue to move the mountain of sediment into the water column. This incident involves far more than the drinking water of the town of Likely.

The reason for tailing ponds is to keep toxic waste produced by mining contained. There are now mining tailings spread all over the spill site and satellite images show the tailings moving towards the Fraser River.

I am writing to suggest British Columbians look at this in a realistic light, because this affects all of us.

Heavy metals, such as those found in these mine tailings tend to bioaccumulate in living organisms. They can also kill insects which young fish feed on. Quesnel Lake is an important fish nursery and rears a large part of B.C.’s wild salmon. Fewer bugs mean fewer salmon, toxic bugs mean toxins in salmon.

I have been contacted by First Nation colleagues asking if the salmon in the Fraser River are safe to eat. It is a breach of government responsibility that every First Nation along the river has not already been contacted with test results. I understand the First Nations Health Authority is doing testing. We all need to see those results ASAP.

I have received pictures and reports from several places downriver from the Imperial mine spill of salmon with their skin peeling off. Is this exposure to acid? Guessing is dangerous and we need answers.

The situation has forced Cayoose Creek Band chief Michelle Edwards, Xaxli'p chief Darrel Bob, and Tsk’way’laxw chief Francis Alec to close all fishing for their communities. This is leadership that takes responsibility for human health.

I have spent 30 years trying to protect wild salmon from farm salmon disease. As a result, I am very familiar with government smoke and mirrors when a business activity threatens the health of British Columbia.

Simply put, the escape of millions of cubic metres of mine tailings into the Fraser River should concern all Canadians whether they live downstream of a mine or not, because we are a society that cares about the fate of our children.

The urgent question many people are asking: “are the salmon from Fraser River dangerous to eat?”

Alexandra Morton is the executive director of the Department of Wild Salmon. The Department of Wild Salmon links together the experience and knowledge of hundreds of salmon groups, First Nations, university departments, and labs.

Ferguson in Context: Era of Mass Black Incarceration Fuels Frustration

Understanding the Ferguson Uprising in the Context of Mass Incarceration

by TRNN

Glen Ford: The mainstream media refuses to contextualize the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri police in the history of mass incarceration of African Americans and police brutality that has sparked black uprisings.

Glen Ford is a distinguished radio-show host and commentator. In 1977, Ford co-launched, produced and hosted America's Black Forum, the first nationally syndicated Black news interview program on commercial television. In 1987, Ford launched Rap It Up, the first nationally syndicated Hip Hop music show, broadcast on 65 radio stations. Ford co-founded the Black Commentator in 2002 and in 2006 he launched the Black Agenda Report. Ford is also the author of The Big Lie: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of the Grenada Invasion.

Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook, Jon Elmer, Mickey Z., Janine Bandcroft August 13, 2014

This Week on GR

by C. L. Cook - Gorilla-Radio.com

Welcome to the inaugural edition of the show in its new time slot. Alternative Radio fans, please be easy, David Barsamian's excellent show will be featured in its new time...

Little is new, and everything has changed in Palestine. Though a creaking cease-fire is being observed, Israel's latest crime against conscience is proving an atrocity too far, as a dumb-struck world witnesses the predictable humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza.

Listen. Hear.

As exiled Gazan journalist and author, Ramzy Baroud observes:

"Since Israel besieged Gaza with Egypt’s help and coordination, life for Gazans has become largely about mere survival. The strip has been turned into a massive ground for an Israeli experiment     concerned with population control. Gazans were not allowed to venture out, fish, or farm, and those who got even close to some arbitrary “buffer zone,” determined by the Israeli army within Gaza’s own borders, were shot and often killed."

And yet, there are still none in Canada's House of Commons, the place where justice is debated and laws drawn up, willing to take a stand for pity's sake and denounce and condemn unreservedly Israel's actions. Nary a one.

Jon Elmer is a Canadian freelance photojournalist who has lived in and reported from Occupied Palestine on and off for more than a decade. Jon's work has appeared at myriad sites on the internet, including; Inter Press News Service, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Progressive, and Al Jazeera English, and at his web site JonElmer.ca.   

Jon Elmer in the first half.

And; It's difficult not to agree, the violence happening "over there" is terrible. "But," you may say, "those people have been fighting forever, and violence is normal for them." You may be a peaceful soul, and believe your life has little or nothing to do with the horror and upheaval we see going on all around us. My second guest says, "Pacifist, don't flatter yourself!"

Mickey Z. is a New York City born and bred activist, author, lecturer and martial artist who has the only-one-in-the-world distinction of having appeared in both a political anthology alongside Noam Chomsky, and featured in a Billy Banks karate film. Mickey Z.'s book titles include: 'Darker Shade of Green,' 'Self-Defense for Radicals: A to Z Guide for Subversive Struggle,' 'CPR for Dummies,' 50 American Revolutions You're Not Supposed to Know: Reclaiming American Patriotism,' 'The Seven Deadly Spins: Exposing the Lies Behind War Propaganda,' and his latest, 'Occupy this Book: Mickey Z. on Activism.'

Mickey Z., occupied with activism in the second half.

And; Victoria Street Newz publisher emeritus, and CFUV Radio broadcaster, Janine Bandcroft will join us at the bottom of the hour to bring us newz of the coming week from our city's streets and beyond. But first, Jon Elmer and an acceptable genocide in Gaza.

Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Wednesday, 1-2pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca.  He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, http://www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.ca/

G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the corporate media.

Revolution: Befuddled Masses Breaking the Trance

Did Someone Say Revolution?

Mickey Z. - Peace and Power to All Species

If you were to publicly declare your discontent with the U.S. government and your subsequent desire to abolish that government, the Land of the Free™ would likely reward you with an orange jumpsuit and a one-way ticket for an all-inclusive visit to Guantanamo Bay.

“The greatest challenge of the day is how to bring about a revolution of the heart, a revolution which has to start with each one of us.” 
-  Dorothy Day


photo credit: Mickey Z.

Now imagine if you instead chose to stand in front of a crowded room and utter something along these lines:

"I think all men are created equal and are endowed with certain undeniable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are created and derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government tries to destroy or take away these undeniable rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new one."

Bingo: you're a middle school history teacher! Okay class; turn to page 257. Today we'll be talking about Patrick Henry and don't tell me "give me liberty or give me death" sounds an awful lot like what one of those damn evil-doers might say.

Thomas Jefferson can pronounce: "Every generation needs a new revolution."

But that doesn't mean I can.

Honest Abe once opined: "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and force a new one that suits them better."

Hey, I'd love a government that suits me -- and all earthlings -- better, but making plans to "shake off the existing government and force a new one" would just about guarantee me a place on that secret no-fly list.

"The most heroic word in all languages is revolution," stated Eugene Debs, but if good ol’ Gene were around today and typed "revolution" into a search engine, he'd find the top response was a goddamned TV show.

Reality: As long as you're not talking about the U.S. government or one of its allies, you can spin as many revolutions as you please. You can have 33 per minute, for all the NSA cares.

In fitness, music, film, art, and countless other ways to turn a profit -- the mutinous mood is alive and well. This time around the revolution was indeed televised and is now enjoying a long, successful re-run online.

Can the huddled befuddled masses snap from their self-induced trance and embrace a subversive spirit? I'll give the last word to the sainted Mr. Lincoln:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Remember: Abe said it, not me.

***

Mickey Z. is the author of 12 books, most recently Occupy this Book: Mickey Z. on Activism. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, he can be found on the Web here. Anyone wishing to support his activist efforts can do so by making a donation here.

#Genocide

Hashtag Genocide: Why Gaza Fought Back

by Ramzy Baroud - PalestineChronicle.com

My old family house in the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza was recently rebuilt by its new owner into a beautiful three-story building with large windows adorned by red frames. In Israel’s most recent and deadliest war on Gaza, the house sustained significant damage. A large hole caused by Israeli missiles can be seen from afar, in a part of the house where our kitchen once stood.

It seems that the original target was not my house, however, but that of our kindly neighbor, who had spent his entire working-life toiling, between manual jobs in Israel, and later in life as a janitor for UN-operated schools in Gaza. The man’s whole life savings were invested in his house where several families lived. After “warning” rockets blew up part of his house, several missiles pulverized the rest.

My entire neighborhood was also destroyed. I saw photos of the wreckage-filled neighborhood by accident on Facebook. The clearance where we played football as little kids was filled with holes left by missiles and shrapnel. The shop where I used my allowance to buy candy, was blown up. Even the graveyard where our dead were meant to “rest in peace” was anything but peaceful. Signs of war and destruction were everywhere.

My last visit there was about two years ago. I caught up with my neighbors on the latest politics and the news of who was dead and who was still alive underneath the shady wall of my old house. One complained about his latest ailments, telling me that his son Mahmoud had been killed as he had been a freedom fighter with a Palestinian resistance movement.

I couldn’t fathom the idea that Mahmoud, the child I remembered as running around half-naked with a runny nose, had become a fierce fighter with an automatic rifle ready to take on the Israeli army. But that he was, and he was killed on duty.

Time changes everything. Time has changed Gaza. But the strip was never a passive place of people subsisting on hand-outs or a pervasive sense of victimhood. Being a freedom fighter preceded any rational thinking about life and the many choices it had to offer growing up in a refugee camp, and all the little kids of my generation wanted to join the Fedayeen.

But options for Gazans are becoming much more limited than ever before, even for my generation.

Since Israel besieged Gaza with Egypt’s help and coordination, life for Gazans has become largely about mere survival. The strip has been turned into a massive ground for an Israeli experiment concerned with population control. Gazans were not allowed to venture out, fish, or farm, and those who got even close to some arbitrary “buffer zone,” determined by the Israeli army within Gaza’s own borders, were shot and often killed.

With time the population of the strip knew that they were alone. The short stint that brought Mohammed Morsi to power in Egypt offered Gaza some hope and a respite, but it soon ended. The siege, after the overthrow of Morsi became tighter than ever before.

The Palestinian leadership in Ramallah did very little to help Gaza. To ensure the demise of Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority carried on with its “security coordination” with Israel, as Gaza suffered a Draconian siege. There was no question, that after all the failed attempts at breaking the siege and the growing isolation of Gaza, Gazans had to find their own way out of the blockade.

When Israel began its bombardment campaign of Gaza on July 6, and a day later with the official launch of the so-called Operation Protective Edge, followed by a ground invasion, it may have seemed that Gaza was ready to surrender.

Political analysts have been advising that Hamas has been at its weakest following the downturn of the Arab Spring, the loss of its Egyptian allies, and the dramatic shift of its fortunes in Syria and, naturally Iran. The “Hamas is ready to fold” theory was advanced by the logic surrounding the unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah; and unity was seen largely as a concession by Hamas to Abbas’ Fatah movement, which continued to enjoy western political backing and monetary support.

The killing of three Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank in late June was the opportunity for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to test the misleading theory on Hamas’ weakened position. He launched his war that eventually mounted into a genocide, hoping that Hamas and other resistance groups would be forced to disarm or be completely eradicated - as promised by various Israeli officials.

But it didn’t. From the very first days of the war it became clear the resistance could not be defeated, at least not as easily as Netanyahu had expected. The more troops he invested in the war on Gaza, the more Israeli army casualties increased. Netanyahu’s response was to increase the price of Palestinian resistance by inflicting as much harm on Palestinian civilians as possible: He killed over 1,900, wounded nearly 10,000, a vast majority of whom were civilians, and destroyed numerous schools, mosques, hospitals, and thousands of homes, thus sending hundreds of thousands of people on the run. But where does one run when there is nowhere to go?

Israel’s usual cautious political discourse was crumbling before Gaza’s steadfastness. Israeli officials and media began to openly call for genocide. Middle East commentator Jeremy Salt explained:

“The more extreme of the extreme amongst the Zionists say out loud that the Palestinians have to be wiped out or at the very least driven into Sinai,” he wrote, citing Moshe Feiglin, the deputy of the Israeli Knesset, who called for;

“full military conquest of the Gaza strip and the expulsion of its inhabitants. They would be held in tent encampments along the Sinai border while their final destination was decided. Those who continued to resist would be exterminated.”

From Israeli commentator Yochanan Gordon, who flirted with genocide in “when genocide is permissible,” to Ayelet Shaked, who advocated the killing of the mothers of those who resist and are killed by Israel.

“They should follow their sons. Nothing would be more just. They should go as should the physical houses in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise more little snakes are raised,” he wrote on Facebook.

References to genocide and extermination and other devastatingly violent language are no longer “claims” levied by Israeli critics, but a loud and daily self-indictment made by the Israelis themselves.

The Israelis are losing control of their decades-long hasbara, a propaganda scheme so carefully knitted and implemented, many the world over were fooled by it. Palestinians, those in Gaza in particular, were never blind to Israel’s genocidal intentions. They assembled their resistance with the full knowledge that a fight for their very survival awaited.

Israel’s so-called Protective Edge is the final proof of Israel’s unabashed face, that of genocide. It carried it out, this time paying little attention to the fact that the whole world was watching. Trending Twitter hashtags which began with #GazaUnderAttack, then #GazaResists, quickly morphed to #GazaHolocaust. The latter was used by many that never thought they would dare make such comparisons.

Gaza managed to keep Israel at bay in a battle of historic proportions. Once its children are buried, it will once again rebuild its defenses for the next battle. For Palestinians in Gaza, this is not about mere resistance strategies, but their very survival.

Ramzy Baroud is a PhD scholar in People's History at the University of Exeter. He is the Managing Editor of Middle East Eye. Baroud is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).