Another example of how the war on drugs is really about oppressing the poor

Another great piece from our friend Tony Papa of the Drug Policy Alliance. Its just another demonstration of the backwards priorities and general incompetence of the American criminal justice system in general and our drug laws more specifically.

Cross-posted from Alternet.org:

Will Drug Lord Do Less Time Than the Average American Nonviolent Drug Offender?

by Tony Papa,

The U.S. government recently praised the arrest of Colombia’s top drug lord Diego Montoya when he was captured earlier this month. Law enforcement and military officials say it was a powerful blow to Colombia’s most powerful drug cartel, comparing it to the capture of Al Capone during Prohibition.

Montoya, who had been on the FBI’s top ten most wanted list, is said to be responsible for providing as much as 70 percent of all the cocaine in the United States. In 1999, a $5 million bounty for his capture and extradition was offered after he was indicted in a federal court in Miami.

There is much talk about how this capture will affect the drug trade and the flow of drugs into the United States. But the question on my mind is how much time will he serve when he is brought to the United States to stand trial for the death and destruction he has caused? I would be willing to bet that he will get less time than many Americans who are now serving extraordinarily long sentences, many for low-level, nonviolent drug law violations under the notorious mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Some would ask how would I come to this conclusion.

If you look at the recently completed federal sentence of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, who served a 17-year federal sentence for drug trafficking, it might give you a hint what is in store for Montoya. In Noriega’s case the U.S. attorney negotiated deals with 26 high-level drug dealers, including drug lord Carlos Lehder. They in turn received a package of perks that included leniency and cash payments, and were allowed to keep their drug earnings in return for testimony against the infamous general who was once a strong United States ally before he fell from grace in 1989, when the U.S. invaded Panama.

There are many Americans in prison that are serving sentences of more than 17 years in prison for simple drug crimes. These are marginalized offenders that don’t have the bargaining chips to establish deals. For example, Elaine Bartlett, a mother of four, served a 20-to-life sentence under the Rockefeller Drug Laws for seven ounces of cocaine. Her husband, Nathan Brooks, was sentenced to 25 years to life. The list goes on and on. There are an estimated 500,000 Americans locked up because of the drug war. Many of them are serving lengthy sentences because of a 30-year government campaign to demonize illicit drug use and implement mandatory minimum sentencing.

In 1986, mandatory minimum sentencing laws were enacted by Congress, which compelled judges to deliver fixed sentences to individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of mitigating factors or culpability. Federal mandatory drug sentences are determined based on three factors: the type of drug, weight of the drug mixture (or alleged weight in conspiracy cases), and the number of prior convictions. Judges are unable to consider other important factors, such as the offender’s role, motivation and the likelihood of recidivism.

The push to incarcerate drug offenders has been further exacerbated through the current federal sentencing law that punishes crack cocaine offenders much more severely than offenders possessing other types of drugs, for example, powder cocaine. Distributing just five grams of crack carries a minimum five-year federal prison sentence while distributing 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same sentence. This 100:1 sentencing disparity has been almost universally criticized for its racially discriminatory impact by a wide variety of criminal justice and civil rights groups, and in Congress. Although whites and Hispanics form the majority of crack users, the vast majority of those convicted for crack cocaine offenses are African Americans.

Because of the war on drugs, which mandates mandatory minimum sentencing, average drug offenders are routinely elevated to kingpin status and condemned to serve out long prison sentences that should be reserved only for actual drug kingpins, not individuals that are fabricated to that level. It’s time to end these draconian laws and implement a sentencing structure that promotes fairness and justice.

John Cusack interviews Naomi Klein

By Ben Cohen

Naomi Klein has just come out with an extremely interesting book ‘The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism’. It’s a serious work of great importance, describing the exploitation of disasters by corporate capitalism. Klein sifts through the rhetoric and uncovers an extremely unpleasant side to the doctrine of the free market.

A very informed John Cusack interviews Klein about her book, and discusses the necessity of labeling the savage type of economic system we now live under.

The second part links directly from the video.

Full text.

Alan Greenspan and Naomi Klein go toe to toe

By Ben Cohen

Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan recently took part in a fascinating debate with leftist author Naomi Klein on the show ‘Democracy Now’.

Having kept his mouth shut during his years with the Bush Administration, Greenspan has embarked upon a tour to promote his new book ‘The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World’, that basically excuses his appalling complicity in some of the worst economic decisions in recent history. Now admitting that the war in Iraq was about oil (and having not uttered a word when he could have had an impact), Greenspan attempts to weave his way out of taking any responsibility, and spouts his usual free market nonsense in the hope that people will still take him seriously.

The host, Amy Goodman takes Greenspan to task for his inability to speak out about decisions he knew to be detrimental to the U.S economy (like the absurd tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans), while Klein exposes his free market rhetoric as unproven, fanatical ideology….

In one part, Greenspan outrageously states that ‘populist’ movements in Latin America during the 70′s and 80′s “gripped…many Latin American countries to their detriment”, conveniently omitting the devastating effects of the IMF in the years after, and the numerous CIA backed coups that undermined socialist movements in the region.

Klein schools ‘Saint Alan’ on some basic economic theories, embarrassing him with his own quotes about crony capitalism:

“There is something that I was quite interested in in your book, which was your definition of corruption and crony capitalism. You said, “When a government’s leaders or businesses routinely seek out private sector individuals or businesses and, in exchange for political support, bestow favors on them, the society is said to be in the grip of crony capitalism.” You say, “The favors generally take the form of monopoly access to certain markets, preferred access to sales of government assets, and special access to those in power.” I kept thinking about Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed and Boeing. You were referring to Indonesia at the time…”

Greenspan’s record and reputation are in tatters, and his futile attempt to excuse himself essentially collapses when challenged.

It’s a very insightful debate, and well worth reading the whole transcript. Click here to check it out.

.

Why isn’t this guy our President?

So we get the WASPy rich kid who went to all the best schools and Bolivia gets the uneducated coca farmer from an indiginous tribe. Guess whose leader turns out to be the corrupt, violent puppet of even more corrupt and violent people who then accuses the other guy of being a bad guy because he stands up to the corporations instead of for them? You get one guess….

Check out Evo Moraleses fantastic interview on The Daily Show:

Watch David Schuster slam Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): When was the last time a New York Times ad killed anyone?

Its always so nice to see a petty hypocrite called out on national television.
From Crooks and Liars:

Belligerence towards Ahmadinejad won’t solve anything

By Ben Cohen

There is not doubt that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a bad person. He has absurd delusions of grandeur, ridiculous views about the Holocaust, does not believe that homosexuals exist in Iran, and is pursuing a dangerously aggressive stance against the west.

However, his recent treatment at Columbia University by the faculty was beyond pathetic. The President of Columbia, Lee Bollinger essentially gave a political speech slamming Ahmadinejad that tried to justify his heavily criticised decision to invite the Iranian leader to the university.

Said Bollinger in anticipation of Ahmadinejad’s speech:

“It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament.”

Bollinger went on to list Iran’s terrible human rights record, and scolded Ahmadinejad’s efforts at suppressing freedom of speech. In fairness, these were issues Ahmadinejad needed to hear, as people in his own country cannot openly discuss them.

However, Bollinger then put on his cap as official spokesperson for the U.S government….

.

“In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support”, he told the Iranian leader.

“A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.”

“Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?”

And here, Bollinger’s diatribe falls flat on its face. The esteemed professor seems to have swallowed the ridiculous notion that the United States in not itself fighting a proxy war against Iran. To boot, he does not acknowledge that his country is trying to start an actual war with Iran.

Having specifically called Iran part of ‘The Axis of Evil”, invaded its neighbour then threatened it with military action, it would probably be fair to call U.S the aggressors in this situation. If Iran had invaded Canada, and then made noises about attacking the U.S, would it be reasonable for the U.S to fund anti Iranian forces? Most Americans would probably think so.

However, this type of logic appears to have escaped the Ivy League academic, who seems to believe the U.S is fighting for the freedom of Iraqis (a notion ridiculed recently by the right wing former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan). Bollinger is appalled at the sophisticated attacks on American soldiers, but does not mention the sophisticated war these soldiers are waging in Iraq. The truth is, the U.S has no more right to be in Iraq than Iran does, and chastising the Iranian leader for doing the same thing his government has (with probably more legitimacy given its proximity to Iran), is extremely hypocritical.

Bollinger finished his speech with another tart insult.

“Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. “

Predictably, Ahmadinejad avoided most of the questions put to him, but perhaps Bollinger could have found the intellectual courage to apply the same standards to his own government.

Ahmadinejad: What need do we have for a bomb?

by Ari Rutenberg

In an interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad done by CBS’ 60 Minutes the Iranian President specifically refuted U.S. claims that he is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Read the article and see the video here and read additional coverage here. Ahmadinejad also said that “it’s wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war?…There is no war in the offing.”

So clearly the recent rhetoric from Bush, Cheney, and Sarkozy is both incorrect factually and counterproductive diplomatically.

Though I do not believe Ahmadinejad is incorrect about many things, it is not because he lies. I believe his word to be credible because he believes what he says. There is therefore no reason to question the veracity of statements whose outcomes he controls. Therefore it seems clear that drum beats for war are only coming from one religious fundamentalist government, ours.

Once again our leaders desire war for the most crass and heartless of reasons. Indeed they have poisoned the minds of the American people to the extent that a New York state Assemblyman Dov Hikind said “”He should be arrested when he comes to Columbia University, not invited to speak, for God’s sake.” This was said apropos of nothing. Neither this man, nor anyone else, has any hard evidence that Iran or Mr. Ahmadinejad have committed any crimes. The fact that Iraqi insurgents use their weapons is an indication of nothing, given that they use ours as well. In addition it is a reminder of the complete lack of knowledge and understanding many Americans, even those in government, have towards the outside world. It is illegal to arrest a foreign leader traveling on a diplomatic mission to the United Nations. We have granted this man a visa to enter our country and should not be making threats which are unconstitutional (because under the constitution treaty obligations are our highest law).

So then there is no reason to talk about war with Iran other than to stoke the fears of the American population. It must stop or we will find that we have become the monster so many eleive us to be.

Did Micheal Moore’s ‘Sicko’ fairly portray the NHS?

By Ben Cohen

The docu-film ‘Sicko’ shocked the American public with its brutal portrayal of their health care system. It has helped set the agenda for the 2008 presidential elections, and has forced the insurance companies to justify their existence like never before. Moore’s film contrasts the broken American system with socialised European models in France, Cuba and Great Britain. The NHS in Britain (the National Health Service), and the French and Cuban system ares portrayed in extremely good light, emphasising their strengths while ignoring their weaknesses.

Moore has come under specific criticism for his one sided portrayal of the heavily criticised NHS.

Did Moore gloss over the facts to fit his thesis? Or is the U.K system as good as the film portrays? Click here to read a fascinating article in the guardian.co.uk that gives insight from people inside the NHS. END

. Full text.

Bush denies children health care

By Ben Cohen

For a president spending $2 billion a week on occupying a foreign country, it seems completely hypocritical that he would not pass a bill to fund health care for poor children at a far smaller cost. But for president Bush, this is part and parcel of ‘compassionate conservatism’.

Government, as neo conservatives like to think, should essentially be eradicated when it comes to providing for its people. It’s role is to serve the interests of corporate America, giving them huge tax subsidies and contracts to ensure they are kept happy.

The bill at hand is the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidising health coverage for low-income families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage.

The proposal would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax.

Apparently, this won’t do for Bush, who called the move ‘irresponsible’.

“Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point,” he continued.

“Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage”…..

This is of course, complete nonsense. In typical fashion, the facts are being distorted, and turned around to fit the ideology of the President. Just as the ‘Clear skies’ act meant more pollution in the atmosphere, any time the President says his policies helps people, it usually doesn’t.

The bill, that many Republicans support, actually provides financial incentives for states to cover the uninsured first, and should extend coverage to millions of uninsured children (although really, it does not go far enough).

Given that most of those children slipped through the net under the Bush presidency, it is absolutely despicable for him to reject this bill, and claim he has the solution to fix the problem. More private insurance has had disastrous results for Americans, with 47 million people uninsured as of this year.

The argument for more private insurance has been lost. It’s time for a change, and Bushes view on the subject is increasingly irrelevant.

Targeting Iran part 2

The Daily Banter is pleased to publish the second set of exclusive excerpts from David Barsamian’s critically acclaimed new book ‘Targeting Iran”. The book contains interviews with todays leading intellectuals about the escalating conflict between the United States and Iranian governments.

Click here for part 1.

We’d like to thank David Barsamian and City Lights Books for supporting The Daily Banter.

Next week we will be publishing excerpts from Barsamian’s interview with Noam Chomsky.

By David Barsamian

Under George W. Bush, U.S.–Iranian relations have deteriorated drastically. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush designated Iran as part of the “axis of evil.” The speech stunned Tehran, particularly as it had just assisted the Bush administration in ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The “axis of evil” label was a big setback for reform president Mohammad Khatami (1997–2005), who risked much in cooperating with the United States. For Iran to be categorically grouped with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which had waged an eight-year war against Iran (1980–88), was an additional humiliation….

Political tensions with the United States have sharply escalated in 2006–7. United States allies Israel, India, and Pakistan all possess nuclear weapons but have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Washington gives those countries a free pass, but not Iran, which is a signatory to the NPT and has come under intense scrutiny. As a signatory to the treaty, it is permitted to enrich uranium. However, it is accused by the Bush administration, with some European support, of enriching uranium to develop nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, referred the issue of Iranian compliance or noncompliance with the NPT to the UN Security Council in New York. In December 2006, the Security Council voted to impose limited sanctions on Iraq. More comprehensive sanctions, with the United States pressing the issue, are on their way. Interestingly, the United States is also a signatory to the NPT and, as such, is obliged to draw down its nuclear weapons arsenal. Despite their importance for understanding the crisis, it is virtually impossible to find mention of these key facts in most U.S. media reporting on the issue.

The central tenet of U.S. policy is: What we say goes. To make certain Tehran understands this basic principle of statecraft, in February 2007 Washington has dispatched yet another aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf to join the already deployed Eisenhower group. The new armada is led by the carrier USS John C. Stennis.

One can only imagine the response from Washington if Iranian naval vessels were deployed offshore from New York or Seattle.

The U.S. position on talking with Iran is: Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start. You concede, and then we can sit down and talk. This posture is a nonstarter as far as the Iranians are concerned. On February 27, 2007, Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, restated his country’s position: “Demands that Iran halt enrichment are illegal and illegitimate.” That will “never” happen, he said. However, he added, Iran is prepared to negotiate about its nuclear program “without any preconditions.”

Although the Bush administration says it has no intention to invade Iran, the New Statesman and the BBC, on February 19 and 20, 2007, revealed detailed plans of what an American attack would look like. The BBC reported that two triggers would cause U.S. military action: (a) any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon or (b) if Iran were responsible for a high-casualty attack against U.S. forces.

Shirin Ebadi, Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, in an opinion piece in USA Today, has this advice for Americans and the regime in Washington: “The Iranian people are exceedingly proud of their 2,500-year history and culture. Iran as a country is larger and greater than its rulers and exists apart from any government in power at any particular time. If America attacks, however, Iranians will unite, forgetting their differences with their government, and they will fiercely and tenaciously defend their country.”

David Barsamian is the award winning founder and director of AR (Alternative Radio) and author of 14 books. To purchase a copy of the book ‘Targeting Iran’, click here, or go to the link at the top of the page.