Freedom of expression and the system that rules us

by Marco A. Gandásegui, hijo

Again the US government has the Panamanian dailies La Estrella and El Siglo at the edge of a precipice. Acting unilaterally, above national laws and the international legal system, the American government advocates for its right to prohibit its citizens from conducting business transactions with certain Panamanian companies. The two periodicals mentioned are the property of a corporation whose principal shareholder is a Colon Free Zone merchant, Abdul Waked.

The case arose in the middle of 2016 when US justice proceeded to accuse a nephew of Waked of carrying out illegal transactions. This person was arrested and his case is pending. Meanwhile, Abdul Waked was declared suspicious and included in a list of persons who are non grata in the USA. The “Clinton List,” created in the decade of the 1990s, serves to identify all natural and juridical persons with whom the United States does not want its citizens to have business relations. Is it their right? Obviously, nobody has the right to oblige third persons to limit their relations with others. The United States is no exception. However, the United States has the power to impose a meaure totally outside the due process of law upon others.

In Panama public opinion has turned in favor of the businessman Waked and against the United States and its ambassador. It is an exceptional case in that the Panamanian people have never been inclined to lean in favor of businessmen as a class. The latter are not very well regarded, as they traditionally profit from the nation’s assets and are often placed above the law. In addition, they always dominate the government positions associated with the control and repression of popular protests.

There have been similar cases in Panamanian history in which businessmen have become folk heroes. Other businessmen have tried to promote themselves as national heroes. Even today, President Roberto Chiari, who served in that post from 1960 to 1964, the owner of the Ofelina sugar mill and the La Estrella Azul dairy, is venerated by some social sectors who remember him for breaking diplomatic relations with the United States over its aggression against the youth of January 9, 1964. Other anti-heroes include Pancho Arias and Tito Arias (who are unrelated), to mention only two.

Perhaps Waked does not fill these dimensions, which have political borders. He will probably not be remembered for his stand against the abuses of foreign powers. Waked was forced to sell all of his other properties, but has stood firm with the Panamanian-owned newspapers. He said that he would not sell La Estrella de Panama or El Siglo. They could succumb along with the two printing presses. His friends point out that he has made every effort to approach the US agencies to talk and seek a solution to the problem.

An unusual communique has appeared in Panama, signed by 50 representatives of different sectors of the country reflecting just a part of the support for the two newspapers that are attacked by the United States. The communique is short and sweeping: First is says that the American measure goes against freedom of the press and also freedom of expression. In this regard, it should be noted that both have always been curtailed by powerful interests.

The signatories of the communique conclude that “with the survival of these newspapers, the United States does not lose. However, Panama loses a lot with their disappearance.” US interests are clear. They have not changed much since they began to consider the riches of this region more than 150 years ago. For Panama, on the other hand, the struggle of La Estrella de Panama is not only about facing up to US interests, but also has to do with the possible loss of an independent voice.

If Waked leaves the scene as head of the publishing enterprise, who or what will replace him?

Freedom of expression is measured within the framework of the correlation of forces that characterizes a country. It’s also that way globally. Whoever speaks the loudest defines the parameters of freedom of expression within the system. Those outside of the system do not count and therefore their expression is given no value. In the case of Panama, the United States considers it partially outside the system. It can intervene in our political and economic life when it considers it necessary. Likewise, it defines freedom of expression in accordance with its interests.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.

The torture-friendly Trump administration

by Medea Benjamin — OtherWords

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Donald Trump is pro-torture. He said on the campaign trail he’d approve waterboarding “in a heartbeat,” plus “a hell of a lot worse.“

He added: “Only a stupid person would say it doesn’t work.”

There are certainly a lot of stupid people then, because everyone from interrogators to researchers have repeatedly concluded that torture doesn’t work. People will say whatever you want them to say to make the pain stop, making torture not only inhumane but also bad for intelligence.

A 2009 Senate Armed Services Committee review concluded that torture “damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.” That’s why the Senate voted in 2015 to turn the presidential ban on torture into official law.

To his credit, Trump did water down his original support for torture, allowing Defense Secretary James Mattis — who opposes torture — to override him.

But if the Trump administration is now opposed to torture, why are they nominating the architects of America’s torture fiasco to key posts?

Take Steven Bradbury, nominated to be general counsel for the Transportation Department. Bradbury is infamous for writing the legal memos authorizing CIA torture at the Bush Justice Department.

Bradbury’s confirmation was placed on hold by Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq veteran who lost her legs in the war. “The actions you helped justify put our troops in harm’s way, put our diplomats deployed overseas in harm’s way, and you compromised our nation’s very values,” she said angrily at his confirmation hearing.

Or what about Donald Trump’s nominee to head the FBI, Christopher Wray?

Wray was at the Justice Department when attorney John Yoo and others were drafting their torture memos. Wray knew about detainee abuse and did not, as head of the criminal division, bring charges against any of the Bush administration torturers — except for one low-level CIA contractor who beat a prisoner to death.

A third person connected to torture is Gina Haspel, who was appointed deputy director of the CIA. Haspel ran a “black site” prison in Thailand where suspects were waterboarded — and then helped destroy video of the interrogations.

The Senate Intelligence Committee meticulously documented the sordid US record of torture under the Bush administration in a 6,770-page report. But the public hasn’t been able to read it — only the executive summary has been released.

Yet this isn’t just an exercise in history. In June, Human Rights Watch and the Associated Press published explosive reports revealing a secret network of prisons in southern Yemen run by US-allied United Arab Emirates and Yemeni forces.

The reports reveal horrific practices in which prisoners, including children, have been arbitrarily detained, forcibly disappeared, sexually assaulted, and tortured. One torture method, known as the “grill,” had victims tied to a spit like a roast and spun in a circle of fire.

Reports indicate that the US military knew about the torture, received transcripts of the interrogations conducted by Yemeni interrogators, and interrogated several detainees themselves. According to one Yemeni security officer, American forces were only yards away from a facility where torture took place.

Senators John McCain and Jack Reed immediately expressed outrage, calling on the Trump administration to investigate the allegations. But the reaction of the White House to these revolting reports is telling: radio silence.

Trump’s refusal to publicly condemn these secret prisons, together with the appointments of people who played a role in George W. Bush’s torture program, should set off alarm bells.

Only stupid people say torture works, and one of them is sitting in the White House.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.

Crisis of legitimacy

In Brazil, an already convicted and unelected acting president was shown accepting bribes on national television. His public approval ratings in single digits, his hold on office was saved by a committee of politicians who are mostly also facing corruption charges.

In Venezuela the opposition held their “alternative referendum” and if Nicolás Maduro can make the legal argument that it counts for nothing, the political argument that enough people voted against the president’s constitutional nullification process to win any legitimate election ought to sink into his head. Yes, Venezuela has foreign enemies involved and thugs among the opposition, but Maduro owes the Venezuelan people a recall referendum, which would end his presidency. Not that this would solve his country’s main problem, which is a totally oil dependent economy in a time of low oil prices.

In Argentina a scandal-plagued President Macri is trying to put his predecessor in jail on dubious charges, but his ability to do anything good or bad is crippled by a weak economy.

Chilean President Bachelet, a socialist, has a son with corrupt and acquisitive values that most socialists take as disgraceful. She was not a party to his corruption, but she also presides over a weak economy and has seen her party and its alliances shatter. The old Chilean paradigms seem to be irreparably broken.

How many ex-presidents does Peru have in jail? The count may vary. And is the United States still harboring Alejandro Toledo, or has he fled elsewhere? They say that Burkina Faso can be lovely this time of the year, but there are American troops there now so maybe Toledo should try Tadzhikistan or Laos instead.

Half of the presidential slate put together at the US Ambassador’s Residence for the 2009 Panamanian presidential election is in a Miami jail cell, mailing out instructions to political armies that are mostly not there anymore. The other half is an ever less popular president, not because he’s not a nice guy and not because he doesn’t mean well, but because he’s part of a constellation of political forces blocking any real accounting for the corruption that is and has been strangling Panama.

Do its US sponsors have a new anti-corruption plan for the death squad regime in Honduras? Mostly it’s soccer crooks who are affected. Those who hire hit men to kill opponents of their hydroelectric dams, are immune by virtue of their importance to some big picture somewhere.

Will the Mexican political aristocracy finally collapse in the face of another AMLO challenge? The United States might back another fraud against the former mayor of Mexico City, except that nothing backed by the United States is acceptable to Mexicans these days.

And the US government under Trump? ‘Nuff said.

Sure, there are a few places in the Americas that seem to be in some sort of normal state. Canada and Uruguay have their problems, but seem to be going about their business in reasonable and orderly fashion. If most of the Caribbean countries don’t jump aboard the gunboats that Trump would have the OAS send to Venezuela, it’s not those little countries that are acting unusually or against their own interests.

The main problem is the failure of neoliberalism, the world economy globalized on corporate terms. The secondary problem is that no truly viable alternative appears to be catching on. China seems set to step into the vacuum. Say what he might about the Monroe Doctrine, Donald Trump isn’t in a position to do anything about it. (Yes, he does owe a lot of money to a Chinese bank, but the worse impediment is that he has alienated most Latin Americans in a way that no previous US president has been able to do.)

So, what do to? Any solution must come from ourselves, as individuals, as communities, as nations, as sister republics working together.

Bear in mind…

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.