The Socialist Democrat

Afghanistan-US security agreement executable in 2015: Mosazai

2013-04-23T11:31:00.004-05:00

By SAYED JAWAD - 21 Apr 2013, 9:12 pmK haama Press
Officials in Afghanistan foreign affairs ministry on Sunday announced that the security agreement between Kabul and Washington will be executable in early 2015 once the two nations agrees on the terms and conditions of the pact.

The officials further added that the two nations have not finalized talks over security agreement so far and the pact will be executable beyond 2014, once the terms and conditions have been agreed.

General director of the Afghan foreign ministry media office, Janan Mosazai on Sunday said satisfactory negotations are going on between Afghan and US officials.

Mr. Mosazai further added that the Afghan government is not in a hurry to take a decision in this regard since the security agreement will become executable after security transition is completed.

He said, “Security agreement between Kabul and Washington will be executable after security transition is completed. The security agreement will not become executable before 2014 despite the two nations agree earlier, and therefore the security pact will be adaptive at the beginning of 2015.”

In the meantime Janan Mosazai insisted that the security agreement should be finalized before 2014 which will be better for Afghanistan, since it will create a legal and bilateral framework between the two nations.

Afghan and US officials are holding talks over security agreement during the past 6 months to clarify the presence of US troops after 2014 and Washington’s long term support towards Afghan security forces.

MPs Call to Stop Releasing Taliban Prisoners

2013-04-23T11:31:00.000-05:00

TOLOnews By Rafi Sediqi 20 April 2013
High Peace Council has been incapable of progressing peace talks with the armed opposition, first vice speaker of Afghan parliament said Saturday while a number of MPs suggested many of the imprisoned Taliban who were released have rejoined the insurgent groups and are fighting against the government.

"The peace process is just a waste of time. What High Peace Council has done so far has had no result and has been a failure," first vice speaker Mirwais Yasini said, marking out that the parliament is to send the government a new policy over the issue.

MP Shukria Barikzai said "So far, there has been no clear policy for peace. High Peace Council is a political project and not a national one."

"This council is kept by circles that seek to remain in power," she added.

Admitting challenges against peace talks, High Peace Council, however, said it has had achievements in some of the provinces across the country.

"As High Peace Council we are ready to continue our activities considering any plan the parliament would send to the council. High Peace Council has had achievements in a number of provinces," said Shahzada Shahid, the council's spokesman.

MPs also suggested that Afghanistan war is plotted by orders from Pakistani intelligence and that the neighbouring country will never aim for a stable Afghanistan. Some of the MPs called for an end to releasing Taliban prisoners as a number of the released are yet again fighting against the government.

"The war in Afghanistan is a war plotted by Pakistan," said MP Dawood Kalakani, "Pakistani military intelligence is making efforts to establish a Pakistan-ruled government in Afghanistan."

MP Zaheer Saadat said "The process of releasing the prisoners should be stopped because those Taliban who are released have rejoined the insurgent groups and are fighting against the government."

It will be too hard to provide security in Afghanistan, MPs added, as far as interferences from neighbouing countries are not pushed back and Pakistan does not assure the Afghan government and the international community of discontinuing its interference.

Afghan girls' school feared hit by poison gas

2013-04-23T11:30:00.002-05:00

By Folad Hamdard | Reuters
TALUQAN, Afghanistan (Reuters) - As many as 74 schoolgirls in Afghanistan's far north fell sick after smelling gas and were being examined for possible poisoning, local officials said on Sunday.

While instances of poisoning are sometimes later found to be false alarms, there have been numerous substantiated cases of mass poisonings of schoolgirls by elements of Afghanistan's ultra-conservative society that are opposed to female education.

Local officials said the girls became ill after smelling gas at their school, Bibi Maryam, in Takhar province's capital, Taluqan. The city is about 250 kilometers north of the country's capital, Kabul.

The Takhar governor's spokesman, Sulaiman Moradi, blamed "enemies of the government and the country" for the mass illness and said the aim was to stop girls from going to school.

The girls were taken to the provincial hospital and most were released after being treated, though several remained in a critical condition on Sunday evening, the head of the hospital, Dr Jamil Frotan, said.

"We have already sent samples of their blood to the Ministry of Public Health and it will soon become clear what the reason for their illness was," Frotan said.

The apparent poisoning came three days after more than a dozen students fell ill in another girls' high school in Taluqan. No-one has claimed responsibility for either incident.

Between May and June last year there were four poisoning attacks on a girls' school in Takhar, prompting local officials to order principals to stay in school until late and staff to search the grounds for suspicious objects and to test the water for contaminants.

Takhar has been a hotbed of militancy and criminal activity since 2009, with groups such as the Taliban and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan active.

Since the 2001 ousting of the Taliban, which banned education for women and girls, females have returned to schools, especially in Kabul.

But periodic attacks against female students, their teachers and their school buildings, continue.

Afghan women have won back basic rights in education, voting and employment since 2001, but fears are growing that such gains could be traded away as Western forces prepare to leave and the Afghan government seeks peace talks with the Taliban.

(Writing by Dylan Welch; Editing by Stephen Powell)

Afghan interpreters could receive asylum

2013-04-23T11:29:00.002-05:00

LONDON, April 21 (UPI) -- Britain's prime minister is set to decide whether to relocate hundreds of interpreters who are working with U.K. forces in Afghanistan, officials said.

Prime Minister David Cameron has been given three broad options and is expected to make a decision on Tuesday that could affect up to 1,100 Afghan nationals, including 600 interpreters, The Guardian reported.

Those Afghans could be in grave danger once NATO forces leave Afghanistan in 2014, The Guardian reported.

The Taliban has declared a death sentence on all Afghans working with NATO forces in the country, The Guardian said.

The first option includes offering a relocation package similar to the one given to local interpreters after the Iraq war.

Two cheaper ideas include offering economic incentives to interpreters to stay in Afghanistan, and requiring them to apply for asylum in the normal way without any preferential treatment.

Last week, senior military officials and politicians called for the interpreters to be offered asylum in the United Kingdom.

Several Killed In Afghan Suicide Bombing

2013-04-23T11:28:00.005-05:00

April 21, 2013 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Afghan officials say three civilians have been killed and seven others injured after a suicide bomber blew himself up in eastern Afghanistan.

Paktika's provincial governor's office said in a statement that the blast occurred in the Janikhel district of southeast Paktika Province, on the border with Pakistan.

The statement said that Ehsanullah Sadat, former district governor for Janikhel who quit his post two years ago, was among the dead.

Two police officers were among those injured.

The statement blamed the attack on the "enemies of Afghans," a term usually used by officials to refer to Taliban militants.

The injured were taken to the main district hospital and their condition is said to be stable.

Police Killed In 'Insider Attack'

Meanwhile, also in Afghanistan, insurgents have attacked a police checkpoint in Ghazni Province, Afghan officials say.

Six police officers were reportedly killed in the incident on April 21, which occurred while the officers were sleeping.

One was wounded and one is missing.

According to the AFP news agency, the militants were aided by one of the police officers, who led them into the post.

The slain officers were part of the Afghan Local Police, a U.S.-funded effort to recruit locals into community policing units.

More than 60 international troops and scores of Afghan security personnel have been killed in insider attacks in recent months, breeding mistrust in the run-up to the withdrawal of international combat forces by the end of 2014.

Taliban Chop Off Limbs Of Two Men

Elsewhere in Afghanistan, officials say Taliban militants have chopped off one hand and one leg of two young Afghan men.

The incident took place on April 20 in western Herat province, said Noor Khan Nekzad, the spokesman for the provincial governor.

He said the two men worked for a private security company providing logistics for NATO convoys.

Nekzad said the men were found in Herat's Rabat-e Sangi district and were receiving treatment in hospital in Herat city.

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the amputations.

A statement from the Taliban said that the men had been found guilty of several highway robberies.

During their rule from 1996-2001, the Taliban imposed harsh justice, including flogging, stoning to death, and the amputation of limbs.

Based on reporting by AFP, AP, dpa, Pajhwok, and Khaama

Afghanistan remains the second largest export market for Pakistan

2013-04-23T11:28:00.002-05:00

By MIRWAIS ADEEL - 21 Apr 2013, 9:48 pm Khaama Press
Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan, Mohammad Sadiq on Sunday emphasized on Afghanistan peace as one of the top priority of Islamabad’s foreign policy.

While speaking during a seminar titled “Pak-Afghan relations in the changing world scenario” Mr. Sadiq said reconciliation among all ethnic groups and stakeholders in the war-affected country is the only solution for restoration of peace in the region.

Mohammad Sadiq quoted by Pakistan’s Dawn News said, official trade volume between Pakistan and Afghanistan is about $2 billion while the unofficial trade volume is about $5 billion thus making Afghanistan the second largest importer of Pakistani goods after United States.

Mr. Sadiq also added that thirty thousand Afghan students have graduated from Pakistani universities besides 2000 Afghan students were granted scholarships by the Pakistani universities.

According to Mohammad Sadiq, about 30 per cent of the human resource running the affairs in Afghanistan has graduated from Pakistani universities.

He said the government of Pakistan is considering a number of educational and infrastructural projects for Afghanistan besides the newly-built Liaquat Ali Khan Engineering University built in northern Balkh province of Afghanistan.

U.S. special envoy, Pakistan army chief discuss Afghan reconciliation

2013-04-23T11:27:00.002-05:00

ISLAMABAD, April 21 (Xinhua) -- Senior U.S. diplomats and defense officials met Pakistan army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, in the garrison city of Rawalpindi and discussed matters of mutual interest with particular focus on Afghanistan reconciliation process, the military said on Sunday.

The army statement said that both sides discussed "matters of mutual interest" but did not give any more details about the talks.

The U.S. delegation comprised Ambassador David Pearce, Acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Dagulas Lute, Special Assistant to the President on Afghanistan and Pakistan Peter Lavoy, Principal Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs and Ambassador Richard Olson.

The visit comes at a time when relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan are tense over the cross-border tension.

Two top U.S. generals also visited Pakistan this month and discussed mainly about Afghanistan.

Sources said that the talks are also aimed at removing differences between Pakistan and Afghanistan and finding ways to work for the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan.

The U.S. State Department said ahead of the visit that in Islamabad, Pearce will hold meetings with senior Pakistan officials to discuss ways in which the United States and Pakistan can continue to work together to advance "our bilateral goals and affirm how both our countries can contribute to a secure, stable, and prosperous future for the region."

Taliban attacks kill 9 people in Afghanistan

2013-04-23T11:26:00.002-05:00

By THOMAS WAGNER | Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Insurgents killed six police officers at a checkpoint and a suicide bomber killed three civilians at a shopping bazaar in separate attacks Sunday in eastern Afghanistan, while an independent security group warned 2013 is on track to be one of the most violent years of the war.

April already has been the deadliest month this year for security forces and Afghan and foreign civilians as the U.S. and other countries prepare to end their combat mission by the end of next year. According to an Associated Press tally, 222 people have been killed in violence around the nation this month, including Sunday's nine fatalities.

The Taliban ambushed the checkpoint in the Dayak district of Ghazni province, killing six police officers, wounding one and leaving one missing, said Col. Mohammad Hussain, deputy provincial police chief. The checkpoint was manned by Afghan local police, forces recruited at the village level that are nominally under the control of the Afghan Interior Ministry.

On Friday, Taliban insurgents attacked a local police checkpoint in Andar, a district of Ghazni province neighboring Dayak. They killed 13 officers, according to Sidiq Sidiqi, the Interior Ministry spokesman.

The second attack on Sunday hit Paktika province, which borders Ghazni. A suicide bomber detonated his explosives in a shopping bazaar around midday, killing three people and wounding five civilians and two police officers, said Mokhlis Afghan, the spokesman for the provincial governor. Among the dead was Asanullah Sadat, who stepped down as the district's governor two years ago.

Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for Taliban, claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing. In an email to reporters, he said the Taliban used the bomber to target Sadat because of his close relations with the Afghan government and the U.S.

In other violence, the Taliban cut a hand and foot off each of two villagers they accused of helping escort coalition convoys, a spokesman for the provincial chief in western Herat province said.

Noor Khan Nekzad said the men were admitted to a hospital in Herat city on Sunday, two days after the amputations. The Taliban have long killed government employees and those who help the coalition, considering them enemy collaborators, but rarely have they meted out punishment by cutting off limbs.

Hostilities have surged in Afghanistan as the spring fighting season begins. This year is being closely watched because Afghan forces must operate with less support from the international military coalition. With foreign forces due to hand over combat responsibilities to the local forces next year, the current fighting is a test of their ability to take on the country's insurgency.

Reflecting the rise in bloodshed, the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office said Sunday there were 2,331 insurgent-initiated attacks in the first quarter of this year, a 47 percent increase over the same January-March period last year. "We assess that the current re-escalation trend will be preserved throughout the entire season and that 2013 is set to become the second most violent year after 2011," which suffered 2,755 such attacks in the first three months of the year, the report said.

The U.S.-led NATO coalition has stopped releasing statistics on insurgent attacks in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan's Defense Ministry said the Afghan army carried out 2,209 military operations during a monthlong period ending Sunday. During that time, 467 insurgents and 107 soldiers were killed, and 362 militants were arrested, the ministry said in a report issued Sunday.

The rise of violence that his organization reported in early 2013 should raise serious concern, especially since a negotiated solution with Taliban "is far from the horizon" and questions remain about whether Afghan forces can fill the gap being left by the reduction in U.S.-led international forces, said Tomas Muzik, the director of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office.

The Taliban broke off formal talks with the Americans last year and have steadfastly rejected negotiations with the Afghan government, which they view as a puppet of foreign powers.

Afghanistan has about 100,000 international troops, including 66,000 from the United States. The U.S. force is to drop to about 32,000 by February 2014, making the No. 1 priority for the American military to do all it can to boost the strength and confidence of Afghan forces.

__

Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez contributed to this report.

Boehner Faces Competing Immigration Paths

2013-04-23T11:22:00.003-05:00

By Jonathan Strong
Roll Call Staff
April 21, 2013, 10:30 p.m.

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

Though there is no explicit commitment from Boehner, members and aides close to the bipartisan “gang of eight” seem to have confidence the speaker secretly has their back.

Two immigration trains have left the station in the House, but no one knows which one Speaker John A. Boehner wants to eventually arrive on the floor.
A secretive bipartisan working group — akin to the Senate-side “gang of eight” — is trying to finalize its “comprehensive” proposal. But House Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte is flexing his muscles by launching a piecemeal-type legislative push, causing tension between the two factions and questions about who will take the lead.
Lawmakers and aides involved in the secret bipartisan group privately warn that Goodlatte could potentially blow up the push for an immigration bill in the House.
But immigration is under the Judiciary Committee’s purview, and moving the bill through the panel is part of the “regular order” Republicans have been clamoring for.
“We also have a ‘Hastert rule.’ We also have regular order. And we also have a lot of people in this Congress who are not part of that little group, and they all need to have input in this process, so we’re making sure that that happens,” Goodlatte told CQ Roll Call in a brief interview.
The Virginia Republican added that “we’re encouraging the House group to reach agreement, and we will benefit from their product.” But, he reiterated, “no decision’s been made about how we pull it all together.”
Leadership aides said that’s true, that Boehner doesn’t have a thumb on either side of the scale and that a wide array of options are still on the table. Besides, it’s still unclear whether the recently unveiled bipartisan Senate group’s bill can pass in that chamber: If it does, it would put new pressure on the House.
Even while they say there is no explicit commitment from Boehner, members and aides who are part of or close to the bipartisan group seem to have confidence, even cockiness, that Boehner secretly has their back.
Part of that is based on who Boehner is as a legislator: He’s a dealmaker at heart.
But it’s also because of repeated public comments in which Boehner gave the group great deference.
The existence of the group was revealed in a video of the Ohio Republican answering questions at the Ripon Society, a conservative think tank.
In his remarks then, he said the bipartisan group was “the right group of members” to make progress on the issue of immigration and suggested some level of ownership or authorization of the effort.
“My theory was, if these folks could work this out, it’d be a big step in the right direction,” Boehner said.
The group briefed him on the principles of their agreement March 15, and on March 19, Boehner called the substance of their proposal “a pretty responsible solution.”
Boehner said April 18 that the bipartisan group “continues to make significant progress” but that Goodlatte is “working diligently with his committee” in addition to that.
“Overall, I’m very happy. The process is continuing,” Boehner added.
The question of who leads on immigration in the House cuts across both substance and process, since Goodlatte is going with a piecemeal approach and the bipartisan group wants to do a comprehensive plan even if, according to House group member Rep. Raúl R. Labrador, the comprehensive plan could be cut up into separate bills that went to the House floor on the same week or day.
Whatever the bipartisan bill proposes, it will still have Goodlatte’s imprint to advance through his committee, according to key lawmakers in public and private.
“It will go through the committee process. It will go through Judiciary. It’s still going to have to go through the process of the committees. It can’t be one small group that gets a chance to dictate to everyone else,” said Rep. James Lankford, chairman of the GOP Policy Committee.
Lankford and Goodlatte referred to the bipartisan groups in the House and Senate as performing a role in vetting what issues are likely to prove difficult for Republicans and Democrats to agree on.
“I’m not a part of their negotiations. My work with them is based on encouraging them to produce something so that we can see what kind of bipartisan support there is on immigration,” Goodlatte said.
The bipartisan group has briefed Goodlatte and Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee that deals with immigration, sources said, but it does not appear the two parties are working closely together.
The Judiciary panel includes a number of very conservative members who might vigorously object to anything approaching “amnesty” for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.
Those include Reps. Steve King of Iowa, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Jim Jordan of Ohio, J. Randy Forbes of Virginia and the committee’s former chairman, Lamar Smith of Texas.
For example, Smith said in an interview that he was deeply and irrevocably opposed to the bipartisan Senate immigration bill unveiled recently.
“I don’t think I’m ever gonna have a vote on it. I don’t think it gets out of the Senate, and it certainly wouldn’t pass over here,” he said.

Hong Kong: Defend dockworkers' right to strike

2013-04-23T11:20:00.000-05:00

In partnership with the International Transport Workers Federation, a global federation of 690 unions representing over 4.5 million transport workers in 153 countries .

Members of the Union of Hong Kong dockworkers (UHKD) employed by Hong Kong International Terminals (HIT) which is a subsidiary of global network terminal (GNT) operator Hutchison Port Holiding Trust (HPH), went out on strike on 28 March. The action was taken as a last ditch attempt to bring management to the table to discuss health and safety, working conditions, pay parity between contract and directly employed workers and the exploitation of outsourced workers. International Transport Workers Federation president Paddy Crumlin says: "Hutchinson should be ashamed that workers under their contract are being treated little better than caged animals. The abuses must stop and the employers need to show that they are committed to ending the exploitation of outsourced dockworkers." An interim injunction which prevents UHKD workers from staging full scale strike action was extended on Friday by the Hong Kong High Court, thus denying workers the fundamental right to take industrial action. The union and hundreds of thousands of dockers worldwide, are calling on HIT and HPH to take responsibility for the welfare of their workers whether they are directly employed or subcontracted and enter into open and transparent dialogue.

You can help! Type in your name and email address, then click on 'Send Message' on the bottom of this page.

Name: [required]
Email address: [required]
Your union/organization:
Your country:
Type in your message here - or just use the existing message. Dear Mr. Gerry Yim Lui Fai I am concerned about the ongoing situation in the Port of Hong Kong where it appears that both you and Hutchison Port Holdings are reluctant to take responsibility for the welfare of dockworkers, both directly employed and subcontracted. The Union of Hong Kong Dockers (UHKD) wants to enter into open and transparent dialogue over health and safety, working conditions, pay parity between contract and directly employed workers and the exploitation of outsourced workers. I would urge you to come to the table on these issues. Furthermore, I am disturbed by reports of intimidation towards striking workers and your continuing attempts to prevent union members from exercising their fundamental right to strike through court injunctions. If you would like to receive future urgent action alerts from us, please check this box: Enter the number 1778 here: Thank you Your message will be sent to the following email addresses: com.cst@hit.com.hk, union_hkdockers@yahoo.com.hk

USA: End the port workers lockout in Vancouver

2013-04-23T11:18:00.002-05:00

In partnership with the International Transport Workers Federation, a global federation of 690 unions representing over 4.5 million transport workers in 153 countries .

Workers at the Port of Vancouver, Washington, USA have been locked out by their employer, Japanese conglomerate Mitsui-United Grain, since February 27, 2013. The ITF believes the lockout is an anti union attack and an attempt to avoid negotiating with workers in good faith over their collective bargaining agreement. The workers' latest agreement expired in September 2012 leaving them without a contract and open to abuse by their employer which has now taken extreme and aggressive action.

You can help! Type in your name and email address, then click on 'Send Message' on the bottom of this page.

Name: [required]
Email address: [required]
Your union/organization:
Your country:
Type in your message here - or just use the existing message. I am concerned at reports of your extreme and aggressive behavior towards workers at the Port of Vancouver, Washington. It appears that the locking out of workers is a direct attempt to avoid negotiating with them over a new collective bargaining agreement. I would encourage you to urgently bring about an end to the lockout and to enter into good faith dialogue with Vancouver port workers as I understand other employers in a similar situation in the US have already done. If you would like to receive future urgent action alerts from us, please check this box: Enter the number 1795 here: Thank you Your message will be sent to the following email addresses: hiroy.nakayama@mitsui.com, mitsuidockers@gmail.com

control backers: Senate defeat won't stop usBy ALAN FRAM and DAVID ESPO | Associated

2013-04-19T11:57:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON (AP) — One day after the demise of gun control legislation, Senate supporters of the measure vowed to try again, while a leading opponent accused President Barack Obama of taking the "low road" when he harshly criticized lawmakers who voted against key provisions.

"When good and honest people have honest differences of opinion about what policies the country should pursue about gun rights...the president of the United States should not accuse them of having no coherent arguments or of caving to the pressure," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

The fate of the bill was sealed in a string of votes on Wednesday, when Republicans backed by a small group of rural-state Democrats rejected more extensive background checks for gun purchasers and also torpedoed proposed bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

The Senate delivered its verdict four months after a shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., left 20 first graders and six educators dead. The tragedy prompted Obama to champion an issue that Democrats had largely avoided for two decades, and that he himself ignored during his first term in the White House.

Though the gun control bill was moribund for the foreseeable future, the Senate approved two minor amendments on Thursday. One by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., cutting aid to state and local governments that release information on gun owners, was approved 67-30. Another by Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., bolstering federal mental health programs passed 95-2.
Cornyn said he agreed with Obama that Wednesday had been a shameful day but added it was because of the president's own comments, rather than the events on the Senate floor.
"He could have taken the high road...instead he chose to take the low road, and I agree with him it was a truly shameful day."

Cornyn spoke shortly after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the struggle for tougher gun legislation was not over.

"This is not the end of the fight. Republicans are in an unsustainable position," he said, after voting with few exceptions against a tougher requirement for background checks for gun purchasers, a proposal that shows very high support in most public opinion polls.
Reid offered no timetable for renewing the drive to enact legislation that Obama has placed near the top of his domestic agenda.
Another Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, said the proposed expansion of background checks that he co-authored would have passed easily had it not been for the National Rifle Association's decision to take the vote into account in deciding which candidates to support or oppose in 2014.
"If they hadn't scored it, we'd have had 70 votes," he said. Instead, it drew 54, six short of the 60 needed to advance.
Manchin also told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Wall Street Journal that the outcome would have been different if the Senate had acted more quickly after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. "If we'd have gone to a bill like this immediately, boom," he said, predicting it would have received 65-70 votes.
Later, in the Capitol, he renewed his accusations that the NRA had spread lies about the proposal he had hoped to pass, and that fellow lawmakers had evidently believed them. "Reading is a lost art," he said.
Obama spoke in clipped, angry tones at the White House on Wednesday after the Senate scuttled legislation he had campaign for energetically.
"I see this as just Round One," the president said, flanked by relatives of Newtown's victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011.
Looking ahead to the 2014 congressional elections, he added, "If this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters."
Obama blamed lawmakers' fear that "the gun lobby would spend a lot of money" and accuse them of opposing the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
A spokesman, Josh earnest, told reporters on Thursday, "we're pretty close to a consensus on this just about everywhere except in the United States Congress. And as the President alluded to yesterday, I think that is an indication of the pernicious influence that some special interests have in the United States Congress. And that is going to require a vocalization of public opinion to overcome it."
Emotions were high on Wednesday at the Capitol.
When the background check amendment failed in the Senate, Patricia Maisch, watching from a visitors' gallery, shouted "Shame on you!" Maisch helped restrain the gunman at the 2011 Tucson shooting in which six people died and 13, including Giffords, were wounded.
___

Associated Press writers Donna Cassata, Laurie Kellman, Richard Lardner and Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

Analysis: Senate vote shows gun-control advocates the size of challenge

2013-04-19T11:51:00.003-05:00

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) speaks alongside with Vice President Joe Biden and family members of Newtown victims on commonsense measures to reduce gun violence in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington April 17, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas

By Samuel P. Jacobs

NEW YORK | Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:56am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In the end, nothing could persuade enough U.S. senators to approve the most significant gun legislation in two decades:

Not the carnage from Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were massacred by a gunman in December, igniting a national debate on gun control.
Not the impassioned pleas of Newtown survivors' families, whose calls for expanded background checks for gun buyers so moved a pro-gun senator from West Virginia that he became their advocate.
And not the support of President Barack Obama, who was inspired by Newtown to make gun control the first major initiative of his second term.
The U.S. Senate's key vote on Wednesday wasn't exactly a rejection of expanded background checks, gun-control advocates were careful to point out.
Most senators - 54 - approved the measure, which polls indicated was backed by more than 80 percent of Americans. But because Republicans threatened to use a filibuster to block any gun proposal that did not get 60 votes in the 100-member Senate, the plan to expand background checks to sales made online and at gun shows fell short.
And just like that, the most aggressive push for gun control in a generation did, too.
How galling was the defeat for the new gun-control movement?
Another Senate vote on Wednesday told the story: Four months after Newtown jolted America, the 54 senators who voted to expand background checks were three less than the 57 who voted for a Republican-backed plan to expand Americans' rights to carry concealed weapons.
That tally also was short of the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate. But taken together, the votes made a statement about Americans' devotion to guns - there are estimated 270 million guns in circulation across the nation - and the success of the powerful gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association.
So where do gun-control advocates go from here?
On Wednesday, amid their disappointment, frustration and anger, it was clear that the new groups who have driven the gun-control agenda since Newtown already were taking aim at the 2014 and 2016 elections.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose personal fortune has helped to fund a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, called Wednesday's vote a "damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington."
He said that his group would work to defeat opponents of gun control in the 2014 midterm elections, saying that "our ever-expanding coalition of supporters will work to make sure that voters don't forget."
GIFFORDS: 'I WILL NOT REST'
In an opinion piece that was to appear in The New York Times on Thursday, former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords - who was critically wounded in a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona in 2011 and founded Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group that focuses on gun violence - vowed not to give up.
"On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave in to fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental issues to get hold of deadly firearms," Giffords wrote.
"I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done," she continued. "... I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. ... I'm asking citizens to go to their offices and say, 'You've disappointed me, and there will be consequences.' "
At the White House, an angry Obama struck a similar tone.
"This was a pretty shameful day for Washington," he said. "This effort is not over. ... If this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters."
'THEY WILL HAVE A LONG MEMORY'
For all the determination of the gun-control groups - and for all of the public support they enjoy - the Senate's vote showed that challenging the nation's attachment to guns or Americans' devotion to guns is a politically tenuous exercise.
Affection for guns and hunting - and respect for the NRA, which spent $18.6 million in the 2012 campaign cycle, according to the Sunlight Foundation - was a theme throughout Wednesday's debate.
Several senators - including West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, who co-sponsored the background checks plan and often became emotional in praising the Newtown families - made a point of saying that they supported gun rights and had been proud to be in line with the NRA's pro-gun platform.
Four Republicans - Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Manchin's co-sponsor - backed the background checks plan.
But four Democrats from gun-friendly states - Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mark Pryor of Arkansas - rejected the background checks plan. Baucus, Begich and Pryor are up for re-election in 2014.
Some gun-control advocates predicted that the issue could become a leading concern in the 2016 presidential campaign.
"Voters will wake up in the morning to find that Senate hasn't passed background checks. They will have a long memory," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a collection of 47 national organizations.
Horwitz said Republican senators in politically divided states such as New Hampshire, Ohio and North Carolina could see themselves at risk if they oppose more background checks.
"Mayor Bloomberg has the wherewithal to match NRA resources, which is a completely new phenomenon in the gun debate," said Matt Bennett of Third Way, a centrist Democratic organization that has been active in the gun debate.
Last month Bloomberg footed the bill for a $12 million ad campaign, which ran in 13 states and was aimed at pressuring lawmakers to support expanded background checks.
GUN RIGHTS GET A BOOST
Gun-rights advocates acknowledge they have competition that is perhaps unprecedented, but they note that Bloomberg's millions didn't lead to Senate passage of the background checks plan. They note that while Newtown inspired the gun-control movement, it also boosted the NRA and its supporters.
Sales of guns and ammunition soared, fueled in part by fears that Obama's gun-control package would make both scarce. Stock prices of gun makers such as Smith & Wesson Holding Corp and Sturm, Ruger & Co dipped after Newtown, but now are near where they were before the shootings.
And although there has been a wave of new gun-control laws in states led by Democrats, several states led by Republicans have eased gun restrictions in the months since Newtown.
In a statement the NRA praised the Senate's action, saying that the measure would have "criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens."
Some gun-control advocates said they feared that they had seen their best chance for change in 20 years pass. Others said they worried it would come again soon.
"I wish Newtown was our last mass shooting," said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "There are going to be more mass shootings. There are going to be more incidents where people will try to figure out what in the hell is wrong here."
(This version of the story corrects the senator's name to Mark Kirk from Ron Kirk in paragraph 23.)
(Additional reporting by Edith Honan; Editing by David Lindsey and Lisa Shumaker)

Cyprus Reaches $13B Bailout Deal with European Officials

2013-03-27T09:11:00.001-05:00

Cyprus Reaches $13B Bailout Deal with European Officials

Capitalism in Crisis: Richard Wolff Urges End to Austerity, New Jobs Program, Democratizing Work

2013-03-27T09:09:00.003-05:00

Capitalism in Crisis: Richard Wolff Urges End to Austerity, New Jobs Program, Democratizing Work

A People's Revolt in Cyprus: Richard Wolff on Protests Against EU Plan to Seize Bank Savings

2013-03-27T09:09:00.001-05:00

A People's Revolt in Cyprus: Richard Wolff on Protests Against EU Plan to Seize Bank Savings

The David Pakman Show 2013-03-25 (playlist)

2013-03-26T08:32:00.001-05:00

The David Pakman Show 2013-03-25 (playlist)

2013-03-26T08:31:00.001-05:00

The David Pakman Show 2013-03-25 (playlist)

2013-03-26T08:28:00.001-05:00

BBC-Guardian Exposé Uses WikiLeaks to Link Iraq Torture Centers to U.S. Col. Steele & Gen. Petraeus | Democracy Now!

2013-03-26T08:22:00.001-05:00

BBC-Guardian Exposé Uses WikiLeaks to Link Iraq Torture Centers to U.S. Col. Steele & Gen. Petraeus | Democracy Now!

2013-03-26T08:20:00.001-05:00

BBC-Guardian Exposé Uses WikiLeaks to Link Iraq Torture Centers to U.S. Col. Steele & Gen. Petraeus | Democracy Now!

Capitalism in Crisis: Richard Wolff Urges End to Austerity, New Jobs Program, Democratizing Work | Democracy Now!

2013-03-26T08:18:00.001-05:00

Capitalism in Crisis: Richard Wolff Urges End to Austerity, New Jobs Program, Democratizing Work | Democracy Now!

10 Things to Know About the Ryan Budget

2013-03-12T19:13:00.002-05:00

By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call Staff
March 12, 2013, 3:14 p.m.

Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call

Everything you need to know about House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan’s budget blueprint, from its prospects in the Senate to which White House proposals the Wisconsin Republican suggests keeping in place. Spoiler alert: “Obamacare” wouldn’t be completely discarded.
1. It’s DOA in the Senate and the White House, but you knew that.
2. Ryan’s budget eliminates the deficit in 2023 not because of large new spending cuts relative to his past budgets, but because he’s keeping hundreds of billions of dollars a year of President Barack Obama’s own budget policies in place.
3. Ryan’s claim to a balanced budget rests entirely on the 2010 health care law, known in GOP circles as “Obamacare.” Ryan’s budget keeps the tax revenue from the health care law, as well as its $700 billion-plus Medicare trims and other cuts. Ryan included those Medicare cuts in his previous budget blueprints but campaigned against them when he joined Mitt Romney’s GOP presidential ticket last year.
4. Ryan’s budget also would not balance without the $600 billion-plus increase in taxes extracted by the president in the fiscal cliff deal.
5. What Ryan would repeal is the $1.8 trillion in new spending on the health care law, which primarily subsidizes the purchase of private insurance. That includes $263 billion in spending on the law in 2023 alone.
6. Ryan’s budget proposes tax changes that would dramatically lower the top tax rate to 25 percent. Romney’s proposal to lower the rate from 35 percent to 28 percent came under fire from outside tax experts who said it would require tax writers to eliminate a slew of popular middle-class deductions. The White House contends that Ryan’s budget would require an even larger tax hike on the middle class because he is proposing an even lower top rate. Ryan says there are wasteful loopholes riddling the tax code but doesn’t say what should be eliminated.
7. Ryan would also cap the growth of Medicaid, giving states flexibility in return. That would save $756 billion over the next decade on top of repealing the health care law, and $139 billion in 2023 alone. Another $129 billion in new Medicare cuts over a decade would be adopted, including $39 billion in 2023.
8. Ryan retained his controversial plan to reshape Medicare into a voucher to buy private insurance for people younger than 55. But that again effectively pushes the savings from that plan outside the budget window.
9. The plan would also slice food stamp benefits by turning them into a block grant for states and implementing new time limits and a work requirement. It would also trim federal pensions and restrain discretionary spending.
10. Ryan points to economic models suggesting his blueprint would boost gross domestic product by 1.7 percent in 2023 by decreasing the nation’s debt burden.

What Does A ‘Real’ Path To Citizenship Even Look Like?

2013-03-12T19:02:00.004-05:00

Benjy Sarlin March 12, 2013, 6:00 AM 1958

As Jeb Bush’s rough week suggests, a path to citizenship is one of the most sensitive issues surrounding immigration reform, a baseline test of seriousness for activists who fear that anything less will create a permanent underclass.
In Bush’s case, his conversion was pretty straightforward. He started the week saying illegal immigrants should never become citizens, full stop, and ended it on a Sunday show tour saying he’d support a plan that lets them become citizens. But the battle over immigration reform is mostly being fought in the grey area in between and immigration activists are worried that a “path to citizenship” is such a broad concept that they might end up with a disappointing policy under the same name. As a result, they’re trying to define the term early.
First, there’s the question of the path’s length. The White House’s leaked bill would grant a provisional legal status to undocumented immigrants who pass a background check and pay fines, but make them wait either eight years or until all the legal immigrants in line ahead of them are processed before applying for a green card — whichever comes first. If it’s the latter (and it probably would be), an individual who received a green card through the process would then have to wait the standard five years before they can apply for citizenship. That puts the total time from legalization to citizenship at a minimum 13 years for most of the 11 million undocumented. The bill does allow for young immigrants who entered the country illegally as children — those covered by the DREAM Act — to potentially become citizens faster if they acquire a high school diploma, college degree, or serve in the military.
So far, the White House is the only plan out there with actual legislative language. But the Senate is working on its own bill, which would prevent immigrants from applying for a green card until new border security measures go into effect. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, their final plan is likely to require “10 years or longer” before newly legal immigrants can obtain a green card, meaning citizenship is likely 15-plus years off from its passage.
Those timetables are considered too long by a number of immigration advocacy groups, who are pushing to speed up the process. America’s Voice, one of the leading activist groups lobbying for reform, criticized the White House’s leaked plan for being too slow, calling for citizenship in “years, not decades.” Other groups have gotten more specific: United We Dream, which advocates for young immigrants, has called on lawmakers to set the path at seven years — two to a green card, five more to citizenship. PICO National Network, an umbrella group for religious activists, is also pushing for a seven-year path, which one of their staff described to reporters as the “number of completion in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.”
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, told TPM in an interview that the exact number of years was less crucial than revamping the visa system so it can evaluate millions of newly legalized immigrants without running into the same huge backlogs it suffers from now.
“The fact is, there is no road to citizenship for the undocumented now, so you have to build it,” Noorani said. “But like you would build any road, you have to make sure it’s high quality.”
While the issue of when the undocumented population can obtain citizenship gets a lot of attention in the press, partly because it concerns how soon they could vote in elections, activists are at least as focused on defining who qualifies.
“We’re definitely concerned that our opposition could get their hands on the legislation and winnow it down so only a few lucky ones are able to get citizenship,” Noorani said.
Some drafts of immigration legislation in the 2006-2007 debate contained measures that might have limited the total percentage of undocumented that could qualify for legal status — for example, restricting legalization to immigrants who had already been in the country for several years or to those who could show that they had worked throughout their stay. Showing continuous employment could be a potentially burdensome requirement given that so many undocumented workers take off-the-books jobs that are difficult to verify.
Ana Avendano, the AFL-CIO’s director of immigration, noted that criminal background checks, which are considered a given in any reform bill, also could become problematic if they rule out applicants over minor or non-violent crimes, like being arrested at a protest for civil disobedience.
“In Arizona, they’ve practically criminalized sneezing,” Avendano said. “What does that mean for people?”
There’s also a debate over how a bill would apply to prospective immigrants living outside the United States. The White House’s leaked draft would allow newly legalized immigrants to bring spouses and children from abroad under the the same provisional status, an important component for many activists. Religious groups in particular are lobbying for a broad family reunification policy that would make it easier for immigrants of all stripes to sponsor relatives.
House Republicans are still skeptical of citizenship in any form and a final agreement is likely to fall short of activists’ goals in at least some categories. So while each interest group has its own wish list for a bill, they appear to be taking a “we’ll know reform when we see it” approach overall.
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” Avendano said. “But at the same time, people’s lives are not something we can compromise.”

Take Action for Immigrant Rights – Week of Action

2013-03-12T18:59:00.001-05:00

Democratic

Socialists

of America

March 12, 2013

Call Congress today!

Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Make sure that Congress hears our concerns while drafting immigration reform legislation, not just those of corporate America. The immigrant rights movement is the civil rights movement of the 21^st century. Its demand for labor rights demonstrates that only by building a truly international labor and democratic political movement can we transition from a global capitalist world to one that promotes economic and social justice.

Start by stating that you are a constituent, then demand an inclusive and fair comprehensive immigration reform bill, one that includes:

an immediate “path” to citizenship without long waits or onerous fees;
worker rights provisions, in particular ensuring worker protection in the context of an ineffective E-verify program;an immediate end to deportations and to the flawed Secure Communities (“S-COMM”) program which has eroded the community’s trust in law enforcement while facilitating the ongoing racial profiling of immigrants;
inclusion of LGBTQ families/couples to allow U.S. citizens to sponsor their non-citizen partner;
family unification provisions that end long waits and reunite families who are waiting for immigration paperwork; and
family unity, because the temporary Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals splits families.

Learn more about DSA’s immigrant rights project here.

In solidarity,

Maria Svart

National Director

You can help spread the word about DSA by forwarding this message.