What I Learned From Getting Shot and Almost Dying

comments_image
Defenders of stop-and-frisk and racial profiling have made me break my public silence about the night I almost died.
brianBeutler

I haven’t said or written much publicly about the shooting that nearly killed me in 2008. But a recent confluence of events — Trayvon Martin’s death, the Zimmerman trial and the public pronouncements of mostly privileged, mostly white people in the aftermath of the verdict — has left me feeling like I have something to share.

Most recently, actor-activist Kal Penn, once an avowed opponent of racial stereotyping in law enforcement (based in part on his own experience getting patted down at airports), changed his views after he was held up at gunpoint in Washington, D.C. (Penn published a brief explanation late last week, and apparently reconsidered his view over the weekend.)

Racial profiling for thee but not for me. That’s how it looks, at least. It’s probably more complicated than that. I don’t know. I asked Penn on Twitter to discuss the evolution of his views with me, but didn’t get a reply. Maybe he didn’t see the request. Either way, the offer still stands.

What I can say with some authority — whether this is what happened to Penn or not — is that being a victim of gun violence doesn’t have to turn you into a supporter of racial profiling.

My story is more than five years old now. It took place in Washington, D.C., on a typically warm July night. I was out late on a Tuesday with a friend whom I’ll call Matt, since that’s his name. We’d been drinking — probably too much for a weeknight, but not too much for a 25-year-old journalist.

A half-hour after last call, on our walk home up 16th Street northbound toward Mount Pleasant where we lived at the time, we impulsively decided to grab a late night snack at a 24-hour diner we used to frequent in Adams Morgan and hung a left up Euclid Street — a dimly lit one-way street with a violent history.

I’d been up and down Euclid hundreds of times over the years — midday and late at night; alone and with friends; drunk and sober; and just about every permutation thereof. Always without incident.


This time was different. About half a block up Euclid, Matt and I encountered two young men — both black, both wearing hoodies, characters culled from Richard Cohen’s sweatiest nightmares. They wanted our phones, which we were cleverly holding in front of our faces as we walked.

We declined, gently under the circumstances. I worried we might end up in a fight. Maybe one of them had a knife, or a larger group of friends around the corner. I know I would’ve surrendered my phone eventually, but not before suggesting they go hassle someone else. Maybe they’d figure we weren’t worth the trouble.

They didn’t oblige. The kid opposite Matt drew a small, shiny object from wherever he’d been concealing it and passed it to his accomplice, who was standing opposite me. A second or two lapsed — long enough for me to recognize they weren’t joking, but not long enough for me to beg — before it discharged clap clap clap; my body torqued into the air horizontally, like I’d been blindsided by a linebacker, and I fell to the ground.

The kids fled east in a hurry, the same direction we’d come from down Euclid street. I stood up right away. Strangely I felt fine. Something had knocked the wind out of me, and my shoulder hurt a little bit, but ridiculously in hindsight we concluded it was an extremely effective prank. Rubber bullets. Something. If it’d been a real gun, I wouldn’t be standing.

Shake it off, I told myself, then onward to the diner.

Half a block later I didn’t feel so good anymore. I removed my T-shirt (a red one, inconveniently) and realized it had masked a badly bleeding shoulder wound. My adrenaline-fueled defiance gave way to the gory injury staring me in the face, and some important things dawned on me: I’d been shot. We were within firing distance of at least two armed men willing to commit murder. They hadn’t taken any of the things they’d claimed to want. And, oh yeah, I’d been shot.

Fortunately Matt was fine. Call 9-1-1, I told him as we started running. Ask for police and an ambulance. We were headed west on Euclid, as fast as we could, to put quick distance between ourselves and the thugs with the gun.

The 911 operator wanted us to stay put. “How will we know where to send the ambulance?”

“But they have a gun! They shot my friend!”

“Fine, just keep updating me with your location.”

We turned north onto 17th Street and made it another 30 feet before I couldn’t run anymore. Couldn’t breathe very well either. That was the moment I realized I’d suffered more than just a flesh wound on my shoulder. I slumped down against a fence on the east side of the street, in pain, but mainly just winded and growing sleepy. No good. I noticed intricate metalwork on a fence across the street and forced myself to focus on it. Stay awake, I told myself. Matt, per 911 instructions, was putting pressure on my shoulder wound, using my shirt as a rag, as if that was the cause of my sudden immobility.

The ambulance drove past us. I motioned frantically. Flag it down! He did, just in time. It stopped short of the intersection and the EMTs got to work. They found an exit wound in my back. They ran fluid into a vein in my left arm to revive my sinking blood pressure, but it worked too well. I no longer felt like I was on the verge of unconsciousness, but for the first time I could feel the full extent of the pain wracking my upper body. I’d strongly advise against getting shot. It hurts very badly.

The bad news, one EMT told me, was that I’d suffered a punctured lung. The good news, he added, was that they’d caught it quickly, and it should heal just fine. They loaded me into the back of the ambulance, snipped off my clothes, and did their level best to ignore my impolite demands for pain medicine.

“What’s your Social Security number?” I gave it to them. “Can I have some drugs?”

“What’s your dad’s cellphone number?”

“If I give it to you will you give me some drugs?”

“Soon.”

I knew it was a lie, and I was angry. But I was also relieved I wasn’t too far gone to recall that information.

Within minutes of the shooting, we arrived at Washington Hospital Center — a giant, sterile maze on the border of northwest and northeast D.C., where doctors treat so many victims of violent crime that the government seeks them out to train military surgeons before they deploy into battle zones. Or so I was later told.

During the transition I got one last bit of good news from the departing ambulance driver — “Congratulations, Brian. You’re the latest survivor of D.C. violence.” Then came the bad news from an attending physician in the emergency room. “Brian, we have to take you into surgery. We have to remove your spleen to save your life.”

I remember thinking that a splenectomy was probably as unobtrusive as an appendectomy. I knew people who’d had their appendixes removed, and they’d all recovered pretty quickly. Either way, I wasn’t about to argue. “I don’t care, I just need those drugs.”

They wheeled me into the operating room, and administered anesthesia. The last thing I remember before I finally lost consciousness was a nurse or doctor saying, “The surgeon’s not ready for him.”

“WHAT?!” [Clunk]

I woke up a few hours later in recovery. My sister was there. My editor. Matt was somewhere. I was groggy, and wearing an oxygen mask, but I knew where I was and why. I wiggled my shoulder. “Feels fine,” I thought to myself, surprised. I even wondered for a minute if I’d be released in time to catch a flight to Seattle, where I’d planned to spend the Fourth of July. That all changed when I scratched my chest and nearly ripped out a staple. Odd. Below it there was another. I traced a line of them from my sternum down to below my belly button.

It turns out that even if a bullet only causes minor internal damage, doctors have to cut you wide open — to perform a procedure called an exploratory laparotomy — to make sure they’re not missing anything dangerous or fatal. In my case there were three bullets, including the one in my shoulder, and the injuries were pretty severe. Punctured lung, punctured diaphragm, punctured stomach, ruptured spleen, broken ribs, a hematoma on my kidney. One bullet tunneled harmlessly around the bones and muscles in my shoulder and remains lodged in a back rib on the upper-left side of my body. Doctors removed another with my spleen. The third missed both my aorta and my spine by an inch or less, exited my back and landed on Euclid Street. A little this way and I’d be paralyzed. A little that way and I’d have bled out before the ambulance arrived.

I lost plenty of blood anyhow, probably over six units. The doctors put a tube in my chest to drain my lung, and two in my abdomen to drain my peritoneal cavity.

I spent a week and a half in the hospital, but never without company. My dad, who as luck would have it happens to be the best clinician I know, arrived within hours and took de facto charge of my care.

When the hospital released me I was still in bad shape, mentally and physically. After a couple months I lost my job. I moved out of the group house I’d lived in for two and a half years and in with a girlfriend, who lived in New York at the time. I worried I’d run out of money, have to move back to California, start all over.

I didn’t want that. But a part of me wondered if it might be for the best. People don’t get shot in Redlands very often. I knew my internal consigliere would eventually whisper that to me, and sure enough it did.

But the moment I woke up in the hospital I promised myself I wouldn’t let what happened change the way I approached life. I wouldn’t flee the city. I wouldn’t start looking over my shoulder. I wouldn’t let it affect my views on race or crime or guns, both because I liked the way my life had been taking shape, but also because at a fundamental level I knew I’d just been profoundly unlucky. Even in a high crime city like D.C. most people going about their business on any given day or year or decade don’t get shot. Mugged, maybe, not shot.

Which isn’t to say my only scars were physical. It took my body about three months to heal, then another three before I’d sloughed off enough self-pity to start working off the 40 pounds of booze and Hostess snacks I’d added to my waistline in a sedentary state of self-pity. During that time I harbored revenge fantasies — relished them, even. For my suffering, I told myself, I’d be justified returning to the scene of the crime, armed and eager to mow down the first punk who tried to roll me.

That all passed. But to this day, I flinch when I look over a balcony, or when my airplane hits a patch of unexpected turbulence. That never happened to me before. The vivid image of a van or bus flattening me in a crosswalk flashes through my mind if I realize a few steps into the intersection that I haven’t looked both ways. These are minor inconveniences, and I’ve become pretty good at controlling them or shaking them off quickly by reminding myself why they’re happening. Mind over matter.

Five years later I’m in great health. I have a much stronger sense of the degree of trauma and hardship I can endure. That’s not an abstraction anymore, the way it had been, and the way it is for most people. My career trajectory ironically improved after the shooting and sometimes I wonder if I’m better off on the whole for having gone through it.

That’s helped me keep the promise I made to myself. I live in D.C. again, half a mile from where it all went down, and have for four years running. I go out at night without hyperventilating, though I take more cabs than I used to. I didn’t buy a gun, though several well-wishers seemed to think that night would’ve ended better if I’d been armed and had initiated a saloon-style shootout in the middle of the street. Other well-wishers wondered — let’s not sugarcoat it — if the experience had turned me into a racist.

Those emails were easy to respond to.

Penn got in trouble for touting the supposed merits of New York’s stop-and-frisk policy. To the objection that the policy disproportionately targets blacks and Latinos, he responded, “And who, sadly, commits & are victims of the most crimes?”

But that’s a non sequitur. A false rationale. Take people’s fear out of the equation and the logical artifice collapses. Canadians are highly overrepresented in the field of professional ice hockey, but it would be ridiculous for anyone to walk around Alberta presumptively asking strangers on the street for autographs. When you treat everyone as a suspect, you get a lot of false positives. That’s why above and beyond the obvious injustice of it, stop and frisk isn’t wise policy. Minorities might commit most of the crime in U.S. cities, and be the likeliest victims of it, and that’s a problem with a lot of causes that should be addressed in a lot of ways. But crime is pretty rare. Not rare like being a professional hockey player is rare. But rare. Most people, white or minority, don’t do it at all.

That’s what I remembered when I began my recovery five years ago. In the preceding 25 years, I’d crossed paths with thousands and thousands of black people (including, obviously, those who became friends). Over the same stretch I’d also crossed paths with thousands and thousands of people wearing hoodies (there was surely some overlap). I got very, very unlucky one time. Adding it all up, I figured my odds of avoiding a repeat of that night are pretty good.

And that’s ultimately what I want everyone, but particularly future victims of crime, to take away from my story. You can’t tell victims how they should react to the crimes committed against them. That’s wrong, and anyhow it’s largely out of their control. But to anyone whose instinct is to crouch defensively and treat everyone who resembles their attackers like criminals, I’m living proof that there’s another way.

Everyone who’s ever shot me was black and wearing a hoodie. There just aren’t any reasonable inferences to draw from that fact.

Brian Beutler is Salon’s political writer. Email him at bbeutler@salon.com and follow him on Twitter at @brianbeutler.




TOO MUCH (Annals of Inequality— 19 August 2013)

Too Much August 19, 2013
THIS WEEK
Just when did modern executive pay start down the road to abominable excess? We now have a much better idea, thanks to Duff McDonald, the author of a new history on the McKinsey corporate consulting empire. McDonald, we learned last week, has identified the “godfather of CEO megapay.”That godfather, McKinsey consultant Arch Patton, started studying executive pay back in the 1950s, a humbling time for CEOs. His surveys revealed that executive pay, after inflation, had actually been shrinking since the late 1930s.

America’s CEOs would soon become huge Arch Patton fans, and Patton’s executive pay consulting — he helped corporations put in place new bonus plans — would become a huge cash cow for McKinsey. But Patton himself would start having second thoughts. By the 1980s, CEO pay had started soaring significantly, and Patton was telling reporters he felt “guilty” about the soar.

In 1982, CEOs were making 42 times worker pay. Patton considered that far too wide a gap. So does Rep. Barbara Lee. She now has a bill before Congress that discourages any pay gap wider than 25 times. Our current gap? Over 350 times. This week in Too Much, more on Lee’s bill and the obstacles she’s facing.

About Too Much, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality and the Common Good

Subscribe
to Too Much

Join us on Facebook
or follow us on Twitter

FacebookTwitter

GREED AT A GLANCE
Some of us may be rich, some poor, but deep down we all have the same make-up, right? Not so fast, say researchers at the European Centre for Environment and Human Health. Inequality, they note in a new study, is differentiating our insides. Rich Americans, for instance, show higher levels of oxybenzone, an ingredient in sunscreen lotions that some experts link to skin cancer. Poor Americans show more Bisphenol-A, a banned substance in Europe that still lines food cans in the United States. These new findings, says researcher Jessica Tyrrell, should help policy makers understand that toxins threaten people at all income levels. The difference? The rich can more easily dodge the dangers . . .Darren RichmondIn our contemporary age of hyper “financialization,” Americans of means don’t just lobby government officials. They place bets on the decisions they expect these officials to make. The latest hedge fund to score a betting windfall: GSO Capital Partners, a Blackstone Group unit, scored a $100 million payday this May betting that New York insurance regulators would opt to protect big banks over average citizens with bonds in their retirement portfolios. Darren Richmond, the orchestrator of Blackstone’s winning bet, apparently turned so nervous worrying about the outcome that he had to go out on a 10-mile run to “de-stress.”

In the world of luxury, says cultural commentator Jill Lawless, “a higher level of extravagance exists to set the super-rich apart from the merely affluent.” Take handbags, Lawless suggests in a new analysis. Luxury handbag maker Hermes offers its coveted Birkin model, a crowd-pleaser since the 1980s, for as little as $10,000. But that same design, with a little fabric-switching and jewel-stitching, can turn into a bag fit only for the wrist of the super rich. Hermes has introduced four new Birkins “crafted from gold and studded with precious gems.” The company, Hermes CEO Patrick Thomas admits, has gone “a bit crazy” with these four new clutches. Two years in the making, they feature “thousands of individually crafted diamonds.” The price: $1.9 million each.

 

Quote of the Week

“If nobody dreamed of a better world, what would there be to wake up to?”
Gary Younge, The Misremembering of ‘I Have a Dream,’ The Nation, August 14, 2013

PETULANT PLUTOCRAT OF THE WEEK
Tim ArmstrongIn business circles, they like to describe AOL’s Tim Armstrong as an “impetuous CEO who fires from the hip.” Armstrong, a former Google hotshot, earlier this month fired away literally. He sacked Abel Lenz, the creative director of AOL’s local news network Patch, during a conference call with a thousand employees on it. Abel’s sin? He was filming his boss, a common practice in previous such calls. Armstrong’s tirade against Abel — “Abel, put that camera down right now. Abel, you’re fired! Out!” — would quickly go viral online. Last week Armstrong “apologized,” without reinstating Abel. But he still owes an apology to the hundreds of Patch staffers about to be axed. Patch is stumbling, and the Columbia Journalism Review is blaming poor management. CEO Armstrong’s compensation, meanwhile, last year totaled $12.07 million.  

 

Like Too Much?
Email this issue
to a friend

IMAGES OF INEQUALITY
Robert Reich filmGraph the top 1 percent share of America’s income over the last 100 years, former labor secretary Robert Reich marvels in the engaging new feature film Inequality for All, and you get a veritable suspension bridge: an almost identical hyperconcentration of income in the 1920s and then again today. Inequality for All will debut in theaters September 27. Just released: the film’s official trailer.  

 

 

 

Web Gem

BornRich/ An eight-year-old genuflection to excess that “curates the good things in life” — and regularly supplies ample evidence that wealth today sits far too concentrated.

PROGRESS AND PROMISE
Barbara LeeEarlier this month Senators Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act, legislation that would prevent U.S. corporations from deducting off their taxes — as they routinely do now — any individual executive compensation that runs over $1 million. This S.1476 reflects the spirit of an even stiffer bill that Rep. Barbara Lee has introduced in the House. Her Income Equity Act, H.R. 199, would deny corporations tax deductions on any executive pay over $500,000 — or 25 times the compensation of a corporation’s lowest-paid employee. With the current nearly unlimited deductibility of executive pay, Lee notes, ordinary American taxpayers “are actually subsidizing” the income inequality that excessive executive compensation creates. Take Action
on Inequality

Fast food CEOs average $25,000 in pay per day, over twice what fast food workers average for an entire year, notes Fast Food Forward, the new advocacy group now running a national petition drive to narrow the industry’s CEO-worker gap.

 

inequality by the numbers
Political contributions  

Stat of the Week

Two new infographics are compellingly illustrating how inequality hurts. Some 44 percent of Americans, notes Paycheck-to-Paycheck, lack enough savings to get through three months jobless. The SAT test score gap between rich and poor kids, adds The Rich Get Richer, has widened by 40 percent over the last 50 years — and now nearly doubles the black/white SAT gap.

IN FOCUS
Why Can’t Democracy Trump Inequality?Voters of modest means outnumber voters of excessive means in every election. Yet public policy in America essentially comforts only the already comfortable. Four political scientists have an explanation.

Fifty years ago, average Americans lived in a society that had been growing — and had become — much more equal. In 1963, of every $100 in personal income, less than $10 went to the nation’s richest 1 percent.

Americans today live in a land much more unequal. The nation’s top 1 percent are taking just under 20 percent of America’s income, double the 1963 level.

But no Americans, in all the years since 1963, have ever voted for doubling the income share of America’s most affluent. No candidates, in all those years, have ever campaigned on a platform that called for enriching the already rich.

Yet the rich have been enriched. America’s top 0.01 percent reported incomes in 1963 that averaged $4.1 million in today’s dollars. In 2011, the most recent year with stats available, our top 0.01 percent averaged $23.7 million, nearly six times more than their counterparts in 1963, after taking inflation into account.

This colossal upward redistribution of income took years to unfold, and — for many of those years — most Americans didn’t even realize that some grand redistribution was even taking place.

Few Americans remain that clueless today. Most of us now have a fairly clear sense that American society has become fundamentally — and dangerously — more unequal. The starkly contrasting fortunes of America’s 1 and 99 percent have become a staple of America’s political discourse.

So why is this stark contrast continuing to get even starker?

Americans do, after all, live amid democratic institutions. Why haven’t the American people, through these institutions, been able to undo the public policies that squeeze the bottom 99 percent and lavishly reward the crew at the top?

Why, in other words, hasn’t democracy slowed rising inequality?

Four political scientists are taking a crack at answering exactly this question in the current issue of the American Economic Association’s Journal of Economic Perspectives, a special issue devoted to debating America’s vast gulf between the rich and everyone else.

The four analysts — Stanford’s Adam Bonica, Princeton’s Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole from the University of Georgia, and NYU’s Howard Rosenthal — lay out a nuanced reading of the American political scene that explores the interplay of a wide variety of factors, everything from the impact of the partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts to voter turnout by income level.

But one particular reality dramatically drives their analysis: Societies that let wealth concentrate at enormously intense levels will quite predictably end up with a wealthy who can concentrate enormous resources on getting their way.

These wealthy underwrite political campaigns. They spend fortunes on lobbying. They keep politicians and bureaucrats “friendly” to their interests with a “revolving door” that promises lucrative employment in the private sector.

Bonica, McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal do an especially engaging job exploring, with both data and anecdotal evidence, just how deeply America’s super rich have come to dominate the nation’s election process.

One example from their new paper: Back in 1980, no American gave out more in federal election political contributions than Cecil Haden, the owner of a tugboat company. Haden contributed all of $1.72 million, in today’s dollars, almost six times more than any other political contributor in 1980.

In the 2012 election cycle, by contrast, just one deep-pocket couple alone, gaming industry giant Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, together shelled out $103.4 million to bend politics in their favored wealth-concentrating direction.

The Adelsons sit comfortably within the richest 0.01 percent of America’s voting age population. Over 40 percent of the contributions to American political campaigns are now emanating from this super-rich elite strata.

In the 1980s, campaign contributions from the top 0.01 percent roughly equaled the campaign contributions from all of organized labor. In 2012, note political scientists Bonica, McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal in their new analysis, America’s top 0.01 percent all by themselves “outspent labor by more than a 4:1 margin.”

Donors in this top 0.01 percent, their analysis adds, “give pretty evenly to Democrats and Republicans” — and they get a pretty good return on their investment. Both “Democrats as well as Republicans,” the four analysts observe, have come to “rely on big donors.”

The results from this reliance? Back in the 1930s, Democrats in Congress put in place the financial industry regulations that helped create a more equal mid-20th century America. In our time, Democrats have helped undo these regulations.

In 1993, a large cohort of Democrats in Congress backed the legislation that ended restrictions on interstate banking. In 1999, Democrats helped pass the bill that let federally insured commercial banks make speculative investments.

The next year, a block of congressional Democrats blessed the measure that prevented the regulation of “derivatives,” the exotic new financial bets that would go on to wreak economic havoc in 2008.

We’ll never be able to fully “gauge the effect of the Democrats’ reliance on contributions from the wealthy,” acknowledge political scientists Bonica, McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal. But at the least, they continue, this reliance “does likely preclude a strong focus on redistributive policies” that would in any significant way discomfort the movers and shakers who top America’s moneyed class.

Conventional economists, the four analysts add, tend to ascribe rising inequality to broad trends like globalization and technological change — and ignore the political decisions that determine how these trends play out in real life.

New technologies, for instance, don’t automatically have to concentrate wealth — and these new technologies wouldn’t have that impact if intellectual property laws, a product of political give-and-take, better protected the public interest.

But too many lawmakers and other elected leaders can’t see that “public interest.” Cascades of cash — from America’s super rich — have them conveniently blinded.

New Wisdom
on Wealth

Matt Bruenig, What to Do About Social Capital Inequality, PolicyShop, August 13, 2013. How we can reduce the income-concentrating impact of insider networks.

Matthew O’Brien, Why Is Inequality So Much Higher in the U.S. Than in France? Atlantic, August 14, 2013. Blame Wall Street.

Colin Gordon, Mind the Gap, Dissent, August 15, 2013. The overall health of the economy hasn’t battered America’s workers. A dramatic change in the nation’s distribution of rewards has.

 

 

 

 

 

The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class cover

Check online for the intro to The Rich Don’t Always Win, the new book about the triumph over America’s original plutocracy by Too Much editor Sam Pizzigati.

NEW AND notable
Creating a New System for Creating WealthA Symposium on Alternatives to Capitalism. Papers by Gar Alperovitz and Steve Dubb, Thomas Hanna, Joe Guinan, Marjorie Kelly, Thad Williamson, and Joel Rogers. The Good Society: the journal of the Committee on the Political Economy of the Good Society. Penn State University Press, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2013.

Scholars and activists around the Democracy Collaborative are launching a new initiative they call the “Next System Project.” The goal: to generate “alternative models — different from both corporate capitalism and state socialism — capable of delivering superior ecological, social, and economic outcomes.”

Just what does that mean? The current issue of the Good Society journal — available online free now through the end of August — sports a half-dozen papers that offer a tantalizing glimpse at a variety of visionary yet practical paths out of “America’s Lockean rock ‘n’ roll political wilderness.”

Almost all these paths aim to encourage “more cooperative ways of producing wealth.” Take a look. You might find a path you’d like to follow.

Like Too Much?
Email this issue to
a friend who might
want to subscribe
About Too Much
Too Much, an online weekly publication of the Institute for Policy Studies | 1112 16th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 234-9382 | Editor: Sam Pizzigati. | E-mail: editor@toomuchonline.org | Unsubscribe.



Al Jazeera America Set to Debut

by Stephen Lendman

On November 1, 1996, Al Jazeera began operating. It’s headquartered in Doha. It’s owned and operated by Qatar’s monarchy.  Chairman Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani’s a distant cousin of Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.  Al Jazeera News channel (JNC) is indistinguishable from other scoundrel media. It long ago fell from grace. 

It abandoned professionalism and objectivity. Its programming lacks credibility. It features largely pro-Western propaganda.  Wadah Khanfar served earlier as managing director. His pro-Western support got JNC staff to leave. They refused to report managed news.

In December 2012, Al Jazeera bought Current TV. Terms weren’t disclosed. Reportedly it was for $500 million. Depending on distribution, JNC potentially will reach 40 million households.  It’ll be headquartered in New York. It’ll have 12 news bureaus nationwide. They’ll be in major US cities. In announcing JNC’s plans, general director Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani said:

“For many years, we understood that we could make a positive contribution to the news and information available in and about the United States and what we are announcing today will help us achieve that goal.”

“By acquiring Current TV, Al Jazeera will significantly expand our existing distribution footprint in the US, as well as increase our newsgathering and reporting efforts in America.”  In 2002, Al Gore and Joel Hyatt established Current. On August 1, 2005, it began operating. Gore and Hyatt announced the sale, saying:

“Current Media was built based on a few key goals: To give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling.”

Its programming fell woefully short. It’s viewership suffered. Gore and Hyatt added:

“Al Jazeera has the same goals and, like Current, believes that facts and truth lead to a better understanding of the world around us.”

It’s replacing Current. It’s adding its own on-air staff. It plans programming tailored to US viewers. They’ll get far less than they deserve.  They’ll soon find out. Al Jazeera America’s (AJAM) no different from other scoundrel media. On August 20, it’s set to debut. Hold the cheers.

Credible news reporting’s excluded. Truth and full disclosure are prohibited. Avoid AJAM. Choose reliable alternative sources instead.

Former Anderson Consulting executive Ehab Al Shihabi heads AJAM. He’s CEO. He represents Qatari and pro-Western interests. He’s a political opportunist. He’s a propagandist. He’s no newsman. He has no editorial experience.

He spurns independent voices. He eschews them. He wants them silenced. His claims about wanting Al Jazeera America being “the voice of Main Street” don’t wash.

Former Palestinian Balad party MK Azmi Bishara heads the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. He deplores censorship. He addressed Al Jazeera America’s debut, saying:

“If the price of (its) entry into the United States means its submission to Zionist dictates, then this means that America will be moving into Al Jazeera and not the reverse.”  Marwan Bishara’s a senior JNC political analyst. He’s an on-air host. He writes extensively on geopolitical issues. He’s Azmi Bishara’s younger brother.

On July 10, he sent a highly critical letter to JNC executives. In part it said:

“I had long decided not to interfere in the working of AJAM, but it has become clear to me over the last few days and weeks that some terrible decisions” were made.

They’ll “insult the intelligence of the American people.”

“I’ve been hearing many ill-conceived assumptions and baseless conclusions about what’s good for Aljazeera and what makes it successful in America. And it seems to me a few tend to believe their own feeble pseudo-marketing claims…”

“Secrecy corrupts the system. That’s why it’s high time to speak out and to discuss the almost secretive ways in which AJ matters and interests have been handled in America.”

Does criticizing US policies make AJAM anti-American, Bishara asked? Does replicating US broadcasters and cable channels matter more than good journalism?

Viewers crave it. They hope AJAM will provide it. “That’s why it’s high time for a serious reflection about where we are heading editorially…and other potential projects.”

“It’s truly insulting to the greater majority of the Americans who I suspect want to watch us and support us that AJAM communicates with them through empty gimmicks and poor marketing theatrics.”

“If we fail America around the launch time, it will be ever more difficult to salvage a tarnished image and compromised credibility.”

Bishara’s especially upset about Ehab Al Shihabi’s appointment. His background is business, not journalism. He held a highly publicized meeting with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  He’s a former White House chief of staff. He’s an unindicted war criminal. He’s a committed Zionist. He’s one-sidedly pro-Israel.

Bishara said Al Shihabi’s “personal ambition (leads him) astray. (He) should make no more appearances in public forums or photo-ops with political characters, shady or otherwise, that would only hurt us in the long run.”

He should “stay clear of our content. Journalism is not (his) thing.”

On June 1, former JNC English head Tony Burman headlined “Al Jazeera America has the odour of disaster,” saying:

It’s abandoning international news. It’s trying to be “American through and through. (It’s) curry(ing) public and political favour.

“It will, in other words, operate much like CNN and Fox News. (T)he rumoured shortlist of potential (presenters) includes several of the people who have driven US cable networks, including CNN, to a level of utter mediocrity.”

“Does it make sense that Al Jazeera’s new-found timidity in its dealings with the United States flows from a desire by its Qatari patrons to improve relations with Washington?”

Is it currying favor with the Israeli Lobby? There’s “no point being a pale imitation of what” growing numbers of Americans reject.

A Final Comment

Georgetown University’s Adel Iskandar calls today’s Al Jazeera polar opposite its original incarnation. “The director general of the network has left and was replaced by a member of the (Qatari) royal family,” he said.

“Al Jazeera Arabic has very much become an instrument of Qatari foreign policy, so it’s no longer a freewheeling network.”

“The English network has higher standards, but still has problems. We’ve seen the departure of various people at the network who claim that it no longer practices independent journalism.”

Freelance journalist Vivian Salama writes on Middle East issues. On January 9, she headlined her Columbia Journalism Review article “Al Jazeera in America.”

It’s not completely new to America, she said. A “small handful of cable providers have been showing the network’s English-language broadcast(s).”

“Many questions remain about Al Jazeera’s American enterprise at this juncture, including whether the Qatari government will seek heavy involvement in its content, as well as about the news executives who will become the architects of this new network.”

Salama’s fears are realized. AJAM intends replicating the worst of what growing numbers of Americans reject.   They want real news, information and analysis. AJAM plans same old, same old. It bears repeating. Opt out. Avoid it.

Choose reliable alternative sources. Many are available online. This writer hosts the Progressive Radio Network’s Progressive Radio News Hour. It’s polar opposite managed news misinformation.

PRN’s the most popular online news and information service. It adds thousands of new followers weekly.

It features what people want. So do many other reliable online choices. They’re easy to follow live or archived. Why stay informed any other way.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

 

http://www.dailycensored.com/al-jazeera-america-set-to-debut/




NSA Caught Red-Handed

by Stephen Lendman   NSA-National-Spy-Agency

It’s a longstanding rogue agency. It always operated extrajudicially. It’s worse than ever now. It’s a power unto itself.  Obama claims “(w)e don’t have a domestic spying program. What we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an email address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threat.”

 

False! Obama knows it. He lied. He always lies. He’s a serial liar. NSA has a longstanding domestic spying program. On August 15, the Washington Post headlined “NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds.”

Most infractions involved “unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States.”   Doing so’s restricted “by statute and executive order.” Violations range from “significant ones to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of US e-mails and telephone calls.”

Agency personnel are told to substitute generic language for specific details. They do in Justice Department and Director of National Intelligence reports. They delay sending them. The FISA court didn’t learn about an unconstitutional new collection method until months after it began. Obama officials repeatedly stonewall. Secrecy substitutes for transparency.

After promising to explain NSA operations in “as transparent a way as we possibly can,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole dismissively told Congress:

“Every now and then, there may be a mistake.” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied. He committed perjury. He got away with it. He remains unaccountable.

Just one of the NSA pods—all paid for with our money.

Just one of the NSA pods—all paid for with our money.

Obama appointed him to investigate NSA spying. He’ll head a so-called independent commission. Putting him in charge assures coverup, denial and whitewash. It assures business as usual. He told Congress NSA has no domestic spying program. When it was too late to matter, he disingenuously apologized for a “clearly erroneous” statement.

NSA audit information WaPo obtained “counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications.”

“Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders. There is no reliable way to calculate from the number of recorded compliance issues how many Americans have had their communications improperly collected, stored or distributed by the NSA.”

Causes and severity vary widely. Sweeping surveillance assures many lawless practices. Serious ones happen often.  Audit data included only incidents at NSA’s Fort Meade headquarters and other Washington area facilities. Three government officials spoke on condition of anonymity. They said infractions would be much higher if other “NSA operating units and regional collection centers” were included.  One of the most serious violations involves “divert(ing) large volumes of international data passing through fiber-optic cables in the United States into a repository where the material could be stored temporarily for processing and selection.”

NSA calls it “multiple communications transactions.” Domestic and foreign ones are commingled.  NSA calls its mission “cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances.”

Signals Intelligence Management Directive 421 says “raw SIGINT data…includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and/or unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice, and some forms of computer-generated data, such as call event records and other Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) metadata as well as DNI message text.”

WaPo said database query incidents into “raw SIGINT data… include, but (are) not limited to, unevaluated and/or unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice, and some forms of computer-generated data, such as call event records and other Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) metadata as well as DNI message text.”

NSA claims collecting information on Americans while targeting foreigners suspected of terrorism “does not constitute a violation.”  It “does not have to be reported” for inclusion in quarterly congressional reports, it said. Once obtained, communications of Americans are freely searched.

A second WaPo article headlined “Court: Ability to police US spying program limited,” saying:

The FISA court’s chief judge said the body lacks tools to “independently verify how often the government’s surveillance breaks the court’s rules that aim to protect Americans’ privacy.”

According to chief FISA court Judge Reggie B. Walton:

“The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court. The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing (government) compliance with its orders.”

WaPo said the FISA court can demand and obtain more information about cases. It’s unclear how often it happens. The court’s largely rubber stamp. It’s complicit with lawless spying.  On August 15, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) headlined “NSA Spying: The Three Pillars of Government Trust,” saying:

US officials lied. They claim rigorous executive, congressional and judiciary oversight of NSA activities. Doing so they say assures no lawless privacy invasions.  “Today, the Washington Post confirmed that two of those oversight pillars – the Executive branch and the court overseeing the spying, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) – don’t really exist,” said EFF.

“The third pillar came down slowly over the last few weeks, with Congressional revelations about the limitations on its oversight, including what Representative Sensennbrenner called ‘rope a dope’ classified briefings.”

Trust in government oversight’s no longer warranted. It never was. For sure it’s not now. Snowden explained in stark detail. So did whistleblowers Russell Tice, Mark Klein and others. Unconstitutional data-mining is longstanding practice. All three branches of government are involved.  They’re complicit in sweeping lawless spying. Millions of Americans are affected. According to EFF:

“The pattern is now clear and it’s getting old. With each new revelation the government comes out with a new story for why things are really just fine, only to have that assertion demolished by the next revelation.”

“It’s time for those in government who want to rebuild the trust of the American people and others all over the world to come clean and take some actual steps to rein in the NSA.”

“And if they don’t, the American people and the public, adversarial courts, must force change upon it.”

“The three pillars of American trust have fallen. It’s time to get a full reckoning and build a new house from the wreckage, but it has to start with some honesty. Join EFF in calling for a full investigation by emailing Congress today.”

For far too long, secret law and a secret surveillance state have been a dark shadow on Americans’ freedom. It’s time to shine a light on NSA’s spying. It’s time to fully expose its dark side. It’s time to stop America heading for full-blown tyranny. It’s time to do it now.

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html // Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

http://www.dailycensored.com/nsa-caught-red-handed/




Dan Kovalik: The Colombia story the American press won’t report

Peasants greet us along the highway.

Peasants greet us along the highway.

Below we present two reports by Dan Kovalik, a citizen’s journalist with the courage and commitment to cover Colombia, one of the most victimized nations in Latin America, and one of the most dangerous assignments for a working journalist. Today, as has been the case for decades, Colombia is still a badly-disguised client state of the United States dominated by a murderous landowning oligarchy.  Since the corporate media—to their eternal damnation—won’t come close to reporting truthfully on Colombia, it is people like Kovalik who has to do the job.  —PG

____________

Dispatch From Catatumbo—

Capitalism, Genocide & Colombia

by DANIEL KOVALIK

I just returned from Catatumbo, Colombia where thousands of peasants are waging a life-and-death struggle against the U.S.-backed Colombian military and its paramilitary allies.   For over 60 days, the peasants have been demonstrating against the deplorable living conditions and economic circumstances in which they live, and in support of their proposal for a Peasant Farmer Reserve Zone of 10 million hectares.

 

Such a zone, which is provided for under the law, would allow the peasants to engage in subsistence farming free of the threat of encroachment by extractive companies desiring to mine or drill on their land.   This demand, along with the concomitant demand of the peasants for all mining and oil exploration and extraction in their region to be suspended, is critical to the peasants who are being driven to the verge of extinction.

[pullquote] The grotesquely overpaid media celebrities do not deign to cover such important stories, especially when they reveal the true criminal nature of US foreign policy. [/pullquote]

According to the Luis Carlos Pérez Lawyers’ Collective (CALCP), 11,000 peasants have been killed in this region by state and para-state forces, most of them during the 2002-2010 term of President of Alvaro Uribe, and over 100,000 peasants, out of a total of around 300,000, have been forcibly displaced.   At least 32 mass graves containing the bodies of murdered peasant activists have been found in this region in recent years.

And, this mass murder and displacement is being carried out to make way for more oil drilling, African palm cultivation (for biodiesel) and for coal mining by North American companies.

I say that this mayhem is being carried out, in part, in order to make way for more oil drilling because, in fact, much oil drilling has been taking place there for the past 70 years.   And, the peasants of this region have nothing to show for this many years of drilling.  As we were told a few times during out trip, after 70 years of oil exploration, the rural parts of this region do not even have a paved road.    (Our delegation – led by Justice for Colombia and including participants from the USW and Unite the Union UK – found this out the hard way during our 3.5 hour drive over a dirt road from Cucuta to a village outside Tibu near the Venezuelan border).

In addition, there is no sewage system, no running water and no health services.   Indeed, peasants injured in their confrontations with the military and police during the two months of demonstrations – with the peasants defending themselves with sticks against the guns, tanks and other U.S.-supplied hardware of the military and police – have been forced to flee into Venezuela for refuge and medical services.

In short, the oil and other extractive companies, beginning with Texaco in the 1930’s, have taken and taken, and left the people with nothing.  Now, the companies want even more, and it is the very existence and presence of the peasants which stands in their way.  And so, quite logically, the companies, with the help of the U.S.-backed military and paramilitaries, are aiming to literally wipe the peasants off the map.  In other words, these forces are engaged in a calculated act of genocide.   Indeed, when a number of us remarked upon how almost everyone we saw and met with in our visit to Catatumbo were no more than teenagers, we were told that this was the result of the fact that their parents had either been murdered or displaced.   Left behind are villages populated almost entirely by children.

Young Peasants of Catatumbo In Rebellion

The calculated mass killing and displacement that is taking place in Catatumbo is a good example of the phenomenon discussed in the new book, Capitalism: A Structural Genocide by Garry Leech.   In that book, Leech argues, and quite forcefully, that capitalism, left to its own devices, will inevitably destroy (1) those who stand in the way of the exploitation of natural resources; and (2) those individuals, such as peasants and subsistent farmers, who are engaged in pursuits which neither contribute towards economic “growth” nor produce surplus value or profit.  Of course, the peasants of Catatumbo fall into both of these categories simultaneously, and are therefore a double threat.

Citing Indian physicist and philosopher Vandana Shiva, Leech explains that, under capitalism, “nothing has value until it enters the market.   Shiva points out that under capitalism ‘if you consume what you produce, you do not really produce, at least not economically speaking.  If I grow my own food, and do not sell it, then this does not contribute to GDP, and so does not contribute towards growth.’”    Rather, for such subsistence farmers, “’nature exists as a commons.’”   The commons, moreover, and those who work on it, are simply not permitted under capitalism.

image002-1

Young peasants of Catatumbo in rebellion.

As Leech and Shiva explain, those working the commons must either “be incorporated – often through coercion – into the ever-widening spheres of production and circulation,” or they must be simply be destroyed.   This process, as Leech explains, is what Karl Marx termed, “primitive accumulation,” and it is quite a nasty process, wherever it is carried out.

Leech explains that, as capitalism was beginning to get into full swing in Britain in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, the British Parliament passed a series of Enclosure Acts which privatized commonly held lands and “prevented much of the generations-old practice of grazing their animals and cultivating their crops on commonly held lands, thereby forcing them to move to the cities in search of jobs.”

More recently, as Leech astutely points out, Mexico outlawed communal land titles for indigenous peoples in order to make way for NAFTA.   As Leech explains, and as many of us have argued for years, a major raison d’être of NAFTA was in fact the primitive accumulation of the commons of millions of small farmers in Mexico.   This primitive accumulation was carried out by NAFTA’s provisions which allowed heavily-subsidized, and therefore cheap, agricultural products from North America to flood the Mexican markets tariff-free.   Meanwhile, the IMF rules governing Mexico forbid that country from subsidizing its own agricultural producers.

As Leech explains, the results for 2 million small farmers in Mexico, who could not compete with the subsidized food from the North, was devastating, with these small farmers losing their livelihood and their land and fleeing into the cities, or illegally into the U.S.   Finding themselves displaced from their land, many were left with no jobs at all, found themselves exploited in low paying jobs with poor safety and health practices, or turned to the drug trade for employment.  The result for Mexico as a whole has been the destruction of the social fabric of the nation and increased violence, with cities like Juarez suffering violence levels comparable to nations at war.

While Leech does not focus on Colombia in his book,  he does mention that Colombia itself “has become Latin America’s poster child over the past decade and its economic growth has been driven by the exploitation of the country’s natural resources, particularly oil, coal and gold, by foreign companies.”   Colombia now has the largest internally displaced population in the world at over 5 million.   As Leech explains, “[m]any have been forced from their lands by direct physical violence related to the country’s armed conflict – often by the Colombian military and right-wing paramilitary groups serving the interests of multinational corporations.  However, many others have become economic refugees due to the structural violence inherent in neoliberal policies that has dispossessed them of their lands in order to facilitate capital accumulation for foreign companies.”

Peasants Greet Us Along The Highway

The peasants of Catatumbo have long been the victims of such direct as well as structural violence, but now they are fighting back to defend their land.   For 53 days, these peasants, armed only with sticks, blocked the main highway linking the cities of Cucuta and Tibu.  Shortly after our visit, the government agreed to negotiate with them directly, and the peasants ended this blockade for now.  However, they will begin it anew if talks fail.

image002-2
Young Luchador in Catatumbo.

While the Colombian Minister of Defense warned us not to travel this highway because of these protests, the peasants freely allowed us to pass.  Of course, as all of us understood, what the Colombian government was truly afraid of was that we would witness that it is in fact the peasants who are on the side of right; that it is they who are defending the land, the water and the rainforests for all of us.   And, this is why their struggle, and the struggles of others like them, must succeed.   In truth, our very lives and future depend on them.

Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer and teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

 

_______________________

Also by Dan Kovalik——

The U.S. Empire and Modern Day Christian Martyrs

[Posted originally on: 02/25/2013]

In their landmark book, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman devote a chapter to the media’s unbalanced coverage of the murder of one priest in Poland in 1984 as compared to the coverage of the 72 religious killed throughout Latin America between 1964 and 1978, the killing of 23 religious in Guatemala between 1980 and 1985, the murder of Archbishop Romero of San Salvador in 1980 and the rape and murder of the four U.S. church women in El Salvador in 1980. In short, the murder of the one Polish priest — the perpetrators of which were tried, convicted and sentenced to prison — received significantly more coverage than all of the latter killings, which almost invariably remain unsolved and unpunished, combined.

Meanwhile, there has been almost no media coverage of the killings of the “two bishops, 79 priests, eight men and women religious, as well as three seminarians” killed in Colombia alone between 1984 and 2011 — this, according to the Episcopal Conference of Colombia. The Episcopal Conference of Colombia publicly announced this grim tally in the fall of 2011 upon the murder of the sixth priest killed in 2011 alone. One of the priests killed in 2011 was Father Reynel Restrepo Idarraga, the pastor of the town of Marmato, who was murdered by presumed paramilitaries in retaliation for his vocal defense of Marmato against the attempt of the Canadian mining company, Gran Colombia Gold, which to this day is still attempting to seize the land of the entire town and convert it into a gold mine. The Colombian bishops attributed the rash of killings in 2011 to “the courageous commitment of our priests to the prophetic denunciation of injustice and the cause of the poorest in the country.”

The number of priests killed in Colombia since 1984 just climbed to 80 with the murder of Father Luis Alfredo Suarez Salazar on Feb. 2, 2013 by two unknown assailants in the northern Colombian city of Ocana.

Then, on February 13, 2013, there was an assassination attempt against another Catholic priest. The target of the attack was Father Alberto Franco, a member of the Inter-Church Commission of Justice & Peace (CIJP), an organization created in 1988 pursuant to the resolution of the Conference of Religious Superiors of Colombia which aspired “[t]o promote and encourage the Christian prophetic signs which are present in religious communities, through the creation of a Commission of Justice and Peace which will channel and disseminate information and protests throughout the country.” As Father Javier Giraldo, S.J., a founding member of the CIJP, relates in The Genocidal Democracy, while the Colombian Catholic Conference of Bishops “did not approve of this initiative and placed obstacles in its path,” 25 Catholic provincials nonetheless went ahead with the formation of the CIJP.

As Father Giraldo explains, the first and continuing project of the CIJP has been “to gather and disseminate information about the victims of human rights violations, the right to life, in particular.” Not surprisingly, this project has made the CIJP a constant target of threats and violence, particularly from the Colombian state and its paramilitary allies. Father Alberto Franco himself has been the target of threats and surveillance for some time now, culminating in the attempt upon his life on Februrary 13, in which assailants fired three shots into the windshield of Father Franco’s car. Luckily, Father Franco had not yet entered the car and therefore escaped unharmed. Meanwhile, Father Franco, along with 17 other members of the CIJP, remain, by the Colombian government’s own measures, under “extraordinary risk” of attack.

According to a statement sent in support of the CIJP signed by 130 organizations,

We consider these threats to be a direct result of CIJP’s work on land restitution and their efforts to expose state, military, and business responsibility in illegal land grabs, threats, and the violation of human rights before national and international courts. The most recent threats occurred days after Father Franco informed the press that officials of ex-President Alvaro Uribe’s government were involved in the displacement and illegal occupation of the collective territories of Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó. That same week, there was a hearing on the case of Marino López and others in Cacarica before the Inter-American Human Rights Court.

We have observed that the Afro-descendant, indigenous, and campesino communities that CIJP accompanies are also attacked for defending their land rights. In December 2012, we received first-hand information of the presence of many uniformed and armed paramilitaries in Curvaradó, in addition to the threat of an imminent massacre. On various occasions, we have expressed our concern regarding the attacks and threats against María Ligia Chavera and Enrique Petro, two emblematic leaders in the land restitution process in Curvaradó.

Of course, as I have written about at great length before, the “land grabs” which the CIJP are denouncing are only accelerating due to the free trade agreements between Colombia and the U.S. and Canada which are promoting the increased exploitation of land by multi-national mining and agricultural companies — companies which regularly use the Colombian military and paramilitaries to clear the land they covet of the residents who live there.

However, in the midst of the economic causes of the repression against individuals such as Father Franco, one also cannot forget the very real spiritual and religious convictions which motivate Father Franco and others like him to risk their lives to defend the poor, and one cannot ignore the commitment of those attacking such individuals to eradicate such convictions. Father Javier Giraldo, S.J., has indeed recently published a book (in Spanish only) which details the spiritual aspect of this struggle.

That book, The Deaths That Illuminate Life, sets forth the stories of 35 Colombians — including bishops, priests, nuns, religious laity and even a child — who Father Giraldo considers to be modern Christian martyrs. In Father Giraldo’s words, they were “witnesses of Christian values objectively: men and women who heroically endured torture and death to the save the lives of others, or for refusing to become collaborators with criminal agencies, or because they joined groups and organizations where they sought to realize in some way their militant option for justice and solidarity.”

Comparing these modern martyrs to the early martyrs of the first three centuries of the Church, Father Giraldo does not mince words about their common executioners — the prevailing empires at the time (the Roman and U.S. empires, respectively).

Thus, Father Giraldo explains that, just as in the time of the Roman Empire Christians would naturally find themselves to be “subversives” in that they were compelled to deny the Emperor as their “Lord,” so too must modern Christians in Latin America find themselves at odds with their neo-colonial oppressors. As he writes,

To confess Christ, in this context, has meaning and truth only in the margins of a historic commitment to the liberation of the oppressed which explains an inescapable confrontation with the oppressors, “some of whom are those who say they are Christians,” that is why there are today Christians tortured and killed in the name of “the democratic freedoms”, in the name of the “market economy”, in the name of “Christian western civilization”, in the name of “national security”, on behalf of the “defense of the society against atheistic ideologies”, etc. The Christian label provides no clue in revealing the roots of the conflict, which cause death; these causes can only be discerned through an in-depth review of the practice of the faith, confronted with its challenging context, and taking into account that the Christian character of this praxis, tends to be refused, systematically, by all those that are in some degree of collusion with the interests of the oppressors.Today there is no longer the idol of the Roman Emperor, in whose altars was shed the Blood of the first Christians, but there is the secular idol of the market economy, upon whose altars is sacrificed the life and dignity of millions of human beings…

To this day, I cannot get over the irony, and indeed the shock, at the realization that it is in fact the U.S. — the professed protector of democracy and indeed Christian values in the world — which is the entity so bent on destroying the roots of true Christianity in Latin America, for it is a philosophy that so profoundly calls into question the U.S.’s true values which revolve around the worship of wealth and power. And so, it is the U.S. which, since 1962, has cultivated the very death squads which haunt the Church of the poor in Latin America, and specifically in Colombia.

And indeed, the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), which continues to train thousands of repressive Latin American military forces, has, as Noam Chomsky explains, gone so far as to brag about its role in destroying Liberation Theology (the Christian philosophy which advocates “the preferential treatment for the poor”) in Latin America. As Chomsky has explained, “[o]ne of its advertising points is that the U.S. Army [School of the Americas] helped defeat liberation theology, which was a dominant force, and it was an enemy for the same reason that secular nationalism in the Arab world was an enemy – it was working for the poor.” Thankfully, the SOA has not been as thoroughly successful as it has advertised in this regard, and that brave souls like Father Giraldo and Father Franco continue to risk martyrdom in order to defend the poor and dispossessed in Latin America.

In truth, I stopped being a practicing Catholic some time ago, but I continue to hold dear the philosophy of the “preferential treatment of the poor,” and I honor those in Latin America who continue to exhibit the courage — courage I have yet to find in myself — to risk their lives every day in carrying out this key tenet of Liberation Theology. I have concluded that, to be a person of decency by any measure, one must join with these Davids of the Third World who are fighting for independence and economic justice against the Goliath in which we happen to live.Follow Dan Kovalik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@danielmkovalik

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Kovalik is a human and labor rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh. He has been a peace activist throughout his life and has been deeply involved in the movement for peace and social justice in Colombia and Central America. He is an attorney for Colombian Plaintiffs in cases alleging corporate complicity in egregious human rights violations. Kovalik, a 1993 graduate of Columbia Law School, was a co-recipient of the 2003 Project Censored Award for a story he co-wrote on the murder of trade unionists in Colombia.