Showing posts with label Hilary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hilary Clinton. Show all posts

29 January 2025

Demonstration 9.30 am Friday 31 January, The Old Bailey

My ‘Crime’ is Supporting Palestinian Resistance While the British State Aids Israel’s Genocide


Hillary Clinton: "we created the problem we are fighting today" | How the US created al-Qaeda

On December 20 2023 I was arrested in a dawn raid at my home by officers of Counter-Terrorism Police SE. Their logo states that their objective is to counter terrorism but today it is to criminalise support for liberation movements and anti-colonial struggles – be they in Palestine or Kurdistan.

My first reaction on being told I was being arrested for a tweet I had posted a month previously was ‘this is Orwellian’ .  At first I was led to believe that I was being prosecuted under s.12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000‘expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation’.

Now I understand the prosecution is under s.12(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000

This is a blatant attempt to criminalise support for any anti-colonial or resistance organisation of the oppressed. Israel is in an illegal occupation of Gaza, as it has been for 58 years but any expression for armed resistance against Israel’s military and genocidal violence is a criminal offence.

We only have to remember when Margaret Thatcher called the ANC a terrorist organisation to know that none of this is new. There has always been an attempt by governments to brand armed opposition ‘terrorist’. The Nazis called the French and Czech resistance ‘terrorist’.

As Professor John Dugard KC, a distinguished South Africa International Lawyer and ad-hoc judge of the International Court of Justice said:

Terrorism is an emotive word that has no place in the assessment of the conduct of either a government or a resistance movement. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Few would today label members of the French resistance in World War II as “terrorist” and most would have no hesitation in describing the Nazi forces as “terrorist”. Yet today most western states refrain from describing the acts of government forces as acts of terror but have no hesitation in so describing the acts of resistance movements and other non-state actors.

The Central Criminal Court 'The Old Bailey'

The use of proscription, be it against Hamas or the PKK, the Kurdish Workers Party is an attempt to shut down free speech on support for groups that the British government does not approve of for political reasons. It has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

We all know what terrorism is. It is the planting of a bomb in July 2017 that killed 22 young people at the Manchester Arena Ariana Grande Concert or the attack by ISIS on the Bataclan concert in Paris that murdered some 100 people.

But here’s the rub. Salman Abedi was allowed to go to fight with Libyan jihadi groups in the fight against Colonel Gaddaffis’s government by MI5.  ISIS which carried out the Bataclan attacks didn’t even exist before Britain and the United States illegal attack on Iraq.

The ‘terrorism’ that is used as a pretext to attack domestic support for the resistance organisations of the oppressed has in most cases been created by western foreign policy. Hilary Clinton admitted that it was US policy of supporting Jihadi fighters in Afghanistan which created Al Qaeda.  Every time that the British and American states have employed far-right Islamist fighters to take out regimes they don’t like there has been blow back.

And today we see the blow back in terms of our own rights and civil liberties. It is not me, Natalie Strecker, Sarah Wilkinson or Asa Winstanley or Richard Medhurst, all of whom have had their homes raided, computer equipment stolen and been arrested and/or charged (except for Asa) accused of supporting terrorism. That accolade belongs to the British government and the intelligence agencies.

That is what my trial and the trial of all the other people who have been arrested is about.  And that is why you should join me on Friday January 31 outside the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, in London.

The government has even attempted to roll back the right of jurors, derived from the 1670 case of Edward Bushells, to deliver a verdict contrary to a judge’s directions and in accordance with their conscience with the arrest of Trudy Warner and others who had the temerity to inform jurors of their right.

In other words the right of juries to do justice rather than to follow the conservative interpretation of the law that one can expect from the most exclusive profession in Britain, i.e. Judges. See Solicitor general to appeal over case of climate activist who held sign on jurors’ rights

Tony Greenstein

7 September 2020

Has Biden Blown It? Is America About to Re-Elect a Fascist and White Supremacist as President?


The Democrats are Reprising Clinton’s Mistakes. When Will the American Left Dump the Democrats?

Ever since the onset of COVID-19 I have engaged in Zoom meetings with friends in the United States and elsewhere every Sunday evening. The Coronavirus pandemic has changed my lifestyle just like many others. My American friends assured me until recently that as Trump sank further in the polls as a result of his almost comical handling of COVID-19, the victory of Jo Biden was certain.
Logically they had to be right. Trump’s initial dismissal of COVID-19, his refusal to wear a mask and his railing against the lockdown, coupled with his advice that people might want to inject themselves with disinfectant, have led to the deaths, so far, of over 180,000 [see below] Americans. To say nothing of his taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug for which there is no evidence that it is beneficial.
The death rates (deaths/confirmed cases) vary widely from 28.85% in Yemen to just 0.05% in Singapore suggest that there have been vastly more cases of COVID in Yemen than those recorded, whereas in Singapore it would seem that the number of deaths have been under reported. The death rate in the UK is the third highest in the world, 12.2% (41,000 deaths out of 340,000 confirmed cases suggests that there has been a mass testing failure). The United States rate is 3.05% [186,000 deaths out of 6.114 million]
The UK death rate of 624 per million is the fourth highest compared to the United States 569 per million placing it in 9th place.
Of course the rate of testing also varies widely with the UK the second highest (259,000) and the US fourth highest (256,000) per million.
The US has the highest number of deaths in the world (191,000) with Brazil the second highest 124,000 and the UK fifth at 41,000.  Countries following neo-liberal policies and herd immunity have topped the list.
Given that UK deaths are far higher than the official 41,000 (care homes have been massively under-recorded) it suggests that as Disraeli was rumoured to have said, there are lies, lies and damned statistics!
Trump came to power promising that Americans would win again. It is one promise that has come true with a vengeance as the United States has the highest death rate in the world.
Trump has almost perfectly demonstrated why, when society faces a crisis, neo-liberalism has nothing to offer. Without a sustained intervention by the State, coupled with a universal and comprehensive health care system, COVID-19 will not be beaten, certainly not without the absence of a vaccine. And unless a vaccine is available free to all then it will be bound to keep reoccurring.
It might therefore be thought that all the Democrats had to do in November was to place the ball in an empty goal. Trump is so obviously a liar, a vainglorious, barely coherent braggart, clearly corrupt (why else would he resist handing over his tax records?) handing out free pardons to those who have covered him and who ran a charitable fund in New York in a criminal fashion.
But that would be to underestimate the capacity of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If they fear the victory of Trump then they also fear the consequences of victory.
The problem quite simply is that the Democrats are as committed to capitalism and neo-liberalism every bit as much as the Republicans. That was why the Corporate Democratic Establishment – led by Clinton and Obama – pulled out all the stops to prevent Sanders winning the Presidential nomination. Whereas 69% of Americans support a universal single payer health care system, the Democrats are as beholden to the US Health Care Companies as the Republicans. Biden has made it clear that he opposes any such notions.
Despite spending more on healthcare than comparable countries, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy and performs poorly on a variety of health outcomes. Thus, our complex network of insurance plans is wasteful — in large part due to high administrative costs and lack of price control. [Single payer healthcare: Pluses, minuses, and what it means for you]
In a pandemic neo-liberal capitalism has no answers. The virus has an annoying habit of crossing national boundaries and those of social class. Without a universal health care system it is almost impossible, absent an effective vaccine, to defeat COVID-19.
It is noticeable that China and Vietnam, which despite capitalist economic systems are controlled by parties calling themselves communist and where the political system controls the economic direction have fared so much better in the pandemic.
Cuba fares even better. It has an infant mortality of 4.76 per 1,000 live births compared to 5.9 in the USA. Life expectancy is 79.2 years in Cuba compared to 78.8 in the USA.
You would therefore think that all the Democrats had to do was to campaign for a comprehensive health care system in which no one would be left untreated because of inability to pay.
But the problem is that the Democrats are as wedded to the capitalist system as the Republicans. The idea of spending more on health care and less on the US’s bloated military ($700+ billion) and instituting a 10% cut in the military budget has been fiercely resisted by the majority of Democrats in Congress. In July the proposal was defeated 324-93. The Democrats were split, with 92 voting for the amendment and 139 voting against it. 
This is despite 56% of voters supporting a cut and the fact that 53% of discretionary federal spending goes to the military-industrial complex, some $1.25 trillion.
Biden, who hasn’t seen a war he couldn’t support, is opposed to any cut in ‘defence’ (actually war) expenditure and fiercely defends the US’s $4 billion donation to Israel’s military. The Democrats are beholden to the US Health Care System, which combines massive profitability with the world’s largest per capita expenditure. Profits over people.
Just as the Hilary Clinton’s only selling point was that she wasn’t Donald Trump, the same is true of Biden. He has nothing to offer the 30 million Americans who were left without health care by Obamacare. Biden has nothing to say to the millions of American workers who, because they have lost their jobs, have also lost health insurance at the very time when they need it most.

Nothing can illustrate the failings of capitalism more than the application of the market, whose only god is profitability. We can see this in the UK where the growing privatisation led to the initial massive failure to provide Personal Protective Equipment resulting in hundreds of deaths amongst doctors and nurses. By granting a franchise to private companies to provide PPE, the NHS all but guaranteed that the provision of PPE would fail in an emergency. These companies not only subcontracted out their own responsibilities to other companies, providing a tangled network that was as weak as its weakest point, but it ensured that no one in the government or NHS could do the blindest bit about it. As George Monbiot wrote:
Four layers of commercial contractors, each rich with opportunities for profit-making, stand between doctors and nurses and the equipment they need. These layers are then fragmented into 11 tottering, uncoordinated supply chains, creating an almost perfect formula for chaos.

See How NHS Privatisation Contributed to the PPE Scandal

The result is that Trump, the narcissistic bigot and White Supremacist has engineered a White backlash against Black Lives Matter. Instead of coming out clearly against the endemic violence and racism of the Police and in support of Black Lives Matter, the largest such movement in the US’s history and promising change, including defunding America’s racist police forces, the Democrats have lined up in support of the Police and against what they call ‘rioting’ - the mobilisation of the oppressed.
Trump by way of contrast barely disguises his contempt and hatred for Black people and anti-racists.  His ire is directed at Antifa and anti-fascists whilst at the same time defending the murder by a militia member of 2 anti-fascists in Wisconsin and encouraging the police murder of an anti-fascist, Michael Reinoehl, in Portland.
Instead of fighting on an agenda of social change Biden has been forced onto the ‘law and order’ agenda of Trump. Given Biden’s own record in supporting mass incarceration and the death penalty, it is little wonder that the polls are narrowing between Trump and Biden.
It is of course possible that Biden, given the multiple failures of Trump, may yet win the election but my own feeling is that the longer the campaign goes on, the likelier it is that Trump will win again. Literally the Democrats have nothing to offer but a senile Biden.
On the major foreign policy issues, there is no difference between Biden and Trump.  Both are equally pro-Israel and supportive of US imperialism. Indeed Trump has been far more wary of getting involved in new wars than the Democrats.  On confronting China the Democrats are equally warlike.
The attacks on Black Lives Matter demonstrators in the United States, with the state giving active encouragement to the militias and white supremacists demonstrate that democracy in the United States is skin-deep and essentially a lie. Nothing speaks louder than the hypocritical support of those like the BBC for demonstrations in Belorussia and Hong Kong whilst staying silent about the militarised police attacks on demonstrators in the USA.
My American friends tell me that the US election is now on a knife edge. Perhaps. But what is clear beyond doubt is that the Left will never succeed in the United States until it jettisons the Democrats, who have traditionally been the graveyard of protest. Instead of bowing to the campaign by the Democrat Establishment Sanders should have stood as an independent in the elections. Nothing is so necessary as mobilising the working class and poor in the United States behind a campaign for universal health care, a proper welfare system (rather than the present one for the super-rich) and the slashing of expenditure on the military combined with democratic control of the US police and their demilitarisation.
Instead we see the growing incorporation of radicals in the Democrat and the move to the right of people such as New York Congresswoman, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez.
It may yet turn out that Biden will defeat Trump because even the most stupid American voter will be able to see through his use of racism as a means of negating opposition to tax cuts for the rich and impoverishment of the poor.  However I wouldn’t bet on it and if I were to place a bet it would be on Trump winning.
Either way the Left in the United States has to abandon any hope that it will be able to transform a corporate Democratic Party into a vehicle for change. Today the Democrats, once the party of White Supremacy, is incapable of offering even a return to the Big Society of Lyndon B Johnson.
Yet the strategy of triangulation, minimising the policy differences between yourself and your opponents is the strategy of Keir Starmer. This is what makes the support of John McDonnell for Keir Starmer’s COVID strategy nothing less than criminal.
Tony Greenstein

4 July 2018

Betrayed by the Guardian, abandoned by Australia Drop the Charges against Julian Assange


We Should Recognise that Julian Assange is a Political Hostage



I am happy to reprint this appeal by John Pilger. Assange was subject to deportation proceedings on a phony warrant issued by Sweden.  

Phony because the allegations of rape themselves were fake and manufactured by the Swedes with the intention of deporting Assange on to the United States where a secret Grand Jury had been arraigned. 

The allegations against Assange have now been dropped.  The Swedes refused to promise that if deported he would not be sent on to the USA.
He took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy but since the change in regime for the worse in Ecuador, like much of the South American continent, has been subject to virtual isolation in the Embassy including the cutting off of his Internet.

There is no doubt that Assange’s only offence was shining a light on to the secret state and in particular the United States.  The secret state wants to know everything about us but we are not allowed to know anything about them.  The attitude of Assange’s home country, Australia, has been particularly outrageous.

Needless to say The Guardian, which initially used and profited by Assange’s Wikileaks has long since abandoned him.

Tony Greenstein
Bringing Julian Assange Home
By John Pilger

This is an abridged version of an address by John Pilger to a rally in Sydney, Australia, to mark Julian Assange's six years' confinement in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

June 17, 2018 "Information Clearing House" The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy.

The Australian government and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull have an historic opportunity to decide which it will be.

They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home.

Assange does not ask for special treatment. The government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad from gross injustice: in Julian's case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected.

We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a US extradition warrant is successful -- a United Nations Special Rapporteur called it torture.

I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously; and I know why they smear him.

In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008. The authors were the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the US Defence Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy the "feeling of trust" that is WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity".

This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of "exposure [and] criminal prosecution" and a unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech.

Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media -- those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth.

The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists -- after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France.

Last October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Sarah Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as "the icon for your generation".

This was the same Clinton who threatened to "obliterate totally" Iran and, who, as US secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies.

When the Libyan President was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a knife, Clinton was filmed whooping and cheering. Thanks largely to her, Libya became a breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadists. Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril across the Mediterranean, and many drowned.

Leaked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary Clinton's foundation - which she shares with her husband - received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of ISIS and terrorism across the Middle East.

As Secretary of State, Clinton approved the biggest arms sale ever -- worth $80 billion -- to Saudi Arabia, one of her foundation's principal benefactors. Today, Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to crush starving and stricken people in a genocidal assault on Yemen.

Sarah Ferguson, a highly paid reporter, raised not a word of this with Hillary Clinton sitting in front of her.

Instead, she invited Clinton to describe the "damage" Julian Assange did "personally to you". In response, Clinton defamed Assange, an Australian citizen, as "very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence" and "a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator".

She offered no evidence -- nor was asked for any -- to back her grave allegations.

At no time was Assange offered the right of reply to this shocking interview, which Australia's publicly-funded state broadcaster had a duty to give him.

As if that wasn't enough, Ferguson's executive producer, Sally Neighour, followed the interview with a vicious re-tweet: "Assange is Putin's bitch. We all know it!"

There are many other examples of Vichy journalism. The Guardian, reputedly once a great liberal newspaper, conducted a vendetta against Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, the Guardian aimed its personal, petty, inhuman and craven attacks at a man whose work it once published and profited from.

The former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published in 2010, "one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years". Awards were lavished and celebrated as if Julian Assange did not exist.

WikiLeaks' revelations became part of the Guardian's marketing plan to raise the paper's cover price. They made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks and Assange struggled to survive.
With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously abused Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous".

They also revealed the secret password Julian had given the Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables.

With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, who had enriched himself on the backs of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh".

The question is why.

Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with a crime. The Swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been vindicated.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote, "The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction... The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will."

This truth was lost or buried in a media witch-hunt that disgracefully associated Assange with rape and misogyny. The witch-hunt included voices who described themselves as on the left and as feminist. They willfully ignored the evidence of extreme danger should Assange be extradited to the United States.

According to a document released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a "Manhunt target list". One leaked official memo says: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat food forever."

In Alexandra, Virginia - the suburban home of America's war-making elite -- a secret grand jury, a throwback to the middle ages -- has spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted.

This is not easy; the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers. Assange's crime is to have broken a silence.

No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of "unworthy" lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza.

When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to "a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed". He asked why "the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought" of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America's imperial crimes "never happened ... even while [they] were happening, they never happened.".

In its revelations of fraudulent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the bald-faced lies of governments (the Chagos Islands), WikiLeaks has allowed us to glimpse how the imperial game is played in the 21st century. That is why Assange is in mortal danger.

Seven years ago, in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull.

I wanted to ask him to deliver a letter from Gareth Peirce, Assange's lawyer, to the government. We talked about his famous victory -- in the 1980s when, as a young barrister, he had fought the British Government's attempts to suppress free speech and prevent the publication of the book Spycatcher -- in its way, a WikiLeaks of the time, for it revealed the crimes of state power.

The prime minister of Australia was then Julia Gillard, a Labor Party politician who had declared WikiLeaks "illegal" and wanted to cancel Assange's passport -- until she was told she could not do this: that Assange had committed no crime: that WikiLeaks was a publisher, whose work was protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories.

In abandoning Assange, an Australian citizen, and colluding in his persecution, Prime Minister Gillard's outrageous behaviour forced the issue of his recognition, under international law, as a political refugee whose life was at risk. Ecuador invoked the 1951 Convention and granted Assange refuge in its embassy in London.

Gillard has recently been appearing in a gig with Hillary Clinton; they are billed as pioneering feminists.

If there is anything to remember Gillard by, it a warmongering, sycophantic, embarrassing speech she made to the US Congress soon after she demanded the illegal cancellation of Julian's passport.

Malcolm Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia. Julian Assange's father has written to Turnbull. It is a moving letter, in which he has appealed to the prime minister to bring his son home. He refers to the real possibility of a tragedy.

I have watched Assange's health deteriorate in his years of confinement without sunlight. He has had a relentless cough, but is not even allowed safe passage to and from a hospital for an X-ray .

Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent. Or he can seize this opportunity and use his government's diplomatic influence to defend the life of an Australian citizen, whose courageous public service is recognised by countless people across the world. He can bring Julian Assange home.




24 June 2018

US court documents reveal - Immigrant children tied down, hooded, beaten, stripped and drugged under Obama


Democratic Hypocrisy over the separation of child immigrants – they began it as a ‘Consequence Delivery System’



Nothing is more hypocritical than seeing the Democrat's Senate leader, Charles Schumer the New York Senator, waxing lyrical about how terrible Trump’s separation of child immigrants is and what a blow it is to ‘American values.’ This is the same Schumer who has defended Israel’s murder of over 120 unarmed Palestinians in Israel’s turkey shoot in Gaza. It is the same Schumer who has defended every Zionist barbarity and dehumanised Palestinians as the ultimate ‘other’.
It's not enough to demand an end to family separation - there must be an end to the detention of migrant workers.
Now it turns out that the Democrat’s outrage over Trump’s border policy is entirely synthetic and at one with their support for Israel’s abuse of Palestinian children. It was under Obama, who deported over 2 million refugees, that the policy of child separation first began.  The articles below give examples of the what these children have experienced in America’s prison estate courtesy of Obama, Clinton and Schumer. Trump merely ramped up the policy and, even worse, publicised and justified it.  Trump’s principal crime seems to have been to try and justify the separation of children. If he had kept quiet then  so would Senators Schumer, Feinstein and all the other Democrat hypocrites.
Children like this were caged under Democrat administrations without a peep from the glitterati
We should bear this is in mind when we listen to the hyperbolic and hypocritical denunciations of Trump by the Democrats.  In the United States there are two ruling capitalist parties, the differences between which are semantic not principled.  Although people like Bernie Sanders on the outer edge of the Democrats are not the same as the Clintons and Obamas, mainstream Democrats like Hilary Clinton are no different from the Republicans.  Both adhere to both capitalism and the United State’s imperialist role in the world.  And that includes unswerving support for the Israeli state, which today provides training for some of the United State’s most murderous and racist police forces.

Amidst all the sound and fury last week, one simple demand was missing and that was an end to the detention of all immigrants and in particular child immigrants.

As it  used to be said, the Democrats are the graveyard of all protest politics.

Tony Greenstein
The leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Charles Schumer, who openly supports Israel's murder of unarmed demonstrators.  This hypocrite had nothing to say when Obama caged children from Latin America
There is no limit to the self-serving hypocrisy of Charles Schumer

Immigrant children tied down, hooded, beaten, stripped and drugged


By Patrick Martin
22 June 2018
Court documents made public in Virginia and Texas give a glimpse of the systematic brutality being meted out to immigrant children in both public and private jails. Children are strapped down, hooded and beaten, or drugged by force, as part of the everyday procedure in what can only be called the American Gulag.
An Associated Press report published Thursday gave details of the abuses committed last year against young Latino migrants at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center near Staunton, Virginia. Lawyers for the teenage victims sued the prison—a state facility run by a consortium of seven towns and cities in the Shenandoah Valley—and a court hearing is set for July.
Migrant children were sent to Shenandoah detention centre in Virginia to be abused and tortured under Obama
Unfortunately Trump is quite right - it was the Democrats who began imprisoning and separating children in detention
According to a half-dozen sworn statements, given by the victims in Spanish and then translated for filing with the federal court for the Western District of Virginia, children as young as 14 were beaten while handcuffed, tied down to chairs while stripped naked and hooded, and held for long periods in solitary confinement, sometimes naked and cold.
All these are forms of torture practiced at Guantanamo Bay and at CIA torture prisons around the world. These techniques have been transferred back into the United States and unleashed on immigrant children, who have been demonized by the Trump administration.
The lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs declares that young Latino immigrants held at Shenandoah “are subjected to unconstitutional conditions that shock the conscience, including violence by staff, abusive and excessive use of seclusion and restraints, and the denial of necessary mental health care.” As a result of “malicious and sadistic applications of force,” the youth have “sustained significant injuries, both physical and psychological.”
A Honduran youth sent to Shenandoah when he was 15 said in his statement, “Whenever they used to restrain me and put me in the chair, they would handcuff me… [They] strapped me down all the way, from your feet all the way to your chest, you couldn’t really move… They have total control over you. They also put a bag over your head. It has little holes; you can see through it. But you feel suffocated with the bag on.”
Shenandoah was set up under Obama not Trump
A 15-year-old from Mexico who spent nine months at Shenandoah described similar treatment.
They handcuffed me and put a white bag of some kind over my head,” he said, according to his sworn statement. “They took off all of my clothes and put me into a restraint chair, where they attached my hands and feet to the chair. They also put a strap across my chest. They left me naked and attached to that chair for two and a half days, including at night.”
A 14-year-old Guatemalan youth reported frequent imprisonment in his tiny cell for up to 23 hours a day, as well as long periods of physical restraint. “When they couldn’t get one of the kids to calm down, the guards would put us in a chair—a safety chair, I don’t know what they call it—but they would just put us in there all day,” he said in his sworn statement. “This happened to me, and I saw it happen to others, too. It was excessive.”
A 17-year-old who fled Mexico to escape an abusive father and drug cartel violence was arrested at the US border and passed through several detention centers before arriving at Shenandoah, one of three facilities in the United States with contracts from the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, to provide “secure facilities” for young immigrants. The boy was frequently shackled, usually with cloth bindings, and reported at least one violent strip search and several beatings. He was driven to attempt suicide several times.
Other allegations include that the Latino youth received worse food and facilities than local juvenile prisoners, mostly white, and that meals were frequently cold and inadequate, leaving the children hungry.
The AP interviewed an unnamed child development specialist who had worked with teens at Shenandoah. “The majority of the kids we worked with when we went to visit them were emotionally and verbally abused. I had a kid whose foot was broken by a guard,” she said. “They would get put in isolation for months for things like picking up a pencil when a guard had said not to move. Some of them started hearing voices that were telling them to hurt people or hurt themselves, and I knew when they had gotten to Shenandoah they were not having any violent thoughts.”
Because the children held at Shenandoah were unaccompanied minors, rather than separated from their families, there were some suggestions in the media that they had gang connections that somehow justified the brutal treatment. But according to the AP report, a program director at the facility said the youth had been screened for gang connections and were actually suffering from mental health issues resulting from trauma in their home countries.
The acts of torture involved multiple guards at the facility, which was run by a regional board but under the ultimate control of the state government, headed throughout this period by Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe. The new governor, Democrat Ralph Northam, who took office January 1, ordered a state investigation into the claims of abuse, but only after the AP report became public Thursday.
Even younger children were targeted for abuse at a Texas facility operated under contract with the Office of Refugee Resettlement, according to a report published by the Center for Investigative Reporting and the Texas Tribune Tuesday. The allegations were further detailed in a court suit filed by the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law.
The lawsuit charges that the Shiloh Treatment Center in Manvel, Texas administered psychotropic drugs to immigrant children, who in some cases were separated from their parents at the border. Neither the children, some as young as nine years old, nor the parents gave consent to the treatment, and in some cases, children were forcibly drugged as they fought and screamed.
One report reads: “Some children held at Shiloh reported being given up to nine different pills in the morning and six in the evening, including antipsychotic drugs, antidepressants, Parkinson’s disease medication and seizure medications. They were told they would remain detained if they refused drugs, the lawsuit said. Children also said that after taking the drugs, they experienced side effects that rendered them fatigued and incapable of walking.”
The lawsuit charges: “ORR routinely administers children psychotropic drugs without lawful authorization... When youth object to taking such medications, ORR compels them. ORR neither requires nor asks for a parent’s consent before medicating a child, nor does it seek lawful authority to consent in parents’ stead. Instead, ORR or facility staff sign ‘consent’ forms anointing themselves with ‘authority’ to administer psychotropic drugs to confined children.”
The seven pills named in the court filings—clonazepam, duloxetine, guanfacine, Geodon, olanzapine, Latuda and divalproex—are medications used to control depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorder, bipolar disorder, mood disorders, schizophrenia and seizures. This treatment amounted to applying “chemical straitjackets” to subdue the children, rather than meeting medical needs, the lawsuit charges.
According to the investigative reporting, the ORR paid $3.4 billion to private organizations to hold immigrant children, and nearly half of this, $1.5 billion, went to 13 companies that had been accused of hundreds of serious violations of their responsibility to provide care. These included failure to obtain medical treatment for accidents or illness, “inappropriate contact” between children and staff (apparently of a sexual nature), and neglect.
These reports of horrific treatment of innocent children do not just expose the savagery and sadism of individual guards, administrators and other officials, or the greed of corporate bosses seeking to join in the orgy of profiteering from federal contracts for the detention and abuse of immigrants. What is revealed above all is the criminal character of the American political elite, both Democrats and Republicans, who have deliberately encouraged an atmosphere of brutality and terror as their preferred method of “deterring” immigrants from crossing the US-Mexico border. The responsibility, moreover, rests not just with the sociopathic bully in the White House today, but also with his Democratic predecessor, responsible for more deportations than any previous president.
Obama’s Department of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson declared that the jailing of Central American refugees seeking asylum, and the separation of parents and children, would have a positive effect in reducing the sudden influx of refugees in 2014. It was Terry McAuliffe, the longtime crony of Hillary Clinton, who presided over the torture of immigrant teenagers at Shenandoah from 2014 to 2017.
The shift from Obama to Trump has not fundamentally changed the policy of the US ruling class towards immigrants, which has always been of an anti-democratic and brutal character. But in the hands of Trump and his fascistic aide Stephen Miller, the brutality has become more systematic, and it is accompanied by a campaign aimed at whipping up anti-immigrant racism and hysteria over the purported danger that the United States will be “overrun,” as Trump claimed in his speech Wednesday night to a rally in Minnesota.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal Thursday, the Trump administration awarded multiple contracts involving tens of millions of dollars earlier this year to build detention facilities for children. This confirms that the mass separation of children from their parents, which followed the announcement of the “zero tolerance” policy by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was not an unexpected byproduct of the new policy, but was planned and deliberate. It is a premeditated crime, the state kidnapping of more than 2,400 children, for which Trump, Sessions, Stephen Miller, Kirstjen Nielsen and other top officials should be prosecuted and jailed.
Far from abandoning this policy—as media reports on the executive order issued by Trump Wednesday suggested—the White House is preparing to accelerate the mass detention of immigrants, including children. A Pentagon spokesman said Thursday that military bases in Texas and Arkansas had been reviewed as possible locations for housing as many as 20,000 immigrant children, double the number currently in custody.

Immigrant teens were allegedly abused and denied medical care at Virginia prison

Teens as young as 14 allege they were beaten regularly, denied adequate medical treatment, and had bones broken by prison guards.

Several immigrant teens at a Virginia juvenile prison detailed horrific allegations of abuse in newly revealed court filings. Above: A Honduran teenager during an interview at "Casa Alianza", a shelter for Mexican and foreign minors deported from the United States, on June 12, 2014 in Mexico City. (CREDIT: OMAR TORRES/AFP/Getty Images)
Immigrant children being housed in a Virginia detention facility were subjected to brutally abusive conditions, the Associated Press reported Thursday.
The claims were made public in a series of court filings against the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center in Staunton, Virginia, which holds 58 secure beds for youths 12 to 17 years old, and has allegedly imprisoned a number of Latinx teens for anywhere from a few months to several years.
The teens, some of whom are as young as 14, say they were sent to the prison after being accused by U.S. immigration officials of belonging to gangs like MS-13, a favorite topic of discussion for President Trump. Their allegations detail horrific acts of violence, including broken bones, regular beatings, and psychological abuse.
According to the AP, “Latino children were frequently punished by being restrained for hours in chairs, with handcuffs and cloth shackles on their legs. Often, the lawsuit alleged, the children were beaten by staff while bound.”
“Whenever they used to restrain me and put me in the chair, they would handcuff me. They also put a bag over your head,” said one Honduran immigrant who was locked up in the prison when he was only 15 years old.
A former child-development specialist who was previously employed by Shenandoah Valley, and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to comment publicly, told reporters she “saw kids there with bruises and broken bones they blamed on guards.”


Amanda Michelle Gomez , Joshua Eaton
The filings allege that children were frequently denied adequate medical care; one teen, a 17-year-old Mexican citizen detained at the U.S. southern border, claimed that, after being diagnosed with three separate mental disorders, including depression, he was given no further treatment to address the issues.
Some of the teens allege that they were locked in prison cells for most of the day, barring a few hours each day during which they were given meals, recreation time, or education courses. Others said they were never allowed to go outside.
Shenandoah Valley lawyers have denied the allegations outlined in the lawsuit, a hearing for which will be held July 3 in Virginia.
The alleged abuses further compound concerns from migrant rights groups and immigration lawyers who have heard complaints about the facility and others like it, and worry about the children detained and separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border who could soon be sent there.
Under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy, anyone detained at the border without documentation is referred to authorities for criminal prosecution, a change from past administrations, who treated unauthorized border crossings as a misdemeanor. The policy makes no exceptions for asylum-seekers, many of whom have been illegally turned away from the border ports of entry.
Due to a 1997 court settlement, Flores v. Reno, officials are barred from holding children in detention facilities for longer than 20 days. The Trump administration has exploited that loophole to violently separate immigrant children from their parents, under the guise of following the law, sending kids to their own facilities or internment camps, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge.
Trump signed an executive order Wednesday ordering border agents to keep families detained together and asking the courts to change their view on Flores, which means that indefinite detainment of families could be a possibility.
Currently, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is charged with handling the children who have already been separated as well as thousands of other unaccompanied immigrant minors. While the majority remain in detention facilities — with children under the age of 12, including infants, being housed in “tender age” prison camps — HHS also contracts with three secure detention centers, including Shenandoah Valley, and several semi-secure facilities and psychiatric treatment centers, to house youths it deems dangerous or disruptive.
As ThinkProgress reported this week, that could include anyone from a child who has a fight, to one with a suspected gang affiliation, to a teen in the middle of a mental health crisis.
 Immigration lawyers say they’re worried children currently suffering traumatic breakdowns after being ripped from their parents’ care at the border may be labeled “disruptive” and sent to places like Shenandoah Valley.
We haven’t seen any of the family separation cases yet — probably just because I don’t know if any of them have made their way to Virginia,” Legal Aid lawyer Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, who works with children housed at the prison and another Virginia detention facility, told ThinkProgress Wednesday. “But I’m sure we will any day now.”
“Undoubtedly, children that are ripped away from their parents at the border are experiencing an extreme form of trauma that they are not equipped to handle,” Jesse Hahnel, executive director of the National Center for Youth Law added in an email. “This trauma may lead to intense mental health distress that paves the path to their being stepped up to more secure facilities.”
Once those children arrive at the facilities, they’re at risk of suffering the kinds of alleged abuses detailed in the Shenandoah Valley lawsuit — and more.
“We’ve heard children in secure detention and staff-secure detention taking medication and not knowing the names of the medication or what they’re for,” Nithya Nathan-Pineau, a lawyer representing migrant children at two secure detention facilities in Virginia, told ThinkProgress. “[They’re] also being told that if they don’t take the medication, that will be counted against their behavior.”
She added that many of the children she had worked with previously were not warned ahead of time that they were being transferred to the prisons from their detention facilities, or given any chance to challenge the reasoning behind their move.
“They may be given a written notice of why they’re being stepped up, but they often, they don’t totally understand it, or it’s not something that’s very clear to them,” she said. “The process isn’t very clear."