BANGKOK, Thailand -- Thailand's upcoming election on Sunday (December 23) may be won by an "ultra right-wing" politician whose plan to defy last year's coup and bring back disgraced Thaksin Shinawatra from self-exile could bitterly divide this Buddhist-majority, U.S. ally.

Combative, tough-talking former Bangkok governor Samak Sundaravej, and his newly formed People Power Party (PPP), were expected to win the most votes in the parliamentary election, thanks to their support for thrice-elected, former Prime Minister Thaksin, who was toppled by a bloodless military coup on Sept. 19, 2006.

Mr. Samak's recent demand on nationwide TV, to know who a Thai reporter "fornicated" the night before, shocked many viewers who perceive him as a loud, street-hardened authoritarian happy to bare his political knuckles to achieve power.

Labeled "ultra right-wing" by Thai media, Mr. Samak, 72, said he will continue Mr. Thaksin's pro-poor policies, including cheap health care and easy credit, and also unleash a fresh "war on drugs."

Abandons Human Rights for Indonesia to Train Its Worst Military and Police

December 19, 2007 - Human rights advocates have learned that the U.S. is training members of Kopassus, the notorious Indonesian Special Forces unit with a long record of human rights violations. The similarly-brutal Brimob, the para-military mobile police brigade, is receiving training as well.

The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and the West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) today strongly condemned U.S. training for the two units, saying that it undermines the little credibility the U.S. has left in promoting human rights and accountability in Indonesia. ETAN and WPAT urged Congress to intervene to prevent such training and called on the administration to publicly pledge not to provide further assistance to the two units.

"The Bush administration promised Congress that it would ‘carefully calibrate’ any security assistance to promote reform and human rights," said John M. Miller, National Coordinator of ETAN. "Getting in bed again with Kopassus and Brimob promotes the opposite. Clearly, the administration's moral gauges are in need of a major realignment."
When I picked up a ringing phone one morning in mid-December, the next thing I knew a producer was inviting me to appear on Glenn Beck’s TV show.

     Beck has become a national phenom with his nightly hour of polemics on CNN Headline News -- urging war on Iran, denouncing “political correctness” at home, trashing immigrants who don’t speak English, mocking environmentalists as repressive zealots, and generally trying to denigrate progressive outlooks.

     Our segment, the producer said, would focus on a recent NBC news report praising the virtues of energy-efficient LED light bulbs without acknowledging that the network’s parent company, General Electric, sells them. I figured it was a safe bet that Beck’s enthusiasm for full disclosure from media would be selective.

     A few hours later, I was staring into a camera lens at the CNN bureau in San Francisco while Beck launched into his opening. What had occurred on the “NBC Nightly News,” he explained, “was at best a major breach of journalistic integrity.” And he pointed out: “The problem isn’t what NBC is promoting. It’s what they’re not disclosing.”

I just heard on the progressive Seattle radio station (1090) that the on line petition that has been launched by Robert Wexler (D Fla who sits on the House Judiciary Committee) that supports hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, has gathered more than 100,000 signatures in just three days. The Judiciary committee has been sitting on this proposal for a LONG time and at least two members besides Wexler are in support of opening these hearings. Conyers is the chair of the committee and perhaps he needs a mass outpouring of support to get the hearings underway. Everyone can sign the petition by going to wexlerwantshearings.com and filling in the dots. Hearings would make public in a dramatic way the violations of the constitution that have happened in the present administration. I recommend that everyone join in this big email petition that might build a fire under congress people who have said that impeachment in order butrefuse to act on it now that it is a possibility.

Go to Wexler Wants Hearings and put your name down. What is the down side?
Ever since Hillary Clinton supported the reckless Kyl-Lieberman Iran bill, her Democratic competitors have been blasting her for her stand, and rightly so. By defining Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, a core branch of the Iranian military, as a foreign terrorist organization, the bill put the U.S. Senate on record as vindicating the Bush-Cheney line that Iranian proxies are part of a global conspiracy, linking Al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and any other enemy the administration wants to conjure up. It made a US attack on Iran just that much more possible. And Clinton's support for the bill confirmed that she has learned little from her earlier Iraq war vote. 

The people of the northern Italian city of Vicenza, with help from activists around Italy, the rest of Europe, and even in the United States, are continuing to block the proposed construction of a new U.S. military base on their soil. When a company laid underground fiber-optic cables at the site of the proposed base, activists fill a junction box with cement. When another company tried to begin the work of removing World War II era U.S. bombs from the site, activists camped out in the cold for three days and nights while allies in Florence and a small town near Naples conducted simultaneous protests in front of the company's offices. The company backed off and has suspended the work. And a small town outside Vicenza has now refused to allow the United States to construct a residential village for troops.

Recently, Italy's foreign minister assured Condoleezza Rice, and Italy's president assured George W. Bush - not for the first time - that the base will be built. And the U.S. Congress, unbeknownst to the American people, has approved the funding. But there is a reason for these repeated public assertions that everything is on track. It isn't.

It is a very odd spectacle. Ohio's Democratic secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, who was elected on a pledge to clean up voting problems in her presidential battleground state, is now under attack by would-be progressive allies for her solutions.

And her critics, who on Tuesday said her remedies could disenfranchise tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters in Ohio's primary in March and in next fall's presidential election, are not even aware of the biggest irony of all: Brunner could have solved the same problems months ago if she would have settled a federal voting rights suit from the 2004 election. Instead of working through the federal courts, she is now fighting in Ohio's notoriously partisan political arena.

"All the critics' concerns are valid. But they are confirming stuff that was known months ago and was in the (proposed court) consent decree," said Robert Fitrakis, an attorney, political scientist and journalist from Columbus, Ohio, who -- at the request of Ohio's attorney general -- was part of a legal team that drafted a proposed settlement that contained 50 legal
Ever since Hillary Clinton supported the reckless Kyl-Lieberman Iran bill, her Democratic competitors have been blasting her for her stand, and rightly so. By defining Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, a core branch of the Iranian military, as a foreign terrorist organization, the bill put the U.S. Senate on record as vindicating the Bush-Cheney line that Iranian proxies are part of a global conspiracy, linking Al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and any other enemy the administration wants to conjure up. It made a US attack on Iran just that much more possible and confirmed that she learned little from her earlier Iraq war vote. 

But what none of the candidates challenging her have done, as far as I can tell, is use the most succinct and damning description of the vote's implications that's been expressed, when Senator James Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." "It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war," Webb concluded, a description that goes to the heart of the issue, with words likely to stick in the minds of the voters. But the other candidates have to publicly quote them, and so far they haven't.

When Senator Hillary Clinton voted on October 11, 2002, to turn over to President George W. Bush the power that the Constitution vested in her and congressional colleagues to decide whether or not to wage war — or, quoting House Joint Resolution 114, whether an attack on Iraq was "necessary and appropriate" — she appeared to have a conflict of interest:

Her husband, Bill, was of course the former chief of the executive branch. And during her eight years as first lady, Mrs. Clinton never objected to Bill's eight wars, attacks, or interventions: in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and Yugoslavia. He bombed Iraq in 1993 soon after taking office, again in 1996, and from 1998 till he left office. For a time, he was dropping bombs on Iraqis and Yugoslavs simultaneously in 1999.

None of those acts of war were authorized by Congress. The House of Representatives even voted its opposition to the undeclared bombing war on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, i.e. Serbia and Montenegro (4-28-99). Bill paid no attention and carried on his one-sided warfare for eleven weeks.

Pages

Subscribe to Freepress.org RSS