Stalin K of Video Volunteers explains how “development” is often a very negative thing, and a threat to sustainable living for so many indigenous populations throughout India and the world.

Human rights and workers rights advocate Charles Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee delivers a sermon of righteously biblical proportions regarding the criminal abuse of human dignity in the name of corporate profit. This man is a real world ass kicker in explaining and confronting the unexcusable injustices that underpin what is called global “trade” today. He explains how we can address these unconsciousable conditions and calls out the moral hypocrisy of our “leaders” for their complicity in not confronting the situation.

The level of hypocrisy in politics is seems invariably bad anymore, but this is reaching new lows. This, along with other issues such as the nakedly hysterical reactions to the press revelations through WikiLeaks, further expose the complete lack of any regard for consistency to principle anymore amongst the American political class.

Imagine if a group of leading American liberals met on foreign soil with — and expressed vocal support for — supporters of a terrorist group that had (a) a long history of hateful anti-American rhetoric, (b) an active role in both the takeover of a U.S. embassy and Saddam Hussein’s brutal 1991 repression of Iraqi Shiites, (c) extensive financial and military support from Saddam, (d) multiple acts of violence aimed at civilians, and (e) years of being designated a “Terrorist organization” by the U.S. under Presidents of both parties, a designation which is ongoing? The ensuing uproar and orgies of denunciation would be deafening.

But on December 23, a group of leading conservatives — including Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend — did exactly that. In Paris, of all places, they appeared at a forum organized by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) — a group declared by the U.S. since 1997 to be “terrorist organization” — and expressed wholesale support for that group. Worse — on foreign soil — they vehemently criticized their own country’s opposition to these Terrorists and specifically “demanded that Obama instead take the group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran.” In other words, they are calling on the U.S. to embrace this Saddam-supported, U.S.-hating Terrorist group and recruit them to help overthrow the government of Iran. To a foreign audience, Mukasey denounced his own country’s opposition to these Terrorists as “nothing less than an embarrassment.”

———

Applying the orthodoxies of American political discourse, how can these Terrorist-supporting actions by prominent American conservatives not generate intense controversy? For one thing, their appearance in France to slam their own country’s foreign policy blatantly violates the long-standing and rigorously enforced taboo against criticizing the U.S. Government while on dreaded foreign soil (the NYT previously noted that “nothing sets conservative opinion-mongers on edge like a speech made by a Democrat on foreign soil”). Worse, their conduct undoubtedly constitutes the crime of “aiding and abetting Terrorism” as interpreted by the Justice Department — an interpretation recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last year in Holder v. Humanitarian Law. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole represented the Humanitarian Law plaintiffs in their unsuccessful challenge to the DOJ’s interpretation of the “material support” statute, and he argues today in The New York Times that as a result of that ruling, it is a felony in the U.S. “to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group’s ‘terrorist’ designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for redress of grievances.”

———

There is simply no limit on the manipulation and exploitation of the term “terrorism” by America’s political class. Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell support endless policies that slaughter civilians for political ends, yet with a straight face accuse Julian Assange — who has done nothing like that — of being a “terrorist.” GOP Rep. Peter King is launching a McCarthyite Congressional hearing to investigate radicalism and Terrorism sympathies among American Muslim while ignoring his own long history of enthusiastic support for Catholic Terrorists in Northern Ireland; as Marcy Wheeler says: “Peter King would still be in prison if the US had treated his material support for terrorism as it now does.”

———

The reason there isn’t more uproar over these Bush officials’ overt foreign-soil advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group is because they want to use that group’s Terrorism to advance U.S. aims.

———

Even though the actions of these Bush officials violate every alleged piety about bashing one’s own country on foreign soil and may very well constitute a felony under U.S. law, they will be shielded from criticisms because they want to use the Terrorist group to overthrow a government that refuses to bow to American dictates. Embracing Terrorist groups is perfectly acceptable when used for that end. That’s why Fran Townsend will never suffer the fate of Octavia Nasr, and why her fellow Bush officials will never be deemed Terrorist supporters by the DOJ or establishment media outlets, even though what they’ve done makes them, by definition, exactly that.

UPDATE: Amazingly, Fran Townsend, on CNN, hailed the Supreme Court’s decision in Humanitarian Law — the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the DOJ’s view that one can be guilty of “material support for terrorism” simply by talking to or advocating for a Terrorist group — and enthusiastically agreed when Wolf Blitzer said, while interviewing her: “If you’re thinking about even voicing support for a terrorist group, don’t do it because the government can come down hard on you and the Supreme Court said the government has every right to do so.” Yet “voicing support for a terrorist group” is exactly what Townsend is now doing — and it makes her a criminal under the very Supreme Court ruling that she so gleefully praised.

Read the complete article from Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com

The Human Rights Action Center presents the 30 articles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights read aloud by artists, advocates and children in support of the 60th Anniversary of this UN document.

Ray McGovern, a former military intelligence officer and later a CIA analyst for 27 years, lays it out Here as succinctly and directly as possible as to George Bush’s corrosive impact upon American political culture, and his corrupting influence upon the social and civic fabric which is underlaid by the respect for the rule of law.

Former President George W. Bush continues to be beyond shame. Those favored with an advance copy of Bush’s memoir, Decision Points, say it paints a picture of a totally unapologetic Bush bragging, for example, about authorizing the CIA to waterboard 9/11 “mastermind,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

According to a newspaper account of the memoir, Bush says he is asked by the CIA for permission to subject KSM to the technique that creates the sensation of imminent drowning. His response is: “Damn right.”

For such a frank admission of high-level criminality, we can say, with ample justification, Shame on Bush. But that shame also sticks like Saran wrap to the rest of us – and especially to the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM), which has soft-pedaled the significance of Bush’s confession, and to his make-nice successor, Barack Obama, who has refused to demand any accountability.

However, if we are still a democracy, we are all complicit.

I don’t much care if this sounds judgmental. You see, I was alive during World War II when there was torture galore and then it was considered a grave offense. The Nuremberg Tribunals tried and convicted Germany’s leaders for torture and other war crimes.

In the aftermath of WWII, there were a very few serious people who were arguing that the world should simply look forward, not backwards, no matter how pressing the other crises that were facing a war-ravaged world.

————-

However, it is now clear that U.S. officials do not believe they should be held to that universal standard, that the Nuremberg principles and other international laws should not apply to decisions emanating from the White House.

Rather than facing a stern judgment for his criminal actions, including approving torture and authorizing aggressive war against Iraq, George Bush is about to be lionized in Dallas over his presidential library, in bookstores for his memoir, and in the FCM.

————-

In his memoir, Bush exudes confidence that he can achieve the resurrection of his popularity even as he boasts about his role on torture. It was a mark of almost inconceivable hubris that he would callously admit his authorization of waterboarding.

But he did make that admission, which lobs the ball into our court as American citizens. It is indeed time for the kind of judgment Justice Jackson envisioned, not a celebratory book tour.

————-

Last but hardly least, shame on Bush’s timid successor. Every time I hear that Obama is a former professor of Constitutional law I find myself muttering, “And that would be the constitution of which country?”

The President’s soaring rhetoric falls flat fast the moment you stop to ponder how he has betrayed his oath to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed — in this case, by holding self-confessed torturers accountable.

Shame, too, on those of us who decide to remain silent as Bush openly brags about how he personally approved the use of controlled-drowning for interrogation. The Spanish Inquisitors who applied for the first patent on waterboarding had no qualms calling it what it is — tortura de agua.

“Unequivocally torture” is how U.S. Brigadier General David Irvine described waterboarding, after teaching POW interrogation and military law for 18 years.

————-

As interrogator Matthew Alexander has said, “I have been contacted by World War II veterans who were outraged that the Bush administration so easily dismissed the American principles that millions of veterans gave their lives to defend. They pointed out what I have said all along: we cannot become our enemy in trying to defeat him.”

————-

In 1775, as the birth of America hung in the balance, General George Washington said, “Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any prisoner…by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”

With George W. Bush’s “Damn right” permission to waterboard – and the FCM’s generally positive response to his torture declaration – America has certainly come a long way. Again, I believe we are all complicit.

So when will the “law and order” contingent of American politics call for Bush’s being arraigned for his violation of This law, as well as his violations of our international legal obligations as signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture.

Read the Original Full Length Article by Ray McGovern, published by Consortium News

(The issues raised by the examples below are gaining increasing amounts of attention in the public sphere. I sense the influence of the rise of WikiLeaks from the last few years in this. This is a vital part and major componant of the future of human rights work. - Editor, USTV Media)

Human Rights Violations Caught on Tape

Would you blow the whistle on YouTube? WITNESS poses this question and more in a new collaboration.

WITNESS, an organization that uses video to expose human rights violations, has launched a series of blog posts in collaboration with YouTube. Previous topics included just why video matters and what steps can be taken to protect yourself and your filmed subjects.

Whether it’s officials in China cracking down on farmers’ protests, exposure of unfair, illegal child labor practices in Kazakhstan, or Iranian merchants striking in protest of tax increases, citizen-created video plays an increasingly vital role in providing unvarnished truths as well as to protecting the rights of those who sometimes put themselves at great risk to capture and disseminate that truth.

Now, WITNESS and YouTube are turning their collective lenses on the delicate balance between safety with the need to expose injustices. On the third in the series, WITNESS and YouTube pose three important questions, and they really want to hear what you have to say in response:

1. How can uploaders balance privacy concerns with the need for wider exposure?
2. How can we stay alert to human rights footage without getting de-sensitized to it?
3. Does human rights content online require some kind of special status?

These are important emerging matters whose urgency is underscored by the rapid rate of technological change as well as the increasingly wide reach of technology’s availability. And the WITNESS/YouTube partnership sincerely hopes that you will give the matter some thought and weigh in with your ideas.

Please visit and read this latest blog post, where you can sign in to the moderated forum and offer your insights.

This is a wonderful initiative from the human rights organization WITNESS. The Hub is a new website for anyone, anywhere in the world to upload, view, share, discuss and take action on human-rights related media. Part curated, part grassroots-driven, it brings under-reported and urgent human rights issues to a broad audience to inspire and catalyze action.

(Please read the important update on this program from WITNESS provided in the ‘Comments’ section below)

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here…

In a brief filed late Friday night, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates invoked his authority to block the release of photos depicting the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody overseas.

————-

“We are disappointed that Secretary Gates has invoked new legislation to keep the torture photos secret,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “These photos are an important part of the historical record and they are crucial to the ongoing debate about accountability. In withholding the photos, Secretary Gates has cited national security concerns, but no democracy has ever been made stronger by suppressing information about its own misconduct.” [emphasis added]

An amendment to a Homeland Security appropriations bill passed at the end of last month grants the Department of Defense the authority to suppress certain photographs deemed harmful to national security.

Suppressing exposure of potentially criminal actions because they have been “deemed harmful to national security.” That sounds like something right out of a third world banana republic. What it more likely endangers is the ongoing maintenance of national insecurity.

“The government’s argument for suppression of the photos sets a dangerous precedent “that the government can conceal evidence of its own misconduct precisely because the evidence powerfully documents gross abuses of power and of detainees,” said Alex Abdo, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. “This principal is fundamentally anti-democratic. The American public has a right to see the evidence of crimes committed in their name.”

Accountability? Responsibility? Do people really want to know? Maybe if it was packaged into some kind of “reality TV” show (literally, in this instance), perhaps it could be made marketable (since everything in our consumer society is about ‘marketability’) and amenable to distribution. “Interrogators Gone Wild” or “Troops Gone Band” or some such might be the hit the infotainment “news” networks are looking for.

Read The Complete Report

More information about the ACLU’s FOIA litigation is at:
www.aclu.org/accountability

UnCommon Sense TV - “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation, Pt.2″ Continuation of the forum on human rights and political accountability with Judge Guzman, Peter Kornbluh and others, including questions and dialogue with the public in attendance at the University of Dayton. Other discussants include Mark Ensalaco, Director of Human Rights studies at the University of Dayton, and author of “Chile Under Pinochet: Recovering The Truth”, Bert Lockwood, of the University of Cincinnati Law School and publisher of “Human Rights Quaterly”, and Ted Orlin of Utica College of Syracuse and Director of the International Human Rights Education Consortium.

UnCommon Sense TV - “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation” Exclusive coverage of a forum on human rights and political accountability held in the spring of 2005 at the University of Dayton, featuring Oscar Romero Award recipient Judge Juan Guzman Tapia. He is one of the most important figures involved in bringing former Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet to justice for his role in the years of murder and repression that took place in Chile during his reign of power in the 70’s and 80’s. Featured along with Guzman are Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst with the National Security Archives and author of “The Pinochet File”, and Marjorie Agosin, Professor of Spanish at Wellesley College and author of “The Absence of Shadows”.