Medea Benjamin's Blog, page 21

CODEPINK: Marie Denis, President of Pax Christi, Warns Against Brennan’s Nomination as Director of the CIA

In our February 4th press conference, Marie Denis, President of Pax Christi International, spoke out against Brennan and the use of drone warfare. She represented over one hundred faith-based leaders that called for a rejection of Brennan’s nomination as Director of the CIA.

Read the letter here: http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/30/a-c...

CODEPINK: Veterans and Government Officials Sign Letter Rejecting Nomination of Brennan as Director of the CIA

 

A Call from Former Military Personnel and Government Officials to Reject Nomination of John Brennan as Director of the CIA

   

As former military personnel and government officials, we are deeply concerned about the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. As President Obama’s current counterterrorism advisor, Brennan has been the mastermind behind the administration’s lethal drone program, which is killing innocent civilians abroad and sowing strong anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

Retired General Stanley McChrystal, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, recently said that the resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes is much greater than the average American appreciates. “They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one,” he warned. This is dangerous for our national security. Just look at the case of Pakistan, where the CIA’s profligate use of drone strikes has led 3 out of 4 Pakistanis to believe that the United States is their enemy. Unfortunately, drone strikes now serve as the primary recruiting tool for anti-American militants.

We are particularly concerned about drones in the hands of the CIA. While the military has rules of engagement, more open procedures for the use of force, and a chain of command that is supposed to ensure accountability, the CIA does not. It is a civilian organization that, with its own fleet of drones, has been engaged in lethal actions veiled in secrecy and devoid of accountability.

We urge you to use the occasion of this nomination to not only question Brennan’s qualifications for this job, but to also conduct a serious evaluation of the CIA’s drone program. The CIA should revert back to being an intelligence-gathering organization and we need a CIA director who is committed to overseeing this transition.

Signed,

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Ray McGovern, veteran Army Intelligence officer and CIA analyst

Ann Wright, US Army Colonel

Leah Bolger, CDR, USN (Ret)

Mark Foreman, PO3, USN (Ret)

Tarak Kauff, USA

Nate Goldshlag, PFC, USA

Mike Madden, Member of Veterans For Peace, Chapter 27, St. Paul, MN

CODEPINK Press Conference: Jesselyn Radach Speaks Out Against John Brennan

CODEPINK held a press conference on February 4th featuring ex-military, human rights and faith-based representatives warning against John Brennan’s nomination as Director of the CIA.

Jesselyn Radack, attorney, former ethics advisor to the Department of Justice and current National Security & Human Rights Director at the Government Accountability Project made an excellent legal case against John Brennan’s nomination as Director of the CIA.

Ms. Radack came to prominence as a whistleblower after she disclosed that the FBI committed at ethics violation in their interrogation of John Walker Lindh (the “American Taliban”, captured during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan) without an attorney present and that the Department of Justice also attempted to suppress that information.

“The Government Accountability Project supports human and civil rights and, as such, stands against anyone who seeks to violate those rights or suppress rights of individuals to speak out about any such abuses.  

John Brennan is responsible for the biggest atrocities of two different administrations.  He was considered for the same position – CIA Director – in 2009, but eventually withdrew his name from consideration following uproar over his support of the use of torture after 9/11.  The fact that there is significantly less controversy surrounding Brennan’s nomination this time around suggests that the public – and Congress – have been quick to forget the atrocities that have occurred over the past decade.  If anything, Brennan’s record has only gotten worse over the past few years.

To begin with, the passage of four years since Brennan was first considered for the position does not change the fact that he played an extremely troubling role in the Bush administration’s torture policies.

Brennan served as the CIA’s Deputy Executive Director from 2001 until 2003.  Many of his colleagues say – and email traffic shows – he was well aware of the torture techniques used by the agency at that time.   

If we have truly accounted for our past, then at the very least, an individual who either approved of the torture – or even tacitly condoned the torture – is certainly not someone that we should allow to now lead the agency.  Meanwhile, my client, John Kiriakou, is the only CIA officer to go to jail in connection with the torture program, and he blew the whistle on it.  In fact, I am convinced that if John had actually tortured someone, he would not be going to jail.

Brennan’s participation in questionable intelligence activities has only expanded since his consideration in 2009.  The latest wave of criticism surrounds Brennan’s involvement in the drone program, in which individuals suspected of terrorism – including US citizens – are targeted and killed abroad without any legal process whatsoever.  As President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, Brennan has been called the architect of the drone program and is the one who recommends targets to the President.  Brennan has publicly defended the drone attacks and made misleading statements regarding the number of individuals and civilians killed.  Americans are still largely in the dark in terms of how decisions regarding the drone program are made and who is involved.  Even members of Congress have been stonewalled from learning the President’s justifications for his targeted killings.  Someone so deeply involved in a program that condones the extrajudicial killings of Americans is not someone we should allow to lead the CIA, which by the way, was instrumental in carrying out torture.

The bottom line is that Brennan’s career has been inextricably intertwined with President Obama’s kill list and the Bush administration’s torture and extraordinary rendition policies.  From the beginning of his first term, President Obama has said that his goal is to look forward and not backward.  But to allow Brennan to lead the CIA is clearly a huge step backward and sends the wrong message to both Americans and our friends abroad.  Brennan’s nomination says that we have already forgotten our recent past.  It says that we have no remorse for what has transpired and the illegal actions we have taken.  And it underscores the fact that we have promoted a culture of impunity and, rather than prosecuting or punishing the architects of US wrongdoing, we have instead rewarded them with even greater amounts of power.  

The unfortunate reality is that the United States will likely face terrorist threats in the foreseeable future.  These threats will continue to challenge our morality and lead some to believe that the government is entitled – in the name of national security – to infringe upon human rights and act outside the rule of law.  

The individual chosen to lead the CIA should be able to promise us that, regardless of how serious the threat of terrorism is in the future, we will not allow fear to shirk our commitment to human rights or our responsibility to act within the confines of US and international law.  The next CIA director should be able not only to acknowledge our past mistakes, but to also confidently say that he or she would have refused to sit idly by as such atrocities occurred.  And the individual chosen to lead the CIA should be able to declare with certainty that such illegalities would never have happened under his or her leadership.  John Brennan is no such individual.  The man who abrogated to himself the ability to play prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of anyone on the planet should not be the head of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

10 Questions to Ask John Brennan at his CIA Confirmation Hearing

By Medea Benjamin

John Brennan’s confirmation hearing to become head of the CIA will take place at the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, February 7. There is suddenly a flurry of attention around a white paper that lays out the administration’s legal justification for killing Americans with drones overseas, and some of the Senators are vowing to ask Brennan “tough questions,” since Brennan has been the mastermind of the lethal drone attacks. But why have the Senators, especially those on the Intelligence Committee who are supposed to exercise oversight of the CIA, waited until now to make public statements about their unease with the killing of Americans that took place back in September and October of 2011? For over a year human rights groups and activists have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get an answer as to why our government killed the 17-year-old American boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and have had no help from the Senators’ offices.

We look forward to hearing the Senators question Brennan about the legal justifications used by the Obama administration to kill three Americans in Yemen, as we are deeply concerned about their deaths and the precedent it sets for the rights of US citizens.

But we are also concerned about the thousands of Pakistanis, Yeminis and Somalis who have been killed by remote control in nations with whom we are not at war. If CODEPINK had a chance to question John Brennan as his hearing on Thursday, here are some questions we would ask:

1.     You have claimed that due to the precision of drone strikes, there have been only a handful of civilian casualties. How many civilians deaths have you recorded, and in what countries? What proportion of total casualties do those figures represent? How do you regard the sources such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that estimates drone casualties in Pakistan alone range from 2,629-3,461,with as many as 891 reported to be civilians and 176 reported to be children?  Have you reviewed the photographic evidence of death and injury presented by residents of the drone strike areas? If so, what is your response?

2.    According to a report in the New York Times, Washington counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Please tell us if this is indeed true, and if so, elaborate on the legal precedent for this categorization. In areas where the US is using drones, fighters do not wear uniforms and regularly intermingle with civilians. How does the CIA distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets?

3.     In a June 2011 report to Congress, the Obama administration explained that drone attacks did not require congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution because drone attacks did not involve “sustained fighting,” “active exchanges of fire,” an involvement of US casualties, or a “serious threat” of such casualties. Is it your understanding that the initiation of lethal force overseas does not require congressional approval?

4.     If the legal basis for the use of lethal drones is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), can this authorization be extended to any country through Presidential authority? Are there any geographic limitations on the use of drone strikes? Does the intelligence community have the authority to carry out lethal drone strikes inside the United States? How do you respond to the charge that the US thinks it can send drones anywhere it wants and kill anyone it wants, all on the basis of secret information?

5. Assassination targets are selected using a “disposition matrix.”  Please identify the criteria by which a person’s name is entered into the matrix. News reports have mentioned that teenagers have been included in this list. Is there an age criteria?

6.  In Pakistan and perhaps elsewhere, the CIA has been authorized to conduct “signature strikes,” killing people on the basis of suspicious activity. What are the criteria for authorizing a signature strike? Do you think the CIA should continue to have the right to conduct such strikes? Do you think the CIA should be involved in drone strikes at all, or should this program be turned over the military? If you think the CIA should return to its original focus on intelligence gathering, why hasn’t this happened? As Director of the CIA, will you discontinue the CIA’s use of lethal drones?

7.  Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which the US has implicitly invoked to justify strikes, requires that “measures taken by Members in the exercise of [their] right to self-defense . . . be immediately reported to the Security Council.” Please elaborate on why the United States uses Article 51 to justify drone strikes but ignores the clause demanding transparency.

8.   The majority of prisoners incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay were found to be innocent and were released. These individuals landed in Guantanamo as victims of mistaken identity or as a result of bounties for their capture. How likely is it that the intelligence that gets a person killed by a drone strike may be as faulty as that which put innocent individuals in Guantanamo?

9.  You have stated that there is little evidence drone strikes are causing widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits for extremist groups.  Do you stand by this statement now, as we have seen an expansion of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, possibly triple the number that existed when the drone strikes began?  Do you have concerns about the “blowback” caused by what General McChrystal has called a “visceral hatred” of U.S. drones?

10. If a civilian is harmed by a drone strike in Afghanistan, the family is entitled to compensation from US authorities. But this is not the case in other countries where the US government is using lethal drones. Why is this the case? Do you think the US government should help people who are innocent victims of our drone strikes and if so, why haven’t you put a program in place to do this?

Stay tuned to www.c-span.org at 2:30pm on Thursday to hear the Senators’ questions, Brennan’s answers and the response from those of us in the audience who don’t have many such occasions to express outrage at our government’s policy of remote-controlled killing.

 

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of www.codepink.org and www.globalexchange.org, and is author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

 

 

John Brennan vs. a Sixteen-Year-Old

Medea Benjamin

In October 2011, 16-year-old Tariq Aziz attended a gathering in Islamabad where he was taught how to use a video camera so he could document the drones that were constantly circling over his Pakistani village, terrorizing and killing his family and neighbors. Two days later, when Aziz was driving with his 12-year-old cousin to a village near his home in Waziristan to pick up his aunt, his car was struck by a Hellfire missile. With the push of a button by a pilot at a US base thousands of miles away, both boys were instantly vaporized—only a few chunks of flesh remained.

Afterwards, the US government refused to acknowledge the boys’ deaths or explain why they were targeted. Why should they? This is a covert program where no one is held accountable for their actions.

The main architect of this drone policy that has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents, including 176 children in Pakistan alone, is President Obama’s counterterrorism chief and his pick for the next director of the CIA: John Brennan.

On my recent trip to Pakistan, I met with people whose loved ones had been blown to bits by drone attacks, people who have been maimed for life, young victims with no hope for the future and aching for revenge. For all of them, there has been no apology, no compensation, not even an acknowledgement of their losses. Nothing.

That’s why when John Brennan spoke at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington DC last April and described our policies as ethical, wise and in compliance with international law,  I felt compelled to stand up and speak out on behalf of Tariq Aziz and so many others. As they dragged me out of the room, my parting words were: “I love the rule of law and I love my country. You are making us less safe by killing so many innocent people. Shame on you, John Brennan.”

Rather than expressing remorse for any civilian deaths, John Brennan made the extraordinary statement in 2011 that during the preceding year, there hadn’t been a single collateral death “because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.” Brennan later adjusted his statement somewhat, saying, “Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq.” We later learned why Brennan’s count was so low: the administration had come up with a semantic solution of simply counting all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.

The UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented over 350 drones strikes in Pakistan that have killed 2,600-3,400 people since 2004. Drone strikes in Yemen have been on the rise, with at least 42 strikes carried out in 2012, including one just hours after President Obama’s reelection. The first strike in 2013 took place just four days into the new year.

A May 29, 2011 New York Times exposé showed John Brennan as President Obama’s top advisor in formulating a “kill list” for drone strikes. The people Brennan recommends for the hit list are given no chance to surrender, and certainly no chance to be tried in a court of law. The kind of intelligence Brennan uses to put people on drone hit lists is the same kind of intelligence that put people in Guantanamo. Remember how the American public was assured that the prisoners locked up in Guantanamo were the “worst of the worst,” only to find out that hundreds were innocent people who had been sold to the US military by bounty hunters?

In addition to kill lists, Brennan pushed for the CIA to have the authority to kill with even greater ease using “signature strikes,” also known as “crowd killing,” which are strikes based solely on suspicious behavior.

When President Obama announced his nomination of John Brennan, he talked about Brennan’s integrity and commitment to the values that define us as Americans.  He said Brennan has worked to “embed our efforts in a strong legal framework” and that he “understands we are a nation of laws.”

A nation of laws? Really? Going around the world killing anyone we want, whenever we want, based on secret information? Just think of the precedent John Brennan is setting for a world of lawlessness and chaos, now that 76 countries have drones—mostly surveillance drones but many in the process of weaponizing them. Why shouldn’t China declare an ethnic Uighur activist living in New York City as an “enemy combatant” and send a missile into Manhattan, or Russia launch a drone attack against a Chechen living in London? Or why shouldn’t a relative of a drone victim retaliate against us here at home? It’s not so far-fetched. In 2011, 26-year-old Rezwan Ferdaus, a Massachusetts-based graduate with a degree in physics, was recently sentenced to 17 years in prison for plotting to attack the Pentagon and US Capitol with small drones filled with explosives.

In his search for a new CIA chief, Obama said he looked at who is going to do the best job in securing America. Yet the blowback from Brennan’s drone attacks is creating enemies far faster than we can kill them. Three out of four Pakistanis now see the US as their enemy—that’s about 133 million people, which certainly can’t be good for US security. When Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar was asked the source of US enmity, she had a one word answer: drones.

In Yemen, escalating U.S. drones strikes are radicalizing the local population and stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked militants. Since the January 4, 2013 attack in Yemen, militants in the tribal areas have gained more recruits and supporters in their war against the Yemeni government and its key backer, the United States. According to Abduh Rahman Berman, executive director of a Yemeni National Organization for Defending Rights and Freedoms, the drone war is failing. “If the Americans kill 10, al-Qaeda will recruit 100,” he said.

Around the world, the drone program constructed by John Brennan has become a provocative symbol of American hubris, showing contempt for national sovereignty and innocent lives.

If Obama thinks John Brennan is a good choice to head the CIA and secure America, he should contemplate the tragic deaths of victims like 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, and think again.

Medea Benjamin, cofounder of www.codepink.org and www.globalexchange.org, is author of the book Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

CODEPINK Says No to John Brennan for the CIA

Today President Obama nominated John Brennan to be head of the CIA. This nomination is an example of the Obama administration’s continuation of the disastrous post-9/11 policies of the Bush administration. Once CODEPINK heard about the coming nomination, we decided to protest in front of the white house. Within just a couple of hours banners were made, the press was called, and other CODEPINKers were alerted.

In addition to banners, and a John Brennan mascot, activists from CODEPINK carried in a large model drone representing Brennan’s drone strikes on innocent civilians in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq. More than anyone else, Brennan has been responsible for the counterproductive drone policies. He has openly lied numerous times to the American public about his policies on drone strikes, first insisting there have been no civilian deaths and later claiming civilian deaths are acceptable collateral damage.

Banners reading “John Brennan = Kill List” and “John Brennan = Torture” reflected his work overseeing and managing various kill lists on “terror Tuesdays.” These lists nominate suspected militants and terrorists for murder. He has also been in charge of Obama’s controversial policy of “signature strikes” that targets people involved in “suspicious activity.” Signature strikes are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians. As the head of the CIA, Brennan will have even more control over the CIA’s use of drones in places like Pakistan and Yemen.

Activists from Witness Against Torture showed up in orange jumpsuits to join CODEPINK in protest of John Brennan’s due to his atrocious record of torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. He supported “enhanced interrogation techniques” while serving in the spy agency during the Bush administration. When he was nominated to be CIA director in 2008, there was an outcry from human rights groups due to his support for controversial interrogation tactics, including water boarding, causing Brennan to withdraw his nomination. His record now is worse than it was back in 2008. As a chief counter terrorism adviser, he was responsible for “rendition,” i.e. sending terrorist suspects to other countries that practice torture.

We hope that John Brennan will withdraw from his nomination once again. His actions have been un-moral and un-American. He has only created more enemies for the American people, and he has no place in American government and policy.

Ten of My Favorite Things about 2012

There are many things to be thankful for in 2012, starting with the fact that the world didn’t end on December 21 and that we don’t have to witness the inauguration of Mr. One-Percent Mitt Romney. The global economic crisis continued to hit hard, but people have been taking to the streets around the world, from students in Chile to indigenous activists in Canada to anti-austerity workers in Europe. And while the excitement of the Arab world uprisings has been tempered by divisions and losses, the struggles are far from over.

Here are some US and global issues that experienced newfound gains in 2012.

1.     While conservatives launched vicious attacks on women’s rights, it backfired—and fired up the pro-choice base! US voters elected the highest number of women to Congress ever, including the first openly lesbian senator (Tammy Baldwin), the first Asian-American senator (Mazie Hirono) and first senator to make the banks tremble, Elizabeth Warren! Voters also rejected 4 crazy candidates who called for limiting a woman’s right to choose—including the resounding defeat by Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill over Mr. Legitimate Rape Todd Akin. Don’t forget that when Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced it would no longer fund Planned Parenthood, it got so heartily trounced that it caved in than seventy-two hours later. And stay tuned for the 2013 global women rising—a billion of us demanding an end to violence against women on February 14!

2.     Immigrant rights groups, especially young Latinos, mobilized and took great risks to force a change in attitude—and a thaw in policy. They fasted and caravanned and marched and knocked on doors. They pushed the administration and in June, just before the election, President Obama announced a new immigration policy that allows some undocumented students to avoid deportation and receive work authorization when they apply for deferred action. While not nearly enough, especially in light of this administration’s record rate of deportations, a mobilized immigrant community with significant voting power stands poised to make more impactful changes in U.S. immigration policy next year.

3.     More money flooded the elections than ever before (some $5.8 billion!), but most of it went down a big, black hole—and unleashed a new movement for money out of politics. Billionaires wasted fortunes trying to sell lousy candidates and lousy ideas. Looking at the candidates supported by the biggest moneybags of all, Sheldon Adelson, NONE were elected to office. Right-wing “pundits” like Karl Rove proved themselves to be idiotic partisan hacks and the Tea Party has been tearing itself apart. But best of all, from Massachusetts to Oregon, Colorado to Illinois and Wisconsin, and Ohio to California, citizens throughout the country voted overwhelmingly for their legislators to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling and declare that only human beings – not corporations – are entitled to constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending can be regulated.

4.     The marijuana genie is now out of the bottle, with people across the country backing referendums seeking an end to the decades of destructive, counterproductive drug wars. Colorado and Washington voters legalized recreational pot, and medical marijuana will be legal in Massachusetts. Voters in California passed Prop 34, which restricts lifetime incarceration via the “three strikes” law to violent or serious third offenses, a change that will help limit the prison sentences of nonviolent drug offenders. Prominent leaders including Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy, former President Bill Clinton and President Obama have hinted that they will reconsider the harsh criminal drug policy that has cost so much money and so many lives while failing to curb drug abuse.

5.     This year marked momentous wins for gay rights. Massachusetts, Maine, and Washington legalized marriage equality, and Minnesota defeated a restrictive state constitutional amendment that would have upheld a ban. Now, one-tenth of states in the U.S. uphold marriage equality. Thanks to activist pressure, on May 9 President Obama became the first sitting president to endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples. Several prominent leaders in the Democratic Party followed his lead, and muted conservative responses only served to demonstrate how far public opinion has shifted on the issue.

6.     Climate activists have been kickin’ up a storm. Anti-coal activists have helped retire over 100 coal plants, victories that will save lives and clean our air and water, while wind energy hit a historic milestone of 50,000 megawatts. The global anti-fracking movement mounted effective campaigns that has led to local bans in the US and Canada, national moratoriums in France and Bulgaria, and tighter regulation in Australia and the UK. The grassroots campaign to stop the Keystone Pipeline has awakened a new generation of activists (don’t forget the upcoming February 17-18 President’s Day Climate Legacy/Keystone XL rally in Washington, D.C.). And on the national front, in August the Obama administration issued new miles-per-gallon rules on car manufacturers, mandating that Detroit nearly double fuel efficiency standards by 2025.

7.         Unions have been hard hit by the economic crisis and political attacks, but worker’s gains made in 2012 show potential muscle. The Chicago teachers’ strike in September, lasting for seven school days, led to an important victory for public education. Walmart workers staged the first-ever strikes against the biggest private sector employer in the United States and heralded a new model of organizing, with workers and community members coming together to support better conditions in the stores and warehouses even before the workers join a union. And in another example of worker/community organizing, student activism allied with union advocacy in San Jose, California led to a ballot initiative that will raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10 per hour for everyone working within the city limits.

8.     On the foreign policy front, opposition to drone warfare is on the rise. After years of silence about the use of lethal drones overseas, the public began to learn more and the level of anti-drone activism skyrocketed. Now there are protests all over the country, including army bases where drones are piloted and manufacturing plants, and US activists have hooked up with drone victims overseas. US attitudes, once overwhelmingly pro-drone, are beginning to change, becoming more aligned with the global opposition to drone warfare. And the increased global opposition is leading to a rethinking of US policies.

9.     The international movement for Palestinian human rights has gained unprecedented momentum. In November the United Nations endorsed an independent state of Palestine, showing sweeping international support of Palestinian demands for sovereignty over lands Israel has occupied since 1967. The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions call by Palestinian civil society gained international traction as well, with economic, cultural and academic victories. Several different Christian denominations and college campuses voted to divest from Israeli occupation, the Technical University of Denmark dropped scientific collaboration projects with an Israeli settlement, the South African ANC endorsed the BDS call, Stevie Wonder cancelled a performance at a “Friends of the IDF” fundraiser, and much more. The grassroots call for Israel to adhere to international law has never been louder.

10.       After nearly 15 years of house arrest, Burmese opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi was elected to Parliament! Suu Kyi’s party, the NLD (National League for Democracy), swept the April by-elections, winning 43 of the 44 seats it contested. After decades of abuse, the military-dominated government released hundreds of political prisoners, enacted laws on forming trade unions and freedom of assembly, eased official media censorship, and allowed the opposition to register and contest elections. President Obama’s November visit, the first by a sitting US president, was an acknowledgement of the reforms. There’s still need for pressure, as hundreds of political prisoners remain, ethnic conflict continues, and Burmese military still holds too much power. But 2012 was a good year for the Burmese people.

 

There will be no time to rest in 2013, since the wealthy are already pushing to protect their profits to the detriment of the environment, workers’ rights and our democracy. But just as the massacre in Sandy Hook has led to a reinvigorated fight for gun control, so 2013 will surely mark a renewed effort to build stronger coalitions to spread the wealth, reverse global warming and disentangle ourselves from foreign wars. And with the presidential elections behind us, the time is ripe for building a progressive movement that is not tied to any political party but can put pressure on the entire system. Let the organizing begin!!!

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of www.codepink.org and www.globalexchange.org. Her latest book is Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

Video! Exposing the Cayman Island Tax Scandal

Exposing the Cayman Island Tax Scandal – CODEPINK & The Nation take on Corporate Fat Cats

US Visitors Protesting Cayman Islands Tax Haven Find Another Hidden Treasure Chest

Medea Benjamin

While lawmakers in Washington DC are debating how to solve the fiscal cliff, a group of Americans found a hidden treasure in the Caribbean that could go a long way toward balancing the budget: the billions of dollars US companies and individuals have stashed away in the Cayman Islands. On Thursday, December 13, over 100 Americans landed on the Cayman Islands and marched to the Ugland House, a building where some 18,000 businesses hide their tax dollars. President Obama has referred to Ugland House as “either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world.”

The protesters held signs saying “Bring our tax dollars home” and “We want our money back.” They sang a parody song to the tune of Harry Belafonte’s “Day-O”, with the refrain “Tax evaders time to bring the money home.”  Four of them were dressed as billionaires with corporate logos, waving their money in the air in a theatrical show of corporate greed.

This was the first tax-related protest this sedate island had ever seen. The protesters were traveling on a Caribbean cruise with the weekly magazine The Nation, and the rally was organized by the activist group CODEPINK. The group insisted that closing the overseas tax loopholes would add $150 billion a year to the shrinking US Treasury.

The tiny Cayman Islands have become the fifth-largest banking center in the world, with $1.5 trillion in banking liabilities. It has branches of 40 of the world’s 50 largest banks, including HSBC, Deutsche Bank, UBS and Goldman Sachs. Since the introduction of the mutual funds in 1993, it has become the world’s leading offshore hedge fund jurisdiction, and the list of companies with accounts there range from Coca-Cola and McDonalds to General Motors, Exxon and Intel. In fact, there are more registered corporations in Grand Cayman than there are people: 56,000 residents vs. 80,000 companies, 9,000 mutual funds and 250 banks.

Legend has it that the islands’ tax-free status stems from the heroic acts of its inhabitants during a maritime tragedy in 1794 when nine British merchant vessels and their naval escort ran aground on the reefs off Grand Cayman. Thanks to the rescue efforts by the Caymanians using canoes, the loss of life was minimized. King George III supposedly rewarded the island with a promise never to introduce taxes.

Whatever the origin, the Caymans today offer individuals and global corporations a deal they can’t refuse. There are no taxes on profits, capital gains, income or any withholding taxes charged to foreign investors. There are no estate or death duties payable on real estate or other assets. The islands also offer a large degree of financial secrecy and freedom from regulations.  And you don’t even have to visit the sunny Caribbean paradise to reap the benefits. All you need is a PO Box and $50,000 to open an account.

Former 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has about $30 million invested in the Cayman Islands in at least 12 different Bain Capital funds.  Bain has had investment funds in the Cayman Islands since at least the 1990s, making it easy for their investors to cheat on their taxes.



According to the Government Accounting Office, at least 83 of the top 100 publicly traded corporations in America shield large chunks of their income from taxes by keeping it overseas. By using tax havens (the Caymans prefer to call themselves a “tax-neutral portal”), they can shield their assets from lawsuits in their home countries and hide the identity of the investor from tax authorities.  Unless they choose to disclose their holdings and income, there is no way US or other countries’ tax officials know these holdings exist.  And even if they do disclose information, the completeness and accuracy of self-reported information is not easily verified.

That’s why the protesters marched through the island streets chanting “Hiding money is a crime, tax evaders should be doing time.”

***************

When the protesters returned to their ship after revealing the pirated corporate booty, they stumbled upon the key to yet another hidden treasure. The clue came in the form of a tweet: Irony: @codepink <https://twitter.com/codepink>  #opCaymans <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23opCaymans&src=hash> visit on Holland-America ship. Owner = Carnival Corp of Panama who pay about 1% US tax. <http://t.co/DTtOC1UL>

Sure enough, it turns out that their Holland America ship is owned by Carnival Cruise, which is indeed one of the most egregious tax-evading scoundrels. According to The New York Times , over the last five years, Carnival Cruise has paid total corporate taxes — federal, state, local and foreign — equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits (the federal corporate tax rate is 35 percent).

Carnival takes advantage of an obscure provision in the U.S. tax code that allows shipping companies to incorporate overseas and fly the flags of foreign countries.  That’s why Carnival is incorporated in Panama, even though its executives sit in Miami and its passengers board in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Ft. Lauderdale, New York and Seattle.

While the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard keep the oceans safe for Carnival’s ships and government dollars build the roads and bridges to the ports where their ships dock, the executives prefer to bury their fortune in tropical islands than contribute to the national pot.

So it looks like the Cayman protesters will have to add Carnival Cruise’s Miami headquarters to its list of protest sites. It’s not as exotic as the Cayman Islands, but at least the weather is nice.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of www.codepink.org <http://www.codepink.org>  and www.globalexchange.org <http://www.globalexchange.org> .

Americans on Cayman Islands Protest US Corporate Tax Evaders

Medea Benjamin

PHOTOS: www.flickr.com/photos/codepinkalert

VIDEO footage also available.

In the first protest against Cayman Island tax shelters the island has seen, on Thursday, December 13, over 100 Americans marched to the Ugland House, the location where some 18,000 corporations hide their tax dollars, to demand that corporations pay their fair share of taxes.  They held signs saying “Bring our tax dollars home” and “We want our money back” and sang a parody song to Harry Belafonte’s “Day-O” with the refrain “Tax evaders time to bring the money home.”  Four of them were dressed as billionaires, waving their money in the air in a theatrical show of corporate greed.

Many US companies use the Cayman Islands as a tax haven so they can cheat the US people out of much-needed tax dollars.  There are more registered corporations in Grand Cayman than there are people.  President Obama referred to Ugland House as “either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world.”

The protesters are traveling with the weekly magazine The Nation, and the protest was organized by the activist group CODEPINK. This focus on tax shelters takes place at a time when US officials are engulfed in a tug-of-war over what budget cuts to make to avoid what they are calling the “fiscal cliff.” “The US deficit could be solved with the $150 billion a year that could be recovered from these offshore tax shelters,” says CODEPINK cofounder Jodie Evans.

“The American people, exposed to the issue of tax cheaters during Romney’s presidential bid, believe that corporations should pay their fair share,” said CODEPINK cofounder Medea Benjamin. “That’s why we are here, in the Cayman Islands, to demand that corporations such as Exxon, McDonalds, and KBR bring the tax dollars home.”

On Tuesday, Premier McKeeva Bush was arrested by officers from the financial unit of the Royal Cayman Islands Police service.  As of now, he is suspected of “theft related to misuse of a government credit card and breach of trust for the alleged importation of unspecified explosive substances without valid permits.”

Tax havens are also known as ‘secrecy jurisdictions’ or ‘offshore.’  They provide any of the following: an escape from taxes, rules and regulations, responsibility, and the the law; secrecy in various forms; avoidance of financial regulations; avoidance of criminal laws; and an escape from other rules of society (i.e. inheritance).

Chairman, Richard Coles, says while they’re always happy to welcome visitors to learn more about Cayman’s economy, he says the U.S. defers taxes on the income that U.S.-based corporations earn abroad. Mr. Coles says if protesters think that’s wrong they should go and see the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Coles says Cayman’s government and the financial professionals of Cayman can’t change that. He says only the U.S. Congress can.