truthout--2020-10-27--No Drugs Should Be Criminalized. It’s Time to Abolish the DEA.

In 1970 , the Controlled Substances Act ( CSA ) was passed by the Nixon administration , codifying a national strategy to prohibit drug use and target certain communities .
Since then , the “ war on drugs ” has failed to reduce supply or demand , while steadily increasing drug overdose deaths and perpetuating the stigmatization of individuals with addiction .
It has fueled wide-scale militarized policing , cost taxpayers over $ 1 trillion since its inception , and expanded punitive institutions outside of the criminal legal system — including punishment-oriented systems embedded in schools , hospitals and social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failures and substantial evidence that drug prohibition is not only ineffective but also incredibly counterproductive , we clearly can not afford another 50 years of the same .
The time has come to repeal the Controlled Substances Act and transition toward a more evidence based and realistic approach to drug use in our society .
On its face , the CSA ’ s stated purpose to create a tiered system with five categories based on potential for problematic use , medical use and safety sounds like a reasonable plan .
But the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been primarily wielded as a political hammer to justify arbitrarily criminalizing and targeting certain marginalized communities , and used to restrict research that might prove any kind of medicinal benefits .
And while most would agree the war on drugs has been a failure when it comes to public health , we must recognize that it has accomplished its architects ’ real goals .
Since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted 50 years ago , drug arrests — the vast majority of which have been for possession alone — and incarceration rates in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities of color which have been disproportionately targeted .
In 2019 alone , there were over 1.5 million drug arrests made , nearly 87 percent of which were for possession .
And regardless of whether or not people arrested on drug charges are convicted , an arrest alone can prevent people from accessing employment and educational opportunities , housing , or government nutritional assistance programs like SNAP and TANF .
It can even cost them their children or immigration status .
As arrests have increased , political leaders have vilified drugs and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a dangerous part of society .
Those who use drugs recreationally or might struggle with substance use disorder have been labeled “ criminals ” and pushed even further to the margins of society , creating a web of life-altering challenges and reinforcing stigma and fear that prevents people from accessing help if they need it .
The drug war ’ s pattern of destruction is vast : it is also one of the main forces responsible for the militarized policing that the nation has been reckoning with since the deaths of Breonna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding schemes connected to the drug war — such as civil asset forfeiture laws , the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and 1033 programs — local police departments receive military weapons transfers and other financial incentives connected to drug arrests , which put our communities further in the crosshairs of state-sanctioned violence .
The Controlled Substances Act also serves as an enduring vehicle of government waste , costing over 1 trillion taxpayer dollars in the first 40 years alone .
In fact , the Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA ) , the federal agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CSA , had an annual operating budget of $ 3.136 billion in 2019 , yet , 47 years after its creation and countless lives lost , it has failed to accomplish its sole stated purpose of reducing the illicit drug supply .
Drugs are more accessible now than ever before .
Not only is it wasteful , but spending this extent of money on failed drug enforcement and incarceration limits funding for more effective programs that impact public safety , including addiction treatment , mental health services , public education funding and employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve the standards of living for all people , especially in the communities most targeted for enforcement .
Proponents of the drug war have argued that banning certain substances should remove them from the market , while prosecuting drug use should lower demand .
But it turns out , the opposite is true .
Since 1970 , drug overdoses have steadily increased , with approximately 70,000 people dying per year from accidental drug overdose in recent years , and new data shows a concerning upward trajectory over the last year and more acutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , countries such as Portugal and Switzerland that have decriminalized drug use have seen demand and overdose rates decline , in addition to other health benefits such as greatly reducing infectious diseases , all while removing the burden of a criminal record and the many collateral consequences that follow .
It ’ s time we follow their evidence .
And that means building a public health-centered approach to drugs .
By abolishing the DEA and decriminalizing all drugs , we could save tens of billions of dollars annually , which could be redirected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as evidence-based treatment , harm reduction and other health and housing resources .
These steps could greatly improve the lives of people who use drugs , begin repairing the devastation caused by the drug war and reduce the cost burden on taxpayers to fund failed enforcement and incarceration .
After 50 years of failure , it is time to reshape American drug policy away from the antiquated , draconian punitive approaches of the past and into a new era of scientifically informed , evidence-based , human-centered policies .

After 47 years and over $1 trillion in costs, it’s time to move toward a human-centered approach to drug use in the U.S.
In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was passed by the Nixon administration, codifying a national strategy to prohibit drug use and target certain communities. Since then, the “war on drugs” has failed to reduce supply or demand, while steadily increasing drug overdose deaths and perpetuating the stigmatization of individuals with addiction. It has fueled wide-scale militarized policing, cost taxpayers over $1 trillion since its inception, and expanded punitive institutions outside of the criminal legal system — including punishment-oriented systems embedded in schools, hospitals and social service agencies. After 50 years of failures and substantial evidence that drug prohibition is not only ineffective but also incredibly counterproductive, we clearly cannot afford another 50 years of the same. The time has come to repeal the Controlled Substances Act and transition toward a more evidence based and realistic approach to drug use in our society.
On its face, the CSA’s stated purpose to create a tiered system with five categories based on potential for problematic use, medical use and safety sounds like a reasonable plan. But the reality is far more grim. It has been primarily wielded as a political hammer to justify arbitrarily criminalizing and targeting certain marginalized communities, and used to restrict research that might prove any kind of medicinal benefits.
And while most would agree the war on drugs has been a failure when it comes to public health, we must recognize that it has accomplished its architects’ real goals. Since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted 50 years ago, drug arrests — the vast majority of which have been for possession alone — and incarceration rates in the United States have skyrocketed, decimating communities of color which have been disproportionately targeted. In 2019 alone, there were over 1.5 million drug arrests made, nearly 87 percent of which were for possession. And regardless of whether or not people arrested on drug charges are convicted, an arrest alone can prevent people from accessing employment and educational opportunities, housing, or government nutritional assistance programs like SNAP and TANF. It can even cost them their children or immigration status.
As arrests have increased, political leaders have vilified drugs and the people who use them, painting them as a dangerous part of society. Those who use drugs recreationally or might struggle with substance use disorder have been labeled “criminals” and pushed even further to the margins of society, creating a web of life-altering challenges and reinforcing stigma and fear that prevents people from accessing help if they need it.
The drug war’s pattern of destruction is vast: it is also one of the main forces responsible for the militarized policing that the nation has been reckoning with since the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. Because of funding schemes connected to the drug war — such as civil asset forfeiture laws, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and 1033 programs — local police departments receive military weapons transfers and other financial incentives connected to drug arrests, which put our communities further in the crosshairs of state-sanctioned violence.
The Controlled Substances Act also serves as an enduring vehicle of government waste, costing over 1 trillion taxpayer dollars in the first 40 years alone. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the federal agency tasked with implementation and enforcement of the CSA, had an annual operating budget of $3.136 billion in 2019, yet, 47 years after its creation and countless lives lost, it has failed to accomplish its sole stated purpose of reducing the illicit drug supply. Drugs are more accessible now than ever before.
It is time to reshape American drug policy away from the antiquated, draconian punitive approaches of the past and into a new era of scientifically informed, evidence-based, human-centered policies.
Not only is it wasteful, but spending this extent of money on failed drug enforcement and incarceration limits funding for more effective programs that impact public safety, including addiction treatment, mental health services, public education funding and employment opportunities — all of which could greatly improve the standards of living for all people, especially in the communities most targeted for enforcement.
Proponents of the drug war have argued that banning certain substances should remove them from the market, while prosecuting drug use should lower demand. But it turns out, the opposite is true. Since 1970, drug overdoses have steadily increased, with approximately 70,000 people dying per year from accidental drug overdose in recent years, and new data shows a concerning upward trajectory over the last year and more acutely since the COVID-19 pandemic began.
Alternatively, countries such as Portugal and Switzerland that have decriminalized drug use have seen demand and overdose rates decline, in addition to other health benefits such as greatly reducing infectious diseases, all while removing the burden of a criminal record and the many collateral consequences that follow.
It’s time we follow their evidence. And that means building a public health-centered approach to drugs.
By abolishing the DEA and decriminalizing all drugs, we could save tens of billions of dollars annually, which could be redirected toward funding research and health services, such as evidence-based treatment, harm reduction and other health and housing resources. These steps could greatly improve the lives of people who use drugs, begin repairing the devastation caused by the drug war and reduce the cost burden on taxpayers to fund failed enforcement and incarceration.
After 50 years of failure, it is time to reshape American drug policy away from the antiquated, draconian punitive approaches of the past and into a new era of scientifically informed, evidence-based, human-centered policies.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-27--Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Was Targeted in Armed White Supremacist Plot

This election season , Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza says President Trump is “ stoking fires he has no intention of controlling ” and inciting far-right extremists .
She was recently approached by the FBI after agents found her name on a list in the home of a white supremacist in Idaho who was arrested on weapons charges .
“ Racial terror has always been used as a form of control , particularly during periods of people fighting for social change , ” she says .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask you , Alicia Garza , about this latest news .
Federal prosecutors have arrested a self-described leader of the far-right “ boogaloo ” movement in connection with the burning of a Minneapolis police precinct in May .
The U.S. Attorney ’ s Office in Minnesota says 26-year-old Ivan Harrison Hunter fired 13 rounds from a semiautomatic assault rifle into the 3rd Precinct during protests against the police killing of George Floyd .
The “ boogaloo bois ” promote violent acts aimed at sparking civil war in the United States , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than two dozen arrests and five deaths this year .
Meanwhile , your name has come up in connection with , well , being a target .
You recently tweeted that you were approached by the FBI after agents found your name on a list in the home of a white supremacist in Idaho who was arrested on weapons charges .
You tweeted , “ This is why this President is so dangerous .
He is stoking fires he has no intention of controlling.
” Can you tell us what happened ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
ALICIA GARZA : Yes .
I mean , I want to start off by saying that , you know , this is not atypical for this president .
And , in fact , it is only the result , the likely result and the inevitable result , of the racist flames that this president is stoking and has been stoking , not just for this last four years but for a very long time .
We all remember what happened with the Exonerated 5 , where this president actually used his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five innocent people .
I will say that , you know , one of the things that feels important to me to keep lifting up here is that this conversation about racial terror doesn ’ t necessarily go far enough .
And we saw similar incidents in Oakland during the George Floyd protests .
You know , there ’ s so much rhetoric that this president uses about Black Lives Matter and riots and violence , but in each case what we are finding is that these are white militias , these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacist groups , that are going to protests to cause chaos , to start violence and to create disturbances .
And who gets blamed for that — right ?
— is people who are protesting to raise the issues of justice , to raise the issues of dignity and to fight back against police violence in our communities .
And there ’ s not enough conversation about this .
You know , the FBI has said , unequivocally , that white nationalism is the greatest threat to American democracy .
And that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and over again , too many people continue to advance these narratives that just aren ’ t true .
Even Vice News did a story recently that said that 97 % of protests for Black Lives Matter have been peaceful , but that in the 3 % where they were not , it was not an issue of protesters becoming violent , it was an issue of people with guns showing up at protests and creating chaos and starting violence .
And so I want to make sure that everybody understands the consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not the first person , and I won ’ t be the last person , to be found on a list in the home of a white supremacist .
We saw this , of course , just a year or two ago , when there was a guy , I believe in Florida , who had planned to send mail bombs to several activists and several reporters at CNN .
And yet this administration continues to ignore and also , frankly , to give a platform to these dangerous , dangerous groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention , racial terror has always been used as a form of control , particularly during periods of people fighting for social change , all the way from the voting rights fight of the 1950s , where the Klan certainly would be weaponized to terrorize activists , show up at people ’ s houses and burn crosses and shoot guns through their windows , all the way up until today .
Those scourges on our country are not gone .
And now we have a president that is giving them a platform and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to.
” That is dangerous not just for people like me , but for everybody who ’ s watching here this morning .
AMY GOODMAN : And you have not only this guy who ’ s been arrested , charged with setting fires , taking advantage of the George Floyd peaceful protests after he was killed by police officers , but , back in July , Minneapolis police arrested a man known as the “ Umbrella Man , ” who was filmed smashing the windows of an auto parts dealership on May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing of Floyd .
Investigators say the man is a white supremacist who sought to provoke violence against protesters .
A Minneapolis arson investigator wrote in an affidavit , “ This was the first fire that set off a string of fires and looting throughout the precinct and the rest of the city.
” And then I want to go to Vice President Mike Pence at the Republican convention echoing Trump ’ s vow to enforce law and order , and mentioning the killing of a security officer during a Black Lives Matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
AMY GOODMAN : What the vice president left out was a key part of the story : The man charged with Underwood ’ s death was not a Black Lives Matter protester , but a man with ties to the far-right “ boogaloo ” movement , which has used these protests against police brutality as cover to carry out violence .
And this took place in Oakland .
AMY GOODMAN : So , if you could further talk about this and your concerns about what could happen in the post-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very clear that November 3rd may not be the end of the count , that there is a lot of , millions of people who legally their votes can be counted in the days to come , that may be received by Election Day — and what this could mean in the streets as President Trump stokes concern that if the vote is not in that night , that it is a fraudulent election ?
ALICIA GARZA : Well , this president has been trafficking in lies , misinformation and disinformation even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s no surprise that that would be his stance right now .
It is really — it ’ s egregious , actually , that the vice president and the president don ’ t tell the America people the truth , and , in fact , that instead of telling the American people the truth , they ’ re using Black Lives Matter as a scapegoat for their own lack of will to protect every American citizen in this nation , their own lack of will and purpose in terms of addressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , from the pandemic to an economic recession to the climate crisis .
I mean , again , this president and this vice president traffic in lies as a way to distract from the fact that they are not actually leading in this country .
And I think [ inaudible ] .
It is important to be able to trust the information that comes from the leader of your country .
And we ’ ve found , time and time again , that you can not do that .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders lack a level of integrity .
There has been plenty of time to correct these stories and these lies that they have told , and yet they ’ ve continued to double down .
It ’ s a weird feeling to be watching television and watching the president telling lies about you and the things that you ’ ve done in this movement .
And so , I want people to really understand the implications of this .
This president has been stoking fears about the illegitimacy of an election for months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , for the purposes of trying to consolidate his power .
If President Trump does not recognize the legitimacy of the election , I think that the implications here are that there may not be full and fair and free elections moving forward .
And so , you know , Juan was right : There ’ s not a lot of people out here who are undecided .
But I think it ’ s possible that there are folks who are watching who think that , you know , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I think we should be very concerned that this president and his administration seem bent on changing the structure of government .
And that has been an agenda item for the conservative movement for the last 30 years , and it ’ s only now that they ’ re actually able to try and deliver on those promises .
So there is a lot at stake this time , and it ’ s not just which party takes power .
It ’ s also very much about the structure and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that we should be concerned that this president has shown no moral leadership to try and bring people together during very turbulent times .
And , in fact , again , he is stoking violence .
And he ’ s doing so in a way that is relatively flippant , but I think that he also understands that there are a small group of people who will take violence to the extreme .
And who suffers from that is the American people .
Who suffers from that are people who are fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country great .
And that should concern us all .
We are in the year 2020 , not the year 1956 , not the year 1965 , not even the year 1972 .
What we should have learned by now — right ?
— is that racial terror and racial violence has no place in this country , and yet now we have a leader in the White House who is stoking it and resurrecting it , when , frankly , it belongs in history books and not in our present , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : Alicia Garza is the principal of Black Futures Lab , co-founder of Supermajority , co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Global Network .
We ’ re going to continue with her , after this next break , about her new book called The Purpose of Power : How We Come Together When We Fall Apart and the role of movements in the future , and what that all means .
Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN : “ The President Sang Amazing Grace ” performed by Kronos Quartet and Meklit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s eulogy for the Charleston church shooting victims and pays homage to the moment he sang “ Amazing Grace ” during that memorial service for the South Carolina state senator , Pastor Clementa Pinckney , who was killed during the massacre along with his eight parishioners .

This election season, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza says President Trump is “stoking fires he has no intention of controlling” and inciting far-right extremists. She was recently approached by the FBI after agents found her name on a list in the home of a white supremacist in Idaho who was arrested on weapons charges. “Racial terror has always been used as a form of control, particularly during periods of people fighting for social change,” she says.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you, Alicia Garza, about this latest news. Federal prosecutors have arrested a self-described leader of the far-right “boogaloo” movement in connection with the burning of a Minneapolis police precinct in May. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota says 26-year-old Ivan Harrison Hunter fired 13 rounds from a semiautomatic assault rifle into the 3rd Precinct during protests against the police killing of George Floyd. The “boogaloo bois” promote violent acts aimed at sparking civil war in the United States, and they’ve been linked to more than two dozen arrests and five deaths this year.
Meanwhile, your name has come up in connection with, well, being a target. You recently tweeted that you were approached by the FBI after agents found your name on a list in the home of a white supremacist in Idaho who was arrested on weapons charges. You tweeted, “This is why this President is so dangerous. He is stoking fires he has no intention of controlling.” Can you tell us what happened? I mean, this is just this past week.
ALICIA GARZA: Yes. I mean, I want to start off by saying that, you know, this is not atypical for this president. And, in fact, it is only the result, the likely result and the inevitable result, of the racist flames that this president is stoking and has been stoking, not just for this last four years but for a very long time. We all remember what happened with the Exonerated 5, where this president actually used his resources to encourage the death penalty for five innocent people.
I will say that, you know, one of the things that feels important to me to keep lifting up here is that this conversation about racial terror doesn’t necessarily go far enough. And we saw similar incidents in Oakland during the George Floyd protests. You know, there’s so much rhetoric that this president uses about Black Lives Matter and riots and violence, but in each case what we are finding is that these are white militias, these are white nationalist groups, these are white supremacist groups, that are going to protests to cause chaos, to start violence and to create disturbances. And who gets blamed for that — right? — is people who are protesting to raise the issues of justice, to raise the issues of dignity and to fight back against police violence in our communities. And there’s not enough conversation about this.
You know, the FBI has said, unequivocally, that white nationalism is the greatest threat to American democracy. And that was just recently. And yet, over and over again, too many people continue to advance these narratives that just aren’t true. Even Vice News did a story recently that said that 97% of protests for Black Lives Matter have been peaceful, but that in the 3% where they were not, it was not an issue of protesters becoming violent, it was an issue of people with guns showing up at protests and creating chaos and starting violence. And so I want to make sure that everybody understands the consequences and implications.
Certainly, I’m not the first person, and I won’t be the last person, to be found on a list in the home of a white supremacist. We saw this, of course, just a year or two ago, when there was a guy, I believe in Florida, who had planned to send mail bombs to several activists and several reporters at CNN. And yet this administration continues to ignore and also, frankly, to give a platform to these dangerous, dangerous groups.
For people who are not paying attention, racial terror has always been used as a form of control, particularly during periods of people fighting for social change, all the way from the voting rights fight of the 1950s, where the Klan certainly would be weaponized to terrorize activists, show up at people’s houses and burn crosses and shoot guns through their windows, all the way up until today. Those scourges on our country are not gone.
And now we have a president that is giving them a platform and essentially saying, “Operate how you need to.” That is dangerous not just for people like me, but for everybody who’s watching here this morning.
AMY GOODMAN: And you have not only this guy who’s been arrested, charged with setting fires, taking advantage of the George Floyd peaceful protests after he was killed by police officers, but, back in July, Minneapolis police arrested a man known as the “Umbrella Man,” who was filmed smashing the windows of an auto parts dealership on May 27, two days after the police killing of Floyd. Investigators say the man is a white supremacist who sought to provoke violence against protesters. A Minneapolis arson investigator wrote in an affidavit, “This was the first fire that set off a string of fires and looting throughout the precinct and the rest of the city.”
And then I want to go to Vice President Mike Pence at the Republican convention echoing Trump’s vow to enforce law and order, and mentioning the killing of a security officer during a Black Lives Matter protest in Oakland. This is what he said.
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: People like Dave Patrick Underwood, an officer in the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service, who was shot and killed during the riots in Oakland, California. Dave’s heroism is emblematic of the heroes that serve in blue every day. And we’re privileged tonight to be joined by his sister Angela.
AMY GOODMAN: What the vice president left out was a key part of the story: The man charged with Underwood’s death was not a Black Lives Matter protester, but a man with ties to the far-right “boogaloo” movement, which has used these protests against police brutality as cover to carry out violence. And this took place in Oakland.
ALICIA GARZA: That’s right.
AMY GOODMAN: So, if you could further talk about this and your concerns about what could happen in the post-election period — I mean, it’s very clear that November 3rd may not be the end of the count, that there is a lot of, millions of people who legally their votes can be counted in the days to come, that may be received by Election Day — and what this could mean in the streets as President Trump stokes concern that if the vote is not in that night, that it is a fraudulent election?
ALICIA GARZA: Well, this president has been trafficking in lies, misinformation and disinformation even before he took office, and so it’s no surprise that that would be his stance right now. It is really — it’s egregious, actually, that the vice president and the president don’t tell the America people the truth, and, in fact, that instead of telling the American people the truth, they’re using Black Lives Matter as a scapegoat for their own lack of will to protect every American citizen in this nation, their own lack of will and purpose in terms of addressing the challenges that are facing this country right now, from the pandemic to an economic recession to the climate crisis. I mean, again, this president and this vice president traffic in lies as a way to distract from the fact that they are not actually leading in this country. And I think [inaudible]. It is important to be able to trust the information that comes from the leader of your country. And we’ve found, time and time again, that you cannot do that. We’ve also found that both of these leaders lack a level of integrity. There has been plenty of time to correct these stories and these lies that they have told, and yet they’ve continued to double down. It’s a weird feeling to be watching television and watching the president telling lies about you and the things that you’ve done in this movement.
And so, I want people to really understand the implications of this. This president has been stoking fears about the illegitimacy of an election for months now. And that has been, of course, for the purposes of trying to consolidate his power. If President Trump does not recognize the legitimacy of the election, I think that the implications here are that there may not be full and fair and free elections moving forward. And so, you know, Juan was right: There’s not a lot of people out here who are undecided. But I think it’s possible that there are folks who are watching who think that, you know, we’re going back to these four-year cycles. And I think we should be very concerned that this president and his administration seem bent on changing the structure of government. And that has been an agenda item for the conservative movement for the last 30 years, and it’s only now that they’re actually able to try and deliver on those promises. So there is a lot at stake this time, and it’s not just which party takes power. It’s also very much about the structure and the process of government.
Lastly, I think that we should be concerned that this president has shown no moral leadership to try and bring people together during very turbulent times. And, in fact, again, he is stoking violence. And he’s doing so in a way that is relatively flippant, but I think that he also understands that there are a small group of people who will take violence to the extreme. And who suffers from that is the American people. Who suffers from that are people who are fighting for justice and fighting to actually make this country great. And that should concern us all. We are in the year 2020, not the year 1956, not the year 1965, not even the year 1972. What we should have learned by now — right? — is that racial terror and racial violence has no place in this country, and yet now we have a leader in the White House who is stoking it and resurrecting it, when, frankly, it belongs in history books and not in our present, and certainly not in our future.
AMY GOODMAN: Alicia Garza is the principal of Black Futures Lab, co-founder of Supermajority, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Global Network. We’re going to continue with her, after this next break, about her new book called The Purpose of Power: How We Come Together When We Fall Apart and the role of movements in the future, and what that all means. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “The President Sang Amazing Grace” performed by Kronos Quartet and Meklit. The song recalls President Obama’s eulogy for the Charleston church shooting victims and pays homage to the moment he sang “Amazing Grace” during that memorial service for the South Carolina state senator, Pastor Clementa Pinckney, who was killed during the massacre along with his eight parishioners.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-27--Kavanaugh Issues Ominous Opinion Regurgitating Trump Mail-In Ballot Lies

The U.S. Supreme Court late Monday delivered a victory for the Republican Party by barring the crucial battleground state of Wisconsin from extending its Election Day deadline for the arrival of absentee ballots amid the pandemic , with Justice Brett Kavanaugh issuing an ominous concurring opinion that echoes President Donald Trump ’ s false narrative on mail-in voting .
The 5-3 decision along ideological lines — with the court ’ s five conservatives in the majority — blocked a request by Wisconsin Democrats and voting rights groups to revive a federal judge ’ s ruling from last month that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if postmarked by Election Day and received by November 9 , a six-day extension of the current deadline of November 3 at 8:00 pm .
Wisconsin Republicans quickly appealed the order , and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit blocked the ruling earlier this month .
In raising alarm about the potential consequences of the Supreme Court ’ s decision to uphold Wisconsin ’ s strict Election Day deadline as ongoing mail delays heighten fears that many ballots could arrive late , legal analysts pointed with particular dismay at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice ’ s 18-page opinion ( pdf ) as a blaring signal of his willingness to abet a possible attempt by Trump to stop the counting of valid absentee ballots .
“ For important reasons , most states , including Wisconsin , require absentee ballots to be received by Election Day , not just mailed by Election Day , ” Kavanaugh wrote .
“ Those states want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on Election Night , or as soon as possible thereafter.
” Writing for Slate , court reporter Mark Joseph Stern argued that “ it is genuinely alarming that the justice cast these aspersions on late-arriving ballots , ” noting that at least 18 states and the District of Columbia count ballots that arrive after Election Day .
“ And , in these states , there is no result to ‘ flip ’ because there is no result to overturn until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stern wrote .
“ Further , George W. Bush ’ s 2000 election legal team — which included [ newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney ] Barrett , Kavanaugh , and Roberts — argued during that contested election that ballots arriving late and without postmarks , which were thought to benefit Bush , must be counted in Florida.
” “ Whatever the reasons behind Kavanaugh ’ s performance on Monday , ” Stern continued , “ he has given the nation another legitimate reason to fear that this election may end with a Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but even worse than the original.
” Just minutes after the Supreme Court issued its ruling Monday night , Trump falsely tweeted that there are “ big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA.
” “ Must have final total on November 3rd , ” Trump added .
Twitter flagged the president ’ s post as misleading and observers hastened to point out that the final vote count is never complete and final by Election Night .
Following the Supreme Court ’ s ruling and Trump ’ s tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , first vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , urged the public to “ forget the polls ” showing Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a lead over the incumbent president .
“ We need overwhelming turnout to overcome a looming constitutional crisis , ” Khanna said .

The Supreme Court barred Wisconsin from extending its Election Day deadline for the arrival of absentee ballots.
The U.S. Supreme Court late Monday delivered a victory for the Republican Party by barring the crucial battleground state of Wisconsin from extending its Election Day deadline for the arrival of absentee ballots amid the pandemic, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh issuing an ominous concurring opinion that echoes President Donald Trump’s false narrative on mail-in voting.
The 5-3 decision along ideological lines — with the court’s five conservatives in the majority — blocked a request by Wisconsin Democrats and voting rights groups to revive a federal judge’s ruling from last month that would have allowed mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received by November 9, a six-day extension of the current deadline of November 3 at 8:00 pm.
Wisconsin Republicans quickly appealed the order, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit blocked the ruling earlier this month.
In raising alarm about the potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Wisconsin’s strict Election Day deadline as ongoing mail delays heighten fears that many ballots could arrive late, legal analysts pointed with particular dismay at the reasoning of Kavanaugh, characterizing the right-wing justice’s 18-page opinion (pdf) as a blaring signal of his willingness to abet a possible attempt by Trump to stop the counting of valid absentee ballots.
“For important reasons, most states, including Wisconsin, require absentee ballots to be received by Election Day, not just mailed by Election Day,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Those states want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on Election Night, or as soon as possible thereafter.”
This is chilling, from Justice Kavanaugh in the Wisconsin voting rights case: “If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode.” He’s down to steal this thing. — Elie Honig (@eliehonig) October 27, 2020
Writing for Slate, court reporter Mark Joseph Stern argued that “it is genuinely alarming that the justice cast these aspersions on late-arriving ballots,” noting that at least 18 states and the District of Columbia count ballots that arrive after Election Day.
“And, in these states, there is no result to ‘flip’ because there is no result to overturn until all valid ballots are counted,” Stern wrote. “Further, George W. Bush’s 2000 election legal team — which included [newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney] Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts — argued during that contested election that ballots arriving late and without postmarks, which were thought to benefit Bush, must be counted in Florida.”
“Whatever the reasons behind Kavanaugh’s performance on Monday,” Stern continued, “he has given the nation another legitimate reason to fear that this election may end with a Bush v. Gore–like disaster for American democracy, but even worse than the original.”
Just minutes after the Supreme Court issued its ruling Monday night, Trump falsely tweeted that there are “big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA.”
“Must have final total on November 3rd,” Trump added. Twitter flagged the president’s post as misleading and observers hastened to point out that the final vote count is never complete and final by Election Night.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling and Trump’s tweet, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), first vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, urged the public to “forget the polls” showing Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a lead over the incumbent president.
“We need overwhelming turnout to overcome a looming constitutional crisis,” Khanna said.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-27--Nuclear Weapons Will Soon Be Banned Under International Law

Nuclear weapons will soon be illegal under international law .
Seventy-five years to the day after the founding of the United Nations , the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons ( TPNW ) began the 90-day countdown until the treaty enters into force .
The milestone was achieved after years of global efforts spearheaded by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons ( ICAN ) led to the treaty ’ s adoption by 122 UN member states in 2017 .
One day after Jamaica and the Republic of Nauru became the 48th and 49th countries to ratify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 24 , triggering the 90-day countdown to January 22 , 2021 , when the treaty will enter into force .
After adopting the treaty to indicate initial support , each country must sign and ratify the treaty by affirming that its national laws are consistent with treaty obligations .
Currently , the TPNW has been adopted by 122 countries , signed by 84 and ratified by 50 .
Under the TPNW , informally called the “ ban treaty , ” state parties may not develop , test , produce , manufacture , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other nuclear explosive devices .
The treaty also prohibits the transfer or control over , or threat to use nuclear weapons , as well as the stationing , installation or deployment of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices .
Furthermore , the treaty calls for state parties to provide assistance to victims of nuclear weapons use or testing and environmental remediation in places that have been sites of nuclear tests , and compels state parties to encourage other nations to join the treaty .
Yet none of the nine nuclear-armed nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel , North Korea , Pakistan , Russia , the U.K. and the U.S. ) or many of their closest allies support the ban treaty .
Those nine countries possess 13,400 nuclear weapons ( 90 percent belong to Russia and the U.S. ) .
Meanwhile , the U.S. has been actively trying to stop the TPNW from advancing .
The first 50 countries to ratify the treaty include small island nations like Antigua and Barbuda , Malta and the Maldives , as well as larger ones , including Botswana , Mexico , Thailand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of more than 450 Soviet nuclear weapons tests .
Pacific Island nations , such as Kiribati , Fiji , Samoa and Tuvalu , along with New Zealand , are TPNW signatories representing a region contaminated by British , French and American nuclear testing .
Other state parties include countries in Asia , Africa , the Americas and Europe .
Sixteen nations have ratified the treaty in 2020 so far with at least a dozen more countries working through their own internal ratification process .
These include Indonesia , Brazil , Algeria , Mongolia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and others .
Alexandra Bell , senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation , told Truthout that the TPNW ’ s entry into force “ demonstrates a growing demand from countries around the world to finally see significant steps toward disarmament.
” Bell noted that the five Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT ) -recognized nuclear weapon states — China , France , Russia , United Kingdom and United States — have made many unfulfilled disarmament-related commitments .
“ The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation hopes that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TPNW to find common ground and new practical approaches to advance nuclear disarmament.
” When the TPNW enters into force on January 22 , nuclear weapons will become illegal under international law , joining other controversial weapons that have been banned , such as biological weapons ( in 1975 ) , chemical weapons ( 1997 ) , mines ( 1999 ) and cluster munitions ( 2010 ) .
Proponents of the TPNW say the speed with which it achieved its threshold is indicative of its popular support around the world .
Speaking from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s policy and research coordinator , told Truthout that nuclear weapons joining other prohibited weapons is “ really critical in shifting public perception and underlining how unacceptable these weapons are.
” The treaty ’ s entry into force will increase pressure on governments to follow the will of their citizens who support outlawing nuclear weapons .
The significance of the treaty extends to divesting from projects and businesses that support nuclear weapons .
History shows that many financial institutions prefer to avoid investing in banned controversial weapons , Sanders-Zakre said .
Saying No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the number of countries ratifying the TPNW grows , the nine nuclear-armed nations ( Russia , U.S. , China , France , U.K , Pakistan , India , North Korea and Israel ) strongly oppose the treaty .
Days before the 50th ratification announcement , a number of countries that had ratified the TPNW received letters from the Trump administration attempting to persuade them to withdraw from the treaty , calling their support a “ strategic error.
” ICAN ’ s Sanders-Zakre called the letter a “ show of desperation , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterproductive , ” while Daryl Kimball , executive director of the Arms Control Association , called U.S. attempts to pressure countries to abandon the treaty “ the height of hypocrisy ” given the Trump administration ’ s failure to preserve any arms control treaties .
North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO ) allies are also opposed to the TPNW and warn of the treaty ’ s “ potential repercussions.
” In a 2017 statement , the North Atlantic Council , NATO ’ s political body , said the treaty will not be effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually possessing nuclear weapons , will not reduce nuclear arsenals , and will not enhance any country ’ s security or international peace and stability .
The treaty , the council said , risks creating “ divisions and divergences ” and “ undermining the NPT.
” The Council defended the possession of nuclear weapons , saying , “ The fundamental purpose of NATO ’ s nuclear capability is to preserve peace , prevent coercion , and deter aggression.
” Nuclear deterrence , however , is seen by many as a flawed , fallacious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace .
And while nuclear-armed nations and NATO oppose the treaty , Sanders-Zakre pointed to broad support among the citizens of NATO nations .
In September , 56 former leaders and heads of state from U.S. allies penned an open letter calling for countries to join the ban treaty .
Signers include former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon , former NATO secretaries-general , and former presidents , prime ministers , and high-level ministers from Canada , Norway , Poland , Denmark , Japan , South Korea , and other nuclear-endorsing nations , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons ( Germany , Italy , Belgium , the Netherlands and Turkey ) .
In Japan , 495 municipalities have called on the Japanese government to join the treaty , a move Tokyo currently views as a non-starter based on its obligations as an ally that the U.S. promises to defend under the U.S. “ nuclear umbrella.
” Even when a country doesn ’ t immediately join an arms treaty , Sanders-Zakre said treaties banning mines and cluster munitions have influenced actions in countries that hadn ’ t joined the treaty , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divestment .
As the TPNW enters into force , she expects the growing stigma of possessing illegal weapons will influence non-state parties , long before they join .
Different Views of the Treaty One nation that participated in treaty negotiations and supports the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the Republic of the Marshall Islands ( RMI ) which was the site of 67 U.S. nuclear weapons tests from 1946-1958 .
Those tests caused widespread environmental contamination , sickness , death and dislocation , yet the RMI has not ratified the treaty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s National Nuclear Commission ( NNC ) , told Truthout in an email , “ the RMI continues to consider specific provisions of the TPNW and their implications on our efforts to seek nuclear justice.
” Referring to a radioactive waste-filled concrete dome built by the U.S. that is now leaking contamination into the sea , Moss-Christian continued , “ Runit dome at Enewetak Atoll remains a direct threat to the local community as well as the entire Marshallese population and it requires U.S. support to ensure its safety or removal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t provide us with enough assurance that if the RMI becomes a party , we wouldn ’ t then assume full responsibility for managing the Dome and its risk.
” As it considers how best to ensure justice for the Marshallese people , the NNC expressed concern over the nuclear-armed states ’ failure to join the treaty , calling on those nations to “ reconsider their role in effective implementation of the treaty.
” Others support the ban treaty ’ s vision of a nuclear weapons-free world but not the approach .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for nuclear policy at the Pacific Forum , said his own primary objection to the treaty is his belief that it will disproportionately impact nuclear-armed democracies , which may feel obliged to respond to pressure from civil society more than other nuclear-armed countries like North Korea , China or Russia .
Santoro fears “ the TPNW will not only fail to bring about nuclear disarmament , but it will likely complicate the strategic outlook for nuclear-armed democracies and their allies.
” Disarmament , Santoro said , “ is best pursued incrementally , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists , said the speed at which the treaty has reached the 50-nation threshold demonstrates that the nuclear-armed states campaign to pressure non-nuclear states has been only partially successful , as non-nuclear nations proceed , undeterred .
He said that even though the treaty ’ s entry into force is unlikely to have a direct effect on nuclear states or their allies , indirectly , some countries may have to reconsider how they cooperate with the U.S. in terms of joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that may assist in nuclear operations in any way .
Kristensen pointed to New Zealand , Thailand and Palau as examples .
The Arms Control Association ’ s Kimball told Truthout over Skype that he considers the treaty ’ s entry into force a “ new phase in the long-running effort to prevent nuclear war and get rid of nuclear weapons.
” Kimball called the treaty an “ important contribution to the legal framework for the elimination of nuclear weapons , ” adding that it “ reinforces the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly , it challenges nuclear deterrence thinking — the idea that nuclear weapons can be safely possessed and that nuclear war will not erupt.
” In response to charges that the TPNW undermines the Non-Proliferation Treaty , Kimball said , “ it ’ s not a challenge to the NPT .
It ’ s not an alternative to the Non-Proliferation Treaty .
We would say it reinforces it because it strengthens the norm , the taboo against nuclear weapons , and that should be welcome.
” He added that the public has an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will matter is whether the publics in Germany and Italy and Belgium , where U.S. nuclear weapons are stored on NATO bases … [ will ] encourage their governments to do [ something in order ] to reduce the nuclear risk.
” For countries that are not yet treaty parties , including nuclear weapon states , Kimball encourages them to take the first step of acknowledging that the TPNW exists and is a good faith effort by non-nuclear weapon states “ to advance the common cause of a world free of nuclear weapons.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Global Zero , an international organization committed to eliminating nuclear weapons , told Truthout in an email that he hoped the ban treaty would mark a new chapter in the effort to eradicate nuclear weapons .
“ But given the current trends , it ’ s fair to be skeptical about whether the treaty will have a meaningful impact , ” he added , pointing to nuclear-armed states “ spending lavishly to upgrade , expand , or operationalize their arsenals.
” As the role of nuclear weapons becomes more deeply entrenched and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by accident , unauthorized action , mistaken launch or deliberate decision — more probable , the continued reliance on nuclear weapons poses a growing danger .
“ This is the real threat to the NPT , ” Johnson said .
“ Any complaints about the [ TPNW ] from nuclear-armed governments must be viewed in that context.
” He added , “ I welcome any effort to delegitimize these weapons and reinforce in the minds of people and governments that the continued existence of these barbaric weapons and their inherent risks must not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations are dependent on nuclear weapons , but there are now 50 nations who unequivocally reject any claim that those weapons are legitimate , marking them not as assets , but as liabilities that violate fundamental human rights , the most basic precepts of nature and international law .
Speaking at the UN as it voted to adopt the TPNW in 2017 , Hiroshima atomic bombing survivor Setsuko Thurlow declared , “ This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.
” In a voice filled with conviction , she continued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the world , I beseech you .
If you love this planet , you will sign this treaty .
Nuclear weapons [ have ] always been immoral .
Now they are also illegal .
”

Nuclear weapons will soon be illegal under international law. Seventy-five years to the day after the founding of the United Nations, the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) began the 90-day countdown until the treaty enters into force.
The milestone was achieved after years of global efforts spearheaded by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) led to the treaty’s adoption by 122 UN member states in 2017. One day after Jamaica and the Republic of Nauru became the 48th and 49th countries to ratify the treaty, Honduras became the 50th on October 24, triggering the 90-day countdown to January 22, 2021, when the treaty will enter into force.
After adopting the treaty to indicate initial support, each country must sign and ratify the treaty by affirming that its national laws are consistent with treaty obligations. Currently, the TPNW has been adopted by 122 countries, signed by 84 and ratified by 50.
Under the TPNW, informally called the “ban treaty,” state parties may not develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The treaty also prohibits the transfer or control over, or threat to use nuclear weapons, as well as the stationing, installation or deployment of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Furthermore, the treaty calls for state parties to provide assistance to victims of nuclear weapons use or testing and environmental remediation in places that have been sites of nuclear tests, and compels state parties to encourage other nations to join the treaty.
Yet none of the nine nuclear-armed nations (China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.) or many of their closest allies support the ban treaty. Those nine countries possess 13,400 nuclear weapons (90 percent belong to Russia and the U.S.). Meanwhile, the U.S. has been actively trying to stop the TPNW from advancing.
The first 50 countries to ratify the treaty include small island nations like Antigua and Barbuda, Malta and the Maldives, as well as larger ones, including Botswana, Mexico, Thailand and Kazakhstan, which was the site of more than 450 Soviet nuclear weapons tests.
Pacific Island nations, such as Kiribati, Fiji, Samoa and Tuvalu, along with New Zealand, are TPNW signatories representing a region contaminated by British, French and American nuclear testing. Other state parties include countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe. Sixteen nations have ratified the treaty in 2020 so far with at least a dozen more countries working through their own internal ratification process. These include Indonesia, Brazil, Algeria, Mongolia, Guatemala, Nepal, the Philippines, and others.
The treaty calls for state parties to provide assistance to victims of nuclear weapons use or testing and environmental remediation in places that have been sites of nuclear tests.
Alexandra Bell, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told Truthout that the TPNW’s entry into force “demonstrates a growing demand from countries around the world to finally see significant steps toward disarmament.”
Bell noted that the five Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)-recognized nuclear weapon states — China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States — have made many unfulfilled disarmament-related commitments. “The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation hopes that those states can work with members of the TPNW to find common ground and new practical approaches to advance nuclear disarmament.”
WMD Hall of Shame
When the TPNW enters into force on January 22, nuclear weapons will become illegal under international law, joining other controversial weapons that have been banned, such as biological weapons (in 1975), chemical weapons (1997), mines (1999) and cluster munitions (2010). Proponents of the TPNW say the speed with which it achieved its threshold is indicative of its popular support around the world.
Speaking from Geneva, Alicia Sanders-Zakre, ICAN’s policy and research coordinator, told Truthout that nuclear weapons joining other prohibited weapons is “really critical in shifting public perception and underlining how unacceptable these weapons are.”
The treaty’s entry into force will increase pressure on governments to follow the will of their citizens who support outlawing nuclear weapons. The significance of the treaty extends to divesting from projects and businesses that support nuclear weapons. History shows that many financial institutions prefer to avoid investing in banned controversial weapons, Sanders-Zakre said.
Saying No to “Ban the Bomb”
Even as the number of countries ratifying the TPNW grows, the nine nuclear-armed nations (Russia, U.S., China, France, U.K, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel) strongly oppose the treaty. Days before the 50th ratification announcement, a number of countries that had ratified the TPNW received letters from the Trump administration attempting to persuade them to withdraw from the treaty, calling their support a “strategic error.”
ICAN’s Sanders-Zakre called the letter a “show of desperation,” saying the move was “unhelpful and counterproductive,” while Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, called U.S. attempts to pressure countries to abandon the treaty “the height of hypocrisy” given the Trump administration’s failure to preserve any arms control treaties.
A number of countries that had ratified the TPNW received letters from the Trump administration attempting to persuade them to withdraw from the treaty.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies are also opposed to the TPNW and warn of the treaty’s “potential repercussions.” In a 2017 statement, the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s political body, said the treaty will not be effective because it will not engage any states actually possessing nuclear weapons, will not reduce nuclear arsenals, and will not enhance any country’s security or international peace and stability. The treaty, the council said, risks creating “divisions and divergences” and “undermining the NPT.”
The Council defended the possession of nuclear weapons, saying, “The fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression.”
Nuclear deterrence, however, is seen by many as a flawed, fallacious and dangerous means of pursuing or preserving peace.
And while nuclear-armed nations and NATO oppose the treaty, Sanders-Zakre pointed to broad support among the citizens of NATO nations. In September, 56 former leaders and heads of state from U.S. allies penned an open letter calling for countries to join the ban treaty. Signers include former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, former NATO secretaries-general, and former presidents, prime ministers, and high-level ministers from Canada, Norway, Poland, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, and other nuclear-endorsing nations, including the five NATO countries that host U.S. nuclear weapons (Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey).
In Japan, 495 municipalities have called on the Japanese government to join the treaty, a move Tokyo currently views as a non-starter based on its obligations as an ally that the U.S. promises to defend under the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.”
Even when a country doesn’t immediately join an arms treaty, Sanders-Zakre said treaties banning mines and cluster munitions have influenced actions in countries that hadn’t joined the treaty, including an end to weapons production and increased divestment. As the TPNW enters into force, she expects the growing stigma of possessing illegal weapons will influence non-state parties, long before they join.
Different Views of the Treaty
One nation that participated in treaty negotiations and supports the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) which was the site of 67 U.S. nuclear weapons tests from 1946-1958. Those tests caused widespread environmental contamination, sickness, death and dislocation, yet the RMI has not ratified the treaty.
Rhea Moss-Christian, chair of the RMI’s National Nuclear Commission (NNC), told Truthout in an email, “the RMI continues to consider specific provisions of the TPNW and their implications on our efforts to seek nuclear justice.”
Referring to a radioactive waste-filled concrete dome built by the U.S. that is now leaking contamination into the sea, Moss-Christian continued, “Runit dome at Enewetak Atoll remains a direct threat to the local community as well as the entire Marshallese population and it requires U.S. support to ensure its safety or removal. The assistance provisions of the TPNW don’t provide us with enough assurance that if the RMI becomes a party, we wouldn’t then assume full responsibility for managing the Dome and its risk.”
As it considers how best to ensure justice for the Marshallese people, the NNC expressed concern over the nuclear-armed states’ failure to join the treaty, calling on those nations to “reconsider their role in effective implementation of the treaty.”
Others support the ban treaty’s vision of a nuclear weapons-free world but not the approach. David Santoro, vice president and director for nuclear policy at the Pacific Forum, said his own primary objection to the treaty is his belief that it will disproportionately impact nuclear-armed democracies, which may feel obliged to respond to pressure from civil society more than other nuclear-armed countries like North Korea, China or Russia.
Santoro fears “the TPNW will not only fail to bring about nuclear disarmament, but it will likely complicate the strategic outlook for nuclear-armed democracies and their allies.” Disarmament, Santoro said, “is best pursued incrementally, not with a blanket ban.”
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said the speed at which the treaty has reached the 50-nation threshold demonstrates that the nuclear-armed states campaign to pressure non-nuclear states has been only partially successful, as non-nuclear nations proceed, undeterred. He said that even though the treaty’s entry into force is unlikely to have a direct effect on nuclear states or their allies, indirectly, some countries may have to reconsider how they cooperate with the U.S. in terms of joint exercises, military bases or defense relations that may assist in nuclear operations in any way. Kristensen pointed to New Zealand, Thailand and Palau as examples.
An Important and Positive Contribution
The Arms Control Association’s Kimball told Truthout over Skype that he considers the treaty’s entry into force a “new phase in the long-running effort to prevent nuclear war and get rid of nuclear weapons.”
Kimball called the treaty an “important contribution to the legal framework for the elimination of nuclear weapons,” adding that it “reinforces the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty’s ban on nuclear test explosions and importantly, it challenges nuclear deterrence thinking — the idea that nuclear weapons can be safely possessed and that nuclear war will not erupt.”
In response to charges that the TPNW undermines the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Kimball said, “it’s not a challenge to the NPT. It’s not an alternative to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We would say it reinforces it because it strengthens the norm, the taboo against nuclear weapons, and that should be welcome.”
He added that the public has an important role to play. “What will matter is whether the publics in Germany and Italy and Belgium, where U.S. nuclear weapons are stored on NATO bases … [will] encourage their governments to do [something in order] to reduce the nuclear risk.”
For countries that are not yet treaty parties, including nuclear weapon states, Kimball encourages them to take the first step of acknowledging that the TPNW exists and is a good faith effort by non-nuclear weapon states “to advance the common cause of a world free of nuclear weapons.”
Catastrophic Weapons, Intolerable Risks
Derek Johnson, chief executive officer of Global Zero, an international organization committed to eliminating nuclear weapons, told Truthout in an email that he hoped the ban treaty would mark a new chapter in the effort to eradicate nuclear weapons. “But given the current trends, it’s fair to be skeptical about whether the treaty will have a meaningful impact,” he added, pointing to nuclear-armed states “spending lavishly to upgrade, expand, or operationalize their arsenals.”
As the role of nuclear weapons becomes more deeply entrenched and the risk of being used — whether by accident, unauthorized action, mistaken launch or deliberate decision — more probable, the continued reliance on nuclear weapons poses a growing danger. “This is the real threat to the NPT,” Johnson said. “Any complaints about the [TPNW] from nuclear-armed governments must be viewed in that context.”
He added, “I welcome any effort to delegitimize these weapons and reinforce in the minds of people and governments that the continued existence of these barbaric weapons and their inherent risks must not be tolerated.”
Currently, just nine nations are dependent on nuclear weapons, but there are now 50 nations who unequivocally reject any claim that those weapons are legitimate, marking them not as assets, but as liabilities that violate fundamental human rights, the most basic precepts of nature and international law.
Speaking at the UN as it voted to adopt the TPNW in 2017, Hiroshima atomic bombing survivor Setsuko Thurlow declared, “This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.”
In a voice filled with conviction, she continued, “To the leaders of the countries across the world, I beseech you. If you love this planet, you will sign this treaty. Nuclear weapons [have] always been immoral. Now they are also illegal.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-27--Protests Rise in Philly After Police Murder Black Man Amid Mental Health Crisis

Philadelphia , Pennsylvania—West Philly saw a quickly escalating situation develop on 4 p.m. Monday afternoon and dragging into the evening and overnight .
In a graphic and disturbing video circulating on social media , two white Philadelphia Police ( PPD ) officers are seen repeatedly shooting a Black man in front of his mother from several feet away as he walked while holding a knife .
Neither of the two officers in the video seemed to attempt to use their taser , and they appeared to have fired around ten bullets while they were several arms lengths away from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down dead by the two PPD officers was identified as 27-year-old Walter Wallace , Jr. His father , Walter Wallace Sr. , told the Philadelphia Inquirer that his son was dealing with mental illness , was on medication , and “ his mother was trying to diffuse the situation ” when police came and shot him .
Many witnesses were present for Wallace ’ s death and his family , friends and neighbors quickly reacted with grief and rage to the sight of him being gunned down dead in the street .
Video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter Ellie Rushing shows that police had placed evidence markers indicating as many as 13 shell casings .
Both of the white officers involved in the shooting death of Walter Wallace , Jr. have reportedly been suspended pending an investigation .
If common police practices for “ officer-involved shootings ” are being followed , they are both presumably now on paid leave .
In an official city statement , Philly Mayor Jim Kenney said , “ I have watched the video of this tragic incident and it presents difficult questions that must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and transparent resolution ” but the only specific detail he offered was that the “ Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Unit of PPD will conduct a full investigation.
” Philly District Attorney Larry Krasner ’ s statement about the shooting avoided any specifics but also promised an investigation .
Police called in reinforcements to clear the mourning neighbors from the street and reportedly dispersed the crowd at the shooting scene by 6:30 p.m. , according to the Philadelphia Inquirer .
Around 7 p.m. on Monday night , a crowd of several hundred protesters began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protesters marched throughout the area , taking the streets and followed by supporting honking vehicles .
They also congregated for a time outside a nearby police precinct .
At some point outside the precinct , objects such as rocks and bricks reportedly began to be thrown at officers .
Police with riot gear and shields then pushed the crowd away from the police building , charging people through the street as trash cans and various other projectiles were pelted at them by an increasingly militant local crowd .
Police appeared unable to contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their having shot a Black man to death in the middle of the street in the middle of the day .
Crowds went on to smash into several area businesses and take commercial goods , smash and burn police vehicles , launch fireworks , and reportedly commandeered at least one construction vehicle .
In one photo captured by Inquirer journalist Samantha Melamed ( who was arrested by PPD while reporting on a protest in June ) a police cruiser can be seen burning in front of a billboard reading “ the power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning , protesters remained out in the streets of West Philly .
Police made several arrests , with the Major Crimes Unit reportedly having been deployed .
Around 12:45 a.m. , police were using batons and charging tactics to encourage the remaining crowd to disperse .
According to Philly journalist Jason Peters , some arrested protesters are being held at PPD ’ s 18th precinct .
Philadelphia ’ s lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police , which supported officers involved in brutalizing protesters earlier this year , has indicated it will defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jr. ’ s life while his family watched .

Walter Wallace Jr.’s mother had been trying to diffuse the situation before police arrived and shot him.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—West Philly saw a quickly escalating situation develop on 4 p.m. Monday afternoon and dragging into the evening and overnight. In a graphic and disturbing video circulating on social media, two white Philadelphia Police (PPD) officers are seen repeatedly shooting a Black man in front of his mother from several feet away as he walked while holding a knife. Neither of the two officers in the video seemed to attempt to use their taser, and they appeared to have fired around ten bullets while they were several arms lengths away from the man they shot.
The man struck down dead by the two PPD officers was identified as 27-year-old Walter Wallace, Jr.
His father, Walter Wallace Sr., told the Philadelphia Inquirer that his son was dealing with mental illness, was on medication, and “his mother was trying to diffuse the situation” when police came and shot him.
Many witnesses were present for Wallace’s death and his family, friends and neighbors quickly reacted with grief and rage to the sight of him being gunned down dead in the street.
Video of the scene taken by Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Ellie Rushing shows that police had placed evidence markers indicating as many as 13 shell casings.
Screenshot taken from Twitter video by Ellie Rushing
Both of the white officers involved in the shooting death of Walter Wallace, Jr. have reportedly been suspended pending an investigation. If common police practices for “officer-involved shootings” are being followed, they are both presumably now on paid leave.
In an official city statement, Philly Mayor Jim Kenney said, “I have watched the video of this tragic incident and it presents difficult questions that must be answered.” Kenney promised “a speedy and transparent resolution” but the only specific detail he offered was that the “Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Unit of PPD will conduct a full investigation.”
Philly District Attorney Larry Krasner’s statement about the shooting avoided any specifics but also promised an investigation.
Police called in reinforcements to clear the mourning neighbors from the street and reportedly dispersed the crowd at the shooting scene by 6:30 p.m., according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Around 7 p.m. on Monday night, a crowd of several hundred protesters began to gather at Malcolm X Park.
Protesters marched throughout the area, taking the streets and followed by supporting honking vehicles. They also congregated for a time outside a nearby police precinct.
Hundreds of protestors have approached a barricade placed by Philadelphia Police in front of a police building #phillyprotests pic.twitter.com/R8Pqy7XEWB — jason n. peters (@JPeters2100) October 26, 2020
West Philly Chase Jones brought his 3-year-old son, Chase, to the front of the police line at 55 and Pine to confront police with riot shields. “This is what racism looks like,” he told his son, eye to eye with a white officer. “Take a look.” pic.twitter.com/KpW1P1bWun — Samantha Melamed (@samanthamelamed) October 27, 2020
At some point outside the precinct, objects such as rocks and bricks reportedly began to be thrown at officers.
Police with riot gear and shields then pushed the crowd away from the police building, charging people through the street as trash cans and various other projectiles were pelted at them by an increasingly militant local crowd.
Police appeared unable to contain the community’s furious response to their having shot a Black man to death in the middle of the street in the middle of the day. Crowds went on to smash into several area businesses and take commercial goods, smash and burn police vehicles, launch fireworks, and reportedly commandeered at least one construction vehicle.
Rioting and looting have kicked off in #Philadelphia following the fatal police shooting of #WalterWallaceJr. pic.twitter.com/SKelc7fH9M — It’s Going Down (@IGD_News) October 27, 2020
In one photo captured by Inquirer journalist Samantha Melamed (who was arrested by PPD while reporting on a protest in June) a police cruiser can be seen burning in front of a billboard reading “the power of justice”:
Police car on fire at 52nd Street now. pic.twitter.com/7iVCoLVGPf — Samantha Melamed (@samanthamelamed) October 27, 2020
OTG: Police stand back at 52nd and Chestnut pic.twitter.com/xqOgoUKx98 — The Black and Brown Coalition of PHL (@blacknbrownphl) October 27, 2020
As of early Tuesday morning, protesters remained out in the streets of West Philly. Police made several arrests, with the Major Crimes Unit reportedly having been deployed.
Around 12:45 a.m., police were using batons and charging tactics to encourage the remaining crowd to disperse.
According to Philly journalist Jason Peters, some arrested protesters are being held at PPD’s 18th precinct.
A police SUV is on fire at 52nd and market, surrounded by a crowd of a couple hundred pic.twitter.com/dwSFbNoMgs — Anna Orso (@anna_orso) October 27, 2020
Philadelphia’s lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, which supported officers involved in brutalizing protesters earlier this year, has indicated it will defend the cops who ended Walter Wallace, Jr.’s life while his family watched.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.