Remember All the Children, Mr. President, By Bill Quigley

Remember the 20 children who died in Newtown, Connecticut.

Remember the 35 children who died in Gaza this month from Israeli bombardments.

Remember the 168 children who have been killed by US drone attacks in Pakistan since 2006.

Remember the 231 children killed in Afghanistan in the first 6 months of this year.

Remember the 400 other children in the US under the age of 15 who die from gunshot wounds each year.

Remember the 921 children killed by US air strikes against insurgents in Iraq.

Remember the 1,770 US children who die each year from child abuse and maltreatment.

Remember the 16,000 children who die each day around the world from hunger.

These tragedies must end.

Bill is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans and Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.  You can reach Bill at quigley77@gmail.com  A version of this article with sources is available.

Obama, Romney, and Race(less De)Baiting , By Rosana Cruz

Reprinted from the Bridge The Gulf blog:

While Romney and Obama dance around race, the Gulf Coast continues to suffer devastating racial disparities, worsened by the government's inaction

New Orleans finally came up this week in the presidential contest – in a soundbite about race and the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. But before anyone gets too excited – the soundbite won’t do a thing to support our struggles for justice, equality, and safe, healthy communities on the Gulf Coast. It won’t help us build affordable housing, it won’t strengthen our struggling school systems, and it won't help reform our corrupt police departments. Our brief reemergence in national prominence won’t address other regional challenges that could desperately use national concern and intervention – not damage from Hurricane Isaac, the staggering mass incarceration of African Americans in Louisiana, coastal land loss, nor the ongoing health disaster wrought by BP’s oil.

Instead of talking about these very real and pressing racial disparities, the presidential campaigns on both sides have turned talking about race, and (barely) acknowledging racism, into the political version of the cooties.



We watched Obama-opponents use Katrina as a political football this week. A conservative website “released” a video from a 2007 speech by then-Senator Obama, in which he said things that most of us on the Gulf Coast don’t find too scandalous – that the federal government’s response to Katrina “tells me that the people down in New Orleans, they don’t care about as much.” But because the message was delivered to a Black audience and because it displayed the slightest acknowledgement that racial injustice is a national problem, conservatives used it, two days before the first presidential debate, to reiterate their idea that in "post-racial" America, any and all talk about race is divisive (especially when coming from people of color).




On Wednesday, we watched President Obama take the “post-racial” bait in a “post-racial” debate. In a 90-minute debate about the economy, neither the President nor Mitt Romney made a single mention of race, let alone discuss a plan to address the yawning economic and racial disparities in America.

While both parties take a cowardly and opportunistic approach to talking about race, the entire Gulf Coast, especially poor communities and communities of color, bear the brunt of very real racial disparities, which we need our next President to acknowledge, talk about, and fight.

Here’s just one conversation we can't have if our President won't talk about race: A conversation about the Stafford Act, which legislated how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina, and how it responds to all national disasters. In the supposedly inflammatory 2007 video of Obama talking about Katrina, he implies that the federal government applied the Stafford Act unequally – by waiving the requirement that local governments match a percentage of the federal funds after 9/11 in New York, but not on the Gulf Coast after Katrina.

What Obama didn't say is that the Stafford Act, even when it is upheld and used to the full benefit of disaster victims, still falls short. Survivors have no rights to the most basic emergency medical care or food. The government has total discretion whether and how to spend funds in the wake of a disaster. As Advocates for Environmental Human Rights has been arguing since Katrina, disaster survivors in the United States would have many more rights and protections if we adopted principles used by the United Nations which ensure the right to recovery for people in similar situations in foreign countries. Adopting a rights-based approach to disaster recovery would benefit all communities in the U.S., not just communities of color.



Obama wasn’t saying any of this in that 2007 speech. He wasn’t calling for what we really need - a change in the Stafford Act. He was simply calling for the equal application of the Stafford Act. Now, in this 2012 political contest, even that position is being recast as extreme. This is the dynamic of how we talk about race. Over the past few decades, real conversations about race have been pushed underground. It’s gotten even worse in “post-racial” America, when even the most basic calls for racial equity made by Senator Obama of 2007 are being cast as extreme for President Obama of 2012.

 This public discourse on race is incomplete and dishonest, and it doesn't bring us closer to a more democratic and inclusive America. On the Gulf Coast, it doesn't bring us closer to justice or recovery.



Until 2008, we had never had a President who could have seen himself reflected in the faces of people stranded on roof-tops after Katrina, or in the bodies shot down on the Danziger Bridge. When Senator Obama voiced his anger over the Stafford Act and the government’s response to Katrina, he showed he was someone who could empathize with our experience in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast. Since 2008, our President seems be too hamstrung  to do much with that empathy, and he has shied away from even talking about racial equity. In 2012, empathy and understanding are just too politically risky.



Ultimately, it’s on us to push both candidates to be more honest, and it starts with being honest ourselves. We must tell our stories – about our lives, our experiences, and how they've been shaped by racial inequity and injustice. We must acknowledge people's suffering and anger, and insist on remedies that address root causes.

In New Orleans, on the Gulf Coast, and in communities across the country that were excluded or ignored in the debate this week – we can’t let our experiences be reduced to soundbites for someone else’s political gain. That means saying we still have a race problem, and that problem continues to fester each day we, our elected officials, and the media, buy into the fantasy of post-racialism.

Rosana Cruz is Associate Director of VOTE (Voice Of The Ex-offender). Previously Rosana worked with Safe Streets/Strong Communities and the National Immigration Law Center. Prior to joining NILC, she worked with SEIU1991 in Miami, after having been displaced from New Orleans by Katrina. Before the storm, Rosana worked for a diverse range of community organizations, including the Latin American Library, Hispanic Apostolate, the Lesbian and Gay Community Center of New Orleans, and People's Youth Freedom School. Rosana came to New Orleans through her work with the Southern Regional Office of Amnesty International in Atlanta.

Assassination of U.S. Muslim Cleric is Illegal, Immoral and Unwise, By Bill Quigley

Agents of the United States are openly trying to assassinate Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, while he is in hiding in Yemen. Despite what the apologists for assassination argue this is illegal, immoral and unwise.

Assassinating Awlaki in the US would be murder, a capital crime, punishable by life in prison or even the death penalty. Morally, few would argue that agents of the FBI or the CIA could murder the cleric in the US. If it is illegal and immoral to kill a Muslim cleric in the US why would it be legal, moral or wise to do so in Yemen?

The Imam, who lived in the US for more than two decades, is accused of using his powerful speaking and teaching skills on behalf of terrorism. Authorities say he was in e-mail contact with the Army Major arrested for killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. He is loosely linked to the Nigerian Christmas bomber. The Times Square SUV bomber is reported to have listened to the cleric’s online lectures.

Assassination has been illegal since 1976.

In 1976 U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, Section 5(g) states “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” President Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in Executive Order 12333. Section 2.11 of that Order states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 further says “Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.”

The reason for the ban on assassinations was that the CIA was involved in attempts to assassinate national leaders opposed by the US. Among others, US forces sought to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam.

Since 2001, the US has returned to the assassination business. Along with its many other illegal actions, the Bush-Cheney administration revived the use of murder to eliminate political opponents across the world.

How can murder be allowed? The Congressional Research Service published a review of the ban on assassinations in 2002. The review weakly suggested “it might be sufficient” to interpret the War Power resolutions passed by Congress after September 11, 2001 as legal authority to allow assassinations outside the U.S. However, Congress authorized no war against Yemen, no military strikes against anyone in Yemen, nor authorized any assassination of anyone anywhere.

Defenders of assassination argue that murder is a legal part of the US strategy of “pre-emptive self-defense” authorized by Congress after 9-11. Under this argument, the US government is allowed to decide who represents a possible threat to our nation anywhere anytime and then exterminate them before they can damage the US. They also argue that the decision to target someone for assassination is legally secret. Because any threat to the US triggers these powers, under this line of argument, the US is in a permanent war state and has these powers forever.

This is perfect for the apologists for assassination because the government alone is thus investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The public will never know because the government can do all this in secret. And since the war against terrorism is permanent, the government can murder people forever.

Thus the last traces of the rule of law evaporate. There is no transparency because no one gets to know. There is no accountability because the executive has unchecked authority.

Does anyone think the US would approve other nations acting like this? Would it be acceptable or even arguably legal for Iran or China or Israel or France to secretly decide who their enemies are and then execute them in the US if they find them here?

Apologists for assassination ease the way for the US to kill anyone anywhere anytime. What is then the logical next step in this argument? If we can secretly kill US citizens who we decide are our enemies outside the US, why not inside the US? And why not keep that secret as well?

The US cannot be allowed to continue to exercise secret authority to murder people. If the Bush administration was doing this as openly as the Obama administration is, people would be vocal about its illegality, immorality and its lack of wisdom.

Murdering anyone in the US is a criminal act that is prosecuted regularly in courts across this country. Why should secret cold-blooded murder by government forces outside the US be treated any differently?

Bill is Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. He can be reached at Quigley77@gmail.com.

Tell the Obama Administration that the Federal Government Needs to Take Responsibility for Gulf Coast Recovery

Last week, President Obama announced that he was establishing a Long-Term Disaster Recovery Working Group, which will be convening public meetings for input on disaster recovery policy and practices. Gulf Coast activists have expressed hope that this is an opportunity to advise the Obama administration on the steps that need to be taken to ensure the just and equitable recovery that we have been needing for four years.

The Long-Term Disaster Recovery Working Group is co-chaired by Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Shaun Donovan, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Other members of the working group include the secretaries and administrators of 20 departments, agencies, and offices. The Working Group will convene a series of meetings that are detailed on the website www.disasterrecoveryworkinggroup.gov.

The Disaster Recovery Working Group website features a questionnaire for public feedback. The questions display an assumption that the federal government does not bear responsibility for Gulf Coast recovery. For example, question number ten asks, "As disaster recovery is primarily a state and local leadership issue, what are best practices for the timing (including start and end) and form of federal assistance and coordination?"

We encourage you to take the time to carefully complete the questionnaire, and please consider including the recommendations by the Gulf States Human Rights Working Group (which you can find at KatrinaAction.org) and the Katrina Citizens Leadership Corps (online at childrensdefense.org), which call on the Obama administration to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which call for the US government to take responsibility for the recovery of internally displaced people.

You can go to www.disasterrecoveryworkingroup.gov to complete and submit the Long-Term Disaster Recovery Working Group questionnaire for public feedback online.

Photo of President Obama in New Orleans by Abdul Aziz.

The Battle for Health Care Justice Continues

Louisiana Justice Institute Co-Director Jacques Morial was recently interviewed about the state of health care in the city by journalist Robert Corsini, who produced this video clip:



Jacques also joined Mayoral candidate James Perry on the Pacifica radio network show Flashpoints, discussing Obama's recent visit and the state of recovery in New Orleans.

President Obama’s visit Brings Celebrations and Concerns

Today President Obama and several cabinet secretaries came to New Orleans, as part of Obama’s first visit to the Gulf Coast since he was elected president. While he was met with ecstatic crowds and tickets to his town hall at UNO were the most sought-after item in the city, there were also notes of concern from the grassroots.

The Institute of Southern Studies reported that many Gulf Coast activists they have spoken to expressed concern about the President’s commitment to Gulf Coast recovery. The Institute’s executive director Chris Kromm writes on their blog Facing South, “Rebuilding communities, bringing people home, ensuring access to health care and good schools: these are the basic building blocks of renewal which have, for many, come too slow and too little -- and for the 25% of the city that hasn't returned, hasn't come at all.” Organizations such as All Congregations Together gathered signatures for open letters to the president, attempting to nudge him into action.

The STEPS Coalition, an alliance of grassroots organizations in Mississippi also expressed concerns about Obama’s visit, saying in an open letter, “Recent visits by cabinet members to the Gulf South have not always included Mississippi and when Mississippi was included, community groups have been ignored and/or denied an audience to personally express unmet needs and federal agency gaps.”

Several articles in the Times-Picayune have also expressed wishes that the President would see more on his trip, from environmentalists hoping he will see the vanishing wetlands to housing activists who want the President to see the vacant lots that used to be thousands of units of public housing.

In the end, most advocates agree; it’s not about what Obama saw or didn’t see during his four hour visit to the Gulf – the question is what will he do for Gulf Coast recovery once he’s back in Washington. And without organized pressure from the grassroots, it's unlikely the change we need will come.