Friday, March 10, 2006

Human Rights Abuses in El Salvador

below is a recent release from the US state department, which doesnt exactly have the best record of being fairly critical of right wing governments. however, i was surprised to read their report, or at least skim it haha.

there are more details on the linked page above, but here is the really short version. the government in power is mostly from the right. the legislative elections are this sunday. we'll see what happens!

--------------
El Salvador

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 8, 2006


El Salvador is a constitutional, multiparty democracy with an estimated population of 6.7 million. In March 2004 voters elected Elias Antonio Saca of the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) as president for a five-year term in generally free and fair elections. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.

Although the government generally respected the rights of its citizens, protection of human rights was undermined by widespread impunity, corruption among the security forces and other governmental authorities, and gang violence. The following human rights problems were reported:

excessive use of force and mistreatment of detainees by members of the security forces
arbitrary arrest and detention
harsh prison conditions, including inadequate supervision, widespread violence, and overcrowding
lengthy pretrial detention
inefficiency and corruption in the judicial system
violence and discrimination against women
abuses against children, child labor, and forced child prostitution
trafficking in persons
discrimination against persons with disabilities
discrimination against indigenous persons
discrimination against persons based on sexual orientation
lack of enforcement of trade union rights

For the Defense

this is relatively short and really engaging. an easy to read piece with something big to think about...

For the Defense
By Richard Pretorius

"The ACLU would defend Jerry Falwell, but he certainly would not defend its work" was the gist of my argument with a close friend more than 20 years ago in a Georgetown bar.
In our college days, when youthful idealism had not been beaten about by the inevitable disappointments of an adult life, I was a liberal's liberal.

If only people cared about the less fortunate more and government programs worked better, the problems of poverty, oppression and racial strife could be solved went my mantra . I was shaped by a divorced mother raising two children on a school teacher's salary and on playgrounds and ball fields where one's ability, not skin color or bank account, was paramount. A scholarship to a private high school, where I met my friend, opened my eyes to the often supercilious world of the elites. I was a Nick Carraway in a world of Tom and Daisy Buchanans.

My friend took a more each-person-for-himself approach to the issues of the day. He was not a callous conservative. But he did not think government programs were the answer. He believed people had the ability to rise above their circumstances with hard work and a little bit of luck.

Of course, my friend's good fortune included having a father who was a surgeon, a mother who was a super-successful real estate broker and brothers and sisters who were close and supportive.

The MacMahons had a townhouse in Georgetown, a farm in Virginia horse country and the ability to provide the children with the best educations and experiences possible. They were also as generous as could be, allowing me to share their home as I tested my idealism when working for the D.C. Public Defenders Service.

If life had a predetermined career track, my friend, with his UVA and Tulane law school degrees, would now be a partner in a corporate firm helping rich companies get richer.
He did dabble in that world for awhile. But today Edward B. MacMahon Jr. has caught the national media's attention in a case as far removed from helping big business as Falwell is from addressing an ACLU convention.

Every time I hear or read about my friend defending the so-called 20th hijacker, I recall those conversations of two decades ago.

Then we could not have imagined a 9/11. Nor could I have thought possible that Ed would one day be appointed to take such a case. Defending the despised did not seem to be part of his life's resume.

I knew Ed would be successful, not solely because of his upbringing and education, but because he had a glowing self-confidence, smarts, charm and Kennedyesque looks that were bound to lead to great things. He was even then a person of substance, style and great gregariousness.

Life does indeed throw surprises. Our youths leave indelible memories of the people whose lives touch ours; reflections that always play a part in how we view each other for decades to come.

As Zacharias Moussaoui's well-dressed, articulate attorney appears on television or is quoted in a newspaper, I think back to the nights at a Shirlington pizza joint drinking beers before we were of legal age, trading arguments and sharing dreams.
Ed, who loved a good story as much as he relished a good time, once garnered the nickname "Divide by 10," meaning many of his great tales had their share of embellishments.

Of course, there can be no exaggerating the serious of the Moussaoui case. Nor the bravery of the lawyers who are fighting for his life, often without their client's blessing.
The only contact I have had with Ed in recent years was via an e-mail in which I said I greatly admired his courage in taking on this case and that I was glad to see he was doing good. He suggested I drop by sometime and have dinner with the family.
So as he talks about the wrongness of seeking the death penalty against a person the government admits killed no one, I reflect on how our two-decade-old bar banter has come full circle.

While I truly miss those late-night chats when all seemed possible, I am extremely proud of the person my friend has become.

Here's to you, Ed. The system fails without your passion and dedication.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Support a New Budget

just got this email from true majority and it looks good...thought i'd post it!

--
Military Budget Shifted to Schools, Healthcare by New Bill

Dear Rocky,
Admirals, generals and CEOs support this plan to spend more on kids and less on useless Cold War weapons. Can you support the work needed to make it happen?
CONTRIBUTE


Yesterday, a group of courageous U.S. Representatives introduced the “Common Sense Budget Act, ” which would take $60 Billion in wasted Pentagon funding and spend it instead on schools, doctors, and stuff we care about.1
This money could save 6 million kids who die of starvation each year in impoverished countries. It could rebuild our public schools and provide health insurance for our kids who don’t have it. It could do all this and a lot more, every year.2 And it’s exactly what tens of thousands of TrueMajority members have been asking for.

With a group of respected business and military leaders, we’ve planned a yearlong campaign to spread that common sense across the country. Can you donate today to make it happen?

Our partner in this campaign, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, has already established field offices in Iowa and New Hampshire. Full-page newspaper ads have been prepared to pressure the House and Senate budget chairmen to pay attention. We’re making plans for delivering the 40,000+ petitions signed by TrueMajority members like you asking for a sensible, moral federal budget.

But it will take $50,000 to keep the momentum going for the first half of this year. Please contribute what you can.
https://secure.truemajority.org/03/csbafundraiser

Yes, you’ll be taking on a big job; the habit of giving away HALF of the federal discretionary budget to defense contractors developed over decades and won’t be broken overnight. But look at the resources we have on our side:
• President Reagan's former Asst. Secretary of Defense,3
• a whole list of retired admirals and generals (including the former commander of the U.S. Second Fleet),4
• 650 current and former CEOs and other business leaders,5
• ...and the majority of the American public.6
And don’t forget, some representatives are already so convinced this is the right thing to do that they were willing to stick their necks out in an election year.
"What better serves the cause of national security? Investment in first responders, energy independence and global nutrition ... or billions that we're still pouring into the F-22A Raptor, which was designed to outpace Soviet fighter jets?" — Common Sense Budget Act sponsor Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Thanks for taking on this important work,
Matt Holland
TrueMajority Online Director

References:
1 "Liberals seek $60B in cuts to defense." The Hill, 3/9/06.
2 "The Common Sense Budget Act."
3 Lawrence J. Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense from 1981-85, administered about 70% of the defense budget. He has prepared a report, identifying exactly where $60 billion can be saved from that budget.
4 The full list of military advisors.
5 These are the members of BLSP. Learn more here.
6 When presented the major items in the discretionary federal budget and given the opportunity to modify it, Americans make some dramatic changes. The largest cut by far is to defense spending...the largest increases are to reductions in the deficit, various forms of social spending, and spending on the environment. The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll. The Federal Budget: The Public's Priorities.
________________________________________

________________________________________

Contribute
If you like what you see, please click here to contribute. ...and keep these messages going to more people!
TrueMajority.org is a grassroots group of citizens who believe in America's true values of openness, fairness and compassion. We believe participating in an effective government is the best way to be mutually responsible for our community.
TrueMajority.org, 191 Bank Street, Third Floor, Burlington, VT 05401