Equal Justice? Not Likely

In an article by the Times of India which reports the Chinese government is reaching out to Pakistan and other countries to try to find ties (which do not exist) between the World Uighur Congress and protests in Urumqi and elsewhere in East Turkestan, there’s this tidbit about how the Chinese government plans to handle some of the thousands of Uighurs that have already been detained.

The Communist Party boss of Urumqi said the local government will seek death penalty for those involved in the killing of 156 people during the orgy of violence on Sunday. Li Zhi, the local party boss, said the streets of the city are totally under the control of security forces.

The authorities also launched a concentrated effort to connect with all communities with the help of leaflets dropped from airplanes and appeals made through loud speakers telling people to stay calm and eschew violence.

Li made a significant revelation saying most of those detained for the violence were young students. This may not be good news for authorities, who were hoping that the young would be charmed by promises of modern development instead of carrying forward the old struggle for an independent East Turkmenistan nation.

Of course, the Chinese government has only made statements in connection to violence allegedly committed by Uighurs against Han Chinese. But we know for a fact that bands of Han vigilantes are killing Uighurs on the street. Al Jazeera reporter Melissa Chan has reported via twitter:

Uighurs tell us Han mob of 300 attacked neighborhood around 9 pm Tuesday night — at least 6 killed.
https://twitter.com/melissakchan/status/2528622613

Will the Chinese government seek the death penalty for groups of Han vigilantes who have murdered Uighurs? Have any Han Chinese been arrested for their crimes? Will the government even try to stop this kind of ethnic violence?

If the fallout of the Tibetan national uprising of spring 2008 is any indication, Uighurs will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice and sentenced to long terms, death, or simply disappeared. There won’t be a single prosecution of a Han Chinese vigilante. And state media will only report the deaths and injuries of Han Chinese, with no regard for the reports Uighurs give of the violence they have suffered at the hands of the Chinese army, police, and vigilantes.

Chinese Crackdown in East Turkestan

Over the last few days there have been major protests – largely peaceful – in Urumqi, Xinjiang, China. Urumqi is in East Turkestan (Xinjiang), a country that was invaded by the PLA in 1949 and has been militarily occupied by China since then. At some point, the protesters were fired upon by Chinese security and since then things have devolved dramatically. Chinese state media is reporting 150-200 people dead and about 1,000 injured, though no distinctions are yet being made about the ethnic disparity of the dead. It sounds like over 2,000 Uighur men have been arrested. Reports include that in addition to continued peaceful protests (many by the wives and children of the arrested men), there are bands of Han Chinese vigilantes and some Uighurs who are committing violence. Additionally, Urumqi has been put under martial law and the Chinese army is being used to crack down on Uighur protests. A number of foreign journalists have been detained or arrested. Finally, the Chinese government has shut down access to the internet and cell service. What’s happening in Urumqi is so bad that Hu Jintao has left the G8 and returned to China to oversee the situation. Obviously that is a great loss of face for Hu in the front of world leaders.

The BBC has had a lot of good reports, here’s their latest.

Al-Jazeera journalist Melissa Chan is in Urumqi and providing insight through twitter: http://twitter.com/melissakchan.

There are a few things to note. The Chinese government is deploying a very similar set of tactics that they used to crack down on the national uprising in Tibet in the spring of 2008. Foreign press is either blacked out or greatly restricted from covering events. Channels for communication with the outside world have largely been blocked. Chinese state media is reporting deaths at the hands of “violent rioters,” but has not acknowledged the likely hundreds of dead Uighurs who were shot demonstrating peacefully. Lastly, and in many ways this is the most disturbing, the Chinese government is already claiming that the protests in Urumqi were orchestrated by “separatists” outside of China — in this case, specifically Rebiya Kadeer. Kadeer is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and the head of the World Uighur Congress, an organization that promotes non-violent efforts for East Turkestan independence. Here’s a clip from today’s Chinese foreign ministry press briefing, which was dominated by discussion of Urumqi:

Q: Chairperson Rebiya Kadeer of the World Uygur Congress said during her interview with British TV 4 that she has nothing to do with the violence. Do you have any specific evidence to prove that she is behind the whole thing?

A: This is a violent crime remotely directed and incited from abroad, and executed inside the country. The evidence is well established and beyond doubt. In the past couple of days, competent authorities have released facts that foreign separatist forces led by the “World Uygur Congress” and represented by Rebiya Kadeer plotted and instigated the violence. As the investigation goes on, I believe the truth will come out eventually. Rebiya can make lies all she likes, but the international community will not be fooled. Even if she could make a fool of people for now, people will not be fooled forever. More and more people in the international community will recognize the terrorist and violent nature and the attempt of the Eastern Turkish separatist forces to undermine national unity and separate China.

During the spring 2008 uprising in Tibet, the Chinese government repeatedly cast blame on the Dalai Lama for inciting  the protests from abroad, calling him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, despite never producing an ounce of evidence to support their charges. They’re doing the same thing to Rebiya Kadeer. This uprising will likely be used as further justifications for crackdowns on Uighurs, the increased militarization of East Turkestan, and stricter rules for journalists and tourists to visit East Turkestan (all consequences of the Tibet uprising of 2008).Rebiya Kadeer also has a must-read op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which she talks about the protests and the Chinese government’s violent crackdown.

Q: Chairperson Rebiya Kadeer of the World Uygur Congress said during her interview with British TV 4 that she has nothing to do with the violence. Do you have any specific evidence to prove that she is behind the whole thing?

A: This is a violent crime remotely directed and incited from abroad, and executed inside the country. The evidence is well established and beyond doubt. In the past couple of days, competent authorities have released facts that foreign separatist forces led by the “World Uygur
Congress” and represented by Rebiya Kadeer plotted and instigated the violence. As the investigation goes on, I believe the truth will come out eventually. Rebiya can make lies all she likes, but the international community will not be fooled. Even if she could make a fool of people for now, people will not be fooled forever. More and more people in the international community will recognize the terrorist and violent nature and the attempt of the Eastern Turkish separatist forces to undermine national unity and separate China.

During the spring 2008 uprising in Tibet, the Chinese government repeatedly cast blame on the Dalai Lama for inciting  the protests from abroad, calling him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, despite never producing an ounce of evidence to support their charges. They’re doing the same thing to Rebiya Kadeer. This uprising will likely be used as further justifications for crackdowns on Uighurs, the increased militarization of East Turkestan, and stricter rules for journalists and tourists to visit East Turkestan (all consequences of the Tibet uprising of 2008).

More on Palin

AKMuckraker, one of my favorite Alaska bloggers, has a pretty thorough and definitive post on the reactions and thought processes behind Sarah Palin’s bizarre resignation yesterday. The post got so much traffic it temporarily brought down her site and now is only posted on Huffington Post in full, so I’m linking to it there. This paragraph stands out as a potential explanation for Palin’s sudden decision to quit being Governor only two and a half years into her first term:

Then there is the other matter. In Alaska it’s become known as “the iceberg.” The iceburg is rumored to be a piece of news that’s so damaging, and so big, it will sink the S.S. Palin. The rumors also exist that it’s coming soon. Speculation about IRS problems, issues with other three-letter organizations, more ethics complaints, and embezzlement abound. Questions have been raised about the construction of Palin’s house by a bunch of Todd’s buddies, at the same time that a giant sports complex was being built in Wasilla, and right after building codes had been abolished by the then mayor of Wasilla, one Sarah Palin. Do we know anything for sure? No. But the recent claim that the breaking of this scandal is imminent seems coincidental to say the least. Alaskans hesitate to get too excited about rumored indictments, though. Despite the indictment and conviction of several state legislators, and the indictment-conviction and now un-conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens, the slow process has taught us patience. We still await rumored indictments of Congressman Don Young, and former State Senate President Ben Stevens (son of Ted Stevens.) Did I say, you can’t make this stuff up?

I spoke to a few political friends in Alaska yesterday and all mentioned that there’s a chance that this is scandal related and some time soon there may be an indictment or something similar. As AKMuckraker notes, though, this sort of rumor is quite common in Alaska. I can’t recount how many times it seemed certain that Ben Stevens, Don Young, or other state officials would be indicted and never were. Even the rumors of Ted Stevens indictment were frequent and never manifest until a time late last July when no rumors immediately proceeded the real indictment. All of which is to say, while this may well be true, Alaska politics in recent years has been riddled with these sorts of rumors…and these sorts of indictments.

How To Leverage 60 Votes

Carl Hulse’s New York Times piece on the tenuous new Democratic super majority echoes many of the same points made by Sam Stein Tuesday at Huffington Post. The short and sad version is that a 60 vote majority is not the panacea that Democratic activists would hope for. For years, Harry Reid has told us that we really can’t get anything done with 60 votes. Now that we have it, Reid is punting again:

“We have 60 votes on paper,” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview. “But we cannot bulldoze anybody; it doesn’t work that way. My caucus doesn’t allow it. And we have a very diverse group of senators philosophically. I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles.”

No one could have predicted!

Adding to the obvious fact that the reason Reid will not demand his caucus vote together in support of the President’s popular agenda (or to put it less politically, the agenda this progressive country supports) is that he and the overwhelming majority of Democratic senators simply do not believe in the same things as the Democratic base, there’s a larger hurdle here. We don’t actually have 60 votes now. Until this week, I’ve seen almost no reporting by traditional reporters, blogger-reporters, or bloggers about the fact that Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd are very sick and have not been able to vote or take part in this legislative session for weeks. Now that Franken has been seated, both Stein and Hulse make reference to the ill senators. This is the real structural problem confronting the caucus at the moment – even if you had Democrats in lock-step on any piece of legislation, you would still need two Republican votes to break a Republican filibuster.

That said, to move back to the realm of not where we really are at this instant but hopefully will be soon, Senator Sanders has proposed a great solution  to the problem of an ideologically diverse caucus that has 60 votes.

“I think that with Al Franken coming on board, you have effectively 60 Democrats in the caucus, 58 and two Independents,” Sanders said in an interview with the Huffington Post. “I think the strategy should be to say, it doesn’t take 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster. And if somebody who votes for that ends up saying, ‘I’m not gonna vote for this bill, it’s too radical, blah, blah, blah, that’s fine.'”

“I think the idea of going to conservative Republicans, who are essentially representing the insurance companies and the drug companies, and watering down this bill substantially, rather than demanding we get 60 votes to stop the filibuster, I think that is a very wrong political strategy,” Sanders added.

Sanders proposal is so obvious and sensible, it’s shocking that no one in the Democratic leadership has pushed for it. Caucus discipline does not need to extend to the vote on the actual legislation with this many votes. We only need it to break Republican filibusters of the Democratic agenda. Other than Joe Lieberman, every member of the Democratic Senate caucus campaigned in support of Barack Obama’s election to the White House. It is absurd to think that this caucus is not capable of coming together again to support broad Democratic change, as they did with Obama.

As of today, we still don’t have the votes we need because of Kennedy and Byrd’s absences, but some day soon that will change. And once it does, there is no reason why Harry Reid should not embrace Sander’s idea of caucus unity to overcome Republican obstructionism and total independence on the final vote. This move would not only allow great legislation to move forward faster, it would allow better legislation to move forward, as it would disempower Republican moderates from being the real arbiters of what goes into legislation (based around the reality that we currently need to buy their votes by making good bills worse). Sanders is giving Democrats a blueprint for how to come together as a caucus to leverage their 60 vote majority. It would be criminal if Harry Reid didn’t take his advice.

“I’m Being Deported”

Walter Lara is a 23 year-old honor student facing deportation on July 6, 2009. Walters family immigrated from Argentina when he was three years old. He has only known life as an American, and proudly declares that the United States is my home.

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson wrote the Department of Homeland Security on Walter’s behalf, requesting that they defer action on Walter’s deportation because “he has earned the chance to live and work here and call America home.”

Sign onto Sen. Nelson’s letter and on Thursday, July 2, 2009, we will deliver Sen. Nelson’s letter with your co-signature to the Department of Homeland Security.

Co-sign a letter by Senator Bill Nelson to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to stop Walter’s deportation.

You can also call Secretary Napolitano’s office by using SEIU’s Click to Call Tool: http://call.seiu.org/9/walterlara.

The Consequences of False Reform

Jacob Hacker looks at the dystopia that would be created in the event that healthcare legislation passes without a public health insurance option, strong employer responsibility, and regulations that ensure that health care under an individual mandate is in fact affordable.  If anyone is wondering about why a public option and strong measures to ensure affordability are important, Hacker makes the case quite clearly. The only thing missing from Hacker’s dystopia is the consequences working Americans would face if their healthcare benefits were taxed.

In my view, Hacker’s piece is important because it shows the interconnectivity of the different components of a reform bill. A public option is critical in its impact to affordability and competition.  National scope does the same. Regulation of what sort of coverage private plans will provide ensures that there will be real improvements between the care people get today and where they are three or four years from now.

We can’t get the results we need if bipartisanship is more important than reform. That path leads us to one where we chip away at the needed provisions — or surrender things like the public plan in full — in order to get a few Republican Senators. It just doesn’t work. Senate Democrats and the White House will have to recognize this before any concessions get so far afield from what’s needed that the legislation misses its mark and Hacker’s national healthcare dystopia is realized.

Loyalty vs. Loyal Opposition

When an official in the White House says, “It’s “stunning that he would ignore the wishes not just of his president, but of his constituents and the country,” you know someone has fundamentally confused the distinction between loyalty and loyal opposition.

Glenn Greenwald states the obvious while discussing this somewhat perverse and anti-democratic quote from an anonymous administration official regarding Lloyd Doggett’s views on the Waxman-Markey energy bill: “The duty of Congress is not to obey the wishes of the President.”

Congress has their own priorities as a co-equal branch of government. Individual members have a constitutionally-mandated responsibility to stand up for those priorities. How a Congressman chooses to do so may vary based on what they think their constituents want or what is best for the country, but there is zero obligation that a legislator do something  because of the wishes of the President. It just doesn’t work that way.

Of course, both Greenwald and Jane Hamsher point out that this sort of loyalty oath is only being applied to progressives in the House, not Blue Dogs. Likewise it is only being applied to progressives when the White House is trying to push through more moderate legislation. The tactic doesn’t seem to be applicable when the opposition to the President is regarding progressive legislation and coming from conservative Democrats.

The fundamental problem with the protestations of this anonymous White House official isn’t so much that this person seems to think that we are living in some sort of autocracy, with an egotistical but hypersensitive dictator running things – someone who is so fundamentally demanding of loyalty that even publicly debating taking a position other than his own causes him fits. What’s more troubling is that this attitude is being specifically targeted at the progressive wing of the Democratic party that first created the situation that enabled strong majorities of Democratic and now represents the place where the majority of Americans stand on most policy issues. It’s an attitude that is used to marginalize the real voices for change and replacing them with more of the same. The civics are wrong. The politics are wrong. And it has to stop.