As the Commission now acknowledges, the warrant is only for major crimes and is being misused How is the EU going to stop the European arrest warrant, its fast-track extradition system, from being misused to prosecute bike thefts? At Fair Trials International we have been campaigning for years for a fairer European arrest warrant system, with a proportionality test to weed out trivial cases, as well as basic fair trial safeguards for people facing extradition. In a report out on Monday, the European commission acknowledges that the arrest warrant is being misused for low-level crimes. It urges European member states to sort out the problem themselves, by only using the warrant for what it was intended to do – prosecute or punish “major crimes”. However, the problem is that the law applying the arrest warrant does not say it can only be used for major crime and it contains no “proportionality test”. That is why countries such as Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, with no prosecutorial discretion, must under their own law pursue every wanted person, no matter how minor the alleged crime. Take, for example, the case of a retired schoolteacher and grandfather facing extradition to Poland for going over his overdraft limit more than 10 years ago. The entire debt was repaid to the bank but he is still being sought to face trial for “theft”, although he has suffered three strokes and is in fragile health. Extradition has an enormous impact on individuals and their families, yet this “no questions asked” system leaves judges no real discretion to refuse warrants – even when there are serious human rights concerns about sending someone off to the other side of Europe to be prosecuted or imprisoned. Building a proportionality test into the system would mean amending the framework legislation by creating an amendment that every one of the 27 EU countries would then have to implement domestically. Though it has not ruled out legislative reform and has the power to recommend it, the commission would like to avoid this. The European arrest warrant is seen as an important symbol of mutual trust between EU countries, a flagship instrument forged in the wake of 9/11 in a spirit of stronger judicial co-operation across EU borders. In a union of 27 countries, all with distinct legal and penal cultures, it is not easy to build the trust necessary for this degree of mutual co-operation. The commission hopes that the slow but steady introduction of EU-wide basic defence safeguards will help to stem the growth in cases of injustice. The report recommends better statistical monitoring and more training for judges, who are asked to look at whether alternative measures are appropriate before reaching for the arrest warrant. Time will tell whether this is enough to stop the excessive use of this tick-box system by some countries (most notably Poland, which in 2009 issued 4,844 warrants compared to the UK’s 220). Although they are welcome and necessary, new EU laws guaranteeing basic defence rights such as access to a lawyer and an interpreter will not cure the flaws in the arrest warrant system nor eradicate injustice from its operation. Time is running out for EU countries to put their own houses in order. Urgent steps are needed to reform the European arrest warrant, to make sure it fights serious cross-border crime effectively without compromising fundamental rights in the process. Legislative change may be the only answer. European arrest warrant European commission European Union Europe Catherine Heard guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As the Commission now acknowledges, the warrant is only for major crimes and is being misused How is the EU going to stop the European arrest warrant, its fast-track extradition system, from being misused to prosecute bike thefts? At Fair Trials International we have been campaigning for years for a fairer European arrest warrant system, with a proportionality test to weed out trivial cases, as well as basic fair trial safeguards for people facing extradition. In a report out on Monday, the European commission acknowledges that the arrest warrant is being misused for low-level crimes. It urges European member states to sort out the problem themselves, by only using the warrant for what it was intended to do – prosecute or punish “major crimes”. However, the problem is that the law applying the arrest warrant does not say it can only be used for major crime and it contains no “proportionality test”. That is why countries such as Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, with no prosecutorial discretion, must under their own law pursue every wanted person, no matter how minor the alleged crime. Take, for example, the case of a retired schoolteacher and grandfather facing extradition to Poland for going over his overdraft limit more than 10 years ago. The entire debt was repaid to the bank but he is still being sought to face trial for “theft”, although he has suffered three strokes and is in fragile health. Extradition has an enormous impact on individuals and their families, yet this “no questions asked” system leaves judges no real discretion to refuse warrants – even when there are serious human rights concerns about sending someone off to the other side of Europe to be prosecuted or imprisoned. Building a proportionality test into the system would mean amending the framework legislation by creating an amendment that every one of the 27 EU countries would then have to implement domestically. Though it has not ruled out legislative reform and has the power to recommend it, the commission would like to avoid this. The European arrest warrant is seen as an important symbol of mutual trust between EU countries, a flagship instrument forged in the wake of 9/11 in a spirit of stronger judicial co-operation across EU borders. In a union of 27 countries, all with distinct legal and penal cultures, it is not easy to build the trust necessary for this degree of mutual co-operation. The commission hopes that the slow but steady introduction of EU-wide basic defence safeguards will help to stem the growth in cases of injustice. The report recommends better statistical monitoring and more training for judges, who are asked to look at whether alternative measures are appropriate before reaching for the arrest warrant. Time will tell whether this is enough to stop the excessive use of this tick-box system by some countries (most notably Poland, which in 2009 issued 4,844 warrants compared to the UK’s 220). Although they are welcome and necessary, new EU laws guaranteeing basic defence rights such as access to a lawyer and an interpreter will not cure the flaws in the arrest warrant system nor eradicate injustice from its operation. Time is running out for EU countries to put their own houses in order. Urgent steps are needed to reform the European arrest warrant, to make sure it fights serious cross-border crime effectively without compromising fundamental rights in the process. Legislative change may be the only answer. European arrest warrant European commission European Union Europe Catherine Heard guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
SS architect of final solution hated life in hiding and wrote letter to West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer, a new book reveals For more than a decade after the second world war, his whereabouts were officially unknown. Adolf Eichmann, chief architect of the Holocaust, had escaped from an American POW camp, slipped into Italy and on to a ship bound for Argentina. The West German government, busy rebuilding the country and rehabilitating its reputation, knew from at least 1952 where he was living, yet never made any real attempt to bring him to justice. But a new book claims Eichmann had wanted to return to his motherland and claim his place in history several years before he was captured by Israeli intelligence in 1960 and put on trial in Jerusalem. In 1956, Eichmann wrote an open letter to the West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. “It is time to relinquish my anonymity and introduce myself,” wrote Eichmann, who was then living under the name Ricardo Klement in a suburb of Buenos Aires. “Name: Adolf Otto Eichmann. Occupation: SS Obersturmbannführer a. D [lieutenant colonel].” The letter was supposed to be published by an Argentinian company with Nazi sympathies, although it never saw the light of day. It was unearthed from German state archives by historian Dr Bettina Stangneth in Hamburg, whose book, Eichmann Before Jerusalem, is published in Germany this week. In the letter to Adenauer, Eichmann, then aged 50, suggests he should be allowed home to tell the young people of Germany what really happened under Hitler. “How long fate will allow me to live, I don’t know, but I know that someone has to be the one to tell future generations about these events,” he said, neglecting to mention that “these events” involved the mass murder of millions of people. “I had a big role in leading and directing these programmes,” he added. Eichmann ran the “Jewish section” at the Reich security head office, the SS organisation responsible for fighting “enemies of the Reich”. In practice, this meant it was his job to work out how best to deport Jewish people to concentration camps. He took great joy in figuring out the most profitable and effective way of carrying out mass murder: it was he and his unit who dreamt up the idea of the authorities and the police robbing the victims before deportation. Stangneth said Eichmann was unhappy with his lowly life in Argentina, where he was a rabbit farmer. He craved the power and recognition he enjoyed in the Third Reich. “That’s why he wrote the letter to Adenauer – because he wanted to be famous,” said Strangneth. “He wanted to claim his part in history alongside Adolf Hitler. “He wanted to be put on trial in Germany and give his version of events. Of course, if that had happened, he would have been given a very different trial from the one he got in Jerusalem. There was no death penalty in Germany by then, so he would certainly not have been executed.” Nearly 50 years since Eichmann was hung in Israel, awkward questions are now being asked in Germany about the country’s role in bringing him to justice or otherwise. A series of articles in Der Spiegel magazine recently have suggested West German secret agents knew full well where Eichmann was following his escape, but were never ordered to recapture him. Following Eichmann’s kidnapping by the Mossad in May 1960, Adenauer’s government held a crisis meeting, where they agreed they should do everything to make clear that “Eichmann was a stooge of Himmler’s SS” and that he was not an authorised agent of Germany. A foreign ministry official is noted as saying it was crucial that “leading figures in West Germany” were not harmed by the trial. The latest edition of the magazine claims Adenauer personally sent an agent from the German secret service, the BND, to monitor the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. Adenauer told a spy called Rolf Vogel to observe the trial in the guise of a reporter and influence it where possible. “You must go to the Eichmann trial for me,” wrote Adenauer, according to secret papers unearthed by Der Spiegel, which describes Vogel’s deployment as was “one of the most delicate diplomatic/secret service operations in the history of West Germany”. Der Spiegel claims Adenauer was terrified that the Nazi past of one of his most trusted aides, Hans Globke, his chief of staff at the chancellery, would be exposed by the trial. Adenauer reportedly went as far as discreetly trying to pay Eichmann’s legal fees because he was terrified that if he didn’t, the Eastern bloc would, and his Soviet enemies would attempt to influence the trial for their own ends. But when the media got wind of the plot, back in 1961, the plan was shelved, and the 100,000 deutschmarks already sent by Germany ended up with the Israelis, said Der Spiegel. In the event, Eichmann did not expose any high-ranking West German parliamentarians or civil servants. A week after Eichmann was executed on 13 May 1962, Adenauer met Israel’s deputy defence minister, Shimon Peres, and asked him to thank the prime minister, Ben Gurion, for the way the trial was conducted. “It was excellent,” said Adenauer, “and I will never forget it.” In August 1962, the Adenauer government donated 240m marks to Israel’s military programme. Holocaust Second world war Germany Europe Judaism Israel Helen Pidd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Anti-monarchy group claims north London council’s refusal to let it hold a street party is politically motivated A street party for republicans wishing not to celebrate the royal wedding has been banned by a north London council. The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic has complained that its application to close a street in Covent Garden for its party has been turned down by Camden council . The council claims that it told the group to provide a management plan and consult local residents and it failed to do so. The decision left Republic vowing to take court action. Its executive officer Graham Smith complained: “This is a disgraceful attack on the rights of republicans to make their voice heard and to hold a fun and peaceful event. Camden council is allowing a few vocal residents and businesses to veto any event they do not support … (It) is seeking to silence and marginalise us without any legitimate reason. “We can only assume this is a politically motivated ban and we will challenge it all the way.” The organisation may be able to claim the support of two unlikely recruits. David Cameron told readers of the Sun that the wedding on 29 April would be a chance for everyone to come together and celebrate the great things about the country: “People who want to come together to celebrate with their neighbours should go ahead. We’ve done our bit by ripping up red tape.” Joining in, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) insisted that royal wedding party organisers should not be fobbed off by “jobsworths” trying to prevent them. The organisation said it was concerned that health and safety would be used as an unfounded excuse to stop celebrations. Judith Hackitt, the chair of the HSE, said: “Volunteers should feel confident to organise celebrations, taking simple measures based on common sense without having to worry about obligations under health and safety law at all. I want to encourage people to challenge those who tell you something can’t be done for health and safety reasons – it’s too easy an excuse to trot out. “There’s nothing in health and safety law to prevent anyone from celebrating the royal wedding – in fact, HSE encourages everyone who wants to throw a party to go right ahead. If someone tells you that you can’t have a get-together to mark the nuptials of Prince William and Kate, then challenge them. Health and safety is about looking out for any legitimate things that might spoil people’s fun on the day, not to stop people doing anything at all.” The organisation’s website says that while organisers should consult councils to secure road closures and permission to sell alcohol, those organised on a non-commercial basis would not fall foul of restrictive rules and regulations preventing them from going ahead. The prime minister claimed on Monday that about 4,000 street parties were known to be going ahead – though that is many fewer than at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the summer of 1981. A spokeswoman for Camden council said that permission for Republic’s celebration in Earlham Street, just off Shaftesbury Avenue, had been refused: “We asked them to come to us with a management plan and after consulting local residents and they did not do so. There were objections from local residents and businesses and significant concerns from the police about the potential for disorder. We have allowed other street parties.” Royal wedding Republicanism London Monarchy Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Anti-monarchy group claims north London council’s refusal to let it hold a street party is politically motivated A street party for republicans wishing not to celebrate the royal wedding has been banned by a north London council. The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic has complained that its application to close a street in Covent Garden for its party has been turned down by Camden council . The council claims that it told the group to provide a management plan and consult local residents and it failed to do so. The decision left Republic vowing to take court action. Its executive officer Graham Smith complained: “This is a disgraceful attack on the rights of republicans to make their voice heard and to hold a fun and peaceful event. Camden council is allowing a few vocal residents and businesses to veto any event they do not support … (It) is seeking to silence and marginalise us without any legitimate reason. “We can only assume this is a politically motivated ban and we will challenge it all the way.” The organisation may be able to claim the support of two unlikely recruits. David Cameron told readers of the Sun that the wedding on 29 April would be a chance for everyone to come together and celebrate the great things about the country: “People who want to come together to celebrate with their neighbours should go ahead. We’ve done our bit by ripping up red tape.” Joining in, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) insisted that royal wedding party organisers should not be fobbed off by “jobsworths” trying to prevent them. The organisation said it was concerned that health and safety would be used as an unfounded excuse to stop celebrations. Judith Hackitt, the chair of the HSE, said: “Volunteers should feel confident to organise celebrations, taking simple measures based on common sense without having to worry about obligations under health and safety law at all. I want to encourage people to challenge those who tell you something can’t be done for health and safety reasons – it’s too easy an excuse to trot out. “There’s nothing in health and safety law to prevent anyone from celebrating the royal wedding – in fact, HSE encourages everyone who wants to throw a party to go right ahead. If someone tells you that you can’t have a get-together to mark the nuptials of Prince William and Kate, then challenge them. Health and safety is about looking out for any legitimate things that might spoil people’s fun on the day, not to stop people doing anything at all.” The organisation’s website says that while organisers should consult councils to secure road closures and permission to sell alcohol, those organised on a non-commercial basis would not fall foul of restrictive rules and regulations preventing them from going ahead. The prime minister claimed on Monday that about 4,000 street parties were known to be going ahead – though that is many fewer than at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the summer of 1981. A spokeswoman for Camden council said that permission for Republic’s celebration in Earlham Street, just off Shaftesbury Avenue, had been refused: “We asked them to come to us with a management plan and after consulting local residents and they did not do so. There were objections from local residents and businesses and significant concerns from the police about the potential for disorder. We have allowed other street parties.” Royal wedding Republicanism London Monarchy Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Anti-monarchy group claims north London council’s refusal to let it hold a street party is politically motivated A street party for republicans wishing not to celebrate the royal wedding has been banned by a north London council. The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic has complained that its application to close a street in Covent Garden for its party has been turned down by Camden council . The council claims that it told the group to provide a management plan and consult local residents and it failed to do so. The decision left Republic vowing to take court action. Its executive officer Graham Smith complained: “This is a disgraceful attack on the rights of republicans to make their voice heard and to hold a fun and peaceful event. Camden council is allowing a few vocal residents and businesses to veto any event they do not support … (It) is seeking to silence and marginalise us without any legitimate reason. “We can only assume this is a politically motivated ban and we will challenge it all the way.” The organisation may be able to claim the support of two unlikely recruits. David Cameron told readers of the Sun that the wedding on 29 April would be a chance for everyone to come together and celebrate the great things about the country: “People who want to come together to celebrate with their neighbours should go ahead. We’ve done our bit by ripping up red tape.” Joining in, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) insisted that royal wedding party organisers should not be fobbed off by “jobsworths” trying to prevent them. The organisation said it was concerned that health and safety would be used as an unfounded excuse to stop celebrations. Judith Hackitt, the chair of the HSE, said: “Volunteers should feel confident to organise celebrations, taking simple measures based on common sense without having to worry about obligations under health and safety law at all. I want to encourage people to challenge those who tell you something can’t be done for health and safety reasons – it’s too easy an excuse to trot out. “There’s nothing in health and safety law to prevent anyone from celebrating the royal wedding – in fact, HSE encourages everyone who wants to throw a party to go right ahead. If someone tells you that you can’t have a get-together to mark the nuptials of Prince William and Kate, then challenge them. Health and safety is about looking out for any legitimate things that might spoil people’s fun on the day, not to stop people doing anything at all.” The organisation’s website says that while organisers should consult councils to secure road closures and permission to sell alcohol, those organised on a non-commercial basis would not fall foul of restrictive rules and regulations preventing them from going ahead. The prime minister claimed on Monday that about 4,000 street parties were known to be going ahead – though that is many fewer than at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the summer of 1981. A spokeswoman for Camden council said that permission for Republic’s celebration in Earlham Street, just off Shaftesbury Avenue, had been refused: “We asked them to come to us with a management plan and after consulting local residents and they did not do so. There were objections from local residents and businesses and significant concerns from the police about the potential for disorder. We have allowed other street parties.” Royal wedding Republicanism London Monarchy Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sinn Féin president prepared to act as mediator in effort to end violence following murder of police officer Ronan Kerr Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams has offered himself as a mediator in talks with dissident republicans in a move to secure an end to their violence. Adams said he or any member of his party would be prepared to facilitate discussions. He also called on the legitimate political organisations representing dissidents to say stop to violence. The Louth TD’s demand came after thousands of people turned out in Omagh on Sunday for a Walk of Peace, a week after the murder of Catholic police officer Constable Ronan Kerr in a car bomb attack . On Sunday police investigating the murder were granted an extra five days to question a 33-year-old man arrested on Friday. Two other men have been detained by detectives investigating the booby trap bomb attack that killed the 25-year-old officer. On Friday police were given a further five days to question the other 26-year-old and 40-year-old already in custody. Dissident republicans opposed to the peace process were blamed for the attack and they are also believed to have been behind a 500lb van bomb police discovered near the border town of Newry on Thursday. Kerr was leaving his home to start work at Enniskillen police station in County Fermanagh when he was killed. Despite Adams’s offer it is unlikely that the dissident republican groups will heed his call for an end to their armed campaigns. The Real IRA, Continuity IRA and Óghlaigh na hÉireann regard the Sinn Féin leadership as having sold out on traditional republican values. Gerry Adams Northern Ireland UK security and terrorism Henry McDonald guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Aftershock of magnitude 7.1 hits north-east of country one month after quake and tsunami killed 28,000 people Japan temporarily issued tsunami warnings for parts of the north-east coast on Monday following a powerful aftershock exactly a month after a magnitude-9 earthquake created huge waves that killed an estimated 28,000 people. NHK, the public broadcaster, warned of a tsunami up to 2 metres high on the coast of Ibaraki prefecture after the magnitude-7.1 quake. Although the waves were estimated to be much smaller than those that devastated Japan’s north-east coast on 11 March, the meteorological agency warned people in Ibaraki to evacuate to higher ground. The warnings were later lifted. The aftershock came as the government announced it was widening the evacuation zone around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant due to high levels of accumulated radiation and rising fears about the long-term effects on residents’ health. The government’s chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, said the current 12-mile (20km) evacuation zone would be extended to five other communities, including the village of Iitate, which lies 25 miles from the plant. The village’s 5,000 residents were told to prepare to leave their homes, although the evacuation would not take place immediately as radiation levels presented no immediate threat to health. The Asahi newspaper said the zone would be widened to 19 miles in some areas, depending on wind direction, adding that residents would be given about a week to prepare. “We have made a new decision about evacuations based on data analysis of accumulated radiation exposure information,” Edano told a news conference. “There is no need to evacuate immediately.” About 70,000 people living within 12 miles of Fukushima Daiichi have already been evacuated, and another 130,000 living inside a band 12 to 19 miles away have been told to leave voluntarily or remain indoors due to disruption to supply lines and services. Engineers at the plant say that although progress has been made in containing radioactive water that has built up beneath reactors, they are still no closer to restoring damaged cooling systems. Until repairs are made they cannot cool overheated fuel rods that could cause a major leak of radiation if they go into full meltdown. The government had ignored pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency and environmental groups to widen the evacuation zone. The US has advised its citizens not to go within 50 miles of the plant. Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for Japan’s nuclear safety agency, apologised for the anxiety caused by radiation leaks, and warned that the cooling systems could take months to repair. “It’s still difficult to give a timeline regarding when we can resolve the problem,” Nishiyama said. “We are very sorry for the evacuees who are anxious to see the problem resolved.” The governor of Fukushima prefecture, Yuhei Sato, criticised the decision first to ask people in the area to stay indoors, then to consider leaving and now to prepare for evacuation. “Residents are very confused about what to do,” he said. Earlier, Sato refused to meet the president of the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power, Masataka Shimizu, who had travelled to Fukushima to apologise to the prefecture’s people. The tsunami warning was a reminder of the events of a month ago, which were marked across the country by a moment’s silence at 2.46pm. More than 14,000 people are still missing, and 152,000 survivors are living in evacuation centres. Reflecting on the damage to his prefecture, which is also at the centre of the nuclear power crisis, Sato said: “My chest has been ripped open by the suffering and pain that this disaster has caused the people of our prefecture. I can’t find the words to express my sorrow.” The prime minister, Naoto Kan, placed a message in newspapers in several countries, including Britain, China and the United States, thanking the international community for its support. Kan said the generosity shown towards Japan in its time of need demonstrated the human capacity for kizuna , or bonds of friendship, and vowed that Japan would emerge a stronger nation. “We deeply appreciate the kizuna our friends from around the world have shown and I want to thank every nation, entity, and you personally, from the bottom of my heart,” he said. Japan disaster Japan Natural disasters and extreme weather Nuclear power Energy Justin McCurry guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Anti-missile system hailed as a ‘technical revolution’ has recently shot down nine rockets but failed to stop 11 others, says army The initial success of Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defence system has been hailed as an example of “Jewish genius” – but the army insists it is still at an experimental stage. Since 7 April the system has shot down nine rockets fired at Israel from Gaza, although it was unable to stop at least 11 others. Boaz Ganor, the director of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism said: “It’s a technical revolution that shows us what may be possible in the future. The success has been limited by the fact that we only have two batteries, but it has proven itself accurate and efficient.” The Iron Dome consists of three units: a missile-tracking radar, a control centre and a missile-firing unit. The moment a rocket is launched its trajectory is relayed to the control centre, which decides whether it will land in an open or built-up area. If the rocket threatens a densely populated area a missile is fired at it. The world first became aware of the possibilities of missile defence during the Gulf war in 1991. US Patriot missile batteries in Israel and Saudi Arabia appeared to be successful at eliminating scud missiles fired by Iraq. In fact, the system was far less effective than it appeared and subsequent analysis estimated it had a success rate of about only 10%. During the Iraq war in 2003 the improved Patriots proved more successful against allied aircraft than long-range rockets. Iraq did not fire any long-range rockets and the Patriots downed one British jet and one American jet, killing both crews. Israel has long been the target of short-range rockets such as the Russian-designed Katyusha, supplied to Palestinian groups in Jordan and Lebanon in the 1970s and 80s. More recently, Hezbollah fired some 4,000 rockets at Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war, killing 44 people. Israel has developed the Arrow long-range missile-defence system but, after its experience in 2006, the government decided to invest in the Iron Dome system instead. The cost of its development and deployment is estimated at more than £1bn, some of which will be subsidised by the US. Critics point out that each Iron Dome missile costs about £25,000, while the rockets they eliminate are worth less than a few hundred, which could allow militants to wage economic warfare against Israel. Others suggest it would be easy to fool missile-defence systems with decoys. “We know that terrorists are elusive and on a learning curve. There is no doubt that this success will challenge them to rethink and fine tune their tactics,” said Ganor, “The whole idea of launching rockets at Israel was a response to the failure of other tactics. If Iron Dome proves to be successful, Hamas and Hezbollah will certainly try to think of new methods of attack.” Israel Middle East Weapons technology Conal Urquhart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Why are we letting a vindictive Randroid dork rule our political discourse?
April 11, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Paul Ryan’s rise as a supposed “serious thinker” is a sad symbol of our political class’s depraved and sadistic sense of morality. And I don’t say this just because Ryan’s truly Satanic budget plan would destroy the social safety net to fund more tax cuts for rich people. It’s also that our elite media has decided that a hardcore disciple of Ayn Rand is somebody who is actually worth listening to instead of being laughed out of the room. For despite Ryan’s pretensions that he’s just an honest wonk who’s seeking out serious solutions to our nation’s debt problem, the reality is that he’s a vindictive mega-dork who’s coming extremely close to enacting his nerdroid revenge fantasies on the American public. I mean, look, no one who is a devoted Randian cares about anything except redistributing wealth from the unworthy looter class (i.e., 99% of the population) to the super class of highly-productive rich people (i.e., Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton, LeBron James, LeBron James’ mom and Paul Ryan). And Ryan even admits that it was Rand who inspired him to get involved in politics: “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” And like other Randroid bed-wetters , Ryan believes that social insurance programs that have saved countless people from poverty are actually a grand form of tyranny holding back the creative potential of our oppressed producer class: At the Rand celebration he spoke at in 2005, Ryan invoked the central theme of Rand’s writings when he told his audience that, “Almost every fight we are involved in here on Capitol Hill . . . is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict – individualism versus collectivism.” In that struggle, Ryan argued that shifting Social Security (which he called a “collectivist system”) toward personal investment accounts was not only good policy, but would change the political landscape, according to a recording of the event made by its host, The Atlas Society. “If we actually accomplish this goal of personalizing Social Security, think of what we will accomplish. Every worker, every laborer in America will not only be a laborer but a capitalist. They will be an owner of society. . . . That’s that many more people in America who are not going to listen to the likes of Dick Gephardt and Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, the collectivist, class-warfare-breathing demagogues,” said Ryan. Except, unlike all the capitalists on Wall Street, all of these new worker-capitalists wouldn’t have been bailed out when their Social Security accounts got wiped out by the stock market crash in 2008. And yes, for the record, Ryan did vote for the bailout in 2008 : Ryan said his vote for the bailout was influenced by Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, a popular book among conservatives that argues that Nazism and other fascist movements were actually left wing in origin, and his belief that a second Depression would threaten capitalism—and rescue Obama’s presidency. “I’m a limited-government, free-enterprise guy, but TARP… represented a moment where we had no good options and we were about to fall into a deflationary spiral,” he said. In other words, he’s all for capitalism until our Randroid supermen look like they might actually lose their ill-gotten fortunes. At that point he’s willing to step in and write them a big blank check. In fact, a cursory review of Ryan’s voting record reveals that he really doesn’t have any problem with government spending as long as it goes to war or corporate welfare programs. Let’s review the facts : -Ryan voted for the Iraq war. Cost: $700 billion . Ryan voted for the Medicare prescription drug corporate welfare scheme. Cost: $552 billion over 10 years. It also goes without saying that Ryan voted against letting the government negotiate lower prices for Medicare drug purchases. Which, uh, would have saved taxpayers a lot of money. Ryan voted for the Bush tax cuts. Cost: $1.7 trillion . So yes, Ryan is perfectly happy to increase the deficit as long as it goes to defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street tycoons. Deficit spending that provides a safety net for the poor and the middle class, however, is socialism. Any journalist writing about Ryan’s plans should not buy into Ryan’s claims that he’s just an honest man who’s so gosh-darned worried about the budget deficit. Instead they should look at his record and conclude that he’s just your standard GOP class warrior who’s trying to set up his rich pals for yet another round of looting the middle class. Any other conclusion is, frankly, deeply unserious.
Continue reading …