Results tagged “Hillary Clinton” from PlanetGreen.org

Say No to TPP at the Polls

|
UPDATE: It's nearly been a year since we first launched our "Say No to TPP" initiative on PlanetGreen, and voters have indeed made the security of American jobs a priority in this election. The people have spoken -- Donald Trump is now officially our next President-elect, and it's high time we all put aside the vitriolic rhetoric of the past months and rally around our nation's new opportunity for renewed international prominence and economic regenesis. Thank you all for reading our varied perspectives on the election.

The election is rapidly approaching, and the race is still closer than anyone expected. In these final days both candidates are stating their concluding reasons why they are better suited for the presidency than their adversaries: Hillary Clinton stresses her foreign policy shrewdness and her opponent's volatility, while Donald Trump returns to his core messages of bringing back our jobs and strengthening our national economy.

The vital issue of trade has proved to be a priority for voters this election cycle, and for good reason. Past deals such as NAFTA continue to fuel both the exodus of American manufacturing and the influx of immigrants from Mexico, and these disastrous effects do impact our daily lives - by hindering true economic recovery, by diminishing our international status, and by flooding our store shelves with imported products posing risks to our health and safety.

These threats to our persons and our collective prosperity are real, but not only has the Obama administration has refused to acknowledge the failure of NAFTA, it has proposed an even larger-scale repetition of that mistake, commonly known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This would allow unlimited free trade with Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam, and leave open the possibility that China or Russia could potentially join the agreement in future years. An incomplete sampling of the TPP's unconscionable provisions:

→ A mandatory arbitration system would be instituted, in which foreign companies could challenge U.S. laws without ever setting foot in United States courts. The adjudicatory panel, known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, would be composed of corporate lawyers who would rotate between the roles of practitioner and judge. However, even though alien businesses could remotely strike down our statutes, the government would have to resort to a foreign judiciary to enforce the few regulatory safeguards in the agreement.
→ Pharmaceutical companies holding United States patents would be given longer terms of monopoly than provided for anywhere in our patent law. This would artificially raise the prices of many lifesaving medications and obstruct free competition by prohibiting the production of generic alternatives.
→ The United States would lose its sovereignty, supplanted by the foreign rule of the ISDS, and citizens would lose many rights guaranteed them by our national legislation: the Wagner Act, fracking regulations, food safety measures, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and even the Sherman and Clayton Acts are in danger. Adding insult to injury, taxpayers could be forced to compensate extrinsic businesses for profit "losses" engendered by these essential measures.
→ Private Internet service providers would not only be allowed to monitor users' activities, they would be granted the authority to remove consumers' content and cut off web access without any semblance of due process.

Even though Hillary Clinton was forced by Bernie Sanders' supporters to rescind her support for these measures, she initially backed the TPP, and her running mate Tim Kaine has since stated that both are "flexible" on trade issues; and Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe has corroborated that she will not abide by her promise if elected. Donald Trump, however, has consistently opposed both TPP and NAFTA and pledged to restore fair international trade standards if elected. The election will decide this crucial controversy, and with it the future of our declining cities; the safety of the food on our tables; our right to national sovereignty; the personal security promised us by the Fourth Amendment; and the economic liberties of the free market.

That's why it's imperative that we can't support a candidate that may have halfheartedly promised fair trade, but has repeatedly wavered on that vow and whose record distinctly demonstrates the duplicity of her assurance. In two days, we will decide our fiscal future for decades ahead - and we must have the courage to reject the deleterious provisions of the TPP and stand up for national self-determination.

That's why I, for one, am not ashamed to say that I'm putting my eggs in the "basket of deplorables" this year.

Waist Deep in the Big Sandy

|
Thumbnail image for pete seeger.jpgFourteen years ago, at the age of five, I sent my first-ever protest letter to George Dubya. The war in Iraq was just beginning to escalate, and I had written that the conflict was bad "because people die." (Two years later I received a reply -- "Thanks for your support.")

In a continuation of this disastrous policy, the Obama administration announced today that it's sending 600 more soldiers into the quagmire created by Bush's quest for oil and Halliburton contracts.

Hillary Clinton's historical support for the Iraq War and current push for regime regime change in Syria is justly alarming. But voters who think Donald Trump would solve the problem are mistaken: he has suggested sending thirty thousand troops to fight ISIS.

Which of these Big Fools should be leading the country? That is the question the two major parties are asking voters.

Should a Big Fool be leading the country at all? That's the question we should be asking ourselves -- and that's why a so-called "protest vote" becomes a moral imperative.

Hillary Clinton, Criminal Justice Reformist? - Not So Fast

|
In tonight's spirited, unpredictable presidential debate, criminal justice reform became a hotly contested issue due to Donald Trump's recent espousal of "stop-and-frisk" policies designed to reduce crime in high-risk inner cities. Clinton, with the help of debate moderator Lester Holt, assailed this proposal as discriminatory, citing the New York federal court decision Floyd v. City of New York (959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (2013)). She then went on to call for the abolition of mandatory minimum penalties for nonviolent offenses and the removal of the profit motivation from the penal system, an attempt to win over dubious former Sanders supporters. However, her efforts to paint herself as a reformist gloss over the legal and political reality of this controversy.

Trump in League with Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall

Hillary's reliance on Floyd - a case which is actually still in negotiations after a dropped appeal - may appear to be concern for the Fourth Amendment rights of minorities and the underprivileged, but she failed to mention the Supreme Court's contrary holding in the landmark 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. That case involved a stop based on reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause to make an arrest. Petitioners Chilton and Terry were standing on a street corner when Detective McFadden noticed them walking repeatedly up and down the same stretch of sidewalk, pausing each time to look into the same store window at length. After one of them did this, he would return to the street corner to confer with the other, who would then repeat the process. This happened a total of two dozen times before McFadden, suspicious that the two could be planning a robbery, approached the two men and asked their names. Terry was unresponsive, and the detective quickly patted down the outside of his clothing, found a pistol in the left pocket, removed the coat and confiscated the gun. Terry was later convicted on weapons charges, and his case made its way to the Supreme Court.

In an authoritative 8-1 decision, the Court held that the search of Terry was constitutional. Earl Warren, writing for the majority, set forth that "When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm." See also Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (1964), Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1973). This principle, not the inconclusive decision in Floyd, is still the law of the land.

Mandatory Minimums - Why They're Here to Begin With

On its official website, the Clinton campaign avows its opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing, stating that the practice "keep[s] nonviolent drug offenders in prison for too long -- and have increased racial inequality in our criminal justice system." However, her current stance belies her past support for the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the law which rendered the courts powerless to correct the excesses of state sentencing policy.

AEDPA was passed in 1996 with the full support of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and one of its most controversial provisions effectively cut off federal habeas corpus review of state convictions. Many of the challenges barred by AEDPA involved the Eighth Amendment and double-jeopardy questions raised by so-called "three strikes" laws. The damage done by this denial of due process was real. In 1995, human trafficking survivor Sara Kruzan was sentenced to life without parole after killing her abuser in self-defense. In 2003, Army veteran Leandro Andrade shoplifted nine children's videotapes worth about $150 and was sentenced to fifty years to life. Kruzan was freed in 2013, after spending eighteen years behind bars; Andrade is still incarcerated, and will become eligible for parole in 2046.

These injustices still occur regularly and these laws still stand because of Bill and Hillary Clinton's tough-on-crime stance, which apparently can be reversed far more quickly than the injury it caused.

While There Is a Criminal Element...

|
serverpic.jpg...Socialists have, historically, been lumped in with it. Many liberals have noted the uncanny parallels between Bernie Sanders' current campaign and the Presidential bid that Eugene Debs made from his prison cell in 1920, after being incarcerated in the Red Scare crackdown on the political left. As he famously declared after his conviction, he was only jailed for his belief in the equality of all people: " Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." This time around, however, it isn't Sanders who faces a potential run-in with the law on his road to the White House; rather, it is his opponent, establishment favorite Hillary Clinton.

Though Hillary herself does not seem very concerned about the potential indictment of herself or her close associates for her mishandling of classified information, it remains a distinct possibility. If there are charges, prosecutors have multiple options for how to pursue the case, and rampant speculation concerning possible counts against the Secretary has clouded the conversation. Realistically, though, an indictment concerning the server incident would probably be based in the following statutes:

hillary.jpgThe most straightforward avenue is the Espionage Act, which subjects "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States... any classified information" to up to ten years in prison. Title 18 U.S.C. §798. Though a sentence containing any prison time is highly unlikely, Hillary would have to turn over the servers if convicted - a dramatic consequence that her opponents would have no difficulty converting into a campaign spectacle. Even though she is unlikely to receive anywhere close to the prescribed penalty, an eventual prosecution would doubtlessly draw off this section because of its unquestionable relevance to the facts. Ironically, this is also the same law that Debs was imprisoned under another portion of, but no serious constitutional challenges have yet been sustained.

Prosecutors will likely compound that count with 18 U.S.C.
§1519, an obstruction-of-justice law which, for most of its career, has been restricted to instances of paper shredding. However, its actual language is quite broad, criminalizing conduct that "alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object." Interestingly, the Supreme Court ruled last Term in Yates v. United States (13-7451) that an illegally caught grouper fish was not a "tangible object" within the meaning of the statute, because it was not analogous to the corporate records the legislature intended to preserve by passing the law. This could result in a drawn-out challenge on the grounds that emails are not technically "tangible objects" either, potentially redefining the rule yet again.

Given the prospective infirmities of §1519 and the fact that Hillary has long been the establishment candidate in the Democratic race, a conviction is not expected. Rather, this controversy will probably resolve itself in either dropped charges, an inconclusive plea deal that does not distinctly assign fault to the Secretary or, if such a deal is not offered, in lengthy litigation over the technical wording and application of the apposite laws. Whichever occurs, however, this story will indubitably continue to dominate political headlines in the coming months.

Tags

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.