Saturday, March 21, 2020

Assange's Extradition: An Escalation of the US War on Terror

Julian Assange created a new form of journalism that enabled a free press to perform its true function—the role of watchdog for democracy.
Julian Assange supporters demonstrate outside of the Westminster Magistrates Court on November 18, 2019 in London.
Julian Assange supporters demonstrate outside of the Westminster Magistrates Court on November 18, 2019 in London. (Photo: Hollie Adams/Getty Images)
Last week the U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga released Chelsea Manning from detainment after concluding that the grand jury that she had been subpoenaed to testify before no longer needed her, since it was being disbanded. Manning was incarcerated because of her principled stance against the secrecy of the grand jury and her refusal to cooperate in its coercive procedure.
The release of Manning came after the U.S. government tried to break her to the point of suicide. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, wrote a letter to the U.S. government late last year indicating that Manning's imprisonment amounted to torture. Her resistance is a part of the U.S. government's war on the free press, going after WikiLeaks' publisher Julian Assange.
Assange has been charged under the Espionage Act for publishing classified documents which exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This indictment is recognized by free speech groups as an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment. In February, the first week of the U.K. hearing of the U.S. request for Assange's extradition revealed a scale of this 'war' that goes well beyond press freedom. What took place inside the Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London was a sign of a dangerous slippery slide towards fascism.

Guilty without trial

Judge Vanessa Baraitser's deliberations on the U.S. extradition request for Assange was a trial for journalism, where bullying of an innocent man is camouflaged as a judicial process and the prosecution of a publisher that has no legal ground is given legitimacy. As Assange's defense team argued, the proceedings have shown a serious disregard for the rule of law, including abuse of process and ignoring the political nature of this case.
Craig Murray, a U.K. ex-diplomat who attended the hearing everyday, gave a report of his first hand account, pointing out the very oppressive nature of the building and physical arrangement inside the maximum security anti-terrorist court. He made it clear that Assange is a remand prisoner who completed an unprecedentedly long sentence for a minor bail violation and an innocent man facing charges for publishing documents that exposed the U.S. and U.K. government's war crimes.
The former ambassador to Uzbekistan described how Assange is now treated like a violent criminal. On the first day of trial, Assange was subjected to strip searches twice, handcuffed 11 times and his court papers were removed. In the courtroom he was held behind a glass pane in the presence of private security officers, being unable to communicate with his legal team confidentially during proceedings. During the hearing, Assange spoke:
"I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing. The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day. What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate?"
Clare Daly, member of the European Parliament from Ireland for the Dublin constituency was at the hearing and commented on this draconian measure taken against international standards. She mentioned that she was shocked to see Assange isolated behind the glass window, away from his legal team. Another member of the Parliament, Stelios Kouloglou, who was also at the court observing the hearing noted how what he saw reminded him of the dictatorship in Greece.

Erosion of civil liberties 

What is this prosecution of WikiLeaks founder really about? What has quietly taken place in the U.S. government's war on free press was a shredding of the Magna Carta as the very foundation of democracy. The Magna Carta is one of the most important historical documents, having established the principle of due process. It embodies the idea that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and that all are entitled to the right to a fair trial, thus guaranteeing the rights of the individual.
The Founding Fathers of the United States considered this protection against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment essential in securing individual liberty. For this, they aimed to guarantee the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus, in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.
By prosecuting Julian Assange, the U.S. government is not only violating the First Amendment, but also engaged in a direct assault on the core of civil liberties. The steps toward destruction of the constitution didn't just begin now. It didn't happen accidentally, nor does this government's obstruction of human rights only concern Assange as an individual. If we look carefully, we can see a series of events that were carefully orchestrated, leading to the extremely disturbing scenario of the detention of a multi-award winning journalist inside a glass box, as seen during the extradition hearing.
Assange through his work with WikiLeaks came to understand the hidden oppressive force that has insidiously stripped him of his own democratic rights. In his 2006 essay Conspiracy as Governance, he wrote:
Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people's will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or out weighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.
What Assange described as "conspiratorial interactions among the political elite" can be identified in power networks documented by Peter Phillips in his book "Giants: The Global Power Elites." This includes efforts such as the Project for the New American Century—an enterprise established in 1997 for the purpose of exercising American global leadership. Consisting of top-level personale in the George W. Bush administration, it aims for total military domination of the world.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, networks of "collaborative secrecy" that Assange analyzed, seemed to have gained momentum. Investigative journalist John Pilger revealed the American plan to exploit a catastrophic event and the way the 9/11 disaster provided the "new Pearl Harbor" (discussed in the plan) as the opportunity for the extremists in America to grab the world's resources. 
Right after the event the U.S., supported by its close allies, invaded Afghanistan. Then, just weeks later The USA PATRIOT Act, that radically expanded the government's capability of surveillance, was developed as anti-terrorism legislation. The following year, in 2002, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was set up in Cuba—in violation of due process clauses of the Constitution. From the Iraq War in 2003 to the passing by Congress of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), that completely dismantled the principle of habeas corpus, the erosion of civil liberties was made under the pretext of "fighting terrorism"—America's official mission to wipe out al Qaeda and the terrorist Taliban leaders.

The doctrine of "war on terror"

How did this radical transgression against democracy come about? Author Naomi Klein in "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" investigated how the state exploits crises through taking advantage of the public's psychologically vulnerable state to push through their agendas. She described the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq as a prime example of this shock doctrine.
The terror invoked by the Bush doctrine of "war on terror" in the wake of 9/11 was truly an attack on the heart of democracy. It paralyzed people and decapitated their ability to define reality, uprooting them from their own history. With the mainstream media broadcast of repeated images of the collapse of the Twin Towers, a climate of fear was amplified.
In response to the event portrayed as "terrorist attacks", President Bush in his address to Congress and the American people, expressed his patriotism with the deep emotional tones of vendetta. While the nation was disoriented, and before people had time to process this tragic incident or even really know who perpetrated it, the narrative of victimization was deftly put forth. Many wrapped themselves in the flag and joined the drumbeat of war with a sense of righteous self-defense.
The hearts of people that had frozen became numb. Many of us became unable to feel a sense of wrongness in the face of injustice. A steady advance in the reduction of civil liberties came to be normalized. In the euphemisms of "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition" reprehensible human acts such as torture and kidnapping were made more acceptable. The term "bulk collection" was used to disguise "mass surveillance", making unconstitutional NSA spying of an entire world seem less severe or immoral. Cruel killings of civilians became less sensational when they are called "noncombatants" or become "collateral damage" after they were killed. 

Conscience of Chelsea Manning

Two months after 9/11, in a news conference, President Bush urged the international community to form a coalition for military action. He said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror!"—claiming there is no neutrality in this war against terror. With a police crackdown on activists creating a chilling effect, the nation entered a political winter. Consequently, Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election appeared to have lifted up the dark cloud of the post-9/11 world. Yet by the end of 2009, the American public became disillusioned with Obama's empty promises of "hope and change."
In spring of 2010, as waves of apathy were moving through the country, a shift in the tide emerged. WikiLeaks published classified military footage of the July 2007 attack by a U.S. Army helicopter gunship in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. The video, titled "Collateral Murder", depicted the killing of more than a dozen men, including two Reuters' staffers. 
The release of the Collateral Murder video brought a real catalyst for change. In the 17-minute film that portrayed the everyday life of the brutal military occupation in Iraq, we were given an opportunity to see with our own eyes who those labeled as enemies in the "war on terror" really were—a group of adults and children trying to defend themselves from being shot and journalists risking their lives to do their job.
The light that unveiled the U.S. military's senseless killing was the conscience of the U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. It brought an awakening to the heart that remembers our inherent obligation to one another, helping to recover stolen memories of our own history. 

Journalism with moral courage

The act of conscience of this young American whistleblower was met with cowardliness and indifference of the established media. Manning first reached out to major U.S. news outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post with material that exposed U.S. war crimes, but they turned her away.
With a vacuum of moral courage in the media landscape, WikiLeaks became the publisher of Manning's last resort. Nelson Mandela, who led the emancipation of South Africa, once spoke on how courage is "not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it" and that "the brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear."   
In the face of the prevailing terror of an authoritarian state, WikiLeaks demonstrated truly fearless journalism, igniting the courage of their sources. A project of Sunshine Press launched in 2006, WikiLeaks began to melt frozen hearts, revealing the reality covered up by the corporate media.
In releasing the Collateral Murder video, Assange indicated that the purpose of this publication was to show the world what modern warfare actually looks like and that "his mission is to expose injustice, not to provide an even-handed record of events." An Australian journalist, Assange explained how WikiLeaks gave a political slant to their naming of the video as a way to give it maximum political impact, because the organization wanted to "knock out the euphemism of 'collateral damage', so when anyone watches it they will think 'collateral murder'." 

Empire's war of aggression

In the summer of 2010, the light of transparency grew stronger. WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diary, the trove of U.S. classified military records concerning the war in Afghanistan, revealing around 20,000 civilian deaths by assassination, massacre and night raids. This was quickly followed by their subsequent release of the Iraq War Logs, which informed people in Iraq about 15,000 civilian casualties previously unreported and not known to the international community. WikiLeaks' release of 779 classified reports on prisoners of the U.S. military prison in Guantánamo shed light on illegal detention and interrogation practices that were carried out during the Bush regime.
After their release of documents concerning wars in the oil-rich Middle East, the Pentagon swiftly attacked WikiLeaks. Despite the organization's careful harm minimization efforts of redacting sensitive information, U.S. Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen threatened the whistleblowing site with a bombastic line of "blood on their hands." This official spokesperson of the Pentagon called WikiLeaks publications "reckless" and "irresponsible" although not one single shred of evidence has ever been brought forth that any of these disclosures caused anyone harm. 
At the time WikiLeaks began publishing the U.S. Diplomatic Cables, revealing countless wrongdoing, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (in the Obama administration) strongly condemned the whistleblowing site. Clinton, who admitted the Iraq War was a mistake and confessed how the U.S. had created Al Qaeda and ISIS, said: "This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community…."
Contrary to the U.S. government's portrayal of itself as a victim, WikiLeaks' released documents which have shown the truth—that they are the perpetrator of human rights abuses, engaging in illegal wars. Manning's conscience, through WikiLeaks' brave act of publishing, was a response to the U.S. imperial war of aggression—the massive political offence committed against the entire world.

Resuscitating the heart of democracy

America's political offense continued even after the Bush-Cheney era. President Obama not only refused to prosecute the previous administration's war criminals, he himself became a successor to their crimes. In 2009, instead of withdrawing troops, he added more, fueling the war in Afghanistan. Despite his promised "sunshine" policy—to make the government more transparent –  Obama waged an unprecedented war against truthtellers, charging Manning and the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden under the Espionage Act. 
With his 2012 campaign slogan of "Forward", Obama went "forward" with Guantanamo Bay and drone attacks. He signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 that contained controversial provisions of a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention, which is still effective today. With his "kill list", this supposedly 'progressive' president expanded the power of the executive branch in ways that enabled him to act as accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner all in one, including assassinating anyone, even U.S. citizens.
In 2012, declassified military documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the U.S. government has designated WikiLeaks and Julian Assange as enemies of the United States, putting the media organization in the same legal category as Al Qaeda and violent terrorist groups.
From secret grand jury investigation to extrajudicial financial blockade, to harassment of WikiLeaks' associates at borders (including Assange's lawyer), the Obama administration attacked the publisher who has fiercely defended the public against the empire's repeated human rights abuses and egregious political offenses. Now, in the Trump administration's indictment against Assange on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer crime, we are seeing the escalation of this unprecedented war against the First Amendment.
Assange's U.S. extradition case is our fight against the empire's perpetual "war on terror"—the war that started with lies, and a war with no end. This is a political battle and Assange's freedom cannot be won by the court.
Julian Assange created a new form of journalism that enabled a free press to perform its true function—the role of watchdog for democracy. WikiLeaks opened a possibility for ordinary people to use information as power to participate in unfolding events, thwart authoritarian planning, so as to never repeat the tragic hijack of history that led to atrocities in distant lands—killing tens of thousands of innocent people.
Networks of contagious courage that emerged through waves of whistleblowers began to dissolve the conspiracy of governance. The heart of democracy that is resuscitated now inspires us to move toward justice, to recognize our own significance and look one another in the eyes as we become who we are meant to be –  movers and shakers of our own history. Only through the courage of each individual to overcome fear and confront this terror that has been unleashed, can we end this war and free those who sacrificed their liberty, so we all can be free.
Nozomi Hayase
Nozomi Hayase, Ph.D., is an essayist and author of WikiLeaks, the Global Fourth Estate: History Is Happening. Follow her on Twitter: @nozomimagine

'In This Dark Hour for the Iranian People,' Groups Demand Trump End Inhumane Sanctions Amid COVID-19 Outbreak

"Doing so would not just serve U.S. interests in helping contain the further spread of the virus, but would also be a powerful humanitarian gesture to the more than 80 million Iranians suffering under the pandemic."
Iranians wait to get prescription drugs at the state-run "13 Aban" pharmacy in Tehran on Feb. 19, 2020.
Iranians wait to get prescription drugs at the state-run "13 Aban" pharmacy in Tehran on Feb. 19, 2020. Iranians had been suffering from scarce medicine supplies even before the new coronavirus COVID-19 broke out in the central city of Qom and spread, claiming several lives and fostering panic amid a shortage of face masks. (Photo: Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)
More than two dozen U.S. organizations came together Friday to pressure the Trump administration to recognize the coronavirus pandemic as a "shared threat" and temporarily ease economic sanctions on Iran, one of the countries hardest hit by the disease with nearly 20,000 COVID-19 cases and over 1,400 deaths.
"With hospitals overrun and Iranian doctors struggling to procure necessary equipment, the U.S. must be part of the solution rather than part of the problem."
—Jamal Abdi, NIAC Action
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Action and 25 other groups sent a letter to U.S. President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Secretary of state Mike Pompeo which emphasized the importance of "global solutions" and explained that "easing sanctions is one simple step that can be taken to serve the interests of the Iranian people and public health across the globe."
The Trump administration has increasingly ramped up sanctions on Iran since the president ditched the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018. Pompeo announced the most recent wave of U.S. sanctions on the country Wednesday amid reports about how previous sanctions had already devastated Iran's economy and healthcare system, hampering the Iranian government's response to the deadly outbreak.
"To help stem the continued spread of the virus inside Iran and beyond, we urge you to issue a time-bound suspension of those U.S. sanctions that make it harder for ordinary Iranians to secure basic goods and services to weather the crisis," the groups' letter says. "Doing so would not just serve U.S. interests in helping contain the further spread of the virus, but would also be a powerful humanitarian gesture to the more than 80 million Iranians suffering under the pandemic."
The letter acknowledges that "some limited steps have already been taken, including licensing humanitarian trade with the Central Bank of Iran and encouraging foreign banks and governments to establish humanitarian channels with Iran," but calls for greater action. Specifically, the groups suggest suspending many of the sanctions "for a period of at least 120 days, including those sanctions affecting Iran's financial and oil sectors and its civilian industries."
Along with NIAC Action, the letter's signatories include CodePink, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Demand Progress Education Fund, Greenpeace USA, Institute for Policy Studies, Just Foreign Policy, MoveOn, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Ploughshares Fund, and Win Without War. Some organizations have been critical of U.S. sanctions on Iran more broadly and called for them to be permanently ended.
In a statement accompanying the letter, NIAC Action executive director Jamal Abdi said that "the Trump administration's current unwillingness to significantly ease sanctions on Iran during this time of crisis is like rubbing salt into a gaping wound. With hospitals overrun and Iranian doctors struggling to procure necessary equipment, the U.S. must be part of the solution rather than part of the problem."
"As COVID-19 rips through country after country, Iran's experience has been particularly devastating," Abdi noted. "While advanced medical systems across Western Europe seem to be collapsing under the weight of patients infected with the virus, Iranians have had to contend with both their own government's negligence and crushing sanctions that slow the response and punish ordinary Iranians."
He added that "humanitarian assistance shouldn't come with strings attached, and we are all at risk from the pandemic regardless of nationality. We call on the administration to ease its sanctions policy so that all resources are available to fight the pandemic in this dark hour for the Iranian people."
The organizations behind the letter aren't alone in calling for a suspension of the sanctions. Russia and China—along with some U.S. lawmakers—have publicly pressured the Trump administration, and the Guardian reported Wednesday that "the U.K. is privately pressing the U.S. to ease sanctions on Iran to help it fight the growing coronavirus outbreak."

Trump's Deadly Sanctions Power Should Be Reined In

US presidents should not have the power to unilaterally wage economic warfare against civilian populations.
Why is there so little tangible concern about the brutal "collateral damage" caused by Trump's economic sanctions? Photo: Justin Podur)
Why is there so little tangible concern about the brutal "collateral damage" caused by Trump's economic sanctions? Photo: Justin Podur)
Much ink has been spilled over the potentially disastrous consequences of US President Donald Trump's impulsive and foolhardy foreign policy decisions. Trump's withdrawal from the Iran deal, his nuclear game of chicken with North Korea, the assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and other reckless moves imperilling millions of lives have been roundly criticised by dozens of policymakers and editorial writers. 
But one particularly brutal set of White House measures that has already caused tens of thousands of casualties abroad has been ignored by most of Trump's critics. Since taking office, the president has unilaterally imposed a number of deadly, sweeping economic sanctions on Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. These sanctions have not, by any reasonable measure, advanced the president's stated foreign policy goals. They have, however, wreaked havoc and destruction in the lives of countless innocent human beings. 
In Venezuela, economic sanctions that Trump first imposed in 2017 and then vastly expanded in 2019, have resulted in increased disease and mortality and are estimated to have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths, according to a 2019 study by economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs.
Trump's sanctions on Iran have severely limited the country's access to medicines and medical supplies, as Human Rights Watch has noted.
The media has generally failed to inform the public about the harmful impact of Trump's sanctions on innocent people.
His unilateral financial sanctions against North Korea have created critical obstacles for the work of international relief organisations, according to a recent study commissioned by Korea Peace Now. 
The media has generally failed to inform the public about the harmful impact of Trump's sanctions on innocent people. Hardly any of the many alarming reports on the economic and humanitarian situation in Venezuela, for instance, have mentioned the significant role of US sanctions in deepening the country's severe economic crisis and preventing recovery. As the coronavirus spreads through Southeast Asia and beyond, it will be interesting to see to what extent the media reports on how US sanctions are preventing North Korea and Iran from accessing vital medication and medical supplies needed to confront the epidemic.
Why is there so little tangible concern about the brutal "collateral damage" caused by Trump's economic sanctions? One likely explanation is that the US foreign policy establishment has traditionally supported sanctions, despite studies showing that they generally do not produce the desired political outcome.
As a Council on Foreign Relations backgrounder explains, "sanctions, while a form of intervention, are generally viewed as a lower-cost, lower-risk course of action between diplomacy and war. Policymakers may consider sanctions as a response to foreign crises in which the national interest is less than vital or where military action is not feasible."
The negative human consequences of sanctions are not immediately apparent and, when reports on sanctions-linked deaths emerge - as was the case in the early 1990s when economic sanctions were imposed on Haiti - they are often ignored. 
Fortunately, some US policymakers have begun bucking the cynical bipartisan consensus on sanctions and have been speaking out against their dire effects and lack of tangible results. In December 2018, fourteen members of Congress sent a letter to the administration seeking "answers regarding the humanitarian impact that recently imposed US sanctions are having on the Iranian people".
In March 2019, 16 members of the House signed a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo opposing Trump's economic sanctions against Venezuela and noting that they were having "lethal effects on innocent people" and were "contributing to the ongoing outbound migration of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans". 
On February 12 of this year, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar decided to take decisive action to reign in the president's unilateral use of sanctions with a new bill entitled the Congressional Oversight over Sanctions Act (or COSA). Part of a bold new package of legislation aimed at promoting peace, human rights and respect for international law, COSA would amend the National Emergencies Act and the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which - together - allow the president to order sanctions of all types without Congressional approval, simply by invoking a "national emergency", regardless of whether there is evidence of such a thing. 
Omar's bill establishes strict legislative control over the executive branch's use of sanctions by requiring Congressional approval within 60 days of the announcement of emergency sanctions powers - as well as requiring additional approval for the renewal of these powers every six months thereafter.
The legislation will also force a reckoning over the actual impact of sanctions by mandating studies on the impact of unilateral sanctions before and after their implementation. The US government would be required to report on whether sanctions advance stated goals and benchmarks. Importantly, the legislation would also require that the State Department report on whether or not presidential sanctions comply with the US's international treaty obligations; many international law experts would argue that they do not. 
COSA has already garnered strong support from a broad coalition of civil society groups. A letter urging members of Congress to co-sponsor the legislation and signed by over 40 groups that include faith-based organisations like American Friends Service Committee and United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, peace groups like Veterans for Peace and Win Without War and think-tanks like the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Center for International Policy. As the letter notes: "The power to impose sanctions (…) should not be in the hands of a single individual. Too many lives are at stake and there is too much potential for abuse or overuse."
As awareness grows around the injury and suffering resulting from sanctions imposed by Trump and his predecessors, we can hope that citizens and policymakers who support human rights, the constitution and international law will back COSA and any other effort to limit the president's power to unilaterally wage economic warfare against civilian populations. 
Alexander Main
Alexander Main is Director of International Policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

'Not Done Yet': Bernie Sanders Campaign Mobilizes Donors for Coronavirus Relief and Raises $2 Million

"The Bernie Sanders campaign puts its fundraising prowess to another purpose."
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) takes the stage during a primary night event on February 11, 2020 in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) takes the stage during a primary night event on February 11, 2020 in Manchester, New Hampshire. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Sen. Bernie Sanders' for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination campaign's prodigious fundraising operation raised $2 million for charities helping those most affected by the coronavirus outbreak crisis in the last 48 hours in a move that supporters said exemplified the message of solidarity the Vermont lawmaker has run on.
"Bernie Sanders supporters have contributed more than $2 million in 2 days to charities helping people whose lives have been impacted by the coronavirus," tweeted political strategist Tim Tagaris. "Not done yet."
The campaign mobilized staff and volunteers to text and call to raise money for five charities: Meals on Wheels, No Kid Hungry, Restaurant Workers’ Community Foundation COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund, One Fair Wage Emergency Fund, and the National Domestic Workers Alliance. 
Robin Curran, the campaign's digital fundraising director, said in a statement that the money raised showed the importance of Sanders' "Not me, us" slogan.
"What we've seen in the last two days is the definition of 'fighting for someone you don't know,'" said Curran. "The people supporting this campaign have made more than 50,000 donations to help those most impacted by coronavirus because they understand that now more than ever it is important that we are in this together."
According to the campaign, there will be more efforts to raise money for the least fortunate affected by the crisis in the coming days.
Sanders has taken a leadership role on handling the crisis both in Washington and nationally. The senator has led online forums on the crisis and addressed the nation via virtual "fireside chats."

As Common Dreams reported Friday, Sanders' remaining rival for the Democratic nomination, former Vice President Joe Biden, has not been seen in days. 

On Friday night, during a roundtable on the outbreak, Sanders said that the crisis can only be solved by innovative thinking and extreme measures.

"In this extraordinary moment in American and world history, we have got to think outside the box in a way that we have never done," said Sanders. "This is an unprecedented moment and we have got to think in an unprecedented way."
EPA Proposes Broad Science Restrictions in Midst of Coronavirus Pandemic


At a time when seeking out and utilizing cutting-edge research is a life or death situation, the EPA is moving in the opposite direction. 


by Michael Halpern

What EPA is saying here is that it wants political control over what research is used in any of the agency’s work. Don’t let them get away with this without a fight. (Photo: EPA)

The Environmental Protection Agency moved today to restrict the types of research that can be used in public health protection decisions and scientific assessments. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the agency is recklessly giving the public just 30 days to comment on this sweeping proposal. UCS developed a guide to assist you in making a public comment, and if you are able to do so, you should.

The “supplemental” proposal, which builds on a previous effort, would remove from consideration or downweight thousands of scientific papers by public health scientists when the raw data behind these studies cannot be made public. So while these experts are the front lines of the fight against COVID-19, treating patients, researching vaccines, and educating the public about staying safe, the EPA is trying to push this proposal through with as little criticism as they can get away with.

The American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, and scores of other scientific organizations all strongly opposed the original proposal and urged EPA to withdraw it. Now, they will have to pull staff away from protecting our country to write extensive comments to stop the EPA from sabotaging itself. It’s a terrible diversion, but it’s one they must take.

In a letter sent this morning, we asked EPA to extend the comment deadline and hold virtual public hearings. The “supplemental” proposal is significantly broader than the original. According to EPA, it would apply not only to studies behind EPA decisions about vehicle emissions, clean air standards, and clean water protections, but also EPA’s own “state-of-science reports, technology assessments, weight-of-evidence analyses, meta-analyses, risk assessments, toxicological profiles of substances, integrated assessment models, hazard determinations, exposure assessments, or health, ecological, or safety assessments.”

The EPA has not articulated a problem it wants to solve. It faces no deadlines. But agency leaders see an opening. They feel compelled to carry out an idea hatched by tobacco industry lobbyists decades ago. The proposal was developed wholly by political staff. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board initially called it a “license to politicize” science and said that it would compromise the agency’s decision-making process.

Because this is written as a supplemental to the original rule, EPA will only take comments that address the changes made in the supplemental. Therefore, you should articulate how your comments respond to the document that was released today.

At a time when seeking out and utilizing cutting-edge research is a life or death situation, the EPA is moving in the opposite direction. What EPA is saying here is that it wants political control over what research is used in any of the agency’s work. Don’t let them get away with this without a fight. Commit to writing a public comment and we will provide you with the resources you need to be most effective. Note: the comment guide has been updated with a link to the public comment page on regulations.gov, which is now open.

 
Michael Halpern


IT'S NO LONGER ABOUT ELECT ABILITY
Biden, Sanders both top Trump in general election: poll
The poll found that 48 percent of registered voters would cast their vote for Biden between Sanders and Trump, 48 percent of survey respondents also said they would choose the Vermont senator over the president. 
IT'S ABOUT MEDICARE FOR ALL


Both Democratic presidential candidates, former Vice President Joe Biden (D) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), beat out President Trump in a new national poll.
The poll, released by The Economist and YouGov, found that 48 percent of registered voters would cast their vote for Biden "if an election for president were going to be held now" between Biden and Trump. 
Forty-one percent of voters chose Trump, and 4 percent responded that they would vote for "other."
Five percent of voters polled said they are not sure, and 2 percent said they would not vote.
In a race between Sanders and Trump, 48 percent of survey respondents also said they would choose the Vermont senator over the president. Forty-one percent said they would vote for Trump, while three percent said they would vote for "other" if given the option.
Six percent said they are not sure who they would vote for between Sanders and Trump, and 2 percent said they would not vote.
However, when asked "Who do you think will win the 2020 presidential election?" 49 percent of survey respondents said the eventual Democratic nominee, while 51 percent predicted that Trump will win another term in office.
Biden currently leads Sanders in the Democratic primary, 1,186 delegates to Sanders's 885. The former vice president made a direct appeal to Sanders's younger supporters earlier this week after sweeping victories in the Florida and Illinois primaries.
"Sen. Sanders and I may disagree on tactics, but we share a common vision for the need to provide affordable health care for all Americans, reduce income inequity that has risen so drastically, to tackling the existential threat of our time: climate change," Biden said in remarks via a livestream from his home state of Delaware.
"Sen. Sanders and his supporters have brought a remarkable passion and tenacity to all of these issues. Together, they have shifted the fundamental conversation in this country," he continued. "So let me say, especially to the young voters who have been inspired by Sen. Sanders: I hear you. I know what's at stake. I know what we have to do."
The polls between individual candidates were conducted among 1,129 registered voters and have a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. The poll question asking "Who do you think will win the 2020 presidential election?" was posed to 1,500 U.S. adults. It has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points. All polling was conducted from March 15 to March 17