Chief U.S. District Judge Mary M. Lisi has recused herself from hearing the civil suit brought by the Filipinohousekeeper accusing a United Arab Emirates military officer of forcing her into involuntary servitude.
Lisi removed herself from hearing Elizabeth Cabitla Ballesteros’ lawsuit Friday after the judge acquitted Capt. Arif Mohamed Saeed Mohamed Al-Ali of criminal charges that he lured Ballesteros to work for his family in the United States as he attended a yearlong Naval War College program and then failed to pay her for her work.
Ballesteros, 39, a mother of three from a poor village, worked for Al-Ali for three years in the United Arab Emirates before agreeing to come with the family to the United States in July 2010. She testified last week that she worked 17 hours a day without pay, cleaning and cooking for the family, washing two cars and caring for the children until she escaped in October.
Al-Ali, who was among 47 people selected worldwide to participate in the naval program, testified that her only duty was caring for 4-year-old Ahmed, the youngest of his five children. Al-Ali, who earned $32,000 a month while attending the program, said his family split up the chores and his wife did the cooking.
While Lisi’s verdict ended the criminal case brought by U.S. Attorney Peter F. Neronha’s office in conjunction with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the civil case remains alive.
Ivy O. Suriyopas, a lawyer with the New York City-based Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said Friday she would make a motion to resume the civil suit against Al-Ali and his wife, Samah Alharmoodi, on Ballesteros’ behalf. That lawsuit accuses them of recruiting her to America, imprisoning her and forcing her into involuntary servitude at the Downing Street house in East Greenwich.
Al-Ali, 47, will be represented by former U.S. Attorney Robert Clark Corrente, who won Al-Ali’s acquittal in the bench trial before Lisi.
Ballesteros was granted temporary immigration status provided to individuals identified by law enforcement as victims of human trafficking. This status allows victims of human trafficking to remain in the U.S. temporarily during the ongoing investigation into the human trafficking-related crimes allegedly committed against them. The outcome of Ballesteros’ criminal case remains under internal review.
“ICE respects the decision of the court and will continue to prioritize investigations of suspected human trafficking,” said Bruce M. Foucart, special agent in charge for ICE.
Social Justice: Current Affairs, Business, Politics, and all the reasons in the world to Thrive on Creative Discontent!
Saturday, August 13, 2011
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders
The real story of the debt-ceiling showdown is not that democracy is pathological. It is, rather, that the electoral system -- even when plagued by partisanship -- is the best ever devised to defang angry citizens and the political movements they form. Once again, U.S. democracy has demonstrated that it is a machine for generating moderation and preserving the ideological center.
You may be forgiven for thinking this sounds as crazy as, well, a Tea Partier in a sweltering D.C. summer. After all, the new congressmen elected as a result of the Tea Party insurgency within the Republican Party brought the country -- and by extension, the world -- scarily close to some sort of financial meltdown.
Democrats and traditional Republicans in Congress understood that maintaining the credit of the U.S. was serious business. By contrast, until the very last moment, it seemed possible that the Tea Party representatives just didn’t understand the basics of financial economics. Their idea of ending business as usual was starting to look like ending the financial world as we know it.
The upshot was that the final deal, excoriated by hard-line Republicans and Democrats alike as a tremendous concession to the other side, is somewhere toward the median of American public opinion. It may be incoherent. But in the most literal sense it is undoubtedly centrist.
Behold the genius of democracy. Insurgent political forces can be brought into the tent -- and domesticated. Whatever the Tea Party congressmen might say to the television cameras, the fact is that today they are just another bunch of politicians. It’s something we should be grateful for. And it’s a lesson any Chinese Communist Party official would do well to understand.
You may be forgiven for thinking this sounds as crazy as, well, a Tea Partier in a sweltering D.C. summer. After all, the new congressmen elected as a result of the Tea Party insurgency within the Republican Party brought the country -- and by extension, the world -- scarily close to some sort of financial meltdown.
Democrats and traditional Republicans in Congress understood that maintaining the credit of the U.S. was serious business. By contrast, until the very last moment, it seemed possible that the Tea Party representatives just didn’t understand the basics of financial economics. Their idea of ending business as usual was starting to look like ending the financial world as we know it.
The upshot was that the final deal, excoriated by hard-line Republicans and Democrats alike as a tremendous concession to the other side, is somewhere toward the median of American public opinion. It may be incoherent. But in the most literal sense it is undoubtedly centrist.
Behold the genius of democracy. Insurgent political forces can be brought into the tent -- and domesticated. Whatever the Tea Party congressmen might say to the television cameras, the fact is that today they are just another bunch of politicians. It’s something we should be grateful for. And it’s a lesson any Chinese Communist Party official would do well to understand.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Mind control?… do you mind? I mind!
The suppression of human rights – when will the governments get a clue?
According to researchers from Citizen Lab, a web censorship watchdog at the Munk School of Global Affairs, at the University of Toronto, Netsweeper currently provides filtering tools to state-owned telecommunications companies in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
All three clients use the software to block political, religious and same-sex content, Citizen Lab has reported. In its promotional material, Netsweeper boasts it can block websites “based on social, religious or political ideals.”
Reporters Without Borders currently ranks Yemen 170th out of 178 countries listed according to severity of internet censorship.
Two of Netsweeper’s other clients, Qtel and du, provide internet services in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which are ranked 87th and 121st on the same list.
In the U.A.E, the ongoing trial of Ahmed Mansoor, a blogger and human rights advocate, and four other pro-democracy activists, has drawn condemnations from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Netsweeper refuses to address allegations its products are being used to suppress free speech abroad.
Sites blocked by Netsweeper clients
Qatar:
Arabtimes.com, a U.S.-based political satire website
Qatarsucks.com, a news site critical of human rights standards in Qatar
Secularislam.org, the website for the U.S.-based Institute for the Secularization of Islamic society
Islamreview.com, a site that offers critical review of Islam
Glas.org, official website for the Gay and Lesbian Arabic Society, an organization for gays and lesbians of Arab descent or those living in Arab countries.
Tumblr.com, one of the world’s most popular blog sites
U.A.E.:
Arabtimes.com, a U.S.-based political satire website
Localnewsuae.com, a news website in the U.A.E.
Uaehewar.net/Forums, a popular discussion forum known as a hangout for U.A.E. opposition writers
Sites showing non-erotic gay and lesbian content
Tumblr.com, one of the world’s most popular blog sites
Yemen:
Tumblr.com, one of the world’s most popular blog sites
Jilliancyork.com, the personal website of OpenNet Initiative researcher Jillian C. York
A leak withiin a leak
The Securities and Exchange Commission is reviewing the method Standard & Poor’s used to cut the U.S.’s credit rating and whether the firm properly protected the confidential decision, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.
SEC inspectors are examining S&P’s policies for conducting such analyses and whether those procedures were followed when the New York-based firm downgraded the U.S.’s credit rating Aug. 5, said the person, who declined to be identified because the inquiry isn’t public.
S&P’s downgrade of the U.S. for the first time triggered an equity rout that wiped about $6.8 trillion from the value of global stocks from July 26 to Aug. 11. U.S. officials have said the downgrade was based on a flawed analysis which overstated U.S. debt by about $2 trillion, while S&P said the discrepancy doesn’t change projections that the U.S. debt-to-gross domestic product ratio will probably continue to rise in the next decade.
The rating company lowered the nation’s AAA grade to AA+ after warning on July 14 that it would reduce the ranking in the absence of a credible plan to decrease deficits even if the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit were lifted.
The decision was at odds with the other two main ratings companies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, which both said the U.S. continues to deserve the top credit rating.
SEC inspectors are examining S&P’s policies for conducting such analyses and whether those procedures were followed when the New York-based firm downgraded the U.S.’s credit rating Aug. 5, said the person, who declined to be identified because the inquiry isn’t public.
S&P’s downgrade of the U.S. for the first time triggered an equity rout that wiped about $6.8 trillion from the value of global stocks from July 26 to Aug. 11. U.S. officials have said the downgrade was based on a flawed analysis which overstated U.S. debt by about $2 trillion, while S&P said the discrepancy doesn’t change projections that the U.S. debt-to-gross domestic product ratio will probably continue to rise in the next decade.
The rating company lowered the nation’s AAA grade to AA+ after warning on July 14 that it would reduce the ranking in the absence of a credible plan to decrease deficits even if the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit were lifted.
The decision was at odds with the other two main ratings companies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, which both said the U.S. continues to deserve the top credit rating.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society
Let’s get the partisan nonsense on the table.
First, consider the claim that Americans are being taxed to death. In fact, in terms of the economy as a whole, federal taxes are at their lowest level since 1950. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would account for 14.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2011.
That isn’t a one-year anomaly: Revenue was 14.9 percent of GDP in both 2009 and 2010. Compare that with a postwar average of about 18.5 percent of GDP, and an average of 18.2 percent during the administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Which brings us to a second dubious claim: Raising taxes in a downturn hinders growth. In 1982, amid a punishing 16-month recession, Reagan approved the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. A booming economy followed in 1983 and 1984, enabling him to sail to re-election.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton forced a tax increase through Congress that Representative Dick Armey, then chairman of the House Republican Caucus, condemned as a “job killer” that would push the economy into recession. That increase was succeeded by the creation of 23 million new jobs, and the Clinton administration left a budget surplus of about $236 billion. By contrast, President George W. Bush pushed through two rounds of tax cuts and created just 3 million jobs. He also turned the surplus he inherited into a $1.2 trillion deficit.
Obviously, today’s economic crisis is vastly more severe than anything Reagan or Clinton faced, thus the timing and scope of tax increases must be carefully calibrated. Over the long term, however, the Republican mantra of “no higher taxes, ever” is as senseless as are claims by some Democrats that we can solve our fiscal gaps simply by soaking the rich. Both spending cuts and revenue increases are required.
One of the oddest aspects of this debate is that the Republican position may not even be good politics -- at least outside safe Republican districts. Public-opinion polls show an increasing acceptance of the need to raise taxes to put the nation’s fiscal house in order. (A large majority of voters would like to see the wealthiest 1 percent raise their hands first.)
The American people are showing that they grasp a fundamental notion that still eludes some of their political leaders. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.” That is well worth the price.
First, consider the claim that Americans are being taxed to death. In fact, in terms of the economy as a whole, federal taxes are at their lowest level since 1950. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would account for 14.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2011.
That isn’t a one-year anomaly: Revenue was 14.9 percent of GDP in both 2009 and 2010. Compare that with a postwar average of about 18.5 percent of GDP, and an average of 18.2 percent during the administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Which brings us to a second dubious claim: Raising taxes in a downturn hinders growth. In 1982, amid a punishing 16-month recession, Reagan approved the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. A booming economy followed in 1983 and 1984, enabling him to sail to re-election.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton forced a tax increase through Congress that Representative Dick Armey, then chairman of the House Republican Caucus, condemned as a “job killer” that would push the economy into recession. That increase was succeeded by the creation of 23 million new jobs, and the Clinton administration left a budget surplus of about $236 billion. By contrast, President George W. Bush pushed through two rounds of tax cuts and created just 3 million jobs. He also turned the surplus he inherited into a $1.2 trillion deficit.
Obviously, today’s economic crisis is vastly more severe than anything Reagan or Clinton faced, thus the timing and scope of tax increases must be carefully calibrated. Over the long term, however, the Republican mantra of “no higher taxes, ever” is as senseless as are claims by some Democrats that we can solve our fiscal gaps simply by soaking the rich. Both spending cuts and revenue increases are required.
One of the oddest aspects of this debate is that the Republican position may not even be good politics -- at least outside safe Republican districts. Public-opinion polls show an increasing acceptance of the need to raise taxes to put the nation’s fiscal house in order. (A large majority of voters would like to see the wealthiest 1 percent raise their hands first.)
The American people are showing that they grasp a fundamental notion that still eludes some of their political leaders. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.” That is well worth the price.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
'Tortured' US Veterans to sue Rumsfeld
Oh Donnie, how about that 8th Ammendment to the US Constitution: The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.
Donald Rumsfeld, the former US secretary of defence, must face a lawsuit filed against him by two American men claiming they were wrongfully held and tortured by US forces in Iraq.
The US Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling last year allowing the men, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, to pursue claims that Rumsfeld and unnamed others should be found personally liable for their treatment - despite efforts by the former Bush and current Obama administration to get the case dismissed.
The two men worked for a private security company in Iraq in 2006 and said they became concerned the firm was engaging in illegal bribery or other corruption activities. They notified US authorities and began co-operating with them.
The appeals court ruled that while it may have been unusual for Rumsfeld to be personally responsible for the treatment of detainees, the two men had sufficiently argued that the decisions were made at the highest levels of government.
"We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention," the court ruled in a split decision.
A district judge in Washington last week allowed a similar case to proceed involving an American translator who worked in Iraq with the US military and who said he was later detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and abuse.
Donald Rumsfeld, the former US secretary of defence, must face a lawsuit filed against him by two American men claiming they were wrongfully held and tortured by US forces in Iraq.
The US Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling last year allowing the men, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, to pursue claims that Rumsfeld and unnamed others should be found personally liable for their treatment - despite efforts by the former Bush and current Obama administration to get the case dismissed.
The two men worked for a private security company in Iraq in 2006 and said they became concerned the firm was engaging in illegal bribery or other corruption activities. They notified US authorities and began co-operating with them.
The appeals court ruled that while it may have been unusual for Rumsfeld to be personally responsible for the treatment of detainees, the two men had sufficiently argued that the decisions were made at the highest levels of government.
"We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention," the court ruled in a split decision.
A district judge in Washington last week allowed a similar case to proceed involving an American translator who worked in Iraq with the US military and who said he was later detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and abuse.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Orderly stampede... we can hope for an Alien invasion.
Standard & Poor’s lowered the AAA ratings of thousands of municipal bonds tied to the federal government, including housing securities and debt backed by leases, following its Aug. 5 downgrade of the U.S.
The rating company assigned AA+ scores to securities in the $2.9 trillion municipal bond market including school- construction bonds in Irving, Texas; debt backed by a federal lease in Miami; and a bond series for multifamily housing in Oceanside, California. Olayinka Fadahunsi, an S&P spokesman, said he couldn’t provide a dollar figure on the affected debt.
S&P also cut ratings on securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, prerefunded issues and munis repaid by using federal assets, also known as defeased or escrow bonds. No state general-obligation ratings were affected and the company said some may remain unchanged.
“It’s expected, but nobody is happy about it,” Bud Byrnes, chief executive officer of Encino, California-based RH Investment Corp., said in a telephone interview. “No one that I know thinks it was justified to cut the U.S. bonds to AA+. Once that happened, you knew that any prerefunded bonds or escrowed bonds would be downgraded too. It’s a domino effect.”
Byrnes said funds required to invest in AAA bonds would be most affected by the downgrades and may be forced to liquidate some holdings. “They will have a hard time replacing that yield,” he said.
The rating company assigned AA+ scores to securities in the $2.9 trillion municipal bond market including school- construction bonds in Irving, Texas; debt backed by a federal lease in Miami; and a bond series for multifamily housing in Oceanside, California. Olayinka Fadahunsi, an S&P spokesman, said he couldn’t provide a dollar figure on the affected debt.
S&P also cut ratings on securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, prerefunded issues and munis repaid by using federal assets, also known as defeased or escrow bonds. No state general-obligation ratings were affected and the company said some may remain unchanged.
“It’s expected, but nobody is happy about it,” Bud Byrnes, chief executive officer of Encino, California-based RH Investment Corp., said in a telephone interview. “No one that I know thinks it was justified to cut the U.S. bonds to AA+. Once that happened, you knew that any prerefunded bonds or escrowed bonds would be downgraded too. It’s a domino effect.”
Byrnes said funds required to invest in AAA bonds would be most affected by the downgrades and may be forced to liquidate some holdings. “They will have a hard time replacing that yield,” he said.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The world as we knew it.
A number of entities that are key players in the U.S. financial system -- including mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and securities clearinghouses like the Options Clearing Corp Depository Trust Co -- are likely to be downgraded by Standard & Poor's on Monday.
For Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, losing their triple-A rating could lift borrowing costs, potentially making mortgages more expensive for consumers and adding to stress in the already unstable U.S. housing market.
Last month, S&P said it may also cut ratings for companies like the Depository Trust Co, which facilitates payment transfers among major banks, and several Federal Home Loan Banks and Farm Credit System Banks.
On Friday evening, when S&P cut the United States' sovereign rating by one notch to "AA-plus," it said it would offer more detail about the ratings for these companies on Monday.
Another source of potential stress is derivatives markets, where investors and banks often collateralize their positions using U.S. Treasuries.
If banks start demanding more Treasuries to collateralize the same exposure, investors could be forced to sell assets to come up with extra collateral, causing broader market declines. As long as Treasury yields are at all time lows, that risk seems relatively low, said a hedge fund trader who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some derivatives transactions may have ratings triggers built into them that unwind the deals if the U.S. is downgraded, the trader said, but he said it is difficult to know how many such transactions are out there.
For Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, losing their triple-A rating could lift borrowing costs, potentially making mortgages more expensive for consumers and adding to stress in the already unstable U.S. housing market.
Last month, S&P said it may also cut ratings for companies like the Depository Trust Co, which facilitates payment transfers among major banks, and several Federal Home Loan Banks and Farm Credit System Banks.
On Friday evening, when S&P cut the United States' sovereign rating by one notch to "AA-plus," it said it would offer more detail about the ratings for these companies on Monday.
Another source of potential stress is derivatives markets, where investors and banks often collateralize their positions using U.S. Treasuries.
If banks start demanding more Treasuries to collateralize the same exposure, investors could be forced to sell assets to come up with extra collateral, causing broader market declines. As long as Treasury yields are at all time lows, that risk seems relatively low, said a hedge fund trader who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some derivatives transactions may have ratings triggers built into them that unwind the deals if the U.S. is downgraded, the trader said, but he said it is difficult to know how many such transactions are out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)