Very interesting read about Dictatorships in Africa and their relationship to the United States!

Wednesday, 09 July 2008
African Dictatorships and Double-Standards
Stephen Zunes

This article originally appeared in Foreign Policy In Focus

“U.S. credibility as a defender of human rights and free elections is seriously compromised.”

The Bush administration has justifiably criticized the Zimbabwean regime of liberator-turned-dictator Robert Mugabe. It has joined a unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the campaign of violence unleashed upon pro-democracy activists and calling for increased diplomatic sanctions in the face of yet another sham election. In addition, both the House and the Senate have passed strongly worded resolutions of solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe in support of their struggle for freedom and democracy.

However, neither the Republican administration nor the Democratic-controlled Congress is sincerely concerned about human rights and democratic elections as a matter of principle. Rather, they are more likely acting out of political expediency. Despite claims of support for the advancement of democracy, the United States continues to support other African dictatorships that are as bad as or even worse than that of Zimbabwe.

Indeed, the United States currently provides economic aid and security assistance to such repressive African regimes as Swaziland, Congo, Cameroun, Togo, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Rwanda, Gabon, Egypt, and Tunisia. None of these countries holds free elections, and all have severely suppressed their political opposition.

The Worst Abuser

Among the worst of these African tyrannies has been the regime of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea. Obiang has been in power even longer than the 28-year reign of Mugabe and, according to a recent article in the British newspaper The Independent, makes the Zimbabwean dictator “seem stable and benign” by comparison. Obiang originally seized power in a 1979 coup by murdering his uncle, who had ruled the country since its independence from Spain in 1968. Under his rule, Equatorial Guinea nominally allowed the existence of opposition parties as a condition of receiving foreign aid in the early 1990s. But the four leading candidates withdrew from the last presidential election in December 2002 in protest of irregularities in the voting process and violence against their supporters. In that election, Obiang officially received more than 97% of the vote (down from 99.5% in the previous election.)

Though the U.S. State Department acknowledged that the election was “marred by extensive fraud and intimidation,” the Congress and the administration devoted none of the vehement condemnation that was so evident after the recent, similarly marred election process in Zimbabwe.

One major reason for the difference in response is oil. The development of vast oil reserves over the past decade has made Equatorial Guinea one of the wealthiest countries in Africa in terms of per capita gross domestic product. Virtually all of the oil revenues, however, goes to Obiang and his cronies. The dictator himself is worth an estimated $1 billion, making him the wealthiest leader in Africa; his real estate holdings include two mansions in Maryland just outside of Washington, DC. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the country’s population lives on only a few dollars a day, and nearly half of all children under five are malnourished. The country’s major towns and cities lack basic sanitation and potable water while conditions in the countryside are even worse.

“The development of vast oil reserves over the past decade has made Equatorial Guinea one of the wealthiest countries in Africa in terms of per capita gross domestic product.”

During his most recent visit to Washington in 2006, Obiang was warmly received by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who praised the dictator as “a good friend” of the United States. Not once during their joint appearance did she mention the words “human rights” or “democracy.” At the same press conference, Obiang praised his regime’s “extremely good relations with the United States” and his expectation that “this relationship will continue to grow in friendship and cooperation.” None of the assembled reporters raised any questions about the regime’s notorious human rights record or its lack of democracy, instead using the opportunity to ask Secretary Rice questions about the alleged threat from Iran.

In 2002, the dictator met with President George W. Bush in New York to discuss military and energy security issues. He followed up in 2004 with meetings with then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.

Cozy Relations

Equatorial Guinea receives U.S. government funding and training through the International Military Education and Training Program (IMET). In addition, the private U.S. firm Military Professional Resources Incorporated - founded by former senior Pentagon officials who cite the regime’s friendliness to U.S. strategic and economic interests - plays a key role in the country’s internal security apparatus. Furthermore, as a result of Obiang’s understandable lack of trust in his own people, soldiers from Morocco - one of America’s closest African allies - have served for decades in a number of important security functions, including the role of presidential guards.

Maintaining close ties with such a notorious ruler has led even conservative Republicans like Frank Ruddy, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to Equatorial Guinea in the mid-1980s, to denounce the Bush administration for being “big cheerleaders for the government - and it’s an awful government.”

“U.S. oil companies paid hundreds of millions of dollars destined to state treasuries directly into the dictator’s private bank accounts.”

Though the Chinese have also recently begun investing in the country’s oil sector, U.S. companies ExxonMobil, Amerada Hess, Chevron/Texaco, and Marathon Oil have played the most significant role. A report by the International Monetary Fund notes that U.S. oil companies receive “by far the most generous tax and profit-sharing provisions in the region.” Congressional hearings recently revealed how U.S. oil companies paid hundreds of millions of dollars destined to state treasuries directly into the dictator’s private bank accounts. A Senate report faulted U.S. oil companies for making “substantial payments to, or entering into business ventures with,” government officials and their family members.

The irony of the relative silence of Congress and the Bush administration regarding the human rights abuses and the undemocratic nature of Obiang’s regime is that, due to the critical role of U.S. economic investment and security assistance, the United States has far more leverage on the government of Equatorial Guinea than it does on the government of Zimbabwe. As a result, Americans can feel self-righteous in their condemnation of a regime in Zimbabwe with which the United States has little leverage while continuing to support an even more repressive regime over which the United States could successfully exert pressure if it chose to do so.

This does not mean the United States should have waited until it first ends its support of Obiang and other African dictatorships before joining the rest of the international community in condemning the repression in Zimbabwe. However, as long as the United States maintains such blatant double-standards, U.S. credibility as a defender of human rights and free elections is seriously compromised and thereby plays right into the hands of autocrats and demagogues like Robert Mugabe.

Stephen Zunes is a senior analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.

I’m wondering if there is any real crime in Flint. Ofcourse I know the answer is to this question is yes so then the next question becomes  “do the cops in Flint not have more to worry about than the harm of saggy jeans”. Who hires these idiots, everyday people are being murdered, raped and a host of other violent crimes and you want to harrass people who wear their pants sagging.

It’s indecent and immoral, ok I hear you but what about the drugs being sold on the streets of Flint, the armed robberies, crimes that actually affect the well being of our communities. Make those crimes your priority not saggy jeans which is no more than a tacky fashion statement that I myself used to partake in.

Unless the real reason behind this saggy jeans thing is more remniscent of the broad view of racial profiling. The broad definition allows that you utilize race and other factors; ie. geography, dress, location, age and other factors to profile certain individuals. People who don the style of baggy, saggy jeans are more likely than not, young black males so this would give the police ammunition to approach young black males. Why? Because they fit the description and by wearing these saggy jeans, they are breaking the law.

So maybe the police chief has bigger hopes in mind. Maybe while taking these young black men off the streets for such a petty crime they will find drugs or some type of other criminal activity afoot during their harassment of these males. Just something to ponder!

Michigan police chief: Wear saggy pants, get arrested Flint’s top cop calls it ‘immoral self-expression,’ but others fear racial implications By BRYN MICKLE Newhouse News Service Published on: 06/27/08

This city’s new police chief is saying no to crack.

Interim Flint Police Chief David R. Dicks announced this week that officers will begin arresting people wearing pants or shorts that sag too low, exposing rear ends. “This immoral self-expression goes beyond free speech,” Dicks said in a statement released Thursday.”It rises to the crime of indecent exposure/disorderly persons.

” It’s a style that irks many — a few cities nationwide have outlawed the rear-revealing pants (the Atlanta City Council proposed a ban amid much debate, but the plan was ultimately tabled). However, the order also raises serious questions about how it would be enforced, whether it disproportionately targets young black men and whether ultra-low riders should be considered constitutionally protected.

Is Dicks going too far?

Greg Gibbs, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney in Flint, said how people wear their clothing is a form of expression but cautions that not all of those forms are protected by the Constitution.

“The issue is: Does it violate the First Amendment?” Gibbs asked.

Some Flint residents are all for busting those who go bottoms out. “It’s overdue,” said Sam Berry, 73, of Flint.

Gwendolyn R. Allen, 72, of Flint agreed: “It’s so disgusting … It’s disgraceful.” Claude Carter, 49, of Flint sees the issue differently, though. He said wearing pants in that manner is a fad — not a crime. “I see young and old wearing their pants that way,” said Carter. The crackdown on buttocks is an apparent response to “significant” complaints from citizens, according to Dicks. Under the chief’s orders, any sworn officer who sees “sagging/exposing buttocks” will have probable cause to make an arrest under the city’s disorderly person ordinance — a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine and three months in jail.

Flint NAACP President Frances Gilcreast is no fan of the style but worries about police focusing on young black men.

“My concern is how (the policy) will be applied equitably,” Gilcreast said. Some Flint police officers, however, aren’t too sure how they will enforce it. “What about ‘plumber’s crack’?” said Keith Speer, president of the Flint Police Officers Association. In the past, Speer said, officers would issue warnings if too much skin was showing but reserved the handcuffs for full moons. “Most of the time, if they’re wearing sagging pants, they’re also wearing boxers,” he said. Memo notwithstanding, Speer doesn’t expect any big changes in how officers handle the issue. “It’s like issuing a memo telling officers to enforce the law,” Speer said. “Are we going to get a memo every time somebody complains?”

So the Supreme Court, the Court of all Courts, the Law of the Land has ruled that the death penalty is not permissable in a child rape case.

Well Why Not Your Honor? Do you only think it is necessary and proper for someone to be killed by our JUSTICE System when they too have murdered someone. How do we tell people not to murder by murdering them. Is that a misunderstanding because I don’t understand it.

A child who is raped is murdered in different ways. Their spirit is murdered in many instances, their bodies and mind never forget the horrific pain of being forced to have sex and brutally raped by adults. Often their belief systems are killed because they ask themselves what kind of God would allow such a heinous crime?

So if your reasoning is based on an eye for an eye, well that system is long gone. In fact the reasoning behind why we keep the Death Penalty in this country is flawed. Gregg v. Georgia outlines it, if I am correct. Here are the following reasons why the United States feels it is legally just to kill people to show them that they should not kill people!

In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized three factors: (i) that the “imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance both in the United States AND England”; (ii) that it was “now evident that a large proportion of American society continues to regard it as an appropriate and necessary criminal sanction”; and (iii) that the death penalty serves “two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders.”

So let me understand this:

because the death penalty has long been accepted in both the United States and England it is alright to kill people. Couldn’t the same have been said to uphold slavery and other inhumane acts. It is reasonings like this, that seem logical to a selected few that killed off millions of Jewish people in the Holocaust.

2. Americans regard it as an appropriate and necessary criminal sanction. Hmm 100 years ago many Americans believed it was ok to lynch negroes for looking at white women. This was no small group of individuals, this was common practice here in America. Does that make it right? Many blue eyed, blond haired Germans felt it was an appropriate sanction to exterminate Jewish people, does that make it right, and or just. A young Indian girl was almost killed a few months ago because she is from a lower caste system. A young man in his twenties threw her onto a burning fire, does that make it right. His peers and old traditions in his country thought these types of actions were ok, does that make it right and legally sound?

3. The death penalty serves as retribution and deterrence. Well the easier one is deterence. It must not serve such a great job when people in this country are being killed every day. How are we deterring them, they are not deterred, they are not phased. In fact you encourage them to kill by being a leading example that says it is ok to kill someone.

Retribution, do we really want to go back to the old theory an eye for an eye. In that case we will all be blind which is what this system offers. Blind Justice, 10% or more of the people on Death Row currently are innocent yet they have been found guilty. Will we continue to kill innocent people in the name of our Constitution?

America, Land of the free, home of the brave do you really have the authority to play God. Are we that holy as a country that we dare look down upon others and “attempt” to bring democracy to them when are lacking fundamental freedoms at home. When you challenge America you are quickly reminded that you could live somewhere else where things are worst off. When did we begin comparing ourselves to countries and situations that are less favorable than our own. How does that allow us to prosper and grow when we make backwards comparisons rather than marching forward as I would believe the Forefathers of this country wanted us to.

The Supreme Court Says No to the Death Penalty for child rapists, I pray I see the day when WHEN WE SAY NO TO THE DEATH PENALTY COMPLETELY. Otherwise we are just as barbaric as the countries we claim to civilize!

here is the link to the story that prompted this discussion.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html

This is the ending of the horrific story that took place at a Columbia University grad student’s apartment where the woman was raped and tortured for over 19 hours. The details are described in the fox news report below but it’s apparent that some people are sick and truly un-human.

This man made the woman gouge her own eyes with scissors, threw bleach at her eyes to blind her and continuously raped and sodomized this woman. He then torched her apartment and left the woman there for dead.

I do not feel sorry for what this man will soon experience while in jail. More than likely he will receive a life sentence because he has a clear criminal history. Having already served 8 years for attempted murder i highly doubt the judge will take it easy on him at sentencing.

The criminal justice system is not completely off the hook. We need a prison system that really does rehabilitate criminals and not just serve as holding cells until people get out and often strike again. I’m not sure how we would do that honestly, I am not sure what type of programs we could institute that could break down the walls of some of these men and women and their sadistic acts.

I am glad the man was found guilty, I know in no way does this replenish the part of this woman’s spirit that was lost through this ordeal but at least she does not have to be raped again by the criminal justice system as other woman have been. For evidence of that read: Treat Her Like A Prostitute.

for the following story click:

Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371121,00.html

I was shocked that Soulja boy responded the way that he did. It shows a lack of respect for the older generation and leaders of Hip-Hop. I mean does Soulja Boy really think that he makes good music, like noone will remember this dude next year. And his response sounds like a immature little boy, BEAT IT!!!!

Here’s How The Whole Thing Started…

Here is Soulja boy’s response.

Soulja boy is fresh ass hell and is actually the true meaning of what hip hop is sposed to be. He came from the hood, made his own beats, made up a new saying, new sound and a new dance with one song. He had all of America rapping this summer. If that ain’t Hip Hop then what is? A bunch of wannabe keep it real rappers that ain’t even relevant, recycling samples trying to act like it’s 96 again and all they do is hate on new shit? Niggas always talk about the golden age but for a 13 year old kid, this is the golden age!!! That song was so dope cause everything he said had a hidden meaning… that’s Nas level shit… he just put it over some steel drums which is also some Nas shit if you had the 2nd album cassette with the bonus track “Silent Murder” on it. In closing… new niggas get ya money$$$$$$$$$$ Keep this shit fresh and original…. ain’t no fuckin’ rules to this shit and that’s what real hip hop is to me. - Kanye West

Now Kanye is rolling with Soulja Boy on this one. So basically if you spit on a record, loop it over a few times now you are Hip-Hop. Vanilla Ice is hip-Hop, hell if you come from the hood, make your own beats then you too can be hip hop. It doesn’t matter if you have any love for the culture, this genre of music. But clearly this is where the industry meets the culture, Soulja boy is what the industry has made. Times are changing so to say everything that is new is wack is proposterous. But for Kanye West to compare Soulja Boy to Nas is outrageous. Matter fact I am forgetting that Kanye goes on tirades and this was definitely one of them.

Mike Tyson put up $50,000 for a proposed “hit” on gang members suspected of killing his bodyguard in 2000, a government witness testified.

Tyson’s attorney was traveling Friday and could not immediately be reached for comment.

People have it confused; if you and your man do a crime and you get caught and he doesn’t and you tell. THAT’S SNITCHING! You chose that lifestyle, you are only telling because you got caught. However if a little girl gets shot in the street and you say you’re not going to “snitch”, a. that’s not snitching, b. you’re a punk and you’ll end up dead soon enough. See because you chose not to snitch you bring death to your own front doorstep! 1

START SNITCHING

We see it glorified in old mob flicks, rap records hail it as the sin of all sins; the number one code of the streets; “don’t snitch”. LOYALTY, I understand the concept very well, but when does it border stupidity and become a cause in fact of the violence and destruction of our neighborhoods. The “Stop Snitching Campaign” was subliminally etched into our minds long before the celebrated t-shirts with stop signs and the word snitching embedded within. Well please forgive me, for I am about to break the ultimate code of honor, I’m about to become the rat of all rats, because my charge for us as a community is to… “START SNITCHING”.

There, I said it, START SNITCHING, start snitching if you want your children to live to see past their elementary school graduation. Start Snitching if you want to stop living in fear as you walk to the corner store. This is heavy, because as a people we have a strong distrust for law enforcement. I mean, why wouldn’t we, after seeing many of our leaders crippled by this system of American Justice. We vividly remember news clips of the Civil Rights Era, watching police officers brutally attack people of color with water hoses and K-9 dogs? Many of us can attest to the “random” car stops, the harassment and brutality that our people face on a daily basis from those who are supposed to protect and serve. Yet I still say START SNITCHING, far too many of our children are becoming victims in the crossfire of drug wars, domestic disputes and other various forms of crime that begat violence.

What do you tell a mother who just lost her 6-year-old child to gun violence and you know what happened? What do we put on your grave when you’re no longer here, “here lies a good man cause he wasn’t no snitch”. No, more like here lies a coward who was too afraid to take ownership of his community and protect the lives around him. Now you’re thinking, “I‘m not snitching because then they are going to come and get me”. I agree, and sadly once again law enforcement does an awful job at protecting those who come forward with the truth. There is power in numbers, if we take a stand as a people we can combat these atrocities. We can put pressure on the legislators to create better programs for those who come forward, put pressure on city hall to allocate sufficient funds to the police department for such programs. Once we become aware of our power we won’t have to live in fear, we will begin to think for the system and have our thoughts implemented, as they should be in the first place. We elect, key word “elect” public officials, they are in their positions to serve us. So if we don’t feel safe it is our duty to get that message across to those who we have elected to make us feel protected. We can employ “effective snitching” by going to city council meetings, arranging town hall meetings and charging elected officials with doing their job and implementing programs that will make our streets safer. Our taxes are what pay the salaries of these elected officials and law enforcement personnel, so essentially they work for us, its time that we remind these people who write their checks and demand that produce results!

I’m talking about taking a stand for the well-being of the children we are raising. We know exactly what goes on around the way from violence to drug dealing and we even know what times it is more probable that these crimes occur. Effective snitching means as a community going to these elected officials and providing them with this information, demanding that they not only look at the information but that they create a plan of action to address it. Jail time is supposed to serve as a deterrent for crimes committed, meaning if you do the crime you do the time. By not snitching and taking a blind eye to the crimes within our neighborhoods, we are sending our people the message that what they’re doing is right and will be tolerated. We’re saying there’s no reason to think before you act because no one is going to tell so you don’t have to worry about prison time. No wonder the murder rates are so high, we have sent a message that people can be killed and we will protect the killers by keeping silent. START SNITCHING, effective snitching, lets be a catalyst for the change that we wish to see in our communities. Let’s Make It Happen!

Cedric D. Shine

Real Rap, START SNITCHING….. People need to understand that protecting killers is doing nothing but ensuring your own death, or the death of one of your loved ones. No longer can we sit idly by and watch our people be gunned down!

According to Allhiphop.com
A man who worked security for rapper Busta Rhymes was shot multiple times and found dead in the back of his pickup truck on Wednesday (May 28th), AllHipHop.com has learned.

Police found blood dripping from the backseat of his SUV when they discovered Williams’ body, which was wrapped in a blanket in the backseat of the SUV.
Sources have confirmed with AllHipHop.com that Williams, also known as “Black,” was Rhymes’ bodyguard, although it is unclear if he was working for the rapper as of press time.
Busta Rhymes has been on a tour of Europe and was not in the country at the time of the incident sources told AllHipHop.com.
Williams, who leaves behind two children, reportedly went to Queens to visit his grandmother and ended up missing for almost 24 hours.
Police are still seeking the suspects who committed the murder.
Williams is the second bodyguard employed by Busta Rhymes to be shot dead.
His former bodyguard Israel Ramirez was shot dead on February 5, 2006, outside of a warehouse, where a music video for the remix to Rhymes’ single “Touch It” was being shot
Ramirez, 29, was shot in the chest in front of the building, where as many as 500 people may have witnessed the shooting.

According to Allhiphop.com Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter is in the process of establishing a trust fund for the children of our fallen soldier Sean bell, who was brutally murdered by the New York Police Department.

I am thankful for this news and pray that other entertainers follow suit not just in the case of Sean Bell but in other cases of injustice for young men and women of color. It is important that i note that support for the struggles of our people are not necessarily always meant to be in a monetary form. Often people who have a voice can utilize their platform and speak for many on the ground whose voices often go unheard. Shout out to Jay and all of the other brothers in Hip-Hop who are standing up for their communities. It is crucial that in times like this we band together to create change rather than chopping each other down.

For more information check out:
http://allhiphop.com/stories/news/archive/2008/05/02/19773445.aspx

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfGb0yoLJ8g&hl=en]