Civilian boards overseeing police in FL are in jeopardy and could be dissolved

MITCH PERRY  

There are 21 such agencies in Florida, with 10 formed after the death of George Floyd in 2020

In 21 jurisdictions across Florida, so-called citizen review boards were created as a way to hold police officers more accountable, with more than half of the boards established following the death of George Floyd in 2020.

But all of the boards would be dissolved if a proposal filed by Duval County House Republican Wyman Duggan (HB 601) gets approval in the current legislative session.

The local boards relate to the ability to investigate allegations of police misconduct, but Duggan says there are no “uniform standards” among the 21 different police oversight agencies across the state.

“There are no uniform standards as to the qualifications or expertise of anybody to be a member,” Duggan told the House Local Administration, Federal Affairs and Special Districts subcommittee on Friday. “There’s no uniform standards on how they choose which cases to investigate. There are no uniform standards by which that investigation is conducted. There are no uniform standards by which they reach their decisions, and there are no uniform standards as to the due process protections afforded to the officer who is subject of the misconduct review.”

And Duggan dismissed claims that removing these oversight agencies will allow law enforcement officers to escape scrutiny or accountability if they are accused of misconduct.

Numerous entities — police departments, sheriff’s offices, state attorneys, the attorney general’s office, the FBI and the Department of Justice — can and do conduct such investigations. 

A recent report by the LeRoy Collins Institute looked at the impact that such oversight review agencies have on Black and white arrest rates in Florida. The report found that cities with such agencies have seen a reduction in total Black arrest rates per 100,000 compared to cities that do not have such agencies. They also found that cities with citizen review boards experience about a 15% reduction in the total Black arrest rates compared to cities not adopting such agencies.

Tennessee passed legislation last year removing the police oversight boards that had existed in Memphis and Nashville, replacing them with review committees that have no power to investigate police misconduct allegations.

At the House committee meetings, several members of the public said that the Legislature would be making a terrible decision if they removed citizen advisory boards.

“Accountability, transparency and having citizens involvement is essential to the trust of the community,” said Susan Khoury, a candidate running for sheriff in Miami-Dade County.

In 2022, a federal jury awarded Khoury $520,000 in damages for physical and mental harm after she claims she was wrongly institutionalized for a psychological examination under the Baker Act, a state law that allows for involuntary emergency mental health services.

Khoury said that there was no civilian oversight group in Miami when the incident happened, and she said she wished there had been. “I’m letting you know that it is important as a committee that you don’t overreach, and allow the communities have a say so.”

Ursula Price is the executive director of the Miami-Dade County Independent Civilian Panel. She moved to South Florida last year to take that position after heading the New Orleans Independent Police Monitor’s Office. She said that the committee needed to understand the limitations of what civilian review boards can actually do.

“There is no way for any oversight agency to reinvestigate some officer to discipline him, to do anything but open up a public discussion about the incident that occurred,” she said, adding that there was nothing punitive about the police oversight process.

“In fact, it benefits officers a great deal,” Price added. “Officers come to me to be whistleblowers to talk about issues of race and gender discrimination inside the police department and to offer suggestions for how to improve policing.”

The bill is strongly supported by law enforcement in Florida.

“The fact that everybody’s thinking that law enforcement officers are not being investigated? That’s incorrect,” said Lisa Henning, a lobbyist with the Florida Fraternal Order of Police. “Every single one of these IA [internal affairs] investigations when closed are available to the public with a public records request.”

The committee approved the proposal mostly along party lines, with one exception: South Florida Democratic Rep. Mike Gottlieb, a criminal defense attorney, joined the Republicans in supporting the bill.

The Senate companion bill (SB 576)  is being sponsored by Hernando County Republican Blaise Ingoglia. It will receive its first hearing in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee on Monday.

This article originally appeared in Florida Phoenix on January 19th 2024.  

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard

Twitter: @_charlesbrooks

'Wrong Side of History': NYC Mayor Adams Vetoes Solitary Confinement Ban

By Olivia Rosane   

"With this veto, the mayor has condemned New Yorkers to suffer in solitary confinement and isolation, and he did so after the cameras were turned off and backs were turned," the bill's sponsor said.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams vetoed a New York City Council bill on Friday that would have banned the practice of solitary confinement in city jails.

Also on Friday, Adams vetoed another bill that would have increased transparency and oversight of the New York Police Department (NYPD). However, both bills passed the council with more votes than is required to override a veto.

"To recap: Police transparency is good. Solitary confinement is bad. And Mayor Adams is committed to manufacturing controversy where there is none," Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso wrote on social media in response to the news. "The Mayor shouldn't be spending time sowing dissent on veto-proof bills that will pass regardless of his actions today."

"Solitary confinement is torture. It often results in lasting psychological damage, and undermines public safety both inside and outside New York City's jails."

Solitary confinement is an increasingly controversial practice that has been recognized as torture by the United Nations and human rights groups if it lasts for more than 15 days in a row, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union. Its use at New York's Rikers Island has been linked to at least two recent deaths: Layleen Polanco Xtravaganza, who died after having a seizure while in solitary in 2019 and Kalief Browder, who took his own life after being placed in solitary confinement for two years.

"Solitary confinement is inhumane, and its presence in our city is indefensible," Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, who sponsored the legislation, said ahead of its passage last month. "Committing an infraction in jail can cause you to lose privileges, not basic human rights. People in solitary are isolated, denied human contact and connection, denied support, and come out of these deplorable conditions worse than when they went in—and some don't come out at all."

The bill, 549A, would have required that everyone in jail in New York City be allowed to gather with other inmates for at least 14 hours every day, except during emergency lock-ins or to deescalate conflict, ABC News reported. In those cases, inmates could only be confined for up to four hours.

Adams announced the veto by press release, and not during an earlier press conference when he announced his veto of the police transparency measure, as New York Magazine reported.

"Our administration does not support solitary confinement in our jails, and New York City has not used the practice for years. In fact, we have achieved significant reductions in key indicators of violence in our correction system without solitary confinement," Adams said in a statement. "But despite the misleading nickname, had [the bill] taken effect, the Department of Correction would no longer be able to protect people in custody, or the union workers charged with their safety, from violent individuals. I implore the City Council to work with our administration and follow the federal monitor's guidance to abandon this misguided bill."

Williams criticized the mayor's decision.

"With this veto, the mayor has condemned New Yorkers to suffer in solitary confinement and isolation, and he did so after the cameras were turned off and backs were turned. It's cowardly, weak, shameful, and entirely expected from this version of this mayor," Williams said in a statement.

"I don't think there's a single person in the city outside the mayor's office who thinks the status quo on Rikers right now is good and effective," Williams continued. "The ongoing use of solitary confinement and isolation in New York City—no matter what the administration calls it—is indefensible, and vetoing the ban is inexcusable."

Other city council members and rights groups spoke out against the mayor's action.

Speaker Adrienne Adams and Criminal Justice Chair Sandy Nurse promised to "take the steps to enact this law over the Mayor's veto." The measure passed 39-7, and an override requires 34 votes.

"The Council passed Intro. 549-A to ban solitary confinement with more than a veto-proof majority because it is imperative to make the city's jails safer for those who are detained and staff alike," Adams and Nurse said. "We cannot allow the human rights and safety crisis on Rikers to continue by maintaining the status quo of failed policies and practices."

The #HALTsolitary Campaign thanked Adams and Nurse for promising to override the mayor's veto.

"He's on the wrong side of history, human rights, and public safety," the group, which is led by impacted New Yorkers, posted on social media.

The NYCL also encouraged the city council to pass the legislation.

"Solitary confinement is torture," the group wrote on social media. "It often results in lasting psychological damage, and undermines public safety both inside and outside New York City's jails."

Council members and rights groups also criticized Adams' veto of the NYPD transparency measure—5862A or the "How Many Stops Act,"—which passed by a 35-9 margin.

"The Mayor's veto betrays his stated goal of public safety and harms the Black and Latino communities that bear the brunt of these stops."

This bill would have mandated that New York police officers report on civilian stops and searchers and give more detailed information about vehicle stops and searchers, ABC News explained.

In justifying his veto, Adams said that while the legislation "has good intentions behind it, the bill is misguided and compromises our public safety."

"Our administration supports efforts to make law enforcement more transparent, more just, and more accountable, but this bill will handcuff our police by drowning officers in unnecessary paperwork that will saddle taxpayers with tens of millions of dollars in additional NYPD overtime each year, while simultaneously taking officers away from policing our streets and engaging with the community," he said.

In response, Council Speaker Adams said the council was "prepared to override this veto," issuing a joint statement with Public Safety Chair Yusef Salaam.

"The false narrative that we cannot have transparency is bad for our city, and belies the fact that accountability is vital to improving public safety by increasing trust," Adams and Salaam said. "The Mayor's veto betrays his stated goal of public safety and harms the Black and Latino communities that bear the brunt of these stops."

The NYCLU wrote on social media: "The mayor's veto leaves another stain on an administration that has been winding back checks on hyper-aggressive, biased, and unaccountable policing. We are confident the city council will heed the call of impacted New Yorkers and advocates and override the Mayor's veto."

This article originally appeared in Common Dreams on January 20th 2024.  

Read the post below related to criminal justice

Civilian boards overseeing police in FL are in jeopardy and could be dissolved, Florida Phoenix

State spending to prosecute – and defend – gang members on the docket for Georgia General Assem, Georgia Recorder

Cash bail policies are under fresh scrutiny, Stateline

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard

Twitter: @_charlesbrooks

How Patrice Lumumba’s assassination drove student activism, shaping the Congo’s future!

During a recent visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), King Philippe of Belgium made a speech to the national parliament in Kinshasa expressing his “deepest regrets” for the exploitation and oppression of Belgian colonialism.

The European nation ruled the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1908 until 1960. Before that it had been a personal colony of Leopold II, Philippe’s great great grand uncle, for more than 25 years.

Philippe also addressed students at the University of Lubumbashi, in the capital of the Southeastern province of Katanga. “Today, let’s look towards the future,” he urged. Philippe declined to expand on his regrets, and only mentioned the colonial past, “our shared history,” in veiled terms.

His exhortation to dissipate colonial memories is particularly problematic in Lubumbashi. It is only a few kilometers away from where Patrice Lumumba, the Congo’s first Prime Minister, was assassinated. This happened in the presence of the Katangese secessionist leader Moïse Tshombe and his Belgian advisers on January 17, 1961.

Lumumba’s tooth, which had been kept by the Belgian policeman who destroyed his body, will finally be repatriated to the DRC – a gesture his family have been requesting for a long time.

Belgian researcher Ludo De Witte has described Lumumba’s murder as the most important assassination of the 20th Century. A charismatic leader, Lumumba embodied the struggle for pan-Africanism and Congolese unity. He unequivocally denounced Europe’s racist oppression of Africa. His vision of decolonisation, as a process of total liberation, marked millions of people in the Congo and around the world.

While Belgium has partly acknowledged its responsibility for the murder, no protagonists have been brought to justice. A parliamentary commission found that King Baudouin, the monarch at Congo’s decolonisation, was aware of plans to assassinate Lumumba. However, Baudouin’s complicity remains to be officially recognised.

The commission “tried in a way to limit the damages with its conclusions” and shied away from linking Belgium directly to the assassination. That was because “the diplomatic, ideological and financial consequences would be extremely great.”

This might be why King Philippe is focusing on moving forward. His speech in Lubumbashi positioned Congolese students as a future-oriented group with whom Belgium could forge a new partnership.

But there’s a crucial element missing from this logic: the specific role historically played by university students in further entrenching decolonisation in the Congo. This appeared most strongly during the 1960s.

In a forthcoming book on the history of this movement, as well as in previous publications, I argue that Lumumba’s death triggered students towards the political left. It created a generation of intransigent activists. These students pushed for total liberation from exploitation and oppression, as Lumumba had envisioned.

Many students today still feel committed to this tradition, and might not easily accept the clean slate envisioned in the monarch’s call to turn away from the past.

Shifts in the student movement

Congolese only began accessing universities a few years before the end of the Belgian regime. This was much later than in other colonial territories in Africa. This was a deliberate move by colonial officials, afraid that educated Congolese would challenge the status quo.

But as the anticolonial struggle was taking off, the Belgians revised their judgement and authorised the opening of two universities. They hoped that having been given access to the last echelon of European education, educated Congolese would support the maintaining of strong ties between Belgium and the Congo.

In the late 1950s, some students adopted the moderate tone that the Belgians had wished for. Several leading student figures from this period, whom I interviewed for my book, told me how they had criticised the politicians as demagogues unfit to rule the Congo. They argued that only a properly trained elite like themselves, and not uneducated politicans, could lead the country towards development and prosperity.

But, in the aftermath of Lumumba’s assassination in 1961, the student movement shifted. Its orientation became a vocal voice in defence of a fully independent Congo and for a more radical break with the colonial era. Students became increasingly critical of their Belgian professors and began identifying with revolutionary figures from Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The murder opened the eyes of many to the violence of neocolonialism. Lumumba immediately became viewed as both a martyr and hero by people around the world. This strongly impressed students and they felt like it was their role to continue the work he had started.

The student movement of the 1960s adopted Lumumba’s commitment to pan-African unity. It built on his conviction that independence involved more than a political transition. It had to be a revolutionary process that abolished economic exploitation and ensured mental liberation from colonial worldviews.

Student demands

Students denounced the continuous power of Belgian administrators and faculty at Congolese universities. They demanded the Africanisation of curricula and the democratisation of governing boards.

Their activism transformed higher education. It paved the way ultimately to the nationalisation of universities. But it also reverberated beyond university campuses, challenging the political elite’s refusal to continue the unfinished decolonisation of Congolese society and economy.

After General Mobutu Sese Seko staged a coup in 1965, he attempted to co-opt students and change their ideas about radical independence.

However, Mobutu’s uneven adherence to the ideal of Congolese nationalism alienated the students. By the end of the 1960s university students continued to oppose Mobutu’s increasingly dictatorial power. This was despite the fact that the regime suppressed critical voices.

Their protests were violently repressed and did not succeed in immediately challenging the president. Yet, they planted seeds that grew over the years and led to the powerful movement for democratisation of the 1990s. I believe that this significantly weakened Mobutu’s power and contributed to his ultimate downfall in 1997.

In June 1970, when King Baudouin went on the first Belgian royal visit of Congo since independence, he stopped, together with President Mobutu, at Lovanium University in Kinshasa. In an interview with students from that time, they told me how they sprayed the royal delegation with water. It was an expression of their opposition to the regime and unfinished decolonisation of their university.

King Philippe didn’t experience an incident like this. Yet, it doesn’t mean that students aren’t looking critically at the relationship between Belgium and Congo. Students rose up in 2015 against then President Joseph Kabila’s attempt to change the constitution. Recently, they have protested against the ongoing war and massacres of civilians in Eastern Congo.

Pedro Monaville, Professor, New York University Abu Dhabi

This article originally appeared in The Conversation on June 19th, 2022  

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, for more news and share our posts! 

And read my brief bio about my writing life 

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

Baltimore’s New Nonprofit Outlet Looks a Lot Like the Same Old Corporate News

JUSTINE BARRON

The Baltimore Banner, an online news outlet, broke a story in November (11/2/23) about a man’s death being ruled a homicide due to “trauma to the body.” The man, Paul Bertonazzi, had been transported by Baltimore Police to Johns Hopkins psychiatric hospital, where he died five days later. The death occurred in January 2023, but the ruling had just been determined.

The original version of the story was short on details, with information vaguely sourced to “Baltimore Police.” It described the man (initially unidentified) as “combative” and self-harming. A second article (11/3/23) on the evolving story was published the next day with more information, including that the man’s spine had been severed at some point. That article includes quotes from a police report.

New Right-Wing Owner to Baltimore Sun Reporters: 'Go Make Me Some Money'

By Brett Wilkins

"The Sinclair TV owner bought The Baltimore Sun for the same reason Elon Musk bought Twitter," opined one critic. "Power."

New Baltimore Sun owner and right-wing media executive David D. Smith raised eyebrows and ire in media circles and beyond following a Tuesday meeting at which he reportedly insulted journalists at his new acquisition and told them to focus on profit.

MLK's Radical Revolution of Values Needed to Heal U.S.

Open and avowed white supremacists operate in the government, engaging in whites-only policies based on a false racist theory of white genocide.

DAVID A. LOVE

This month marks the 90th birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr the iconic American civil rights and human rights leader who forced America to live up to its rhetorical ideals of freedom, democracy and equality. For his efforts, he was assassinated in 1968.

The fallen Nobel laureate and “drum major for justice” - vilified, ostracised and loathed in life, monitored and hunted by the government - was honoured posthumously with a federal holiday in the United States. Yet, as that holiday has been diluted and repositioned into a national day of service, and Dr King’s character has been neutered and rendered a passive, innocuous and idealistic dreamer who gave rousing speeches, Americans have lost sight of the man’s revolutionary philosophy.

Five decades ago, Martin Luther King warned of America’s triple evils: racism, economic exploitation and militarism. These evils continue to plague the country to this day, necessitating the radical restructuring of society the black leader so urgently promoted.

“I am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values,” King said in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech. “We must rapidly begin … the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

Racism, the original American sin born from the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of indigenous peoples, has not abated. 

Racism, the original American sin born from the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of indigenous peoples, has not abated. In his 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech, King said as black people were concerned, the US had failed to honour its promises written in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “Instead of honouring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds’. But we refuse to believe that bank of justice is bankrupt,” he said.

Today, the US has yet to address reparations to African Americans to repair the damage of enslavement and the continuing legacy of institutional racism, including both de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination.

Open and avowed white supremacists operate in the government, engaging in whites-only policies based on a false racist theory of white genocide, with an immigration policy of ethnic cleansing, separation of migrant families and imprisonment of 15,000 children - all designed to keep whites in the majority. Meanwhile, white supremacist hate groups are thriving in the streets, with a sharp increase in hate crimes and school bullying in the era of Trump.

The US is a “flawed democracy” according to the Economist’s 2018 Democracy index, ranking only 25th globally in terms of political participation and culture, governmental functions, electoral process, civil liberties and pluralism. In states such as Georgia and North Carolina, white conservatives of the Republican Party employ segregation-era voter suppression tactics against people of colour and the poor, including restrictive and unjust voter ID laws, voter purges, rigged elections and votes stolen, and gerrymandered legislative districts.

Despite professing to be the self-proclaimed “land of opportunity”, the US maintains a predatory capitalist system with pathological levels of economic inequality. In a land of abundance, only a handful enjoy its wealth. With 40 million people in poverty, the US is the most unequal advanced nation, with the least social and economic mobility in the developed world. The US profits from misery through private prisons, and a for-profit healthcare system that forces people to go bankrupt and into poverty while paying for medical bills.

The wealthiest one percent owns 40 percent of the nation’s wealth, while the top 10 percent controls 77 percent of the wealth. While working Americans are drowning in nearly $1.5 trillion student loan debt they are unable to pay off. And as conservatives shake their heads and proclaim nothing can be done, the nation engages in policies of plunder of poor and working people, such as a $1.5 trillion tax cut almost entirely for the benefit of the top one percent.

Meanwhile, Trump forces a government shutdown over his vanity border wall that leaves 800,000 federal workers without pay, and he advises furloughed workers to make adjustments and, barter with their landlords and hire an attorney.

A culture of corruption precludes the US from solving its problems. Politicians are beholden to moneyed interests rather than held accountable to the public, a Harvard Business School report suggests. Laws promoting gun proliferation, environmental degradation and “loyalty oaths” to other nations reflect the largesse bestowed upon these politicians by lobbyists who seek to enact them.

Martin Luther King, aware of the connections between injustice at home and abroad, spoke out against US proclivity for war. “As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems,” King said. “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.”

Today, the US meddles in the affairs of other nations, waging drone wars and killing hundreds of  thousands of innocent civilians in the name of the “war on terror”, assassinating people and engaging in regime change. Decades of US intervention in Central America caused skyrocketing levels of corruption and violence that fuelled a migrant crisis.

Meanwhile, King predicted “spiritual doom” for an America that continues to spend more on war than on social uplift. Today, a nation which claims it must cut social welfare spending and cannot afford free universal healthcare or college spends trillions of dollars on defence - 37 percent of world military spending and more than the next seven highest spenders combined - and yet cannot account for how the military allocates that money.

Rather than heed his message, America killed King, the messenger. Then, it watered down his message to render it more palatable and digestible to the “white moderate” who is “more devoted to order than to justice”, and prefers that we wait for a “more convenient season” for freedom rather than take direct action now. If America hopes to redeem itself, it must change now. 

This article originally appeared at LAProgressive.org on January 15th, 2024.  

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, for more news and share our posts! 

And read my brief bio about my writing life 

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

Chief financiers remain at large following the January 6 insurrection on the US Capitol

Those who faced harsh consequences for storming the Capitol were not the ones that bankrolled the events of January 6

by Natalia Marques

Three years ago, a right-wing mob stormed the United States capitol building as the 2020 presidential election results were being certified. The attempt was of course unsuccessful, and Joe Biden was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2021.

Three years later and after 1,240 arrests, 170 convictions, 210 guilty pleas to felony offenses, 720 sentences, the longest being 22 years for Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right organization the Proud Boys, it seems as if there has been some retribution for a brazen attempt to install a candidate by violent means that the majority of people in the US did not want to see in the presidency.

The fact is, however, that January 6 was not a populist uprising, although many of the participants were indeed working class people swept up in the fervor of the moment. At multiple levels, January 6 was an operation financed and led by establishment political figures and ultra-wealthy donors.

Trump laid the groundwork

Since the November 2020 Presidential election, Trump had been fomenting the idea that the election was somehow rigged and “stolen” from him, and that he was the true victor. It was around Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rallying cry that the mob formed on January 6 and stormed the US Capitol, where the results were being certified. And following the rally, which took place at the Ellipse park near the White House. Trump himself explicitly directed the crowd to the US Capitol, where police had set up barricades in anticipation of a disruption of election certification proceedings.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. And we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong,” Trump said at the Ellipse.

The financiers of January 6

Beyond political direction, rich and powerful figures provided explicit financial support to the events of January 6. Members of the former President’s inner circle bragged about fundraising millions for the rally. Publix heiress Julie Fancelli, who has donated millions to right-wing political causes including Trump’s 2020 campaign, offered as much as USD 3 million to finance the January 6 rally that preceded the insurrection. Prominent mainstream right-wing organizations such as Turning Point USA and the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) also backed the rally, providing buses, making mass calls, and funneling money to speakers. “This historic event will likely be one of the largest and most consequential in American history,” wrote Turning Point leader Charlie Kirk about the rally, in a tweet. “The team at @TrumpStudents & Turning Point Action are honored to help make this happen, sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.” This tweet has since been deleted.

These groups are not considered fringe. TPUSA donors include the foundation of notable right-wing donor Bernie Marcus, the founder of Home Depot, and the Koch Brothers. The Republican Attorneys General Association boasts a variety of corporate donors, including Amazon, Walmart, Visa, Capital One, MasterCard, Walgreens, General Motors, Home Depot and JPMorgan Chase’s Political Action Committee (PAC), which all have resumed donations to RAGA despite the organization’s embrace of the conspiracy that the 2020 election was stolen.

Those who faced material consequences for storming the Capitol, however, did not represent this wealthy donor class. Out of those arrested, 60% had experienced financial problems over the previous 20 years. 18% had experienced bankruptcy in the past (double the rate of the general public), 20% had eviction or foreclosure proceedings, and 25% had been sued by a creditor for not paying money owed.

And while the mob of people who were arrested for participating in the events of January 6 were not necessarily from the most oppressed sectors of the United States—40% were business owners or white collar workers, and 90% were white—these people are a far cry from the level of wealth and power of the backers of the “Stop the Steal” rally.

However, there were several major right-wing groups, some who practice or promote political violence, who were key players on the ground. The leaders of the Oath Keepers militia and the Proud Boys received the heaviest charges. Armed militia groups including the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters brought weaponry. Openly neo-Nazi organizations such as the Nationalist Social Club-131 also participated. Due to the heavy presence of right-wing groups and sympathizers, January 6, 2021 was the first time a Confederate battle flag was displayed inside the US Capitol.

Trump is facing limited consequences for his role in the January 6 riots, due to lawsuits in Maine and Colorado, it is possible that Trump’s name will no longer be on the Republican primary ballot due to his attempts to reverse the results of the 2020 election. The Supreme Court has agreed to review Colorado’s decision in February. Colorado used a part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, designed to keep former Confederate rebels out of Congress, to keep Trump off the ballot. The Supreme court decision is bound to have national implications, as similar challenges to Trump’s ballot are pending in several states.

Although the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack recommended criminal charges against Trump for obstructing certification proceedings, the Select Committee does not actually have the authority to enforce this recommendation.

Trump, his inner circle, and top January 6 backers and donors remain at large—meaning those that funded and directed the events of January 6 are not being held accountable for the near overthrow of a popular election.

This article originally appeared in Peoples Dispatch on January 6th, 2024.  

Read the posts below related to this topic

"Details of the money behind Jan. 6 protests continue to emerge," OpenSecrets

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, for more news and share our posts! 

And read my brief bio about my writing life 

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

South Africa Initiates Case Against Israel at International Court of Justice

By Julia Conley

The African country, one journalist noted, "fought for its own liberation against an apartheid regime supported for decades by the U.S."

"No one knows apartheid like those who fought it before," said one Palestinian rights advocate on Friday in response to the news that South Africa has taken a "historic" new step to hold Israel accountable for its relentless bombardment and violent yearslong occupation of Gaza—calling on the International Court of Justice to declare that Israel has breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) in South Africa said it is "gravely concerned with the plight of civilians caught in the present Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip due to the indiscriminate use of force and forcible removal of inhabitants" and called on the ICJ to take action to force Israel to "immediately cease" its current attacks on Gaza's 2.3 million residents.

The motion was filed as the death toll in Gaza surpassed 21,500 people and tens of thousands of displaced residents fled an Israeli ground offensive, as airstrikes continued in southern Gaza.

Noting that South Africa has consistently condemned all attacks on civilians, including the assault by Hamas on southern Israel on October7, the country's representatives at hte ICJ said Israel's bombardment of Gaza is "genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and [ethnic] group."

"The acts in question include killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction," reads the application filed at the ICJ.

South Africa took its latest action regarding Israel less than two weeks after President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the government had submitted documents to the International Criminal Court (ICC) supporting its demand, made in November with several other countries, that the court investigate Israel for war crimes.

While the ICC prosecutes individuals and governments for committing war crimes, the ICJ operates under the United Nations to rule on disputes between countries. The ICJ's orders are binding for Israel, as the country is a U.N. member state.

South Africa has joined international human rights experts—including the U.N.'s top expert on human rights in occupied Palestine—in saying Israel's blockade of Gaza and violent treatment of those in the enclave and the West Bank is a form of apartheid, comparing Israeli policies to the racial segregation that was imposed for nearly five decades by the white minority that controlled South Africa.

Last month, the government voted to suspend diplomatic ties with Israel until Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government agrees to a permanent humanitarian cease-fire.

"South Africa has continuously called for an immediate and permanent cease-fire and the resumption of talks that will end the violence arising from the continued belligerent occupation of Palestine," the government said Friday.

Journalist Jeremy Scahill was among those who recognized the significance of South Africa's application at the ICJ, noting that the country "fought for its own liberation against an apartheid regime supported for decades by the U.S.," which is backing Israel's assault on Gaza despite international outcry and protests within the United States.

"The U.N. Genocide Convention must be upheld. Israel must be held accountable," said former U.N. human rights official Craig Mokhiber, who resigned from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in October in protest of the U.N.'s failure to stop Israel's massacre of civilians. "International law must be preserved."

At the ICJ, South Africa called for an expedited hearing on Israel's actions and asked the court to indicate provisional measures under the Genocide Convention to "protect against further, severe, and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people."

Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, adopted in 1948, states that genocide includes acts committed with the "intent to destroy, either in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group."

Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera's senior political analyst, pointed out Friday that "the three leading Israeli officials have declared the intent" to wipe out Gaza's population.

Bishara noted that Israeli President Isaac Herzog said in October that all civilians in Gaza are "responsible" for Hamas' attack on southern Israel, days after Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said the military would collectively punish the enclave's population, who he called "human animals."

Netanyahu also said this week that so-called "voluntary migration" of Gaza residents is the ultimate objective of Israel's assault.

On Friday, the spokesperson for Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry, Lior Haiat, dismissed South Africa's motion as "baseless" and a "despicable and contemptuous exploitation of the court."

Despite top officials' recent statements, Haiat said the government has "made it clear that the residents of the Gaza Strip are not the enemy."

Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director for Human Rights Watch, called South Africa's move "a vital step to propel greater support for impartial justice." 

This article originally appeared in Common Dreams on December 29th, 2023.  

Read the post below related to this topic

'No One Is Spared': South Africa Presents Genocide Case Against Israel at ICJ, Common Dreams

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard

Twitter: @_charlesbrooks