Holding Iranian Human Rights Abusers Accountable

U.S. Department of State  Mobile

Back to previous page 

Hillary Rodham Clinton 
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

June 9, 2011

---

In June 2009, the world watched as Iran’s security forces violently suppressed thousands of Iranians who were calling for transparency and accountability in their government. Nearly two years after Iran’s brave citizens took to the streets, the struggle for civil liberties and fundamental rights continues. Today, the United States has sanctioned three Iranian government entities complicit in the ongoing brutal repression – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Basij Resistance Force, and Iran’s Law Enforcement Forces (LEF) – as well as LEF Commander Ismail Ahmadi Moghadam.
While Iran’s leaders hypocritically applaud protesters abroad calling for self-determination, many of Iran’s own citizens -- including founding members of the revolution -- are being held as political prisoners merely for holding views contrary to Iran’s leaders. Iranians are being executed for crimes based on dubious charges and without the due process guaranteed under Iran’s constitution. Religious and ethnic minorities are intimidated and imprisoned, while women’s rights activists, human rights defenders, clerics, and labor leaders are targeted for retribution for seeking human rights for themselves and other Iranian citizens. By barring many of Iran’s most accomplished artists, journalists, and academics from working, and forcing many to flee their homeland, the Iranian government restricts the space where free thought and expression can flourish.
The United States stands with all Iranians who wish for a government that respects their human rights, their dignity and their freedom, and we call on the Iranian government to end its systematic human rights abuses and political hypocrisy. Today’s sanctions reflect our commitment to hold accountable those governments and officials that violate human rights and deprive their citizens of the opportunities and future they deserve.

CORNYN, KYL FILE AN AMENDMENT TO ASSESS NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS OF AMERICA’S BALLOONING DEBT

PoliticalNews.me - Jun 11,2011 - Measure Boosts Transparency & Reporting On Debts to Foreign Governments  WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) filed an amendment to the Economic Development Administration reauthorization bill, to require the President to regularly assess the economic and national security risks associated with our nation’s mounting debt. It would also ensure policymakers and the American public are more clearly informed on the details and risks of our overall debt to foreign countries.  Senator Cornyn said, “The federal government’s reckless deficit spending has created a fiscal crisis and a growing national security vulnerability. A massive chunk of our debt is held by foreign governments such as Communist-led China, whose true motivations for doing so remain unclear. My hope is that this legislation will provide a reality check, help rein in the out of control spending, and make our nation safer.”  Senator Kyl said, “We have now reached the $14.3 trillion debt limit, which is a crushing amount of debt. Under the budget plan the President presented earlier this year, our public debt would double before the end of his four-year term and triple ten years from the day he took office. The fact that we now borrow 40 cents of every dollar the government spends, much of it from foreign interests, threatens both America’s solvency and sovereignty. This legislation will shed light on the risks of being beholden to foreign creditors. It also requires the development of a spending reduction plan to mitigate unacceptable risk.” U.S. government spending has exacerbated the dependence of the U.S. on foreign creditors, such as the People’s Republic of China. Today, China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. government debt. Some Chinese government officials have scolded senior U.S. Government officials over the mounting debt, and others have publicly threatened to use China’s large U.S. debt holdings to retaliate against U.S. policies they oppose. In recent response to a U.S. decision to sell defensive weapons systems to Taiwan, an official of China’s People’s Liberation Army warned that China might sanction the U.S. by “dumping” U.S. government bonds. A rapid and substantial Chinese divestment of U.S. debt holdings would have a destabilizing effect on the U.S. economy.  The Cornyn-Kyl amendment, which was also introduced as the Foreign-Held Debt Transparency and Threat Assessment Act of 2011 in May, will require the President and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the evaluation and auditing arm of Congress, to provide regular analysis of the national security and economic implications of the national debt. A previous version of this legislation passed the Senate last June as an amendment to an unemployment compensation bill. The legislation will: 1) improve transparency and reporting regarding overall foreign holdings of U.S. debt, equipping U.S. policymakers with a more accurate picture of which countries are financing U.S. deficit spending; 2) require the President to provide Congress with quarterly risk assessments—both classified and unclassified—on the national security and economic hazards posed by current levels of foreign holdings of U.S. Government “debt instruments”; 3) instruct the GAO to provide Congress with an annual risk assessment on national security and economic hazards posed by the national debt, as well as recommendations for reducing federal spending; 4) and require the President, in the event that any heightened risks are found to exist, to address those risks and implement a plan of action to reduce Federal spending.

SC's Boeing case likely to be issue in presidential race

By James Rosen - McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- 

What began as an administrative complaint over the opening of a factory in South Carolina has grown into an all-out political brawl on its way to becoming a major presidential election issue involving unions and the future of U.S. capitalism.
When an administrative law judge takes up the National Labor Relations Board's case against Boeing in Seattle on Tuesday, he will incite Republicans, who accuse President Barack Obama of attempting to thwart job growth to appease union cronies and advance big-government policies.
"All eyes will be on Seattle next Tuesday, when one of our nation's greatest assets and contributors to our economic future will be put on trial for investing, creating and innovating at a time when we are in the middle of an economic recession," U.S. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said on the Senate floor last week.

MCT FILE PHOTO - Construction of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner in Charleston turned into a political battle focusing on the company's decision to locate in a right-to-work state.

At issue is whether Boeing engaged in union-busting with its 2009 decision to open a plant in North Charleston to make 787 jets for airlines around the world. Those airlines already have pre-purchased more than 800 of the aerospace giant's cutting-edge Dreamliners.
Experts say the case could take years to wind its way through the labor board and courts, and even then, its resolution is not likely to affect Boeing's new S.C. plant.
The National Labor Relations Board's top lawyer says Boeing built the factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state with few labor disputes, to retaliate against its unionized employees for past strikes at the Fortune 50 firm's hub in Everett, Wash.
Lafe Solomon, the labor board's acting general counsel, said "a thorough investigation" led him to file the April 20 complaint that will get is first formal airing in the Seattle courtroom.
"During this hearing, all parties will have a chance to present their arguments and evidence," Solomon said. "It will be up to the judge to weigh that evidence and issue a decision."
Boeing, the world's largest aerospace company, appears undeterred by the proceeding. The firm held a ribbon-cutting ceremony Friday outside its new plant, next to Charleston International Airport, even though the facility won't open until next month and won't produce any Dreamliners until the fall.
Boeing officials said the ceremony's timing - just days before the Seattle hearing - was coincidental, not an in-your-face gesture aimed at Washington.
"We at the Boeing Co. are celebrating an important day in American manufacturing," said Sean McCormack, communications head of the firm's government operations. "We are confident that we will prevail against the National Labor Relations Board complaint, but today for us is not about that dispute."
Republican leaders were less measured in framing the symbolic factory opening as a political shot aimed at Obama and unions that have made millions of dollars in campaign contributions to him and other Democratic candidates.
Gov. Nikki Haley, South Carolina's first female governor, used risqué slang in hailing the ribbon-cutting and pledging her state's full support in Boeing's struggle against the labor board.
"We are going to fight for you, we're going to support you, we're going to be a cheerleader, and we can't wait to see those mack-daddy planes come out of here," Haley told Boeing officials flanking her at the factory-opening ceremony.
"South Carolina earned the right to build airplanes for Boeing in our state, and no one is going to take that away from us," said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Seneca Republican.
Graham, a military lawyer who was in private law practice before joining Congress in 1995, derides the labor board case as a "frivolous" act of "political theater."
Virtually every major business group, from the Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers, is backing Boeing in the dispute.
Those Republican-leaning groups, along with their hundreds of member companies, have provided their own millions to GOP political candidates.
Obama aides have refused to comment on the case, saying the NLRB is an independent agency that must operate free of White House influence.

Michele Bachmann's coming out party

MONDAY, JUN 13, 2011 23:50 ET

In the first real GOP debate, the Minnesota congresswoman puts on a performance tailor-made for the Tea Party

BY STEVE KORNACKI

AP

Michele Bachmann

Let's be clear: Monday night's Republican presidential debate will soon be forgotten. There will be countless other forums between now and the start of the primary and caucus season, and nothing that was said by any of the seven candidates who participated (Jon Huntsman was the only credible candidate not to show up) will end up mattering when actual voters cast actual ballots early next year.

That said, there was still value in the two-hour, made-for-television event: It provided some hints about which candidates are most -- and least -- likely to distinguish themselves in the months ahead. In this sense, two of them seemed to have particularly good nights: Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.

To understand why, it's important to see the  GOP race as two separate, simultaneous contests.

One tier consists of candidates who have the potential to win significant support from the party's elites -- the elected officials, fund-raisers, activists, interest group leaders, and opinion-shaping commentators who are able to influence mass Republican opinion. These candidates have weighty resumes and generally solid ideological credentials and don't hold any views that are deal-breakers with significant chunks of the GOP coalitions. They are also "safe" enough not to arouse fears that nominating them would cost the party any of its built-in November support. They are, in other words, the candidates with the best chances of emerging as the nominee next year. Romney and Tim Pawlenty are in this tier. Rick Perry will be too if he runs, and Huntsman might be as well.

The other tier consists of everyone else. These are the candidates who are extremely unlikely to win meaningful elite support -- maybe because their credentials are weak, or because their ideologies are too narrow, or because they're seen as too polarizing for a general election, or some combination of these factors. These candidates must rely on generating enough excitement from grassroots voters and activists, since the elites will be doing little or no heavy-lifting for them.

Of the first tier candidates, Romney had the better night on Monday. There was considerable speculation that some (or all) of his rivals would use to forum to attack him over what is supposedly his biggest policy vulnerability -- his support for a state-level version of  "ObamaCare" in Massachusetts. But watching the debate, you never would have known it's an issue. Like every other candidate on stage, Romney enthusiastically tore into President Obama's healthcare law, castigating it as a massive "power grab" by the federal government that raises taxes, raids Medicare and could bankrupt the country. The Massachusetts law he signed, Romney insisted, is nothing like this.

Most of what he was saying made little sense, but that's not the point. The point is that Romney delivered one smooth, superficially compelling healthcare talking point after another -- and every one of them went unchallenged by his opponents. This is significant, because his healthcare position doesn't actually need to be that coherent for him to win the nomination. The vehemence of the GOP's opposition to ObamaCare, after all, isn't really rooted in logic; it's rooted in blind, reflexive opposition that anything with Obama's fingerprints on it. In that sense, Romney's performance Monday night gave Republican elites something they can use if they want to promote his candidacy -- a way to tell rank-and-file GOP voters not to worry about everything they've heard about his Massachusetts law. All you need to know, the elites can tell the masses, is that what Romney did is different than what Obama did -- and that he hates ObamaCare just as much as you.

And why might elites want to help Romney like this?

One reason could be found in Pawlenty's flat performance Monday night. The former Minnesota governor has been trying hard to become the elite-approved alternative to Romney, but he's struggled to gain traction -- even though on paper he makes perfect sense. He showed why on Monday, when the moderator -- CNN's John King -- dared Pawlenty to attack "RomneyCare" to Romney's face. Pawlenty stumbled around before dodging the challenge and filibustering. When he finished, King went to Romney, who forcefully reeled off a few more meaningless but compelling attacks on Obama's reform efforts. It was only one debate, but Romney was much more up to the challenge than Pawlenty.

And then there's Bachmann, who had the best night of the five second tier candidates on stage. She started the evening by making news, announcing in response to King's first question that she had formally filed paperwork to run. Then, on topic after topic, she delivered glib, confident, easy-to-digest responded perfectly calibrated for conservative true believers. "Make no mistake about it," in a line that received loud applause early on, "President Obama is a one-term president." On abortion, she insisted that "I stand for life, from conception to natural death." On gay marriage, she noted that she believes so deeply in the ideal of traditional marriage that she and her husband have raised more than 20 foster children. And on government spending, she lamented that "everytime the liberals get into office, they pass an omnibus bill of big spending projects. What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills."

Last month, when a smaller group of candidates gathered for a debate in South Carolina, Herman Cain was the undisputed victor among the tier two candidates. Since then, he's received significant news media coverage and has surged to double digits in some national polls -- even finishing second in one recent Iowa survey. With Bachmann on stage with him tonight, though, Cain seemed to fade out of the picture. Her performance was much stronger and more focused, and it's not hard to imagine her receiving a bounce of her own in the weeks ahead.

It's also not hard to imagine her bounce enduring, given the polish she showed Monday night. Enough to win the nomination? Almost certainly not. But enough to become a serious threat in Iowa and -- potentially -- end up in a one-on-one race with Romney or Pawlenty? Sure. Of course, if Bachmann were to get that one-on-one race after Iowa, she'd probably suffer the same fate that Pat Buchanan did after he won New Hampshire in 1996 and found himself in a one-on-one contest with Bob Dole; at that point, GOP elites flocked to Dole in terror and helped him win virtually all of the remaining contests.

But that kind of scenario is a long way off. For now, Bachmann is just one of a handful of candidates trying to stir passion among the grassroots. And she did a good job of it on Monday night.