Monday, May 15, 2017

CAN THE ANTI-TRUMP RESISTANCE TAKE PHILADELPHIA’S DA OFFICE?

Go to Original
By 



LARRY KRASNER, Philadelphia’s insurgent candidate for district attorney, has built his campaign around three pledges: to end mass incarceration, to stand up for people’s rights and liberties, and to resist the Trump administration.
In Philadelphia, as in much of 2017 America, those are ambitious plans: The city has the highest incarceration rate in the Northeast and arrests twice as many people on average as other big cities. Philadelphia also has a sordid history of police abuse and a level of official corruption that’s almost legendary — the current DA, Seth Williams, is facing 23 federal charges ranging from bribery to extortion, and is not seeking reelection.
But Krasner, who has never worked as a prosecutor, has a 30-year record showing that he’s always been committed to those promises. As a civil rights and criminal defense attorney he has represented many of those most affected by the city’s troubled justice system. He has defended Philadelphia’s poor and generations of the city’s dissenters — from ACT UP activists in the 1990s to Occupiers, Dreamers, and Black Lives Matter protesters in more recent years. He has sued the Philadelphia Police Department at least 75 times.
“I was just having a damn good time,” Krasner said during an interview at his law firm turned campaign headquarters. “I mean, there was something in it for me. I was contributing to major social change and it was making me feel, I don’t know… significant, whole. Right?”
Becoming a prosecutor won’t change that, he insists, never mind that his job will be sending people to prison. “I always did this because I think trials should always be fair, and innocent people should not be convicted, and individuals’ civil rights should be preserved,” he said. “I don’t see a big distinction between doing that as a prosecutor and doing it as a defense attorney.”
But if working to end mass incarceration and standing up for people’s rights have long been items on Krasner’s resume, it’s his opposition to President Donald Trump that might just sweep him into elected office. And it was Trump’s election that finally got him to give in to those who had been pushing him to run for office.
For someone who has spent thirty years battling a corrupt and unfair system, Krasner has an upbeat way of looking at it all, the Trump presidency included. Trump will be out soon, he speculated two days after the president fired James Comey, and anyway the feds “don’t have enough boots on the ground” in Philadelphia. “If local district attorneys simply stand up and say, ‘You go ahead, we’re not going to be a part of your plan. We’re not funded for it, we’re not required to do it,’ he will have great difficulty carrying out almost all of what he’s trying to do,” Krasner said.
How Philadelphia will handle justice is in the hands of its next DA, then, but getting there won’t be so easy.

With seven candidates crowding up Tuesday’s Democratic primary, and one more candidate running as a Republican, it’s anyone’s guess how Krasner will do. District Attorney races nationwide hardly bring lines to the polls, and Philadelphia, where electoral participation doesn’t match a vibrant community engagement, is no exception. When the current DA was elected, only 12 percent of those eligible to vote turned out at the polls. Even fewer showed up when he ran unopposed for a second term.
The city’s largest police union, which moves votes and endorsed Trump in the presidential election, got behind the Democrat most distant from Krasner’s overthrow-the-system promises.
But this is the Trump era, and many are now watching Krasner’s run in Philadelphia as a test of whether people’s horror with the larger state of electoral politics will lead them to show up or give up, a test of whether people’s anger can turn into votes, particularly in local elections.
At a time when the new administration is promising to roll back police reform, return to harsh sentencing for low-level offenders, and further criminalize immigration, the race for Philadelphia’s top prosecutor job and a number of other DA races across the country are also testing people’s commitment to a criminal justice reform that was finally, if imperfectly, underway. Krasner’s run has electrified Philadelphia’s progressives and brought to the city the expertise and resources of national racial justice advocates as well as Bernie Sanders alumni. It’s also a first test of whether the street and political movements that have sprung up in recent years can sustain losses, overcome differences, and keep going.
A lot of people have stacked their hopes in such an insurgency at the polls. Others, like billionaire George Soros, are investing more than hope. Soros has been injecting money into DA and sheriff races across the country and gave $1.45 million to a PAC supporting Krasner’s run in Philadelphia, raising some eyebrows among the candidate’s progressive base. “We can’t play by a different set of rules than our opponents because that’s how we have allowed the system to get rigged against us,” said Becky Bond, a former advisor to the Sanders campaign whose group is now working on Krasner’s campaign. “So while we work to change the rules and get big money out of politics, we can’t cede elections to people that can bring in big money.”

A Prosecutor “For the People”

In Philadelphia, Krasner has earned the endorsement and enthusiasm of a broad and diverse coalition sharing his same progressive values, like his firm opposition to the death penalty, which he promises never to pursue, and his rejection of broken practices like stop-and-frisk, cash bail, and asset forfeiture, which disproportionately affect Philadelphia’s black and poor residents.
So far, he has won the support of activists, pastors, union members, the singer John Legend, and the punk rock band Sheer Mag. The latter had Krasner on stage to sing a cover version of The Clash’s “Clampdown.” “Rage Against The Machine did it, Bruce Springsteen did it, and now Larry Krasner does it,” he joked. A coalition of other groups that cannot endorse candidates because of their tax-exempt status also got involved in the race, naming no names, but calling on Philadelphians to elect a DA who is “for the people.”
Among these groups is the ACLU, which since November has made resistance to the Trump administration its rallying cry.  Now the group is taking its fight for criminal justice reform up a notch by shifting its focus on prosecutors, the system’s most powerful and unchecked actors. In Pennsylvania, the ACLU’s local affiliate is also testing new waters by getting involved for the first time in a DA race, with a campaign aimed at educating voters on the issues at stake on Tuesday. That initiative is a pilot, but the ACLU is already planning similar efforts in nine upcoming races across the country.
“We realized that if we were going to get serious about ending mass incarceration then we had to start affecting who gets elected,” said Nick Pressley, who runs the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s “Vote Smart Justice” campaign. “The DA is literally the most powerful person in the criminal justice system.”
Pressley spoke to The Intercept from a downtown office the group rented out ahead of the primary, before equipping a couple dozen canvassers, most with direct experience with the city’s criminal justice failures, with tablets listing ACLU members’ home addresses, and literature calling on them to vote “smart.”
“There’s no oversight over the DA, there’s no transparency in the office,” Pressley said, citing prosecutors’ power to offer plea bargains, which can decide as many as 97 percent of cases, or to set cash bail, which in Philadelphia is the single greatest driver of incarceration. “Sixty-seven percent of people in Philadelphia jails are awaiting trial,” he added. “And many are in there because they can’t afford bail.”
Donna Carter knows something about that.
When her son was accused of attempted murder, his bail was set at $10,000, even though he maintained his innocence and the victim insisted that he was not the one who had tried to kill him. Still, prosecutors pressed forward, even offering his son a three to seven-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. He refused, and spent the next eight months in jail. His mother thought it wiser to put the bail money towards a lawyer.
Carter, who is unemployed but now makes $15 an hour as a canvasser for the ACLU’s campaign, will sometimes tell that story to the people whose doors she knocks on. “That was my first time really realizing how much power the system had that they didn’t seem to use very wisely,” she said. “That’s why I want to see them not use the cash bail system.”

Carter also talks to voters about the city’s punitive asset forfeiture practices. Her mother’s home was seized because a nephew sold marijuana there while she was at work. Her mother eventually got her home back but many others never do: Philadelphia seized over $64 million in assets between 2002 and 2012, mostly from its poorest citizens. Carter says the people she speaks to are shocked to learn that you don’t need to commit a crime to have your property seized, and that there’s no compensation when you do. “You may think this doesn’t affect you ‘cause you don’t do crimes, but if you have someone in your family who inadvertently pulls you into their crime, it can affect you.”
A few days ahead of the primary, Carter made the rounds of the South Philadelphia neighborhood she grew up in, now quickly gentrifying, knocking on doors. She pointed to newly renovated row houses that looked much nicer than they used to, and remarked on the many progressive signs, some directly addressing the president, that residents had put on their windows in support of black lives, Muslims, and true American values.
Those who opened their doors offered a glimpse into both the enthusiasm of a narrow sector of the city that has rallied around Krasner, and the perhaps broader ambivalence about a race that remains obscure to most. “There’s probably not going to be a lot of people that vote,” said Brian Leboff, a 29 year-old IT consultant who seemed caught off guard when Carter asked him if he planned to. “People probably don’t even know there’s going to be a DA election.”
“I am going to vote for Krasner,” said Wendy Wells, a 65-year-old retiree and monthly ACLU contributor, who said that she started donating to the group “the day after the election,” and that she appreciates Krasner’s opposition to the death penalty and support of LGBTQ rights.  “Although he has no prosecutorial experience, I think maybe that’s not such a bad thing.”
While the ACLU’s canvassers did not tell people whom to vote for, many other groups did, and in recent weeks, they organized panels, canvasses, phone banks, house parties, and a string of other initiatives in support of Krasner.
“This election is kind of the perfect storm, and a number of community organizations are figuring out how to best get involved,” said Bryan Mercer, a member of 215 People’s Alliance, one of a dozen local organizations that have officially endorsed Krasner and are actively working to get him elected. “Part of the response is that, if change can’t happen at the federal level, then we have got to be organized in our communities and push the local officers that we do have a say in to be the best that the can.”
“People understand that and they’re putting in the work,” he added.
At a recent campaign event, a sample of the diverse range of groups and individuals that coalesced around Krasner packed into a café staffed by formerly incarcerated people. The crowd spilled into the street, where the owner hung signs saying “Justice Makes Us Safer.” Krasner’s supporters were white, black, young, and old. There was a sex workers rights advocate, and an elderly man wearing political pins and a handmade “Fuck Trump” pendant.
Asa Khalif, one of the city’s most recognized Black Lives Matter activists, has been a regular on the campaign since Krasner, who once defended him in court, announced his candidacy. Local office candidates often asked for his support, Khalif said, but he never gave it, shunning elections as a compromised effort, as many within the movement continue to do.
“Black Lives Matter — we don’t endorse candidates, but Larry is a friend,” he said. But it wasn’t just friendship that convinced an activist whose political battle is fought on the street and who calls cops and prosecutors pigs. “It is a strategy, it is game of thrones if you will. We have to play this game, and also be able to change the rules, but you can’t change the rules if you’re not in the game.”
“Protest is going to get us to the table, once we’re at the table we need to have an agenda, we cannot just keep screaming no justice no peace, we need to be in the mix,” Khalif continued. “We need allies in government that are going be true to their word. We have a lot of people who promise a lot of things; we need someone that we can pick up the phone and they will answer when we make that call.”

A National Strategy

Philadelphia activists are not the only ones strategizing around this race. In fact, what’s happening in the city is both a product of a grassroots-led turnout in response to local problems and part of a carefully planned national strategy that aims to put progressive candidates into office and build political power around issues like mass incarceration and police violence.
Already before Trump’s election, the national group Color of Change was among the first that seized on the momentum of the racial justice movement by starting a PAC and launching the “voting while black” campaign, calling on black voters to turn up for elections that matter most to their communities. In 2016, the group rallied voters around specific candidates in six high-profile prosecutor races, mostly aiming to unseat problematic ones. They actively campaigned for the elections of Aramis AyalaFlorida’s first black female state attorney, and Kim Foxx, who ousted incumbent Cook County state’s attorney Anita Alvarez. Alvarez’s handling of the Chicago police killing of Laquan McDonald had sparked the massive, grassroots “Bye Anita” campaign, and brought about new public interest in prosecutor races.
“When folks know about the race and know that they have a choice to make that has clear consequences for their communities, they’re very willing to engage,” said Arisha Hatch, who leads Color of Change’s voter engagement effort. “It’s a matter of not taking black voters for granted.”
“It’s really important, especially in a political time when people feel very disenchanted about the willingness of the federal government to protect them, that we begin to talk about these local races,” she added.
Color of Change PAC is one of the national groups throwing their weight and resources behind Krasner’s candidacy in Philadelphia. Another one is Real Justice PAC, formed by alumni of Bernie Sanders’ presidential run in an effort to apply that campaign’s organizing strategies and technologies to boost mass participation in local elections.
“In the past, you’d have progressive activists who see elections as compromised, who’d rather stay outside of the process and critique it than go inside and take power, and part of the reason why is that a lot of the forces that have helped people get elected pushed candidates to compromise,” said Bond, the former Sanders advisor and Real Justice PAC’s president. “What we’re seeing now is progressive advocates get involved in elections to take power behind candidates that are uncompromising.”
Bond credits Sanders supporters — a movement made up of many newcomers to politics who took a virtually unknown candidate to 46 percent of the Democratic Party’s delegates — for unseating the establishment’s narrative that certain candidates are “unelectable.” She also credits Trump’s election with much the same outcome, and with inspiring insurgent candidates like Krasner to run, and people to vote for them.
“We saw a candidate that we thought was totally unelectable, Donald Trump, now be the president of the U.S.,” said Bond. “We don’t have to suck it up and support the candidate that the establishment tells us is viable, we can make candidates viable.”
There were lessons learned during the Sanders campaign, including a realization, by some at least, that criminal justice is “not an issue that’s only talked about with some voters, but one of the central issues of our time,” Bond said. Last year, both Democratic presidential candidates failed to realize that, and one of the greatest criticisms levied against the Sanders campaign has been about its insistence on a colorblindness that alienated many black voters.
“Racial justice was not part of a broad message to all voters,” said Bond. “This is where we’re seeing an important course correction in Philadelphia; you are seeing activists come together and say actually, racial justice and criminal justice reform need to be at the heart of any agenda for change.”

Whether he wins or not, Krasner’s supporters say that his candidacy has already succeeded in pushing the entire field to the left, though it remains to be seen whether the next DA can live up to those promises. Most importantly, this race has shined a spotlight on problems like the city’s cash bail and asset forfeiture practices — issues that have long affected black and poor Philadelphians but that are now on the radar of a much broader range of the city’s residents.
That kind of interest dominated the DA race. “I was surprised to hear everyone talking about the importance of rehabilitation, of diversion programs, of really trying to lessen the number of people going through jails,” said Mercer, of 215 People’s Alliance. “Not a single one of those candidates was talking about being tough on crime.”
That’s because criminal justice reform has in recent years become a bipartisan talking point, and anyone running for DA has better chances promising reform than pledging to be tough on crime. Still, there’s a wide spectrum of positions on what that reform should look like — with Krasner’s proposal much closer to an overhaul.
“You’re seeing a lot of people who are in this race who are now adopting positions that they maybe didn’t have at the beginning of the race and that they certainly haven’t been advocating throughout their careers,” said Bret Grote, legal director of Pittsburgh-based Abolitionist Law Center, a public interest law firm that is not endorsing any candidate. While skeptical of those adopting the language of reform without the credentials to back it up, Grote credits Krasner with putting specific policies on the table, like his pledge to review past convictions or to make sure all discovery is turned over to defendants’ lawyers — quite a departure from the way prosecutors normally operate.
“If you had told me a year ago that a leading candidate for the Philly DA race would be somebody who’s never been a prosecutor and who is showing up at a church with 150 people to talk about life without parole sentences, I wouldn’t have believed you,” said Grote.
“If Krasner pulls it off in the primary next Tuesday, this could have reverberations across the country,” Grote added. “There’s potential for insurgency candidates, like attorneys who have spent their careers battling the system, seeing a model of what it could be like to put someone in there.”

Lobbying for Foreign Interests -- and Not Reporting It

The Russia probe has exposed U.S. lobbyists representing foreign interests in secret. The Justice Department isn’t doing anything about it.

Go to Original
By ELIZA NEWLIN CARNEY



Donald Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey has thrust foreign governments’ growing influence on American politics and policy—and U.S. officials’ failure to police it—front and center on Capitol Hill.
The immediate question facing Congress is whether to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Russia’s role in the U.S. presidential race, something Democrats demand and GOP leaders reject. But the Russia probe has also shed light on another problem that worries lawmakers on both sides of the aisle: the secrecy that shrouds foreign influence peddling.
In theory, U.S. lobbyists representing foreign governments and interests must register and disclose their activities with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a 1938 law written to stop Germany from using American firms to spread Nazi propaganda. In practice, though, the FARA is riddled with loopholes and barely enforced by the Justice Department, which has prosecuted a grand total of seven violations in the past 50 years.
FARA records are not even digitized, making them impossible to search. A federal Inspector General report released in September called the lack of compliance “unacceptable,” and found that an astonishing 62 percent of lobbyists fail to file their disclosure reports on time. Given that Justice officials rely almost entirely on voluntary compliance with the FARA, a high percentage of foreign agents in the U.S. appear to be evading registration and disclosure altogether.
Take Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, two onetime Trump aides at the heart of the federal and congressional Russia investigations. Flynn, who was fired as national security adviser after lying about his communications with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., belatedly registered as a foreign agent in March, reporting that he was paid more than $500,000 for lobbying work he did on behalf of Turkey during the presidential campaign.
Manafort worked with two lobbying firms that registered as foreign agents in April—five years after the fact—in connection with a 2012 lobbying campaign on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian interests. Manafort was ousted as Trump’s campaign manager following reports that the Ukrainian govern may have illicitly paid him $12.7 million, something he denies.
A third onetime Trump aide, former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, may have violated the FARA when he set up a meeting that was held during the transition at Mar-a-Lago between Trump and Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, according to Public Citizen, which has asked the Justice Department to investigate. Lewandowski has said he was not paid for that work, but Public Citizen argues the FARA applies either way. Public Citizen also wants the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House to investigate whether Lewandowski violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which covers domestic lobbying activities.
A broadly worded exception in the lobbying laws allows foreign agents to register under the LDA, and not the FARA, when they represent foreign commercial interests rather than foreign governments and parties. That’s ostensibly why Flynn didn’t immediately register under FARA for the work he did to assist Turkey: the work was done for a Dutch firm, but the primary beneficiary was Turkey. Last year’s IG report recommends that the Justice Department close that loophole, given that foreign government and commercial interests are not always distinct.
“This is a law that’s going unmonitored and unenforced by the Department of Justice,” says Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen. The risk of undue foreign influence on American policy is greater today than at any time in recent memory, says Holman, pointing to Trump’s failure to divest from his business holdings, which include numerous ongoing overseas deals and projects.
Foreign interests are also gaining a foothold in U.S. policy through investments in U.S. media companies, payments to think tanks and universities, and through irregular avenues, such as Egyptian businessman and politician Moustafa el-Gindy’s rental of a townhouse to the pro-Trump Breitbart News Network, reportedly at below-market rates. The rental agreement is the subject of a Justice Department complaint (from an unnamed source) alleging a FARA violation.
Foreign influence has raised some alarms among Republicans, as well as Democrats.
Foreign influence has raised some alarms among Republicans, as well as Democrats. During a recent Justice Department oversight hearing by the House Judiciary Committee, panel Republican Mike Johnson, of Louisiana, brought up the Inspector General’s FARA report and noted that he is drafting legislation “that will try to seek some common sense methods to improve transparency and oversight in foreign donations and influencing U.S. policymaking.”
Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana has signed onto a bill authored by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire that would strengthen the FARA and give the Justice Department the authority to investigate RT America, the Kremlin’s mouthpiece in the U.S., for spreading disinformation during the presidential campaign. Russia has retaliated by authorizing an investigation into U.S. media organizations in Russia. Several Republicans, including Arizona’s John McCain, have signed onto another bill sponsored by Shaheen and other Democrats that would impose sanctions on Russia.
Shaheen was also the first senator to call for public hearings into Russia’s interference in the November elections. So far, Republicans have resisted Democrats’ calls for an independent counsel to take over that probe. But Trump’s firing of Comey ups the pressure on Republicans to tap an outside investigator. As the evidence of undue foreign influence in the U.S. piles up, the least that lawmakers can do is demand that American foreign agents come clean about their activities.

Coral Reefs Generate Half of Earth's Oxygen -- and They Could All Die Off by 2050

Go to Original
By Dahr Jamail



When he was six years old, Dean Miller already knew he wanted to be a marine biologist. At that time, growing up in Australia, the world of marine biology seemed both spectacular and limitless, he says.
"I wanted to study the wonders of the Great Barrier Reef, the intricate and complex connections between the thousands of different life-forms that represent the most diverse ecosystem on the planet," Miller told Truthout.
But in the last two years, this has all changed for him.
"I now look at the reef as an ecosystem that is suffering from our actions and I feel guilty beyond belief that this is happening in my backyard, on our generation's watch," he explained. "I no longer dream of the kaleidoscope of life, color and movement that represents the world's coral reefs. Instead, I worry and fight for the actual existence of coral reefs as we know them, as the changes I see are happening all too quickly -- much quicker than the reef can adapt."
This is because over the last two years, the Great Barrier Reef, which is so dear to Miller and countless others who revel in the beauty and mysteries of the oceans, has been dying off at an unprecedented rate due primarily to warming ocean waters.
Coral bleaching occurs when corals become stressed by warmer-than-normal water, causing them to expel symbiotic algae that live in their tissues, from which they get their energy. Coral turns completely white when it bleaches. If it remains bleached long enough, it dies.
One scientist has already gone so far as to declare the Great Barrier Reef is now in a "terminal stage." Most of those studying the reef agree that what is happening is unprecedented. This is because, at a minimum, two-thirds of the 1,400-mile long reef bleached out last year, which led to 22 percent of it dying. Now another bleaching event has resulted in at least two-thirds of the reef bleached again.

"The bleaching this year has moved much farther south and has taken scientists by surprise in its severity and extent," Miller said. And he fears the state of the reef could be even worse than scientists realize, since only aerial surveys have been conducted to assess the damage and no research vessel is currently active on the reef to provide finer details.
With ocean temperatures rising across the globe as anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) continues to pick up speed, the Great Barrier Reef, the largest coral ecosystem on Earth, may well be an example of what is happening to all of the coral on the planet.
"This Is New for All of Us"
Marine biologist David Burdick coordinates a NOAA-funded long-term coral reef monitoring program out of the University of Guam Marine Laboratory, and has been conducting field studies of Guam's coral reefs for more than a decade.
"In 2013, we had a moderate to severe bleaching event that came out of nowhere and lasted for three months, and we lost a quarter of the coral that was impacted from the 80 percent of the coral species that bleached," Burdick told Truthout during a recent interview on Guam.
Then, less than seven months later, what he called "an unusual sea-surface temperature spike" caused another moderate to severe bleaching event. "Corals that were already weakened by the 2013 event -- many of them died," he explained. "The event was fairly widespread, and corals that survived the 2013 event did not survive this one."
Fifty percent of the coral that bleached during the 2014 event died.

"Then, while we were still analysing all of our data from that event, we had another large bleaching event in 2016," Burdick said. "So we had three major bleaching events, essentially having one per year, which is a pattern now, apparently."
Prior to these events, they'd never seen anything on Guam that would be classified beyond a "moderate" coral bleaching event.
"This is all new for us," Burdick said.
Miller is equally stunned by what he is seeing along the Great Barrier Reef, which is eerily similar to what Burdick is seeing on Guam.
"Parts of the reef that didn't bleach last year are now under immense pressure, and this is totally different because this is back-to-back bleaching," Miller explained. "The system was already stressed, and this is a new stress event. We are seeing much mortality on reefs in our area…. What didn't die last year is dying this year."
In addition to the new bleaching in this year's event, southern portions of the reef that are typically in cooler waters are now also bleaching out.
"It's heartbreaking to see," Miller added. "Seventy thousand direct tourism-related jobs and a $6 billion tourism industry are all at risk, especially on top of the recent damage from Cyclone Debbie."

study published this March in the journal Nature found that last year's bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef was so severe that there was no similar analog in the thousands of years of ancient coral cores scientists use to study past climates.
Another study published in Nature projected that by the year 2050, more than 98 percent of global coral reefs will be afflicted by "bleaching-level thermal stress" every single year.
However, the prognosis could be even worse: The scientists involved in the study from this March speculated that the era of never-ending global coral bleaching may have already arrived, albeit several decades earlier than was predicted even just last year. They explained that the Great Barrier Reef needs 10 to 15 years between bleaching events in order to fully recover, and that recovery time period is "no longer realistic."
"We Don't Even Know What We Are Losing"
Laurie Raymundo is a coral ecologist at the University of Guam Marine Lab who has worked closely with Burdick for years. Similar to Miller, she knew when she was 11 years old that she wanted to study coral. She now teaches at the University of Guam, and is designing a course in coral reef ecology and management that will include ACD impacts. She has lived in Guam since 2004 and is a co-author of the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement.
Like the other scientists Truthout spoke with, Raymundo is deeply troubled by what she is seeing.

If we lose coral reefs, Raymundo warned Truthout, "We will lose all our sensitive species, and we will have lower diversity."
Equally worrying to her is the fact that there is still so much we don't know about the importance of coral reefs.
"We don't even know what we are losing, and we don't understand what a loss of biodiversity fully means, for pharmaceuticals, ecologically, and in so many other ways," she said. "We are losing things before we even actually know, fully, what we are losing."
One crucial thing we do know we're losing: much of our air. While coral reefs only cover 0.0025 percent of the oceanic floor, they generate half of Earth's oxygen and absorb nearly one-third of the carbon dioxide generated from burning fossil fuels.
report by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization shows that coral reefs are responsible for producing 17 percent of all globally consumed protein, with that ratio being 70 percent or greater in island and coastal countries like those of Micronesia.
At the time of this writing, Earth has lost nearly half of its coral, and oceanic warming only continues to accelerate.
"We are finding that reefs living under anthropogenic stresses for many years have already lost their more sensitive coral species, and the ones that are there now are already the tough bastards," Raymundo said. "And when reefs have lower diversity, there is less ecological redundancy; hence, they are more likely to collapse."
A Future Without Coral?
2012 study revealed that half of the Great Barrier Reef had already vanished in just the previous 27 years. Two years later, the world's most qualified coral reef experts released a report showing that, without dramatic intervention, the Great Barrier Reef would disappear completely by 2030.
Furthermore, a study published and released by NOAA in 2011 warned that, "unless action is taken now to reduce the threats," 90 percent of all reefs will be "threatened" by 2030, and all of Earth's coral reefs could be completely gone by 2050. The study, "Reefs at Risk Revisited," listed human-caused climate disruption, warmer water temperatures, ocean acidification, shipping, overfishing, coastal development and agricultural runoff as the contributing factors.
While that might sound extreme, Miller told Truthout he thought the report actually didn't go far enough.
"I think it's too conservative," he explained. "Corals need many years to adjust to the warmer ocean waters, and we don't have that kind of time anymore. The warming we are seeing now is happening far too fast to allow for evolution…. So what we're seeing now is death. That's what bleaching is."
Burdick, who described Guam's reefs as "getting clobbered," agreed.
"Various factors will buy some areas some time, so some coral species might eek out a bit longer, for a while," he said. "But [with] bleaching events every five to 10 years, you won't give coral enough time to come back to where it was. It is all about the rate of change. And right now, that rate is increasing, and rapidly at that."
Back in Australia, Miller is dismayed by the fact that his government is doing very little, if anything, to mitigate the crisis.
Truthout asked Miller what steps the Australian government is taking to save the Great Barrier Reef.
"From what I can tell, virtually nothing," he answered. "They are not focussed on this at all, but rather are pushing for the Adani Coal Mine to go ahead. We here in Australia can hardly believe it, to be honest. In fact, the government has had almost no comment on the bleaching at all." 
The coal mine he referred to is looking like it is going to move forward, which will, according to Miller, bring an additional 500 ships carrying coal across the Great Barrier Reef every single year.
Truthout interviewed Miller's colleague, John Rumney, the managing director of Great Barrier Reef Legacy in February, when this year's bleaching event began.
"This coral is in big trouble," Rumney said at the time. Like Miller, Burdick and Raymundo, Rumney warned of the extreme loss of biodiversity that comes with the disappearance of reefs.
"When all that coral goes, all that diversity of fish that depends on it goes," Rumney told Truthout. "The entire food chain is in big trouble."
Miller concurred, saying, "We might see ecosystem collapse as we know it."
The need for independent research on the Great Barrier Reef during this second mass-bleaching event is needed more than ever, according to Miller. His and Rumney's organization is striving to get more scientists out to the reef as quickly as possible.
"The world's greatest natural icon and largest living structure needs our help more than ever, and unless we act as a concerned global population, nothing will be done," he concluded. "It is not too late. The reef is worth saving -- and our actions now will determine the fate of coral reefs in as little as 5 to 10 years. We must act."

'A Plunge Into Crisis': How Foreign Correspondents Are Explaining the Comey Affair

“Sometimes I feel I’m not covering reality, but fiction.”

Go to Original
By 



When Donald Trump pictures the world, it’s often laughing. For decades he’s claimed that crafty foreign leaders are laughing at the incompetence of American politicians. On Thursday, in reference to alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential campaign, he tweeted that Russia “must be laughing up their sleeves watching as the U.S. tears itself apart over a Democrat EXCUSE for losing the election.”

But something else is occurring now that Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey and partisan warfare has broken out in Washington. The world—or, more precisely, the small segment of the world inclined to care about an American law-enforcement official losing his job—seems not so much gleeful as alarmed and amazed and … pretty perplexed.

Media outlets from France to Israel have questioned the White House’s shifting accounts of the firing and expressed concern about the health of U.S. democracy. 

In Brazil, a political scientist wondered what the news meant for a probe into government corruption by his country’s equivalent of the FBI. “[W]hen you see something like that happening in the United States, we fear for the future of this kind of investigation in a country such as Brazil, where the institutions are not as strong as they are in America,” he explained. “There are many people in Brazil who have a very romantic view of the United States, who think that the American government has solved all the important problems in American society. But it’s much more complicated.”

Shortly after Comey’s dismissal, Dana Shell Smith, the U.S. ambassador to Qatar, vented her frustration on Twitter. “Increasingly difficult to wake up overseas to news from home, knowing I will spend today explaining our democracy and institutions,” she wrote.

If that seems challenging, imagine waking up in Washington these days and having to explain American politics to folks back home. That task falls to D.C.’s foreign correspondents.

“What will it actually take for Republicans in Congress to dissociate themselves from Trump and start reining him in?” asked Clemens Wergin, the Washington bureau chief for the German newspaper Die Welt, in an email. “Trump already started eroding America’s institutional integrity and he is dishonoring the American presidency and American democracy, which once was a beacon to the world.”

Wergin told me that, in his reporting, he has been describing the Comey episode to his readers as “an institutional crisis” for which the most likely explanation is “that the man in power doesn’t like the way the Russia investigation is handled, it might even become dangerous for him. So he fires the one leading official who is not beholden to him, hasn’t been nominated by him, and has a reputation for standing up to power.”

“I try to identify for our readers what the most likely sources of danger for Trump in the Russia saga might be, but I also caution that most Republicans are still lining up behind Trump and that it is difficult to imagine a Nixon scenario with the Republicans in control of Congress,” he said.

Wergin added that he’s also written a commentary on the developments, which made the argument that “up to Comey’s firing, Donald Trump had only spoken and tweeted like the head of a banana republic; now he also acted like one.”

Chidanand Rajghatta, a D.C.-based foreign correspondent for the Times of India, told me that it’s difficult to explain to readers in India “the minutiae of who said what when why.” Instead, he’s “trying to stick to [conveying] the broad themes of a very different and temperamental president in action, the inexperience and incoherence of the administration, [the] breakdown of trust/internecine political warfare, etc.,” Rajghatta said in an email.

recent dispatch did just that. The U.S. political system “erupt[ed] into a firestorm over the motive and the manner in which President Trump dismissed Director James Comey from service on Tuesday, plunging the rocky four-month old administration into yet another crisis,” Rajghatta wrote. “Trump’s aides and spokespersons tripped over each other in trying to explain and rationalize the President’s decision amid explosive disclosures that surfaced by the hour on Wednesday and Thursday.”

It’s hard to “filter so much information, misinformation, contradictions, and false statements from a wide range of sources,” Raquel Krahenbuhl, the Washington correspondent for Brazil’s GloboNews, wrote to me. “The firing and the aftermath deepen the credibility crisis within the White House. The White House’s struggle to explain such a consequential firing is something that is important to translate to our audience.”

“We dedicate a lot of space at ABC to the U.S. president just to explain his way of being and his behavior,” Manuel Erice, a foreign correspondent for the Spanish newspaper, wrote to me. “Definitely Donald Trump is today the most important American topic for our readers. Although we make an effort  to explain [the] Comey news, I am not sure that our audience has been able to fully interpret exactly what happened and why Trump decided to fire him. It is a complicated issue for Spanish people. Even for American people…”

In Brazil, which is in the midst of a massive corruption scandal known as Lava Jato, or “Car Wash,” nearly “every week we have powerful politicians and businessmen being arrested,” Krahenbuhl told me. There was speculation that the country’s president, Michel Temer, was considering dismissing the head of Brazil’s version of the FBI. But Temer didn’t do so, perhaps because the Federal Police were carrying out the Car Wash investigation. “So I was quite perplexed when President Trump fired Comey and admitted he had the Trump/Russia investigation on his mind when he made the decision. Sometimes I feel I’m not covering reality, but fiction.”

Brazilians are paying close attention to the Comey news, as they are to most moves Trump’s White House makes, Krahenbuhl said. The firing of the FBI director was the biggest international story in Brazil this past week, eclipsing the results of the French election.

Both Krahenbuhl and Wergin said Trump supporters back home often criticize coverage of the new U.S. administration. “Trump’s legion of fans in Brazil are blaming the media—especially for focusing on the Trump/Russia investigation, which they think is fake news,” Krahenbuhl said. “A very small but very loud segment of die-hard Trump fans who are usually part of the populist right in Germany ... defend the firing of Comey,” Wergin noted. “They generally question everything we write, they think that Trump critics are hysterical, and that we in the [mainstream media] are willfully reporting only bad things about the American president.”

Perhaps the most concise commentary on the bewildering events of the past week came from the Lebanese journalist Joyce Karam, who serves as the Washington bureau chief for the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat. “Weird things I read this a.m post- #Comey,” she wrote on Twitter. “Trump screaming at TV. Spicer hiding in bushes. Sarah Sanders: ‘it’s just another Tuesday @ WH’!”

US: SYRIA IS BURNING BODIES TO HIDE PROOF OF MASS KILLINGS

Go to Original
BY MATTHEW LEE AND VIVIAN SALAMA




The United States accused Syria on Monday of executing thousands of imprisoned political opponents and burning their bodies in a crematorium to hide the evidence, testing the Trump administration's willingness to respond to atrocities, other than chemical weapons attacks, that it blames on President Bashar Assad's government.

The allegation of mass killings came as President Donald Trump weighs options in Syria, where the U.S. launched cruise missiles on a government air base last month after accusing Assad's military of killing scores of civilians with a sarin-like nerve agent. Trump on Monday kicked off a week of meetings with Middle East leaders, sitting down with the crown prince of Abu Dhabi a day before he hosts Turkey's president. Trump flies to Saudi Arabia later this week.

All are governments that have pressed the United States over six years of civil war in Syria to intervene more forcefully. Trump had backed away from President Barack Obama's calls for regime change in the Arab country, with the new president's officials pointedly saying leadership questions should be left to Syria's citizens, until his intervention last month. His administration now says Assad cannot bring long-term stability to Syria.

In its latest accusations of Syrian abuses, the State Department said it believed about 50 detainees each day are being hanged at Saydnaya military prison, about 45 minutes north of Damascus. Many of the bodies are then burned in the crematorium "to cover up the extent of mass murders taking place," said Stuart Jones, the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, accusing Assad's government of sinking "to a new level of depravity."

The department released commercial satellite photographs showing what it described as a building in the prison complex that was modified to support the crematorium. The photographs, taken over the course of several years, beginning in 2013, do not prove the building is a crematorium, but show construction consistent with such use.

The revelations echoed a February report by Amnesty International that said Syria's military police hanged as many as 13,000 people in four years before carting out bodies by the truckload for burial in mass graves.

Although the State Department cast its unusual news conference as an effort to press Assad's key backers, Russia and Iran, it also underscored Trump's lack of a strategy for stopping Syria's violence. The war has killed as many as 400,000 people since 2011, contributed to Europe's worst refugee crisis since World War II and enabled the Islamic State group to emerge as a global terrorism threat.

Trump had been highly critical of Obama for failing to respond to earlier chemical weapons attacks in 2013 after setting a "red line" against such usage. After last month's attack in northern Syria, Trump said the Syrians crossed "a lot of lines" for his administration. Beyond authorizing cruise missiles in response, however, he didn't outline a strategy to eliminate the threat.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Monday reiterated the administration's line that Syria's future "should be decided by Syrians in a free credibly and transparent process." But he called such a future "unimaginable" if Assad is propped up with help from the "seemingly unconditional support from Russia and Iran." He didn't outline how such a future might become imaginable.

Russia has shown no inclination to drop its support for Assad. It is now pushing the idea of "de-escalation zones" that would be designed to reduce violence, while not challenging Assad's authority over almost all of Syria's major cities.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had been "firm and clear" in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week that "Russia holds tremendous influence over Bashar al-Assad."

A main point of that meeting "was telling Russia to use its power to rein in the regime," she said. "Simply put, the killing, the devastation has gone on for far too long in Syria."

Syrian human rights groups and opposition activists have long reported on mass killings inside Syrian prisons, though not on bodies being burned to cover up evidence.


The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights corroborated the U.S. accounts of mass killings but said it lacked sufficient information about the crematorium.