Group items tagged

While Puerto Rican leaders look for ways to address the island’s $72 billion debt, some say the solution may be simple: Don’t pay it. A small group of Puerto Rican lawmakers is pushing the idea that significant portions of Puerto Rico’s debt may in fact be unconstitutional. Manuel Natal, one of the legislators behind the effort, claims that up to 75 percent of what the island owes could be voided in court. “If debt was issued in violation of the constitution that debt is illegal and subsequently should not be paid,” said Natal. “It should be put aside, because in legal terms, it’s like it never happened.” This strategy, called “debt nullification,” has been used elsewhere in the U.S. to address fiscal crises. But in Puerto Rico's case, it all but promises a legal showdown with Wall Street hedge funds that own a significant portion of the island’s debt — investors that the government is now trying to bargain with. While Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro García Padilla has acknowledged that debt found to be unconstitutional should not be repaid, his administration has tried nearly every other option so far.

After the White House quickly dismissed talk of a federal bailout, Puerto Rico’s government, and its congressional representative Luis Pierlusi, have pushed a bill to allow the U.S. territory access to bankruptcy proceedings. That bill has stalled in the Congress. Meanwhile, talks with a group of hedge funds were suspended. The gridlock over Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis has led many to wish the debt would simply disappear. Now, that might actually be possible.

Billionaire hedge fund managers have called on Puerto Rico to lay off teachers and close schools so that the island can pay them back the billions it owes. The hedge funds called for Puerto Rico to avoid financial default – and repay its debts – by collecting more taxes, selling $4bn worth of public buildings and drastically cutting public spending, particularly on education. The group of 34 hedge funds hired former International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists to come up with a solution to Puerto Rico’s debt crisis after the island’s governor declared its $72bn debt “unpayable” – paving the way for bankruptcy. The funds are “distressed debt” specialists, also known as vulture funds, and several have also sought to make money out of crises in Greece and Argentina, the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the near collapse of Co-op Bank in the UK.

The report, entitled For Puerto Rico, There is a Better Way, said Puerto Rico could save itself from default if it improves tax collection and drastically cuts back on public spending. It accused the island, where 56% of children live in poverty, of spending too much on education even though the government has already closed down almost 100 schools so far this year.

Investors in Puerto Rican government debt are a mixed bag, including some mom-and-pop mutual funds like OppenheimerFunds and Franklin Advisers, which have been prioritized in the restructuring costs because of the length of their investments and the fact that they paid more for them. But over the past few years there’s been a growing presence of hedge funds, which avoid regulatory oversight and are solely interested in profit, regardless of how a national—or, in the case of Puerto Rico, territorial—economy performs. Vulture funds, their more extreme counterparts, specifically target debt that is distressed or in danger of default in troubled economies, hoping to cash in on settlements after buying the debt for pennies on the dollar. They can paralyze attempts at debt restructuring by insisting on repayment at full face value. Given Puerto Rico’s recent history of privatizing its airport and highway toll collection system, it is vulnerable to further selloffs—even its prized university system—as concessions to the vultures.

As the disaster-relief effort enters its second week, air traffic is slowly resuming, which means hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans will likely flee the devastated island to stay with friends and relatives in the continental US as they wait for FEMA to rebuild roads, repair power grids and and revive the island's communications infrastructure – a process that could take months, if not longer.

While the urgency of the situation leaves many of Puerto Rico’s 3.4 million population little choice, the Financial Times is reporting that the scramble to flee could worsen the population decline as some of those leaving may opt to permanently resettle. Meanwhile, cities with large Puerto Rican populations are asking for federal assistance as they prepare to absorb as many as 100,000 people fleeing the hurricane. Mainland US cities with large Puerto Rican populations are warning that they will need federal help to cope with an anticipated influx of island residents fleeing the devastation visited on the US commonwealth by Hurricane Maria. “If it’s as large-scale as we anticipated, it’s got to be a federal and state-co-ordinated response,” said Buddy Dyer, Orlando’s mayor. “It can’t be city by city.” Some have said they expect to host the disaster victims for up to six months.

Another moment that sparked controversy during the two-day summit was the break of protocol by President Ortega of Nicaragua when he allowed Puerto Rico’s pro-independence leader, Ruben Berrios, to address the forum.

The summit concluded with a political declaration and other resolutions, among the most notable were the repudiation to the U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, support for the return of the Malvinas islands to Argentina, and the decolonization of Puerto Rico.

The Political Declaration of Belen – named after Belen county, in Costa Rica, where the summit was held – includes 94 different points including a commitment to multi-lateralism, dialogue between countries, peaceful solutions to conflicts, and unconditional support for the United Nations Charter and international law. Here are 5 important events and outcomes of the regional meeting: 1. Regions commit to eradicate hunger by 2025

A former IT expert who was previously responsible for Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonTrump warns against Syrian refugees: 'A lot of those people are ISIS' Overnight Finance: Senate sends Puerto Rico bill to Obama | Treasury, lawmakers to meet on tax rules | Obama hits Trump on NAFTA | Fed approves most banks' capital plans Bush World goes for Clinton, but will a former president? MORE’s private email server answered virtually no questions during a roughly 90-minute deposition as part of an open records lawsuit this week.Aside from stating his name and saying three times that he understood procedural rules of the sworn-oath interview, Bryan Pagliano declined to say a single word other than to plead his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The extensive reliance on the Fifth Amendment, which was first reported by Fox News on Wednesday, was expected; Pagliano’s lawyers had previously notified the court about the IT consultant’s plans.But it nonetheless could reflect poorly on Clinton, the former secretary of State and presumed Democratic presidential nominee, whom the judge in the case has said could be forced to answer questions herself.Pagliano’s refusal to talk ensures that key details about her email system remain unsettled and may raise the chances that she is asked to be interviewed herself as part of the case.

Pagliano has been granted limited immunity as part of the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Clinton’s email setup and the possibility that classified information was mishandled. In court documents filed ahead of his Wednesday morning deposition, lawyers for him and the federal government refused to outline the terms of the agreement or say how he might be assisting the investigation.However, lawyers did warn that the limited nature of his deal could leave him open to prosecution for incriminating information he divulged outside of protected sessions.The federal court ruled last week that Pagliano's immunity deal could remain secret.

When the Sheriff seizes property from a Citizen under the non-authority of the IRS agent, the Sheriff has committed a Second Degree Felony, Conversion of Property.

Most Americans, their minds focused at the moment on the tragic slaughter of 20 young children aged 5 and 6, along with five teachers and a school principal in Connecticut by a heavily-armed psychotic 21-year-old, are blissfully unaware that their previous president, George W. Bush, along with five key members of his administration, were recently convicted in absentia of war crimes at a tribunal in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. They are unaware because the US corporate media have ignored the story, just as that same corporate media have failed to note that the crimes of which Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and five White House lawyers, were convicted all could apply equally well to current President Barack Obama and his administration. Bush, Cheney, White House counsel (and later Attorney General) Alberto Gonzalez and others were found guilty earlier this month of war crimes and crimes against humanity relating to the executive orders that launched the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as of authorizing and failing to punish torture and other war crimes by US forces, including the military and the CIA.

But as international law expert Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, notes, under the Geneva Convention, failing to take action to prosecute those guilty of war crimes such as the “Crime against Peace” (invading a country that does not pose an imminent threat to the attacker), and torture, are war crimes in and of themselves. Speaking last week at a Summit Conference on Human Rights held at the University of the Sacred Heart in the US island colony of Puerto Rico, Boyle said US authorities, including President Obama, are engaged in an “ongoing criminal conspiracy under international law” both to cover up and protect criminals like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and to continue the commission of war crimes by the US government.

Obama, when initially campaigning in 2008 for the presidency, vowed that he wanted to restore the respect for the law and the Constitution, once elected President, he and his attorney general Eric Holder quickly made it clear that they were “looking forward, not backward,” and that there would be no prosecutions or indictments for war crimes of any Bush administration people.   The thing is, at that moment, both President Obama and AG Holder became war criminals themselves under the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles, which declare that covering up war crimes by prior government and military leaders, and failure to prosecute such war crimes, are in themselves war crimes.

The Senate narrowly rejected expanding the FBI's surveillance powers Wednesday in the wake of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.  Senators voted 58-38 on a procedural hurdle, with 60 votes needed to move forward. Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellOvernight Finance: Wall Street awaits Brexit result | Clinton touts biz support | New threat to Puerto Rico bill? | Dodd, Frank hit back The Trail 2016: Berning embers McConnell quashes Senate effort on guns MORE, who initially voted "yes," switched his vote, which allows him to potentially bring the measure back up. 

The Senate GOP proposal—being offered as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill—would allow the FBI to use "national security letters" to obtain people's internet browsing history and other information without a warrant during a terrorism or federal intelligence probe.  It would also permanently extend a Patriot Act provision — currently set to expire in 2019 — meant to monitor "lone wolf" extremists.  Senate Republicans said they would likely be able to get enough votes if McConnell schedules a redo.

Asked if he anticipates supporters will be able to get 60 votes, Sen. John CornynJohn CornynSenate to vote on two gun bills Senate Dems rip GOP on immigration ruling Post Orlando, hawks make a power play MORE (R-Texas) separately told reporters "that's certainly my expectation." McConnell urged support for the proposal earlier Wednesday, saying it would give the FBI to "connect the dots" in terrorist investigations.  "We can focus on defeating [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] or we can focus on partisan politics. Some of our colleagues many think this is all some game," he said. "I believe this is a serious moment that calls for serious solutions."  But Democrats—and some Republicans—raised concerns that the changes didn't go far enough to ensure Americans' privacy.  Sen. Ron WydenRon WydenPost Orlando, hawks make a power play Democrats seize spotlight with sit-in on guns Democrats stage sit-in on House floor to push for gun vote MORE (D-Ore.) blasted his colleagues for "hypocrisy" after a gunman killed 49 people and injured dozens more during the mass shooting in Orlando, Fla. "Due process ought to apply as it relates to guns, but due process wouldn't apply as it relates to the internet activity of millions of Americans," he said ahead of Wednesday's vote. "Supporters of this amendment...have suggested that Americans need to choose between protecting our security and protecting our constitutional right to privacy." 

Declared an official holiday in 1971, Memorial Day honors those who have given their lives in service to the United States. While the human toll is always great, wars also cost treasure as well as blood. Many factors can affect the cost of waging war. Using a report from the Congressional Research Service, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the most expensive wars in U.S. history. While the Mexican-American War cost just $2.4 billion, or 1.4% of GDP in 1847, spending on World War II accounted for nearly 36% of GDP in 1945, or $4.1 trillion. These are the most expensive wars in U.S. history. Click here to see the most expensive wars in U.S. history. Many early wars in U.S. history resulted in the acquisition of land. The Mexican-American War in the 1840s yielded much of the territory that makes up the present-day Southwest. Similarly, the Spanish-American War prior to the start of the 20th Century ended with U.S. control of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.

In every conflict before World War II, nearly all of the country’s defense budget was spent on direct conflict — classified as wartime spending. For example, the U.S. spent 1.1% of GDP in 1899 to fight the Spanish-American War, and just 1.5% of GDP was spent on total defense spending. That trend largely changed at the start of the Cold War. The persistent threat of military conflict ensured that the U.S. would be ready for war at any time, as the Space Race and nuclear armament became national priorities in both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. As a result, wartime spending and defense spending began to diverge. During the Korean War, for example, war costs accounted for just 4.2% of GDP in 1952, while total defense spending represented more than 13% of GDP in the same year. Comparing war costs over a 235-year period can be difficult. While the report attempted to correct for inflation by calculating each war’s cost in fiscal year 2011 dollars, inflation adjustments do not account for advances in technology. It is entirely possible that wars also became more expensive over time as the sophistication and cost of technology increased.

To determine the most expensive wars in U.S. history, 24/7 Wall St. used a 2010 report from the Congressional Research Service entitled “Costs of Major U.S. Wars”. The report does not include veterans’ benefits, interest on loans used to finance the war, and assistance to allies. Additionally, the report attempts to capture the increase in military expenditures during wartime and does not include the costs of maintaining a standing army in peacetime. The report also presents both military costs and defense spending as percentages of GDP in the year of peak war spending. War cost figures for the War on Terror were updated to reflect expenditure after 2010. These are the most expensive wars in U.S. history. Next »

the de jure institutions of lawful government.

Terminate illicit corporations posing as legitimate governments

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A rights lawyer and a U.S. official say a Navy nurse has refused to participate in force-feeding of prisoners who are on an extended hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay.An attorney for the British legal rights group Reprieve said Tuesday in a phone interview from London that the nurse decided against being a participant after deciding the practice was criminal.Attorney Cori Crider says she learned about the case from a 42-year-old Syrian prisoner she represents who is on a hunger strike.Southern Command spokesman Army Col. Greg Julian confirms the report. He says it is the first time a Navy nurse has refused to tube-feed a hunger-striking prisoner. He says the nurse is a lieutenant and has been assigned to other duties at Guantanamo.

The old recruiting slogan was “Join the Navy and See the World.” Those advertisements were prescient; the U.S. military has a presence of some kind in 171 nations and jurisdictions in addition to the United States and its possessions. Many times the presence is one officer as a military attaché or similar post or even a military dependent. But some countries host significant numbers of members of the U.S. armed forces. The two countries hosting the most members of the U.S. military are the two the U.S. conquered in World War II. There were 49,503 members of the military in Japan as of the end of last year, according to the Department of Defense. Germany was next with 38,826 members of the U.S. armed forces stationed there. Although it’s difficult to nail down the exact worldwide number of U.S. military sites, the most recent Department of Defense report lists buildings in 38 foreign nations and territories. The U.S. has 179 bases in Germany and 109 installations in Japan.

Other countries have much smaller U.S. contingents. Greenland is the home of 142 lucky Air Force personnel. Fourteen members of different military branches are now stationed in Vietnam, 40 years after U.S. troops abandoned the ill-fated war there. And there’s likely a very short line at the PX in Mongolia; only four U.S. military personnel are stationed in that land-locked Asian nation. Indeed, U.S. bases can come in a variety of shapes and sizes, according to David Vine, author of Base Nation: How US Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World. They include “small radar facilities in Peru and Puerto Rico….Even military resorts and recreation areas in places like Tuscany and Seoul are bases of a kind; worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.” Even where the U.S. doesn’t send military personnel, the U.S. does send weapons. The United States is the world largest arms exporter. From 2010 to 2014, Americans sent weapons to at least 94 countries, according to a report (pdf) by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The country that got the largest share of the weaponry was South Korea, at 9%, followed by the United Arab Emirates at 8% and Australia at 8%. The United States accounts for 31% of the world’s arms exports, followed by Russia at 27% and China at 5%.

These Are All the Countries Where the U.S. Has a Military Presence (by Annalisa Merelli, Quartz) Base Structure Report: Fiscal Year 2014 Baseline (Department of Defense) (pdf) Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2014 (by Pieter D. Wezeman and Siemon T. Wezeman, SIPRI) (pdf) U.S. Will Close 15 Military Bases in Europe, but Keep Troop Levels the Same (by Steve Straehley, AllGov) U.S. Dominates Weapons Export Market as Profits Grow with Sales to the Middle East (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

On Mar. 24, US president Barack Obama announced that all 9,800 US troops currently stationed in Afghanistan will remain until the end of 2015. This generated a fair amount of criticism: it was, after all, Obama’s promise that the last American troop would leave the country in 2014. How have Obama’s plans for pulling out of Afghanistan fared so far? http://t.co/avoxwJzzQw pic.twitter.com/3S5FJ3lgho — FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) March 26, 2015

Those expecting the US to leave Afghanistan, however, should take a minute to consider this: the US still hasn’t left Germany. In fact, there are quite a few places the US hasn’t left, and while certainly most of them don’t pose a threat to American soldiers, they reveal a pattern about the US staying, rather than leaving. According to official information provided by the Department of Defense (DoD) and its Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) there are still about 40,000 US troops, and 179 US bases in Germany, over 50,000 troops in Japan (and 109 bases), and tens of thousands of troops, with hundreds of bases, all over Europe. Over 28,000 US troops are present in 85 bases in South Korea, and have been since 1957. Altogether, based on information contained in the DoD’s latest Base Structure Report (BSR), the US has bases in at least 74 countries and troops practically all over the world, ranging from thousands to just one in some countries (it could be a military attaché, for instance).

By comparison, France has bases in 10 countries, and the UK has bases in seven. Calculating the extent of the US military presence abroad is not an easy task. The data released by the Department of Defense is incomplete, and inconsistencies are found within documents. Quartz has requested clarification from the Department of Defense, but hasn’t received a response. In his forthcoming book Base Nation: How US Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, David Vine, associate professor of anthropology at American University details the difficulties of assessing the US military presence abroad. He writes: according to the most recent publicized count, the U.S. military currently still occupies 686 “base sites” outside the fifty states and Washington, DC. While 686 base sites is quite a figure in its own right, that tally strangely excludes many well-known U.S. bases, like those in Kosovo, Kuwait, and Qatar. Less surprisingly, the Pentagon’s count also excludes secret (or secretive) American bases, like those reported in Israel and Saudi Arabia. There are so many bases, the Pentagon itself doesn’t even know the true total. That is not the only issue—even a definitive count of bases would include a wide range of facilities. “Base” itself is an umbrella term that includes locations referred to as “post,” “station,” “camp,” or “fort” by different military bodies. Vine explains: