The bureau of Liberal International stands in solidarity with Russia’s liberal party, Yabloko, and with all Russians who seek an alternative for their country grounded in the values of liberalism.
We are deeply troubled that the result, which is said to have seen Mr. Putin win close to a 90% share of the vote, will legitimise the conceit that leads to a mobilization of thousands more Russians to fight President Putin’s illegal wars abroad while sanctioning greater crackdowns at home, all the time fostering deeper confrontation with the liberal-democratic West.
We note that according to the independent Russian election monitoring movement, Golos, this presidential campaign contained more constitutional violations than any it has observed since its founding more than two decades ago. Throughout the election process, Russia’s entire state apparatus was involved in propaganda, coercion, and voter surveillance. On the last day of voting, law enforcement in some regions exerted control over voters’ will, punishing them for making “incorrect” marking on their ballots or showing up at the polling station to vote at the “wrong” time, and even demanding they reveal their vote. We are also appalled by the forcing of people in the occupied territories of Ukraine to vote.
We applaud the courage of Russians who, in these extremely difficult circumstances, followed the advice of Alexei Navalny to silently protest at numerous polling stations on 17 March, registering their dissent at Vladimir Putin’s deadly authoritarianism and reminding their country that another Russia is possible.
The bureau of Liberal International is shocked to learn that Alexei Navalny, another dissident of the regime of Vladimir Putin, has died at a penal colony outside of the Arctic Circle.
Facing 30 years of a politically-motivated prison sentence, Navalny was one of the most persistent critics of Vladimir Putin. His unwavering fight for transparency, democracy, human rights, and fight against state corruption earned him respect from the global community. Such was the influence of Mr. Navalny that he was able to shake the foundations of Putin’s dictatorial regime even from his prison cell.
We echo the concerns of Liberal International Prize for Freedom laureate, Dr Grigory Yavlinsky, that as an opponent of the regime Navalny ended up in a colony mainly for his political activities. The conditions of his detention are nothing but torture, hypocritically and cruelly committed by the authorities who stop at nothing to suppress their opponents. In the totalitarian Russia that Vladimir Putin has reinforced, we are deeply concerned about the safety of other political prisoners including our 2023 Prize for Freedom laureate, Vladimir Kara-Murza, who also has been the victim of poisoning and whose health is in danger because of the detention conditions. We reiterate our demands for the immediate release of all political prisoners and the end of the persecution of dissidents.
Like so many other liberal-democrats who have fought to be free from an authoritarian Russia, Navalny’s blood is on Putin’s hands.
At this time we offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and supporters of Alexei Navalny.
December 7, 1941, is etched into history as the day when the serenity of Pearl Harbor was shattered by an act of aggression, propelling the United States into World War II. This tragic event serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences that come when nations choose the path of aggression. This lesson resonates throughout history and reverberates in current global affairs.
The surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor was the impetus for the United States to get involved in World War II. Japan’s aggression transformed a regional conflict into a global battle and paved the way for unprecedented devastation, culminating in the use of nuclear weapons on the Japanese mainland. More than 400,000 Americans would die in the war and roughly 55 million total around the world. More than 38 million of those deaths were civilians.
Fast forward to the present day and the world is witnessing acts of aggression escalate nations into war yet again.
Russia’s 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine have killed thousands of innocent people and pushed the international community to the brink of another global conflict. Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children and relocated them into Russia. Russia has deliberately targeted civilian buildings with no military value, and destroyed power plants before winter to freeze Ukrainians. With tensions escalating and the specter of World War III looming, many countries are already involved in a proxy-war. Russia’s continuing aggression threatens to plunge nations into the abyss of warfare, endangering countless lives and destabilizing the delicate balance of global peace.
In the Middle East, the aggression of Hamas against Israel underscores a tragic pattern of escalation. In Early October acts of invasion, kidnapping and rape by Hamas haveled to measures by Israel to nullify the offensive capacity of Hamas. Because Hamas is using civilians as human shields, some of Israel’s attacks against Hamas are hitting ciivilian shields, resulting in the loss of innocent lives which Hamas will use to justify a perpetual cycle of hostility. As the world watches, the region becomes a crucible of suffering, with no clear resolution in sight.
In each of these conflicts the initial act of aggression prompted a vigorous defense and led to escalating warfare between the parties. And in each scenario, many innocent men, women, and children lives have been loss.
In the face of these conflicts – and many others throughout history where the same pattern was witnessed – it becomes imperative to advocate for an alternative approach: the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Living by the NAP means recognizing the futility of aggression as a tool of diplomacy and choosing peaceful means to resolve disputes. It is a call for individuals to embrace dialogue, cooperation, and respect for sovereignty rather than resorting to force.
Donald Trump has a new plan for his next term in office, if he wins in 2024. He will be Dictator on Day 1! Then he will give up this power after he crams his policy goals into inauguration day mandates and decrees.
Fox personality Sean Hannity interviewed Trump recently, to give him a chance to debunk allegations that the former President had plans to use the power of the Presidency to punish his enemies and perceived enemies.
According to Axios Media, Hannity asked Trump: “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Trump replied “Only on Day1!” He asserted that he wants to “…build the wall and drill, baby, drill.”
“Except for day one,” Trump said. “I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
“That’s not retribution,” Hannity said.
Trump replied: “I love this guy, he says, ‘you’re not going to be a dictator are you?’ I said no, no, no, other than day one.”
Trump has since adopted his off the cuff answer as his new campaign theme. A day after the interview, Trump spoke at a campaign rally, and told his supporters that he wants “to be a dictator for one day, to build the wall and drill, baby, drill.”
When I was young, there was a television show titled “Queen for a Day.” Every day, five days a week, the show would choose from several contestants a housewife, giving a profile of her life, with mentions of problems she might be facing. The chosen contestant would be crowned “Queen” for a day, and given an assortment of prizes at least partly personalized to deal with some of her problems and make her life easier. A washing machine, a new stove and similar prizes would make up her winnings.
The next day, another housewife would be chosen “Queen” with her own prizes, but no power, dictatorial or otherwise. A new Queen each day, five days a week. Rotation in office, no sore losers with window breaking supporters.
Donald Trump is no more qualified to be a housewife than he is to be President. A look at how he stores classified documents at Mar a Lago shows his unfitness for either position.
Certainly, the Donald would find the role of housewife too limited in the powers he wants, especially the power to destroy his enemies. Now it seems, Trump finds the role of President too limited in power, and he dreams of being a Dictator, if only for one day.
Presidents in the past often wanted more power than that granted them by the Constitution of the United States.
In the early 20th Century, Theodore Roosevelt took more power even without taking America into a war. The War Presidents – Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson all worked to expand their power in war and in peace.
In the 21st Century, George W Bush combined a program of expanded federal power over education and social policy, with greater expansion of police power after 9/11 and declaration of a ” War on Terror” as well as real wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Republican, his affinity for federal power places him in the company of his fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson.
Donald Trump has on several occasions suggested that a military attack on Iran might be justified, if such a war would help him get re-elected. Just prior to November 2020, he contemplated ordering an attack on Iran in a last minute bid to defeat Joe Biden. He has exercised executive power to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, and to stop US entry into the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Trump as President and as wannabe President has often promised more than he can deliver – as have other Presidents and wannabes. The promises often imply rule by decree rather than making decisions with consent of Congress. He now wants to be “Dictator” for one day – to build a wall on the border with Mexico. In the four years he held office, he could not get the wall built. Can he now get a wall built in one day?
The idea of “Dictator for a Day” implies that on Day 2, President Trump would give up the power of a Dictator. Yet it is clear that Donald Trump does not believe in term limits. When he was President, and thought he would be re-elected, he talked up the idea of dispensing with the Constitution, with that pesky amendment that limits Presidents to two terms.
When President Trump was defeated in 2020, he refused to accept defeat, as every previous President had done, and tried to refuse to tranfer power. The violent attempt at a coup on January 6, 2021 was undertaken for the purpose of keeping the defeated Donald Trump in the White House. If this is his response after four years, why would anyone think that Trump the Dictator would give up power after one day?
Who among Republicans in Congress or at the Republican National Committee, would have courage on Day 2 to suggest to Trump that he give up the power he so dearly wants?
The Constitution of the Roman Republic provided for the temporary appointment of a Dictator, to serve the Republic during wartime, or deal with civil unrest. The Dictator would serve for six months, then surrender the power. Several times, a former Consul would be called upon to hold this power, and they would accordingly surrender the power as called for in the Roman Constitution.
In 44 BCE, General Julius Caesar led his troops inside the city walls of Rome, in violation of the Constitution. Backed by his troops, he demanded power. He was made Consul for ten years – the normal term was six months – and appointed Dictator for Life.
In response, a group of Senators took action to end his term in both offices early. The Dictatorship was ended. But soon the Roman Republic came under control of the successors of Julius Caesar, who took the title of Caesar and assumed power over the Roman Empire.
The American Republic faces danger now, and now is the time to defend Republican Liberty. I don’t want to wait til January 2025 to find out if any Republican has the courage to tell Donald Trump that he is not qualified to be President, or Dictator. Is there a Republican Congressman or a member of the Republican National Committee with the courage to stand for America and tell Trump he is not qualified to lead America in any capacity? (by Gene Berkman, Editor, The California Libertarian Report)
Moscow security forces carried out raids on gay nightclubs, bars and saunas in the city center on Friday night, according to media reports, a day after Russia’s Supreme Court effectively banned the international LGBTQ+ movement in Russia, labeling it an “extremist” organization.
Police searched venues across the Russian capital, including a nightclub, a male sauna, and a bar that hosted LGBTQ+ parties, under the pretext of a drug raid, local media reported. Eyewitnesses said clubgoers’ documents were checked and photographed by the security services.
Ostorozhno Novosti Telegram news channel reported that, on the pretext of searching for drugs, police raided a club on Malaya Yakimanka where a party for the LGBT community was taking place.
“In the middle of the party, they stopped the music and [the police] started to pass into the halls,” according to the report. ”At the exit, they took passport photos without authorization to do so,” Ostorozhno Novosti wrote, citing an eyewitness.
On Friday, the European Union issued a statement in which it strongly condemned the decision of the Russian Supreme Court to outlaw the international LGBT public movement.
“Amid the decades-long crackdown on rights of LGBTIQ persons unleashed under President Putin, this decision aims at further persecuting the LGBTIQ community in Russia and aims to stifle civil society and those courageously defending human rights,” according to the statement.
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington challenged Donald Trump’s right to run for office, invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. “
“CREW said the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 disqualified Trump under a reading of the Civil War-era amendment.”
“The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” But she also found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump.”
The Judge indicated that since the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment does not mention the President specifically, that it was not wise to interpret the clause where the Founders had not spoken.
Almost certainly, the authors of the Constitution considered the President to be an officer of the United States. Article II, Section 1, says “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years”
Paragraph 6 states “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Paragraph 7 states “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”
Paragrah 9 states “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article II, Section 4 states “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
It is a strange interpretation that the Founders vested all executive power in a President who is not an Officer of the United States, or make a President who is not an Officer of the United States take an “Oath of Office.” It is this Oath of Office which is the basis for the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The wording of the clause appears to apply to all who take an Oath of Office to Defend the Constitution of the United States.
Of course, there is an extra-Constitutional reason for the Judge to rule. The Judge knows, as well as everyone who has lived in America since 2016, that enforcing the Constitution’s 14th Amendment would lead to massive violence by supporters of former President Trump. The events of January 6, 2021 show that America is under threat from a leader who sees violence as an acceptable approach to gaining or retaining public Office.
All America is under threat from Donald Trump and his supporters. Donald Trump has already said he would trash The Constitution of the United States if that would keep him in office. His supporters on January 6 made clear their contempt for The Constitution, and their willingness to use violence to keep Trump in power. Every Secretary of State fears that violence, and they are all avoiding their own duty to enforce The Constitution in regard to this particular disqualification of a candidate.
The fear is justified. The Secretaries who will not keep Trump off the ballot make it sound like a principled stand – “let the voters decided whether he should be in office.” A good principle indeed. In November 2020, the voters decided that Trump should not continue in office, and the result was the violent attack on the Capitol and the offices of Congress on January 6, 2021.
Does anyone think that Donald Trump will accept defeat in November 2024, and congratulate the winner? America will live under the shadow of violence as long as Donald Trump is politically active. The threat is made all the worse by the cowardice of the Republican National Committee in refusing to take the lead in disqualifying Donald Trump for the 2024 election.
If the question makes it to The Supreme Court of the United States, I would remind the Justices that each of them took an Oath to Defend the Constitution. I would also note that the Supreme Court building probably has better security than the offices of the Secretary of State in any of the 50 states.
True enough, but we don’t have to go that far geographically, or that far back in time. In the 1960s and after, Fidel Castro would call people who opposed Cuban Communism “Gusanos” which means “worm” in Spanish.
Seems like The Don uses “vermin” in the same metaphorical way Castro used “Gusanos.”
Given Trump’s reverence for Vladimir Putin, and his professed “love” for Kim Jong-un, it seems he is more like Castro than like Hitler.
Of course, Castro’s favorite book in college was “Mi Lucha” – “My Struggle” – or “Mein Kampf“‘ in the original German. I guess if you are talking about a totalitarian megalomaniac – whether it is Fidel Castro or Donald Trump – you are never that far from the comparison to Hitler.
Human Rights Watch reports on the youngest victims of the Russian aggression in Ukraine:
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has devastated schools and kindergartens throughout the country. Since February 2022, over 3,790 educational facilities have been damaged or destroyed.
Ukrainian children have paid a high price in this war because attacks on education are attacks on their future.
International donors and aid agencies should support the Ukrainian government to ensure the equitable reconstruction of schools in all regions of Ukraine.
(Kyiv, November 9, 2023) – Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has devastated schools and kindergartens throughout the country, Human Rights Watch said in a report and video released today. Since February 2022, over 3,790 educational facilities have been damaged or destroyed, according to Ukrainian government figures, severely interrupting access to education for millions of children.
The 71-page report, “Tanks on the Playground,” documents the damage and destruction of schools and kindergartens in four Ukrainian regions during the first months of the fighting. Most of the damage to educational facilities resulted from aerial attacks, artillery shelling, rocket strikes, and, in some cases, attacks using cluster munitions – causing significant damage to roofs, the collapse of walls, and major debris in classrooms. Russian forces frequently looted and pillaged schools they occupied, a war crime.
“Ukrainian children have paid a high price in this war because attacks on education are attacks on their future,” said Hugh Williamson, director of the Europe and Central Asia division at Human Rights Watch. “The international community should condemn the damage and destruction of schools in Ukraine and looting by Russian forces.”
Human Rights Watch visited 50 education facilities in the Kyivska, Kharkivska, Chernihivska, and Mykolaivska regions and interviewed almost 90 school officials, representatives of local authorities, and witnesses to military operations.
Education in Ukraine has been under attack since Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 led to further attacks on and military use of schools, which, along with the overall effects of war, have severely disrupted Ukrainian children’s education, already suffering from school closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Many students from schools that were damaged or destroyed had to continue their studies in other schools, studying in shifts or remotely, which has eroded the quality of education, Human Rights Watch said. Russian forces’ attacks on power infrastructure and consequent electricity and internet outages have frequently impeded remote learning.
(Jerusalem) – Allies of Israel and backers of Palestinian armed groups should suspend the transfer of arms to the warring parties in Israel and Gaza given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses, Human Rights Watch said today. Providing weapons that knowingly and significantly would contribute to unlawful attacks can make those providing them complicit in war crimes.
Israel and Palestinian armed groups have committed serious abuses amounting to war crimes during the current hostilities. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups deliberately killed hundreds of civilians in Israel on October 7, 2023, and took more than 200 hostage. Israel then cut electricity, fuel, food and water to Gaza’s population and severely curtailed life-saving humanitarian aid, all of which are acts of collective punishment.
“Civilians are being punished and killed at a scale unprecedented in recent history in Israel and Palestine,” said Bruno Stagno, chief advocacy officer at Human Rights Watch. “The United States, Iran and other governments risk being complicit in grave abuses if they continue to provide military assistance to known violators.”
Israel’s key allies—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany—should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel so long as its forces commit widespread, serious abuses amounting to war crimes against Palestinian civilians with impunity. Iran and other governments should cease providing arms to Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, so long as they systematically commit attacks amounting to war crimes against Israeli civilians.
Since October 7, about 1,400 Israelis and others, and more than 9,700 Palestinians, many of them civilians, have been killed, according to local authorities.
During the current hostilities, Israeli forces have imposed collective punishment on civilians in Gaza by denying them water, electricity, and food, and have willfully impeded humanitarian aid from entering Gaza.
They have also repeatedly used explosive weapons with wide area effects in densely populated areas, reducing entire blocks and large parts of neighborhoods to rubble and raising grave concerns of indiscriminate attacks, and indiscriminately used white phosphorus, an incendiary material that burns human flesh and can cause lifelong suffering, in populated areas in Gaza and in Lebanon. Amnesty International has also verified photos showing M825-series white phosphorous 155mm artillery projectiles being used by Israeli forces near the Lebanese border and Gaza fences.
Israel’s military has also ordered over a million people in northern Gaza to evacuate to the south of Gaza because of military operations in the north, though they had no safe place to go or safe way to go anywhere in Gaza. Broad-based warnings, rather than specific warnings of imminent attacks, suggest that everywhere in northern Gaza is subject to military attack. This order risks mass forced displacement, a war crime. Israel has also sealed its border crossings to anyone who would seek to flee.
Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have deliberately killed civilians, taken civilians hostage and continue to hold them, and launched thousands of rockets at Israeli communities, all of which are war crimes.
The leaders of Israel and Palestinian armed groups have made statements indicating that serious abuses by their forces will continue. Israeli officials have sought to hold Gaza’s entire population responsible for the October 7 attack; one minister said that “there is no reason” to provide humanitarian aid to the population until Israeli forces “eliminate” Hamas. A spokesman for the Hamas military wing threatened to broadcast “with sound and video” the “execution of one of our enemy’s civilian hostages.”
Future military transfers to Israel in the face of ongoing serious violations of the laws of war risk making the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany complicit in these abuses if they knowingly and significantly contribute to them, Human Rights Watch said. Providing weapons to Palestinian armed groups, given their continuing unlawful attacks, risks making Iran complicit in those violations.
Liberal International is deeply saddened by the unfolding tragedy and human suffering resulting from the recent Hamas attack on Israel. We mourn the loss of innocent civilian lives on all sides of the conflict. The carnage caused by Hamas’ incursion into Israeli territory has led to a military response by Israel.
As events escalate we are deeply concerned about the threat to the lives and homes of civilians – ordinary men, women and children – in Gaza . We insist that all combatants act in accordance with the laws of war and international humanitarian law to minimise civilian casualties. We call upon Hamas to free all hostages with immediate effect.
We reiterate the position adopted by the global liberal family that two independent and democratic states can be the only viable outcome for civilian populations on both sides. We applaud the leadership of the United Nations Secretary General who is working to find an equitable solution that respects the aspirations, security and rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.
California Libertarian Report 