Pages

CPS investigation: Despite changes, abused kids still die in Sacramento County system

Marjie Lundstrom, Sacramento Bee, June 22, 2008

They had names and faces once. Now they have coroner's numbers.

Social workers call them their "worst outcomes."

Adrian Conway was 3 when he became Sacramento's Worst Outcome No. 96-00441, a little boy who was beaten, burned, bruised, bound, tortured and starved to death by his angry, drug-abusing mom.

Others have followed: Christopher Cejas, 12, No. 02-03984 (pictured above). Alexia and Akira Noel, 3-month-old twins, Nos. 04-03525 and 03526. Keith Carl "K.C." Balbuena, 3, No. 05-05953.

What these dead children have in common – besides the ultimate betrayal by a parent or caregiver – is their link to Sacramento County's Child Protective Services. Each was once an open CPS case, permanently closed by the coroner.

Twelve years after the death of Adrian Conway, whose murder exposed a risky CPS policy and forced massive reform within the agency, Sacramento's most vulnerable children still are being failed at the most basic level, a five-month Bee investigation found.

The agency's budget has nearly quadrupled since Adrian's death; staffing has doubled. But the results for kids – on several key fronts – remain grim:

• A growing number of children who died of abuse or neglect in Sacramento County, or their families, were involved with CPS before their deaths. From Adrian's murder through 2006, 82 more children died – 35 of their families already known to CPS.

• Among California's 20 counties with the most children, Sacramento had the highest rate of kids being abused or neglected again within a year of an earlier CPS intervention.

• Kids are cycling in and out of the child welfare system at a record pace. Among the largest counties, Sacramento has the highest percentage of kids who land back in foster care within two years of CPS returning them to their families.

This was not the plan.

The legacy of Adrian Conway's 1996 death was envisioned as a revamped system to make kids safer, and some gains have been made. Timely social worker responses to the Child Abuse Hotline are up. Supervisor-to social worker ratios have tightened.

But internal problems persist.

The paper trail of statistics and public documents – especially where children died or were injured – reveals an agency in 2008 still struggling to ensure adequate supervision and training, appropriate evaluation of children's risk, quality investigations and accountability for mistakes.

Examining 18 local cases in which children died or were hurt on CPS' watch, The Bee found that the tipping point for kids' safety often comes down to seemingly small things: a social worker with poor English skills, an unanswered knock at the door, a miscue between agencies, a lack of follow-through, an incomplete background check, a supervisor on vacation, a poor candidate for parenting classes.

"I just see such blatant examples of a lack of judgment by CPS," said Deputy District Attorney Robin Shakely, who specializes in child homicides and has served on both the county and state child death review teams. "They're not even close calls."

Shakely said she believes the agency has abandoned its promises of the Adrian era – to pull children out of troubled homes first and ask questions later – in favor of more leniency toward the caregivers. Shakely was assigned to the Conway case and has prosecuted a progression of child homicides since.

When a child dies with government workers involved in the case, no one inside the agency is held publicly accountable because of juvenile, employee and patient confidentiality. But if caregivers are arrested, details of how CPS intersected with the families often emerge.

Agency officials and social workers say they make the best decisions they can at the time. But hindsight sometimes affords a different view.

The agency was so concerned about Bradley Price's temper that it sent him to anger management classes in 2005. He attended one the night before he fractured his son's skull. Travis Smith, a 2-year-old who loved squirrels and the "Popeye" movie, was thrown into his playpen and died two days later.

From a phone inside Napa State Hospital, Feliciana Reyes said she was allowed by CPS to keep her 1-year-old daughter even after she stabbed her husband in the back in February 2000 – as long as she attended counseling and parenting classes. The following year, her 4-month-old baby girl died abruptly and was declared a sudden infant death syndrome case. In June 2004, the corpse of another of her babies, 10-month-old Felicia, was found in the back seat of Reyes' car as she drove through Los Angeles.

Last fall, Tamaihya Moore's family members said they begged CPS workers to seek medical help when they saw the 17-month-old girl deteriorating in foster care. The coroner ruled the death a homicide, likely due to smothering, and the foster mom has been charged with murder. The family is suing CPS.

"It is absolutely horrible. How could this happen?" asked the girl's grieving grandmother, Debra Oliver.

Asked that question, CPS officials describe complex and time-consuming caseloads and the ravages of drug abuse, poverty and domestic violence. They deny any significant internal problems and characterize their worst outcomes as extreme, isolated incidents – sometimes the result of human error.

"Because we are an imperfect system made up of human beings trying to carry out the work, there are going to be times when there is an error in judgment," said CPS Director Laura Coulthard, who headed up emergency response for the agency when Adrian died.

Each child death is scrutinized, Coulthard said. When a mistake clearly has been made, the agency takes action against the employee that may range from a formal reprimand to firing.

"Accountability is essential," she wrote in an e-mail to The Bee, though she declined to discuss specific cases, citing county personnel policy.

However, The Bee found evidence in court files that some social workers continued in their jobs after failing to follow department policy in cases that ended with injuries or deaths.

One former social worker admitted under oath she had received no negative job evaluations after her decision in August 2001 ended with an 11-year-old girl being stabbed in the chest, barely surviving. (Read an online-only story about this case.)

Martha McGowan had been on the job about two months, and her supervisor was on vacation, when she returned the girl to her father. McGowan later admitted that she had failed to check the family's CPS file, which would have revealed the man's 30-plus criminal convictions, according to the girl's lawsuit against the county.

McGowan did learn at the last minute that the father had been taking PCP – a drug that can cause violent, psychotic episodes – but released his daughter to him anyway. Four days later, the girl and two neighbors, including a 15-year-old boy, were stabbed repeatedly during another of the man's drug-induced rampages.

In a 2006 deposition for the lawsuit, McGowan said that she had "expected some sort of repercussions or something," but instead she and her supervisor talked mostly about her feelings. She couldn't recall ever being debriefed about her decision-making process, or what she might have done differently.

The social worker said she worked for CPS another two years, handling 200 more cases, before resigning to become a stay-at-home mom in Las Vegas.

"There's no way in the world she should have had this case unsupervised," said the girl's attorney, Ed Dudensing, a former prosecutor who has asked the state Supreme Court to review the case. The lower courts rejected the suit, saying state law makes government workers immune from liability for "discretionary acts."

Coulthard said this sort of internal breakdown should not have happened – and would not happen today.

VICTIMS HAD BEEN ON CPS RADAR

Deputy District Attorney Shakely and others are alarmed by the rising number of children known to CPS before their deaths.

From 2001 to 2003, the county recorded 14 child abuse and neglect homicides, in which five of the families had been involved with CPS, according to data from the county's Child Death Review Team. Over the next three years, child abuse and neglect homicides rose to 20, with 13 families having CPS histories.

In a special report last September to the Board of Supervisors, the team revealed that child maltreatment deaths – which include abuse- or neglect-related deaths such as drownings or overdoses – had more than doubled in Sacramento from 11 in 2004 to 24 in 2006. Of the 24 who died in 2006, 11 had histories with Sacramento CPS; nine had been involved with the agency within six months of their deaths.

"As a team, we want to see that the pattern of CPS involvement is changing," said Dr. Angela Rosas, a child abuse expert and former chairwoman of the county's Child Death Review Team.

It was CPS' involvement with Adrian Conway's drug-abusing mother that ignited the furor in 1996. Outrage was rekindled a year later when 2-year-old Rebecca Meza of Rancho Cordova was killed at home despite 10 prior reports to the agency.

At the time, the agency lamented its lack of resources, and the Board of Supervisors responded. Since Adrian's death, the CPS budget has risen from $33.9 million to nearly $125.9 million – a 271 percent increase in federal, state and local money, most spent on salaries, benefits and employee overhead.

Since Adrian's death, the population of children under 18 in the county grew by about 58,000, or 18 percent.

CPS officials say the agency's budget largely reflects its high social worker caseload, which has been the state's fifth highest since 2002 and exceeds state recommendations. Staff turnover and vacancies remain high, too.

"The caseload is out of control," said Ted Somera, executive director of United Public Employees (UPE) Local 1, which represents about 400 social workers.

Budget cuts decided last week will carve into CPS' new budget, which deeply concerns both union and agency officials.

Yet as far back as 1996, the citizens committee appointed after Adrian's death cautioned that money alone would not improve CPS. The 15-member panel, led by a retired Superior Court judge, concluded that "clearer procedures and protocols that make the best use of staff time should be the highest management priority."

The Bee's analysis of public records, coroner's data and thousands of pages of court documents reveals ongoing problems with some of CPS' procedures and protocols, particularly in how workers evaluate children's risk of being hurt.

15 REFERRALS FOR ONE INFANT

The Sacramento family of one 4-month-old girl, admitted to a hospital last October for suspected shaken baby syndrome, had 15 prior CPS referrals – 12 in Sacramento County and three in Butte County, according to the state Department of Social Services. The girl nearly died.

"How many times do you have to call CPS before they do anything?" asked Richard Melm of Sacramento, whose stepdaughter, Daelynn Foreman, starved to death in July 2006 while living with his ex-wife – despite six reports to Sacramento County's CPS of suspected neglect over a four-year period.

Daelynn's death was so shocking that CPS' own spokeswoman said the case "sent shudders down the corridors of all CPS."

When she died, the 12-year-old Orangevale girl with cerebral palsy had withered to 23 pounds, the average for a 1-year-old. The girl's mother, Brandy Foreman, has been charged with murder for allegedly having withheld food; she also faces drug charges.

Daelynn's death after six local referrals is acknowledged within Sacramento CPS as a problem case, one in which the worker "did not understand the situation well enough to be able to identify an appropriate intervention," said Coulthard, who took the agency's top job last year after rising through the ranks since 1985.

The department previously told The Bee that an internal investigation had resulted in "personnel actions," but would not elaborate.

Out of Daelynn's case, the agency developed new programs and assigned workers to specialize in "medically fragile" children and medical neglect referrals. It also created a Medical Neglect Review Team to monitor the more complex cases.

Coulthard and other top CPS managers say their ability to evaluate children's risk and make good decisions also has been vastly improved by a procedure adopted after Adrian's death. Workers in five CPS programs, including emergency response and family maintenance, are required to use what's known as SDM, or Structured Decision Making.

The written, check-off system provides structure to social workers trying to assess a child's safety and risk by making them note present circumstances and history such as prior CPS contact, excessive discipline, drug abuse or domestic violence.

SDM has been widely praised in California for increasing consistency and accuracy, and improving outcomes for kids.

But only if it's used correctly. The CPS oversight committee, in its examination of four child deaths, found that some completed SDM forms "reflected inadequate information." The committee also found that social workers were completing the forms at the end of cases, rather than relying on them for key decision-making along the way.

"They were doing it as part of closing their paperwork," said Alyson Collier, the committee's chairwoman. "So it was getting done, but it wasn't being used appropriately."

The spotlight on child deaths and CPS' inner workings has intensified in the past 10 months, as both its oversight committee and the death review team released critical reports to the Board of Supervisors.

The oversight committee cautioned supervisors in August that problems have persisted over the past decade, and that "a systemic change needs to take place."

The committee cited inadequate supervision and training as problems dating back to the Adrian era. In reviewing four child deaths, it found that social workers "did not receive regularly scheduled supervision." In one case, a worker tried for three days to get help from a supervisor and "found him to be unavailable."

A NEW EMPHASIS TO SAVE CHILDREN

As its top recommendation, the oversight committee advised CPS to make clear to social workers and families that "it must err on the side of child protection as opposed to family reunification."

Acting independently, the Child Death Review Team came to a similar conclusion: CPS must place child safety over keeping families together "in both written policy and active practice."

The Department of Health and Human Services agreed with both committees' findings and, when Coulthard came back before the board in March, supervisors lauded the agency's plans for improvement.

But a disconnect between CPS policy and what happens in the field was cited over and over by members of both citizens groups.

"I think that's where the breakdown is: It's practice vs. policy," said Sgt. Jeff Reinl, a member of the oversight committee and head of the Sacramento County sheriff's child abuse bureau.

CPS Division Manager Melinda Lake candidly said that the agency failed to follow its own policies in the 2005 beating death of Keith Carl "K.C." Balbuena, a 3-year-old with a speech impediment whose mother and roommate were convicted of the crime earlier this year.

The first CPS emergency response worker, who speaks with a heavy accent, admitted in court that he closed the case even though he couldn't really understand the boy. A second social worker visited the apartment nine times but never found the couple, despite agency guidelines listing numerous strategies for locating a family.

The boy died eight days after that worker's last unsuccessful visit.

But Lake, who then supervised emergency response workers, also argues that the community at large bears some responsibility for its worst outcomes.

Christopher Cejas was 12 when he was tortured, starved and beaten to death in August 2002 while visiting his father, a registered sex offender.

A social worker had gone to the Watt Avenue apartment complex in June 2002 to follow up on a neighbor's 1:30 a.m. call to CPS nine days earlier. The anonymous caller claimed to have heard a terrible beating of a boy named Christopher, about 10 years old.

The case was not flagged as an emergency, and, lacking a last name or apartment number – and getting no help from the apartment manager – the social worker left. The case was closed as "unable to locate."

"If a child being severely beaten and screaming doesn't deserve an immediate response, who does?" asked Shakely, who prosecuted the case.

The upstairs neighbor overheard the boy being beaten again 11 weeks later but did not call CPS or 911. That vicious beating, which lasted for hours, proved fatal to Christopher Cejas.

Christopher's North Carolina family said the social worker could have found him in time had she gone to the local school and aggressively interviewed residents at the apartment complex. State regulations and CPS' employee handbook clearly lay out requirements for workers to talk with people beyond the immediate family in their investigation, including teachers, neighbors, police and others.

Lake said scant information provided in the anonymous call led the social worker to conclude she was in the wrong place.

"This case just screams out for civic responsibility," said Lake, who thinks many more residents knew of the horrors inside Apartment 13 but did nothing.

The county has staked much of its strategy since Adrian's death on preventing family crises, creating eight Family Resource Centers in high-risk neighborhoods that provide services to help families cope, and care for their children.

Families whose cases are investigated and opened by CPS, but who retain custody, are offered services including counseling, drug treatment, parenting and anger-management classes.

"Most of our families need help and support," Lake said. "Most aren't vicious murderers."

The agency points to success stories – women like Angela LeBeau of Sacramento. The former meth addict was reunited with her four children as she took 180 classes on topics ranging from alcohol and drug use to parenting to self-esteem. She works for CPS as a meeting scheduler and a parent leader, helping others navigate the system.

Coulthard and her boss, Lynn Frank, director of the county's Department of Health and Human Services, complained that the recent committee reports' focus on child deaths – the "worst outcomes" – creates a distorted picture of the large agency and its hardworking staff.

"If that's all they see, it's fairly easy to jump to conclusions that we aren't keeping kids safe," Frank said.

But William Grimm, a senior attorney at the Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law, said it is critical to publicly examine child deaths because they are often "just the tip of the iceberg of a system that's not treating kids well."

SOME STATISTICS SPELL TROUBLE

Grimm said he sees a troubling combination in Sacramento County's child welfare data.

Among the state's 20 largest counties, based on child population, Sacramento County has the highest percentage of kids reunited with their families within a year of being placed in foster care, according to a Bee analysis of the most recent data compiled by UC Berkeley's Center for Social Services Research (http://cssr.berkeley.edu). The county's reunification rate more than doubled between 1998 and 2006.

What sounds like good news comes with a giant caveat: Sacramento also has the highest percentage of kids re-entering foster care after being reunited with their families, triple the rate of Los Angeles County, and more than double that of San Diego, Fresno and Orange counties.

Kids are coming right back into the system.

"What that says to me is, this is a system that is not operating well," Grimm said.

"It's not protecting children, and it's not helping families, either, because you're putting children back in homes that are not prepared or supported to maintain the children in the homes," he said. "And they're coming back in re-victimized."

In Sacramento County, kids are being re-victimized at an alarming rate, as well.

The data show that, among the largest counties, Sacramento has the highest rate of children being abused or neglected again within a year of CPS confirming a report involving them. One in five kids abused or neglected in 2004 was referred to the agency again within 18 months – more than 1,000 children.

Even after CPS cases are closed, repeat abuse and neglect in Sacramento is among the highest in the state's urban counties.

CPS officials reject such county-to-county comparisons, saying each operates independently, with different policies and programs. Yet CPS' own improvement plan states that reducing repeat abuse and foster care re-entry are high priorities.

Coulthard said the county has made "slow and steady" progress in cutting back on repeat abuse, mostly through community partnerships to quickly hook troubled families into support services. "We know we're improving, but we're not good enough," she said.

The county hopes to address high re-entry rates with team decision-making, a strategy that pulls together children, social workers, birth families, service providers and others to help make decisions about a child's placement.

Without team decision-making, planning has been inadequate, Coulthard said, making children susceptible to problem placements. But she noted that the vast majority of kids who landed back in foster care last year had not actually been abused or neglected again; instead, their caregivers had violated conditions of the requirements set when they regained their children.

Alyson Collier, chairwoman of the CPS oversight committee, said the team approach eases the burden of a "lone social worker out in the field," making difficult decisions in isolation.

"We have to stop doing business that way," Collier said.

A LONE WORKER IS OVERWHELMED

The consequences of a lone worker shouldering a complex case can be extreme.

In one horrific example, CPS handed off a troubled family to a home visitation worker outside the agency, who knew her limitations but couldn't get the agency to intervene.

Alexia and Akira Noel, 3-month-old twins, were found dead in July 2004 by their father, Ernest Noel, in a sweltering upstairs bedroom.

Before the twins were born, CPS had been monitoring Noel and his girlfriend, Vanessa Hackett, who were both mentally disabled and struggling to raise a daughter, according to court records. When Hackett became pregnant with twins, CPS "became very concerned about the couple's ability to care for three young children," according to a document from Noel's attorney.

CPS enlisted the help of Birth & Beyond, a county program now part of CPS that provides support and guidance to pregnant women and struggling new parents.

After the twins' birth in April 2004, a Birth & Beyond worker visited the apartment at least 16 times over three months, finding the home and children in varying states. In May, she persuaded Hackett to take the babies to the Sacramento Crisis Nursery, but CPS returned the girls to the home six days later, after Noel assured the agency he and Hackett had completed a parenting class.

Birth & Beyond stepped up its visits, bringing in a public health nurse, but the Birth & Beyond worker cautioned CPS in July that the case was "intense" and perhaps beyond her scope, the prosecutor's trial brief shows. Again, CPS decided "no further actions were necessary since Birth & Beyond was involved with the case," according to the brief.

At this point, one of the twins had a diaper rash so severe her bottom was bloody.

The saga abruptly ended on July 14, 2004, when the girls were found dead inside the apartment. The coroner ruled the deaths homicides; both parents went to prison.

Coulthard acknowledged that the twins' deaths were an example of "practice not being aligned with procedure." The agency's response "wasn't appropriate," she said, and the family should have been a formal child welfare case.

Instead, Alexia and Akira Noel became Worst Outcomes 04-03525 and 03526.

Marjie Lundstrom - mlundstrom@sacbee.com

Congress Reaches Deal on Wiretapping Bill

ERIC LICHTBLAU, New York Times, June 20, 2008

WASHINGTON — After months of wrangling, Democratic and Republican leaders reached a deal Thursday that would re-write the rules for the government’s wiretapping powers, and would provide what amounts to limited immunity to the telephone companies that took part in President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The deal would expand the government’s powers in some key respects. It would allow intelligence officials to use broad warrants to eavesdrop on foreign targets, and to conduct emergency wiretaps on American targets without warrants if it is determined that important national security information would be lost otherwise.

The deal would also make the phone companies involved in the post-Sept. 11 program immune from legal liability if a district court determines that they received valid requests from the government directing their participation in the warrantless wiretapping operation.

Steny Hoyer, the House Democratic leader who helped draft the compromise, said he believed the proposal would give the government the surveillance tools it needs to detect terrorist threats while also incorporating more civil rights safeguards to protect against abuses. “It is the result of compromise, and like any compromise, is not perfect,” he said. “But I believe it strikes a sound balance.”

The bill could be brought to a vote on the House floor as soon as Friday, but it may face opposition from two quarters: conservatives who believe it does not give the National Security Agency enough freedom of action, and liberals who charge that it retroactively sanctions illegal conduct by the president. “No matter how they spin it, this is still immunity,” said Kevin Bankston, a senior lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group that has sued over the president’s wiretapping program. “It’s not compromise, it’s pure theater.”

The government’s spying powers have been at the center of a months-long game of chicken between congressional Democrats and Republicans. House Democrats infuriated Mr. Bush in February by allowing a temporary surveillance measure to expire, leading to intense negotiations over how and whether to revive the proposal. Some critics of the administration have pushed to allow the issue to lie dormant until the next president takes office, but the White House has called that idea dangerous and unacceptable.

Juneteenth Festival Kicks Off In Charlotte

wsoctv.com, June 19, 2008

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- The 11t Annual Juneteenth Festival of the Carolinas is in Charlotte from June 19-22. It will be held in Independence Park from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Admission is free.

The Juneteenth Festival will offer a rich variety of cultural traditions and diversity through food, arts and music. It offers a broad variety of ethnic foods, plus an even greater selection of vendors displaying unique arts, crafts and clothing from around the world.

Music and dance groups will also perform throughout the weekend's festivities.

Meaning of Juneteenth from Wikipedia:

Though the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued on September 22, 1862, with an effective date of January 1, 1863, it had little immediate effect on most slaves’ day-to-day lives, particularly in Texas, which was almost entirely under Confederate control. Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, the day Union General Gordon Granger and 2,000 federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas to take possession of the state and enforce the emancipation of its slaves. Legend has it while standing on the balcony of Galveston’s Ashton Villa, Granger read the contents of “General Order No. 3”

The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.[7]

That day has since become known as Juneteenth, a name derived from a portmanteau of the words June and nineteenth.

Former slaves in Galveston rejoiced in the streets with jubilant celebrations. Juneteenth celebrations began in Texas the following year.[7] Across many parts of Texas, freed people pooled their funds to purchase land specifically for their communities’ increasingly large Juneteenth gatherings — including Houston’s Emancipation Park, Mexia’s Booker T. Washington Park, and Emancipation Park in Austin.[7] Juneteenth celebrations include a wide range of festivities, such as parades, street fairs, cookouts, or park parties and include such things as music and dancing or even contests of physical strength and intellect. Baseball and other popular American games may also be played.

US strike hits Pakistan's raw nerve

Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online, June 13, 2008

KARACHI - The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has for a long time been split over strategic questions in Afghanistan. These divisions will be further sharpened following Tuesday evening's attack by United States warplanes on a Pakistani military post in Mohmand Agency in which 11 Pakistani paramilitary soldiers were killed.

Indications that Pakistani soldiers were fighting alongside Taliban forces against Afghan army and US units in the border area will also bolster critics of US policy who argue that the Pakistani military is playing a "double game" and can no longer be trusted. All the same, should NATO "lose" Pakistan, it would be a devastating setback.

While the precise circumstances of the incident remain unclear, an eye witness, Taliban spokesman Zubair Mujahid, who represents the Taliban's commanders for Kunar and Nooristan provinces in Afghanistan, told Asia Times Online by telephone: "The multiple Taliban groups operating on both sides of the border - in the Afghan Kunar Valley and in Mohmand Agency - spotted NATO forces launching into Mohmand Agency's mountain-top Sarhasoko military post (photo at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/images/fortafghan.gif).

"We realized the Pakistani troops were struggling against the NATO forces so we activated our networks all over the area," Zubair said.

"The Pakistani security forces were under siege and were at the point of being evacuated from the post when we opened fire on them [NATO] from several positions. Our attack was so unexpected for NATO that they had to retreat. The Pakistan army lost 11 soldiers, the Taliban lost eight and NATO lost 20 soldiers during the operation."

An official Pakistani armed forces release called the air strikes "unprovoked and cowardly" and added that "the incident had hit at the very basis of cooperation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in [the] war against terror".

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, meanwhile, said, "Although it is early, every indication we have is that it was a legitimate strike in self-defense against forces that had attacked coalition forces."

Damning report
The timing of the attack coincides with the release of a report this week by the US Defense Department-funded RAND Corp, entitled "Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan", which said that some active and former officials in Pakistan's intelligence service and the Frontier Corps - a paramilitary force - directly aided Taliban militants.

Significantly - as happened on Tuesday - the report suggested direct NATO operations in the Pakistani tribal areas to root out the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Confusingly, at the very moment the Taliban went to aid Pakistani security forces - which will boost respect for them among the lower- and middle-order cadre of the armed forces - the Taliban kidnapped seven security personnel in Dera Adam Khail in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and in Mohmand Agency they exchanged fire with security forces at a checkpoint.

This contradiction highlights the complex relationships between the Taliban, militants and the Pakistani establishment: nothing can be read as black and white. What can't be ignored is that ethnic Pashtuns are natural Pakistani allies and the Pashtun heartland is overwhelmingly under the influence of the Taliban, a factor Pakistan has to factor into its regional relationships.

The case of Taliban commander Haji Nazeer illustrates the point. Al-Qaeda leaders, Pakistani Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud and even Uzbek warlord Qari Tahir often praise his services for fighting some of the toughest battles against NATO in Afghanistan. Yet they also curse him for his links to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for which he acts as a point man to work against Uzbeks, the network of Baitullah Mehsud and Takfiri Arabs - those who take it on themselves to decide who is a true Muslim and who is not.

Haji Nazeer is not the only example of this, several big and small operators receive support or patronage from the Pakistani security forces, which allows think-tanks such as the Rand Corporation to blame Pakistan for actively supporting and facilitating the Taliban fight against NATO.

From 2006 onwards, US officials and NATO have on several occasions provided evidence directly to Islamabad on Pakistan's support for the Taliban. Yet the crux is, Pakistan needs to do this.
The US does the same in Iraq, where it struck deals with former Ba'athist elements to take on al-Qaeda, knowing that Sunni-nationalist Arab tribes would continue to fight against them, though with low intensity.

A lesser evil
By late 2003, foreign elements, especially Egyptians and Uzbeks, had regrouped in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal area and established two organizations. One was for international operations, the Jaishul al-Qiba al-Jihadi al-Siri al-Alami, the other, specifically aimed to operate inside Pakistan, was Jundullah. See The legacy of Nek Mohammed Asia Times Online, July 20, 2004.)
Between them, the two groups masterminded operations such as the March 11, 2004, Madrid train bombings and the July 7, 2005, London bombings and several attacks on the life of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as well as other officials and security installations.

Pakistan mounted several military operations against the groups and killed many commanders, including Nek Mohammed, but the insurgency intensified and new faces emerged, such as Baitullah Mehsud, and they established even better facilities for al-Qaeda operations.

These new commanders did not restrict their activities to South Waziristan, they spread their networks across the country. The previously calm Swat Valley in NWFP and the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad became two important bases for them.

The new self-proclaimed "Pakistani Taliban" quickly eliminated the local networks of the tribal elders, the only reliable front on which Islamabad could deal with the new militant movements. Over 130 tribal chiefs were killed and dozens fled to different cities. Any cleric who spoke in favor of harmony with Pakistan risked being killed and ending up with a message attached to his body: "A lesson for CIA-ISI proxies."

By 2005, suicide attacks began in Pakistan and the Pakistani security apparatus was at a loss over how to deal with the militants - neither the military nor the political approach worked.

Then an ISI network based in Balochistan province succeeded in making a connection with now slain Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah, who, after a lot of negotiation, agreed to play a role in South Waziristan. He acquired a letter from Taliban leader Mullah Omar in which he emphasized that all groups in South and North Waziristan should focus on the jihad in Afghanistan rather than become involved in other regional and global operations.

Then Pakistan-friendly and legendary mujahideen leader Jalaluddin Haqqani was announced as the military leader of the Taliban's spring offensive of 2006 and he led all factions into Afghanistan. Before this, he had signed a ceasefire agreement with Pakistani forces in the tribal areas. The upshot was that the Taliban had their most successful season since being ousted in 2001 and Pakistan saved itself from a major catastrophe.

Nevertheless, Uzbeks and a group of Egyptians under the uncompromising Sheikh Essa and his Pakistani adherents Sadiq Noor and Abdul Khaliq Haqqani were still obsessed in fermenting an Islamic revolution in Pakistan. They were not ready to move into Afghanistan to fight against NATO, they wanted to continue the fight against Pakistani security forces.

So Pakistan had little choice but to follow the American example of the Sunni Awakening Councils in Iraq and what the British did in Helmand province in Afghanistan: divide and rule.

Ideological affiliations and tribal rivalries co-exist in South Waziristan. While most support the Taliban, Wazir tribesmen were wary of the growing strength of the Mehsud tribe's new strongman, Baitullah Mehsud. Baitullah had the support of his tribe, but his greatest support was several hundred Uzbek warriors who made Baitullah the biggest commander in the region.

The ISI exploited this situation and they tapped up Haji Nazeer, in particular playing on the fact that the Uzbeks did not fight in Afghanistan. Haji Nazeer was given US$150,000 to strengthen his network and also received truck loads of ammunition and a guarantee of free movement into and out of Afghanistan.

In January 2007, Haji Nazeer and his men carried out a massacre of Uzbeks, killing at least 250 of them and expelling the rest from South Waziristan. Haji Nazeer attracted many Arabs, such as Abu Ali Tunisi, who influenced scores of Pakistani jihadis to join Haji Nazeer, whose now-expanded network only fights against NATO.

A similar case is that of Haji Namdar, (See Taliban bitten by a snake in the grass Asia Times Online, April 26, 2008 and Taliban claim victory from a defeat Asia Times Online, May 3, 2008.) He is the biggest recruiter of warriors in Khyber Agency to fuel the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan and he raises funds for the Taliban. The ISI had to solicit his help, though, to break a Taliban network in the agency which was crippling NATO supply lines into Afghanistan (the attacks have since resumed).

NATO was aware of this contradiction but did not have any choice but to go along with the ISI.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again

MARK SHERMAN, AP, June 12, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was a sufficient substitute for the civilian court hearings that the detainees seek.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.

In addition to those held without charges, the U.S. has said it plans to try as many as 80 of the detainees in war crimes tribunals, which have not been held since World War II.

A military judge has postponed the first scheduled trial pending the outcome of this case. The trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's onetime driver, had been scheduled to start June 2.

Five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week for a hearing before their war crimes trial, which prosecutors hope will start Sept. 15.

President Bush has said he wants to close the facility once countries can be found to take the prisoners who are there.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama also support shutting down the prison.

Bush to face huge anti-war demonstration in Italy

DEB RIECHMANN, AP, The Guardian, June 12, 2008

ROME (AP) - President Bush can look forward to a hearty welcome from his old friend, the charismatic Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, and Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Rome. That's not what he should expect in the streets, however, where anti-Bush sentiment over the war in Iraq still lingers.

Anti-war activists and thousands of other demonstrators planned to march through the streets of the Italian capital to protest Bush's visit, which was to include meetings with Berlusconi and the pope on Thursday. Commercial flights have been banned over Rome during Bush's two-day stay. Dozens of buses and trams have been rerouted. Thousands of policemen have been deployed as part of a tight security plan to monitor the protests that have waning energy.

Slovenia and Germany, the first two stops on Bush's trip, were devoid of demonstrators. That was evidence that trans-Atlantic relations, fractured over the U.S.-led invasion in Iraq, are on the mend, that European leaders have moved beyond their anger over the war. The Rome protests are evidence that the Italian public still opposes the Bush administration.

Unlike other European leaders, such as former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and former French President Jacques Chirac, Berlusconi supported Bush on Iraq from the start. The 71-year-old media mogul defied domestic opposition and dispatched about 3,000 troops to Iraq after the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Those troops came home, and Berlusconi, recently elected to his third stint in power since 1994, has pledged not to send any back.

More than 2,000 Italian troops, however, are deployed as part of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan.

Italy, along with Germany, France and Spain, have restricted their troops to less dangerous areas in northern Afghanistan. That has caused a rift because other NATO members are deployed in the more violent regions of the nation. The Italian government is reviewing the restrictions and Berlusconi's office said the premier would talk to Bush about that when they meet.

Berlusconi and Bush also were expected to discuss Italy's interest in joining with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany that are making a diplomatic push to get Iran to give up what the West believes is an effort to develop nuclear weapons. That might seem unusual for Italy, which recently surpassed Germany as Iran's largest trading partner.

But to show Italy's strong opposition to Iran's suspected nuclear ambitions, Berlusconi and his government refused to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was in Rome for a U.N.-sponsored food summit.

Bush will meet with the pope on Friday before departing to Paris to continue his farewell European tour. It will be Bush's third meeting with Benedict. The two last met in April at the White House in Washington.

---

Associated Press writer Alessandra Rizzo in Rome contributed to this report.

Local Official Caught Imprisoning Children

David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org, June 11, 2008

Ooops. Scratch that. It was not a local official. No need to get excited. No need to end the practice or hold the criminal accountable. No need to mention the scandal in news reports. It's actually President George W. Bush. There's nothing to see here. Move along. Shop. Eat. Vote. Sleep. Perish.

Or take seriously the following article of impeachment introduced on Monday evening by Congressman Dennis Kucinich:

Article XX
IMPRISONING CHILDREN

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, authorized or permitted the arrest and detention of at least 2500 children under the age of 18 as "enemy combatants" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of "protected persons" and the Optional Protocol to the Geneva Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, signed by the US in 2002 .

To wit:

In May 2008, the US government reported to the United Nations that it has been holding upwards of 2,500 children under the age of 18 as "enemy combatants" at detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay (where there was a special center, Camp Iguana, established just for holding children). The length of these detentions has frequently exceeded a year, and in some cases has stretched to five years. Some of these detainees have reached adulthood in detention and are now not being reported as child detainees because they are no longer children.

In addition to detaining children as "enemy combatants," it has been widely reported in media reports that the US military in Iraq has, based upon Pentagon rules of engagement, been treating boys as young as 14 years of age as "potential combatants," subject to arrest and even to being killed. In Fallujah, in the days ahead of the November 2004 all-out assault, Marines ringing the city were reported to be turning back into the city men and boys "of combat age" who were trying to flee the impending scene of battle -- an act which in itself is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require combatants to permit anyone, combatants as well as civilians, to surrender, and to leave the scene of battle.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United States has been a signatory since 1949, children under the age of 15 captured in conflicts, even if they have been fighting, are to be considered victims, not prisoners. In 2002, the United States signed the Optional Protocol to the Geneva Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of children in Armed Conflict, which raised this age for this category of "protected person" to under 18.

The continued detention of such children, some as young as 10, by the US military is a violation of both convention and protocol, and as such constitutes a war crime for which the president, as commander in chief, bears full responsibility.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

NATIONAL DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANY DENIALS

Take Action June 19th for Health Care Justice!

Healthcare-NOW! is sponsoring Nationwide Protests across the country on June 19th! We need to emancipate ourselves from these corporations! On June 19th, 2008, the American Health Insurance Plans (the trade group of the thousands of insurance company executives) will have their annual meeting in San Francisco. June 19th is also the national day of celebration of the emancipation from slavery for millions of Americans. Healthcare-NOW will be combining activities on both. Healthcare-NOW, and hundreds of other organizations, is holding events nationwide, in as many as 18 cities, both celebrating the official end of slavery and challenging the corporate enslavement of our health care system. Healthcare-NOW and thousands of othercities, counties, state governments, and labor unions have endorsed and support H.R. 676, a national guaranteed healthcare system that will cover everybody without co-pays, deductibles, premiums or denials.

Demonstrations will be held in 18 cities across the country!

Demonstrations will be held in front of the largest and wealthiest multi-billion dollar companies exposing and indicting their practices that have, for so long, kept us from having a national health insurance plan with equality for all in this nation with no financial barriers to care. San Francisco, CA: The largest demonstration, sponsored by hundreds of organizations including the California Nurses Association and the California Universal Health Care Organizing Project is leading the nation to expose the American Health Insurance Plans at their national conference in San Francisco on June 19th. More than 38,000 insurance company executives are expected to attend.

Health Care YES! Private Health Insurance NO!
Guaranteed, Single-Payer Health Care NOW!


Join San Francisco in solidarity to protest the insurance companies around the country!

Find a protest near you! Specific protest information (times and locations) can be found here.

San Francisco, Mosconi Center, 1PM, Bill Gallagher: bgallagher@calnurses.org
Baltimore, Care First Blue Cross, 5PM, Rod Ryon: info@mdsinglepayer.org
Philadelphia and Camden, Cigna, Kathleen Casey: kcasey@pennanurses.org
Pittsburgh, Highmark/Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Sandy Fox: sm2fox@yahoo.com
Minnetonka, MN, Stockholder’s Meeting of United Health Care, Joel Albers: joelalbers@UHCAN.org
Oklahoma City, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Reggie Cervantes: clipedwingangel@yahoo.com
Louisville, KY, Humana, Kay Tillow: nursenpo@aol.com
Jacksonville, FL, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 5PM, Mark Piotrowski: markp@floridalaborparty.org
Chicago, IL, Cigna, Jill: chisinglepayer@gmail.com
Indianapolis, IN, Wellpoint Shareholder’s Meeting (May), Cindy Calley: home@calleys.org
San Antonio, TX, Humana Insurance Co, 6PM, Jane Lee Cantu: janelee@satx.rr.com
Newark, NJ, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 12PM, Ray Stever: rayiuc@aol.com
Atlanta, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 3PM, Margie Rece: msrece@yahoo.com
New York City, GHI and United Health 5PM, Billy Wharton: noprivatization@yahoo.com
St. Louis, MO, Julia Lamborne, Julia0409@aol.com
Albany, NY, Leo O'Brien Federal Building, 5PM, Mike Keenan: mikekeenan@pefencon.info
Boston, MA Association of Health Care Plans, Janet Hand: Jlynnxo@aol.com

Healthcare Now!
www.healthcare-now.org

Canadian Parliament votes to support war resisters

Iraq Veterans Against The War, June 3, 2008

On Tuesday, June 3rd Canada's Parliament voted on and passed a historic motion to support U.S. Iraq War Resisters in Canada.

The Opposition parties in the House of Commons joined together today to adopt a recommendation that, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain Permanent Resident status in Canada. The recommendation was adopted by a majority of Members of Parliament from the Liberal, Bloc Québécois, and New Democratic Parties. The Conservatives voted against the motion. The motion, which originated in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in December 2007, calls on the government to "immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members...to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and...the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions...against such individuals."

"Canada has always been a place which has welcomed those who seek peace and who seek freedom," opposition Liberal MP Bob Rae told reporters.

For more information visit War Resisters Support Campaign

North Carolina Ballot Access Case Loses

Richard Winger, Ballot Access News, May 28, 2008

On May 27, Judge Robert H. Hobgood signed a 17-page opinion, upholding North Carolina’s ballot access laws for new and previously unqualified parties. Judge Hobgood is a Superior Court Judge in Wake County. Superior Court Judges in North Carolina do not have law clerks, so it is customary for judges to ask each side to write a proposed opinion. In this case, Judge Hobgood signed the opinion that had been written by the Attorney General’s office. The only reasons this opinion mentions for upholding the petition requirement are that any lesser restriction would result in a large ballot, which would cause election-administration problems.

Since this opinion was written by the Attorney General’s office, it naturally omitted a great deal of evidence that this fear is unfounded. The plaintiffs, the Libertarian and Green Parties, will appeal.

No lower state court has ever held that its state requires too many signatures to place a party, or a candidate, on the ballot, under the constitution (whether federal constitution or state constitution). The only state courts that have ever declared the number of signatures unconstitutional have been the highest state court in that state. These instances were in New York in 1912, Michigan in 1981, Alaska in 1982, and Maryland in 2003. In all four cases, the lower courts had upheld the challenged laws.

The opinion has no immediate impact on the Libertarian Party, since it completed this year’s petition anyway. But it will keep any other party from qualifying this year. The law requires 69,734 valid signatures this year, and probably 80,000 or so in 2010.

OBAMA - An Analysis

Larry Holmes, Workers World, May 28, 2008

May 27—Though still not a certainty at this date, it now appears likely that Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate and, even less certain but a possibility, the first Black president of the U.S.

Even for those of us in the U.S. and around the world who correctly view the crisis-ridden capitalist system, its political parties and its sham elections as the negation of democracy so far as the workers and the oppressed of the world are concerned, it is impossible not to acknowledge that the prospect of the election of a Black president in the U.S.—the center of world imperialism and racism—is an historic event.

Only six months ago, most thought they’d never see a Black politician get this close to the U.S. presidency in their lifetime. It’s not surprising that the overwhelming majority of Black people in the U.S. support Obama’s campaign.

It is surprising and revealing that so many white people also support Obama. Whether Obama’s white support will remain strong is a big question. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is still trying to bust it up, and if Obama is the Democratic Party candidate, Sen. John McCain and others will try to destroy it with a no-holds-barred racist campaign.

Still, however untested, fragile and contradictory, it is most welcoming and encouraging for anyone who is progressive and familiar with the depth and prevalence of racism in the U.S. that tens of millions of white people have voted for a Black person named Barack Hussein Obama in the Democratic party primaries and caucuses.

Obama is not a revolutionary and he poses no threat to the capitalist system. Still, in a relative sense, it is hard to imagine a more dramatic sign than Obama’s electoral success that the people of the U.S. want to break with the reactionary, warmongering, racist and xenophobic political climate that has endured seemingly forever and certainly since 9/11.

Obama is popular because the people want to end the war in Iraq and there is a belief that Obama is more likely to do that than Rodham Clinton, who only a few weeks ago vowed to “obliterate Iran” and is widely viewed as being tied to Bush’s endless war policy. As far as advancing the interests of U.S. imperialism goes, there is no fundamental difference between Rodham Clinton and Obama—or McCain, for that matter.

Many if not most of Obama’s foreign policy advisors are veterans of Bill Clinton’s presidency but, despite that fact, so far as the masses see the war, while Rodham Clinton seems to be for some change, Obama seems to represent more change.

The catchword here is “seems.” In fact, Rodham Clinton, McCain and Obama have all pledged to continue the occupation of Iraq after the elections. They have all also vowed to intensify the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, attack Iran “if necessary,” support Israel to the hilt and continue the blockade against Cuba.

Class character of Obama’s campaign

The masses did not launch Obama’s presidential campaign—a section of the U.S. ruling class and its political operatives did. Some in the ruling class got behind Obama merely to advance their faction fight against the Clintons inside the Democratic Party. And yes, some of those opposed to Clinton are misogynist, plain and simple.

But other forces in the U.S. ruling class have rallied behind Obama because they view him as better suited than Clinton or McCain to deal with a central crisis of U.S. imperialism. They need to find a way to halt the rapid deterioration of its position as the world’s dominant economic and military power.

The foreign policy debate among the candidates seems to have been reduced to whether or not U.S. imperialism should talk to its enemies, with Obama advocating the talk instead of—or in addition to—a war policy.

Fundamentally, this is a phony debate. Diplomacy or talking is just another weapon that every imperialist government uses to further its interests. Imperialists talk one day and bomb the next. From the perspective of broad strategy, however, there is something to the debate.

To Obama and his ruling class backers, the so-called neo-conservative policy of relying on U.S. imperialism’s military might to re-colonize the Middle East and dominate the world has been a complete catastrophe, leaving U.S imperialism’s power and standing in shambles.

Obama and his backers want to try a different approach. Obama is more attuned and reflective of the emerging new transnational capitalist order created by imperialist globalization.

To reverse the erosion of U.S. imperialism’s world position, Obama wants to pivot away from relying exclusively on military might, put a friendlier face on U.S. imperialism and strengthen its ability to compete economically with China, India, Europe, Latin America, etc.

The contradiction is that the problems of the capitalist system are so many and so grave that Obama, new ideas and all, can’t fix them.

The near collapse of the world banking system this past March, saved only by the massive intervention of the U.S. Federal Reserve, was not the end of the capitalist credit crisis. It’s the beginning of a new systemic crisis of world capitalism that’s likely to be bigger and more violent than the Great Depression of the 1930s. The only question is the speed with which the crisis will unfold and the events that will affect its course.

U.S. imperialism is bogged down in at least two wars that it can neither win nor abandon, with a possibility of war against Iran before the fall elections.

For the workers, things are only getting worse. The rate of home foreclosures and job layoffs is rising every month, only outpaced by rising gas and food prices.

Many are worried that racism will take down Obama’s candidacy. Others are worried that racist bullets could take Obama’s life. These are both serious things to worry about.

The most frustrating problem may be that because Obama is a captive of the awful system he seeks to serve as president, he can’t defend himself. The attacks have already been terrible and if Obama gets the Democratic Party nomination, from now until November he’s going to be called a traitor, a terrorist and a threat to Western culture, civilization, Christianity, “American” values and worse.

And if Obama wants to win the election, he’s going to have to take it and smile because it’s not really the approval of the masses that he needs to get to the White House; it’s the approval of the capitalist ruling class and the election campaign is his audition before them.

One of the reasons that Clinton—once the status quo candidate of the Democratic Party hierarchy—was able to pose as the populist champion of workers (not Black workers and immigrant workers, but U.S.-born white workers) is because Obama was forewarned that if he wanted to be the first Black president, he’d better not sound like a civil rights leader or a fighter for the working class.

It’s a widespread misconception that Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, almost torpedoed his presidential campaign. This is not true. Rev. Wright didn’t play those sound bites from several of his sermons over the airwaves non-stop. All of this was deliberately and carefully orchestrated by the ruling class media as a kind of loyalty test for Obama.

There is no logical reason why the U.S. ruling class need question the loyalty of Obama. However, the U.S. ruling class is not logical; it is deeply suspicious and paranoid, as one might expect from a deeply racist and reactionary class of exploiters and oppressors who have built an empire through slavery, colonialism, war, robbery and repression. The U.S. ruling class is acutely conscious of what it has done and continues to do to Black people.

The U.S. ruling class knows and fears the deep anger that Black people have for them. The purpose of the Rev. Wright affair was to force Obama not only to repudiate and break with Rev. Wright, but more importantly to promise that he would never give voice to or even acknowledge the existence of racism and the anger against it if he’s elected president. Racism is all too alive, but Obama must pretend as though it’s a thing of the past.

Relationship of working-class, anti-imperialist & Black liberation movements to Obama

Suppose Obama is elected president. One of the first orders of business for the next U.S. president will be presiding over massive cuts in social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, education and Social Security.

Moreover, these cuts will be taking place at the same time that workers are being pummeled and bloodied by a deepening economic crisis.

It isn’t hard to imagine the ruling class setting up the first Black president to take the blame for all the pain, suffering and crisis that is sure to come.

This brings us to the question of the relationship between the working-class movement, the anti-imperialist forces, all progressive forces, and especially those who are working to reconstitute a working-class-centered, anti-imperialist Black liberation movement in the U.S., and the Obama phenomenon.

For the broader movement, clearly we cannot get carried away with our criticism and exposure of Obama when mass support for him is essentially progressive and opposition to him is largely of a racist and reactionary character. Neither can we afford to be deluded by the class nature of Obama, and all the other contradictions.

The contradictions also make it difficult if not futile for revolutionaries to work inside his campaign as a vehicle for advancing progressive demands. Obama does not yet feel pressure from the mass movement. The pressure he is sensitive to is coming from the ruling class.

By way of historical comparison, Jesse Jackson’s two campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination in the 1980s were full of contradictions as well. The difference, however, is that Jackson’s campaigns came from below and as such were subject to the pressure of the masses. That is not the case with Obama’s campaign, at least for now.

Actually, the only way that progressives can defend Obama against racism and reaction, if and when that’s necessary, is to be positioned outside of and independent of his campaign and the Democratic Party.

It will be up to Black activists to take the lead in explaining Obama’s contradictions and challenging them. If there was ever a time for progressive and revolutionary Black forces to forge some strategic unity, now is such a time.

It is possible that the independent presidential candidacy of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney could serve as one of the poles to unite around. McKinney was until recently the most progressive and militant Black person in Congress. Indeed, she lost her congressional seat twice as a direct result of her militant antiwar and anti-racist work.

Clearly, for all those on the left who realize that the deepening crisis of imperialism is bound to produce a resurgence of the working-class struggle sooner than many think and radicalize more and more workers, swelling our ranks, the need to foster working-class-centered and anti-imperialist organizations independent of the ruling class’s political parties and rooted in the struggle is beyond essential. It’s urgent.

More than ever, workers are starting to view imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as major aggravating factors deepening the economic crisis, and rightly so. The reality is not lost on workers who know that, to pay for imperialist wars, they are forfeiting not only social programs but the gas they need to drive to work.

The war crisis and the economic crisis together are laying the basis for the next phase of the anti-war struggle. It will be more than a marginal protest movement that can be absorbed and derailed by the capitalist elections. The next phase of the anti-war movement, if working-class militants prevail, will be centered in a working-class upsurge.

The sisters and brothers of the International Longshore Workers Union gave us all a glimpse of the potential of this next phase when thousands of them shut the docks down all along the West Coast of the U.S. this past May Day to protest the war. Of no small significance, particularly in light of the contradictions of the 2008 presidential campaign, this walkout was led by Black longshore workers who, along with immigrant rights workers, invited Cynthia McKinney to be the guest speaker at the main May Day rally in San Francisco.

The writer is a leader of Workers World Party and a member of its national Secretariat.