Archive for April, 2009


Michael Ratner: Prisoner Abuse Is Absolutely, Explicitly Prohibited by International Law

Monday, April 27th, 2009

In this interview between human rights lawyer Michael Ratner and political journalist Ellen Ray, Michael Ratner provides a clear explanation of the UN Convention Against Torture—to which the United States is a signatory—which explicitly states that prisoner abuse, up to and including torture, is absolutely prohibited under any circumstances.

Putting aside the fact that sanctioning torture on detainees diminishes us in the eyes of the world; putting aside the fact that torture produces unreliable intelligence; putting aside the fact that the “ticking time bomb” scenario just never frakking happens; putting all that aside, torture is simply and unequivocally illegal. (It should be noted that this interview was published way back in 2004.)

The following is an excerpt from Guantánamo: What the World Should Know by Michael Ratner and Ellen Ray. It has been adapted for the Web.

ABUSE AND TORTURE
The United Nations Convention Against Torture

Ray: There have been allegations from the very beginning that prisoners at Guantánamo were being tortured or abused, and a number of those who have been released described the treatment they received there as torture or abuse. What is happening there? Is torture allowed under international law? Is abusive conduct permitted?

Ratner: Torture has been prohibited for many, many years. The key document today that prohibits torture is the United Nations Convention Against Torture, an international treaty that almost every country in the world, including the United States, has ratified. The Convention Against Torture says that under no circumstances can torture be used: it is an international crime, and every country in the world must pass legislation to make it a crime. The United States has made it a crime even if it occurs abroad. Not only torture but other forms of abuse are prohibited by the Convention Against Torture: cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (conduct that is severe, but not so severe as to amount to torture) is also prohibited. A stress position, for example, such as forced standing for a number of hours, might not be torture but is still prohibited.

The Convention Against Torture also establishes what is called universal jurisdiction for cases of torture. This means that if a person is accused of torture and flees to or is present in another country, that country, if it signed the convention, has an absolute obligation to arrest that person, investigate, and either try him for torture or extradite him to the country from which he fled.

So, for example, if an American citizen engaged in torture anywhere in the world and was later found in France, let’s say, that person could be arrested in France and either tried for torture there or extradited to the place of the torture for trial. To the extent U.S. officials were or are involved in torture in Guantánamo or elsewhere, they should be careful about the countries in which they travel.

In fact, the prohibition against torture is the most fundamental international human rights prohibition, one that virtually all the nations of the world had agreed upon long before it was fully codified in the Convention.

Torture is also prohibited by customary international law—that is law that has arisen by the practices of nations. It is an absolute prohibition: under no circumstance can you torture anybody, ever. It has taken hundreds of years for this absolute prohibition to evolve into universally accepted law, but it is now an integral part of both treaty law and customary international law. The prohibition applies whether or not one is protected by the Geneva Conventions, which also prohibit torture and inhuman treatment of anyone, POW or not, who is in the custody of a government as a result of a war.

Ray: Is there any argument that can be made that torture and similar abuses are lawful if not used against prisoners of war but against unlawful combatants?

Ratner: Absolutely not. The Convention Against Torture applies to every human being. The Geneva Conventions apply to every type of combatant in a war. Even if one argues that al Qaeda suspects are not governed by the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and other human rights treaties ratified by the United States prohibit torture as well as other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Nor does the Convention Against Torture permit any excuses for torture. Article 2 says that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever”—whether a state of war or a threat of war, political instability, or any other public emergency—may be evoked as a justification of torture. It goes on to say that an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification for torture. That is an illegal order, and you can be punished as a criminal for carrying it out.

The convention is crystal clear: under no circumstances can you torture people, whatever you call them, whether illegal combatants, enemy combatants, murderers, killers. You cannot torture anybody ever; it’s an absolute prohibition.

So classifying these people as threats to the United States has nothing to do with how you must treat them. They still have to be treated humanely, and humane treatment does not include torture.

In addition, torture committed by U.S. soldiers or private contractors acting under U.S. authority is a violation of federal law, punishable by the death penalty if the death of a prisoner results from the torture. Another federal statute criminalizes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions—including torture, willful killing, inhuman treatment, and causing great suffering to those in custody—as a war crime. Furthermore, a special statute criminalizes such conduct if carried out by so-called private contractors working with the U.S. military.

Ray: How is torture defined?

Ratner: The Convention Against Torture defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” by a public or state official for any of a variety of reasons: punishment, getting information, and similar kinds of things. Also included in the definition of torture is the use of mind-altering drugs. The definition used in U.S. law is quite similar.

In other words, if a government official, whether a soldier, doctor, intelligence agent, military policeman, or contract interrogator, inflicts severe mental or physical pain on a detainee, that is considered torture. Something that is not considered sufficiently severe to be torture may fall into that lesser category called cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

For example, during the 1970s the British prison authorities forced prisoners from the Irish Republican Army to stand hooded for long periods of time against a wall, six or eight hours at a stretch. While that was not considered torture, it was considered cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and was considered illegal.

Ray: Since 9/11, there have been some arguments made that torture may be necessary to get information about the next terrorist attack. While you say that the Convention Against Torture allows no such exception, don’t these developments have some effect on the arguments that the prohibition on torture and similar conduct should be loosened?

Ratner: Initially, the most common hypothetical scenario was the capture of a person who knew the whereabouts of a nuclear bomb hidden in the middle of Manhattan, attached to a timer. The argument was that it was justified—more than that, it was just common sense—to torture that person until he revealed the location of the bomb, so it could be disarmed and the innocent residents of Manhattan saved. Most of the initial discussion actually centered on the conflict in Israel and the early cases of suicide bombers.

As revelations about the use of stress and duress and torture in U.S. detention camps have come out, a number of critics have been quick to excuse and to defend, to try to come up with a system that authorizes or justifies such tactics. One of the most ubiquitous is Alan Dershowitz, who says, look, if they are going to use torture anyway, why don’t we have a system, where you have to go to a court and get a warrant to be allowed to torture someone. Then, he says, we could control its use.

To me, this is an incredibly outrageous position, particularly for someone who considers himself a civil rights lawyer. It ignores the hundreds and hundreds of years during which civilizations have finally determined and agreed that torture is not civilized, in any circumstances. And it has many dangerous implications in situations less blatant than outright torture. Should we have the government go to a court to ask for permission to use stress and duress or sleep deprivation or dangerous drugs, or to keep a prisoner naked and with limited food? Is that the kind of society we want to live in?

Another critical aspect about torture is that, as many law enforcement officials acknowledge, you are not getting information that is accurate. You are potentially lining up and torturing a lot of innocent people who have nothing to do with anything and no information.

It is also counterproductive to treat people the way the United States does in Guantánamo or Bagram or Abu Ghraib if you want people to cooperate in the war on terrorism. Muslims and people of Arab ethnicity are angry and inflamed by what is being done to their people. They are not going to cooperate; worse, they are going to turn against you.

So even from a pragmatic point of view, there is a strong basis for opposing torture under any circumstance. Apart from its ineffectiveness and illegality, torture is one of the cruelest, and most dangerous things that the United States can be doing. The claim that torture should somehow be justified is really an attack on the very dignity of humanity. It sinks us all to an inhuman and uncivilized level. It debases the victim and the torturer. In the end, torture destroys everything we value as human beings.

Robert Kuttner: Obama’s First 100 Days: What’s a Presidency For?

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Robert Kuttner has a message for the President. I’m paraphrasing, but in essence, it goes like this: “Dear President Obama, You don’t need the Republican right (and they won’t support you anyway).”

Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of the American Prospect and author of the New York Times bestseller Obama’s Challenge: America’s Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, looks at the obstacles facing President Obama as he tries to enact an agenda of sweeping change (universal health care) and break with the old order (what to do about all that pesky torture?), and concludes that Obama’s biggest hurdle may be himself—and his adherence to the principles of bipartisanship and national unity.

A severe economic crisis coupled with the election of a new progressive president is an opportunity for a dramatic break with the old order. But that process doesn’t just happen spontaneously. It takes exceptional presidential resolve and leadership. And there are three huge obstacles to President Obama seizing the moment to produce fundamental change, two of them systemic and one self-inflicted.

The first systemic obstacle is the lingering political power of the old order. Practical failure doesn’t diminish political influence. On the contrary, it leads to a defensive redoubling of political resolve. We see this every day in the relentless lobbying by the financial industry against new regulations. We see it in the ongoing power of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries to block comprehensive health reform, and in the efforts of corporate America generally to resist sweeping changes in corporate governance and executive compensation. The economy has crashed, ordinary people are suffering, rightwing ideology has been disgraced–and the old order endures.

A second systemic obstacle, for now anyway, is the absence of a popular movement to put wind at a progressive president’s back. Among the logical candidates, the labor movement is weakened by the same economic crisis, divided internally, and it sorely needs Obama’s good will for everything from the Employee Free Choice Act to the auto rescue. The web of grassroots activists who came together to elect Obama is now a website of the Democratic National Committee. MoveOn.org is organizing around issues such as universal health care, but pushes on the president only gingerly. More than anything else, the stance of most progressives is still mainly gratitude.

We got a small taste of what a more radical break might feel like when Obama briefly signaled with the release of Bush’s torture memos that he might be open to further investigation of the Bush’s torture policy, but then backtracked and quickly asked the Democratic leadership to shut the idea down. Evidently, Obama’s political self wrestled with his constitutional conscience, and won. Civil libertarians felt a huge letdown, but protest was surprisingly muted.

Thus the most important obstacle for seizing the moment to achieve enduring change: Barack Obama’s conception of what it means to promote national unity. Obama repeatedly declared during the campaign that he would govern as a consensus builder. He wasn’t lying. However, there are two ways of achieving consensus. One is to split the difference with your political enemies and the forces obstructing reform. The other is to use presidential leadership to transform the political center and alter the political dynamics. In his first hundred days, Obama has done a little of both, but he defaults to the politics of accommodation.

Read the whole article here.

 

Related Articles:

WATCH: The Hrens Tackle the Carbon-Footprint of Meat Production

Monday, April 27th, 2009

It’s clear from this video—just posted on ChelseaGreenTV—that Stephen and Rebekah Hren would much rather be doing something to help solve the problem of a de-localized food supply and excessive meat-eating than talking about it. As you can see in their book, The Carbon-Free Home: 36 Remodeling Projects to Help Kick the Fossil-Fuel Habit, these are hands-on people. They walk the walk. They put their money where their mouth(s) is (are).

Nevertheless, in this video the Hrens give some quick, useful tips for how you can help out in your own community—by forming food cooperatives with your fellow urban gardeners; cutting down on your meat consumption and eating local, sustainable meat (beef especially); and helping start a farmers market.

RH: Hi. I’m Rebekah Hren, and this is my husband, Stephen Hren. We’re the authors of The Carbon-Free Home, which is a guide to running your house and your life on renewable, sustainable resources.

And we’re talking about how to deal with the problem of carbon emissions from industrial agriculture and excessive meat-eating that’s going on in our culture. And the thing that doesn’t—it’s not something that we have to talk so much about, it’s something that we need to really start doing things about, and a big part of that is to re-localize our food supply. So we need to make available seasonal, local produce, and local dairy and meat products, having people not eat more than they need to. And what we’ve been doing is to start a food co-op in our town—[unintelligible] does not have one—to make these things available. So, for us, a lot of that energy is going towards physically making this food, this fresh food available to people, as opposed to getting the word out so much.

RH: Yeah. So what we’re really focused on is—neither of us are vegetarians, and we don’t believe that vegetarianism should be forced on anyone, but we know that eating industrially-farmed cows, particularly, leads to a multitude of problems: things like methane, which increases global warming. So, what we try and do is we try and eat meat sparingly, we try and figure out where our meat comes from, we try and know the farmers around us that are growing meat sustainably, and we also try and grow some of our own food in our yard. So we have a network of local, urban gardeners that we work with in our city.

SH: Yes, so for us it’s more a matter of doing than talking.

WATCH: How Corporations Stole Your Power, and What You Can Do

Monday, April 27th, 2009

This weekend I attended the White River Indie Films festival with Dr. Riki Ott, marine toxicologist, Exxon Valdez oil spill survivor, and author of Not One Drop and Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$. We watched Black Wave, a documentary by Robert Cornellier that tells the story the spill and its toxic aftermath.

After the riveting and heartbreaking movie, Riki was kind enough to answer questions from the stunned audience.

“How can Exxon get away with this?!”
“Why did the Supreme Court give in?”
“Why did it take 20 years?”

Riki answers questions like this from people all across the country. Unfortunately, I didn’t have my video camera with me this weekend, otherwise I would have taped Riki’s answers. But, luckily, we have some great video from Riki from a few months ago that I’ve embedded below.

The videos below should answer your questions about the rise of corporate power in this country: how it happened, how it hurts our nation, and how we can correct the problem. First, I’ve included the movie trailer for Black Wave. This should give you a good overview of the corrupting effect that corporate power has on our legal system, and the trampling of lives that occurs when these powers run unchecked.

Next is a clip from a popular Canadian documentary called The Corporation. It covers much of what Riki talked about this weekend: how corporations were able to steal power from US citizens.

Finally is a clip from Riki, in which she explains the history of corporate power, and how we, as citizens can—and must—take back control of this country from the corporations.

If you’d like to stay informed and get involved in the movement to curb corporate power, check out our Facebook group (yes, we’re organizing on Facebook) One Million Strong for the Separation of Corporation and State and UltimateCivics.com.

Obama Seeks to Create High-Speed Rail System Across the US

Monday, April 27th, 2009

I hate flying. I don’t mean I’m afraid of flying, like many who say they hate flying. (I’m about as afraid of flying as I am of riding on a bus—which is to say, not very much at all.) No, it isn’t fear that ties my stomach in knots: it’s the recycled, pressurized air; the invasive, humiliating, and slow-as-molasses security checks; the waiting on a runway in a cramped jet packed to the gills with sweaty, cranky travelers when every cell of my body is screaming “Get out RIGHT NOW.” Ugh.

But what’s the alternative? High-speed rail?

There’s not a single high-speed train running in the US today. Let me repeat that. There’s not a single high-speed train running in the US today. Sure, there’s the Acela Express. But, due to rail traffic and track conditions, it never hits speeds over half its 150 MPH potential. And in my view, if a train does not travel high speeds, it is not a high-speed train. To put it another way, if you slapped a flux capacitor on the Acela Express, you would never reach 1955—no matter how much plutonium you had.

Thankfully, by allocating billions of stimulus dollars to creating or updating our nation’s high-speed rail system, President Obama is trying to change all that.

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday highlighted his ambition for the development of high-speed passenger rail lines in at least 10 regions, expressing confidence in the future of train travel even as he acknowledged that the American rail network, compared with the rest of the world’s, remains a caboose.

With clogged highways and overburdened airports, economic growth is suffering, Mr. Obama said at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, shortly before leaving for a trip to Mexico and then Trinidad and Tobago.

“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century,” he said, “a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.”

And he added, “There’s no reason why we can’t do this.”

Mr. Obama said the $8 billion for high-speed rail in his stimulus package — to be spent over two years — and an additional $1 billion a year being budgeted over the next five years, would provide a “jump start” toward achieving that vision.

The stimulus money has yet to be allocated to specific projects, but Mr. Obama said the Transportation Department would begin awarding money by the end of summer.

The government has identified 10 corridors, each from 100 to 600 miles long, with greatest promise for high-speed development.

They are: a northern New England line; an Empire line running east to west in New York State; a Keystone corridor running laterally through Pennsylvania; a major Chicago hub network; a southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast; a Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama; a corridor in central and southern Florida; a Texas-to-Oklahoma line; a California corridor where voters have already approved a line that will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours; and a corridor in the Pacific Northwest.

Read the whole article here.

Will Legalizing Cannabis Lead to a Spike in Teenage Drug Abuse? No.

Sunday, April 26th, 2009

One of the arguments that opponents of marijuana legalization usually trot out is that it will lead ta a nation of pot-head teenagers. As decades of research show, this is patently false.

Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML and co-author of the forthcoming Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?, looks at the available data and reaches a very different conclusion:

Jim Gogek’s commentary (”California Does Not Need Any More Marijuana Users,” April 3, 2009) is built upon several false premises. He writes:

“Alcohol isn’t the most dangerous drug in the world because it’s worse than heroin or cocaine. It’s the most dangerous drug because it’s so easily accessible. … Underage drinking is a big problem because kids can get alcohol so easily. Legal marijuana would mean more access to marijuana. The number of marijuana users would spike, including teens.”

There are several problems with Gogek’s presumptions. One: according to survey data, U.S. children do not have “easy access” to alcohol under legalization. In fact, because the sale of alcohol and cigarettes are regulated by state and federal governments and their use and sale are restricted to those only of a certain age, young people consistently report that it is easier for them to obtain unregulated marijuana than it is for them to access booze or tobacco.[1]

Two: Gogek’s falsely equates drug access with drug use. But if this premise was correct, then far more teens would presently be using marijuana than are now. According to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, which has tracked data on teen pot use since the mind-1970s, more than 85 percent of  teenagers say that marijuana is “fairly easy” or “very easy to get.”[2] Troublingly, this percentage has not significantly changed in over 30 years, despite the government’s increased emphasis on marijuana law enforcement, arrests, and interdiction efforts over the past two decades. One study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) even reported that 23 percent of teens said that they could buy pot in an hour or less.[3] That means nearly a quarter of all teens can already get marijuana about as easily ­ and as quickly ­ as a Domino’s pizza!

In short, virtually every teenager can already get his or her hands on cannabis now if they so choose to. Yet, as Gogek points out, despite pot’s easy accessibility, only a small percentage of teens use the drug regularly. Why? Good question. According to investigators at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, “The reason for not using or stopping marijuana use cited by the fewest seniors over the 29 years of data … was availability (less than 10 percent of seniors).”[4] Authors further discovered that the artificially high price of cannabis on the black market, as well as young people’s “concern about getting arrested,” seldom influenced their choice whether or not to use marijuana.

By contrast, researchers reported that young people’s “concern for psychological and physical damage, as well as not wanting to get high, were the most commonly cited reasons for quitting or abstaining from marijuana use.” In other words, it’s not the illegality of cannabis that dissuades teens from using it. Rather, it’s adolescent’s personal like or dislike for the intoxicating effects of cannabis, as well as their perceptions regarding its health effects, that ultimately shape their decision to try marijuana.

Read the whole article here.

 

Related Articles:

Losing the North: Developed Countries No Longer Need to Grow

Sunday, April 26th, 2009

When is a “developed” country “developed” enough? At what point do we say, I think we’ve reached the limit? When do we stop? When is enough finally enough?

These are the questions put forth by French ecological journalist Hervé Kempf (How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth) in this article from Truthout.org:

When does one stop development? The customary answer to this question is: You
can’t refuse Southern countries the possibility of escaping from poverty and,
in one way or another, of catching up to the level of comfort enjoyed in Northern
countries. Certainly. So, let the countries of the South develop.

But when must the countries of the North, for their part, stop developing?
This question poses itself very concretely when projects for highways, industrial
regions, superstores, housing estates, parking lots, etc. arise. Rationality
should, in virtually all cases, lead us to reject their implementation. The
logic of economic interests – which camouflages the appetite for lucre underneath
promises of job creation – most often imposes the pouring of concrete. The result
of this rationale is the constant aggravation of the ecological crisis in which
we are involved. [...]

Let’s restore the problem to its most crudely simple terms: If it’s true that
climate change, the erosion of biodiversity and chemical pollution are major
problems, the North must not be developed. Does Québec need that development?
According to the Statistical Institute for that province, disposable income
per inhabitant is roughly equal to that of France or Japan. One may consider
that that’s enough and that there is no necessity for enrichment. It’s up to
Québec’s society to decide whether, by occupying it, it wishes to lose
the North. But the situation suggests an obvious fact that holds true for all
rich countries: Developed countries no longer need to grow.

——–

Translation: Truthout French language editor

Leslie Thatcher.

Read the whole article here.

 

Related Articles:

In Beekeeping, as in Banking, Unchecked Greed Leads to Collapse

Saturday, April 25th, 2009

Nobody really knows for sure what causes Colony Collapse Disorder—”a phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive or European honey bee colony abruptly disappear”. It could be mites. It could be pesticides. It could be a number of things, or more likely a combination of factors. How do you fight an affliction when you don’t know what’s causing it?

One approach that seems to be working, perhaps unsurprisingly, is organic beekeeping: working in concert with nature, recreating natural conditions to keep bees healthy and happy—and, like the Slow Food and Slow Money movements, keeping things at a manageable size. The quest for more and bigger and faster and now is, mercifully, going out of fashion. Call it “Slow Apiculture.” Or, as Ross Conrad puts it, natural beekeeping.

From the Philadelphia City Paper:

The real joy of beekeeping comes when you crack open a hive. You pull out a frame that’s alive with bees, hold it to your nose and the smell of its honey is like a sunny field of fresh flowers.

Comfort a bee with a little smoke (like some of us, they enjoy smoke from burning hemp), cup her in your palm and she’ll let you feel the beating of her tiny wings.

It’s a good relationship. We care for bees and they make us honey. Along the way, bees pollinate the flowers that give us fruit and vegetables. Beekeeping’s virtuous cycle has thrived for several millennia. Which is why colony collapse disorder has been so disheartening. One day a hive is thriving; a few weeks later, all the bees are gone, their unborn young abandoned.

No one knows why bees leave, never to return. Mites, microbes and viruses have all been investigated. But after years of study, we’ve isolated no single culprit. Unless you consider humans.

Beekeepers are now starting to see how modern apiculture has turned hives into virtual chemical factories — whose workers, stressed and overwrought, give up and leave.

The good news, however, says master beekeeper Ross Conrad, is that when humans start treating bees sweetly, they’ll once again return the favor and stay. Conrad is something of a legend among beekeepers. In 2007, he published Natural Beekeeping: Organic Approaches to Modern Apiculture (Chelsea Green Publishing), which explains how he cut his losses to less than 10 percent. The book has sold some 12,000 copies — huge in the little world of bees.

Success, says Conrad, comes from treating bees organically, by emulating nature. Now, such a declaration might not create much of buzz, unless you happen to know how badly bees have been treated.

I know about bee abuse. As a beekeeper, I’m as guilty as thousands of others who followed standard, official advice.

When I started beekeeping some 15 years ago, state inspectors wanted to see chemical pest strips hanging inside hives to ward off mites. It was, even then, a desperate measure — since their initial strategy of breeding domestic bees with hardier Africanized ones hadn’t worked out so well.

To pump up our now pesticide-drenched insects, we showered them with antibiotics. As a beekeeper, I bought whole baggies of tetracycline, the same stuff that human beings use.

It gets worse. Now that beneficial insects that once pollinated our crops have been wiped out by pesticides, bees are now routinely trucked hundreds of miles to do the job. And just as globalization spread disease among humans, our bees have been similarly infected.

But the real problem with bees, concludes Conrad, is connected to a greater human disease — a moral one. It’s what happens when the abundance of factory agriculture takes precedence over the destruction it wreaks — on bees, crops and people.

Read the whole article here.

 

Related articles:

On Chelsea Green TV: Madeleine Kunin Talks Sustainable Governance

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Madeleine M. Kunin was the first woman governor of Vermont, and served as the Deputy Secretary of Education and Ambassador to Switzerland under President Bill Clinton. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Woman Can Win and Lead. This is the presentation she gave to UVM’s Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources during their 2009 Spring Seminar Series titled “Seeking Solutions to Achieve a Sustainable Planet.”

In this hour-long talk, Madeleine tells how her involvement with the Women’s Movement and the Environmental Movement in the late Sixties and early Seventies led to her transition from private citizen to public servant.

Twenty Years Later, It Isn’t Over: Riki Ott on The Peter Laufer Show

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Author Riki Ott (Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill) talks to Peter Laufer (also a Chelsea Green author, incidentally) on his show, twenty years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, to talk about the damage caused by the man-made environmental disaster—and how it just isn’t going away. As Riki herself said, “It did happen twenty years ago, but it is not over.”

Listen Now

Image courtesy The Conservation Report.

 

Related Articles:


Follow us
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com