

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

AIUSA media relations, 202-509-8194
Ongoing attempts by U.K. based mining company Vedanta Resources to overturn an Indian government decision blocking a proposed bauxite mine and expansion of an aluminum refinery in Orissa should not be allowed to succeed, says a new report by Amnesty International.
The report, Generalizations, Omissions, Assumptions, reveals that Vedanta Resources has failed to adequately consider the human impact of its proposed projects, which have a US investment of $ 1.7 billion in Orissa.
"Vedanta's mine and refinery expansion projects must not be allowed to go ahead. The company is trying to overturn the Indian Environment Ministry's decision to block its plans, claiming they have taken into account the impact on the local people and environment. In fact Vedanta's Environmental Impact Assessments have been wholly inadequate." said Madhu Malhotra, Amnesty International's Asia deputy director.
The High Court of Orissa on Tuesday upheld the Indian government's decision made in August 2010, to reject Vedanta's plans for the six-fold expansion of the Lanjigarh refinery, finding that the project violated the country's environmental laws.
However, its joint venture partner for the mining project, Orissa Mining Corporation, has challenged the government's decision to deny clearance for a proposed mine at Niyamgiri hills through the Supreme Court of India.
The Vedanta subsidiary that would manage the project, Sterlite Industries, has also challenged the Environment Ministry's denial of environmental clearance through India's National Green Tribunal.
"Vedanta's onslaught of legal action should not be allowed to mask the truth about its projects. The Indian government must not be hoodwinked into thinking that Vedanta has complied with environmental regulations. The reality is very different indeed," said Malhotra.
For the last several years, Dongria Kondh, a 9,000-strong indigenous community, has been protesting against the mine plans.
"Villagers have consistently been given scant and misleading information about the potential impact of Vedanta's proposals. Today they are living with a massive refinery in the middle of their community, the air is choked with dust and huge lorries full of raw bauxite hurdle down their roads," said Malhotra. "The refinery and its toxic waste pond are right beside the local river so people are now unsure whether their main source of water is safe to use."
Amnesty International's report, which concludes against the mining, is based on a close analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) undertaken by Vedanta to obtain clearance for the proposed bauxite mine in the Niyamgiri Hills and the expansion of an alumina refinery in Lanjigarh. Amnesty's report concludes that the EIAs are fundamentally inadequate and fail to meet India's regulatory requirements.
Areas in which the EIAs are inadequate include a failure to consider the impact of lorries transporting bauxite through rural villages, failure to acknowledge dust and odor as potential pollutants, failure to assess the cultural significance of the Niyamgiri Hills to the Dongria Kondh indigenous people who live there, lack of inadequate information on water usage and failure to disclose design criteria of 'red mud' waste ponds, which are located next to the Vamsadhara river and have already reportedly spilled into it.
The report also finds that the regulations imposed by India's Ministry of Environment, through the EIAs, are limited in scope and fail to address a number of social and economic concerns surrounding corporate activity in India, such as land use, displacement of people, and rehabilitation issues.
"India needs effective laws in place to hold companies accountable for their actions, which could curtail Vedanta's campaign of misinformation carried out amidst aggressive legal action," said Madhu Malhotra.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the verdict "a win for everyone who thinks concert tickets are too damn expensive."
Antitrust advocates celebrated on Wednesday after a jury found that Live Nation and is subsidiary Ticketmaster were illegal monopolies who for decades systematically overcharged customers for concert tickets.
As reported by The Associated Press, the verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster could cost the two entities "hundreds of millions of dollars, just for the $1.72 per ticket that the jury found Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers in 22 states," and they could be forced to sell off some of the venues they own.
The case against Live Nation, which was brought by 33 states and the District of Columbia, was initially led by the US Department of Justice. However, under President Donald Trump, the DOJ last month reached a last-minute settlement with the company that would not require it to be broken up.
The state attorneys general, however, vowed to see the case through and were rewarded with a big verdict in their favor.
New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the verdict, describing it as "a landmark victory to protect New Yorkers from harmful monopolies."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the verdict "a win for everyone who thinks concert tickets are too damn expensive," and declared himself "proud to have brought this lawsuit."
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb noted Live Nation "has raked in billions in profits from an illegal monopoly that coerces venues, restricts artists, and exploits fans," and called the verdict "a massive win in the fight for fairness for local venues, artists, and fans."
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, hailed the verdict, but said it was just "a key first step towards ending Live Nation’s monopolistic control and securing real relief for those it harmed."
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said the verdict was "decades in the making," and he cited iconic Seattle band Pearl Jam's fight against Ticketmaster in the 1990s to illustrate just how long it's taken to hold the company accountable.
"Pour one out for Pearl Jam, who testified before Congress in 1993 about Ticketmaster's abuse of the live concert industry," he commented.
The Roosevelt Institute took a shot at the Trump DOJ for bailing on the case, and noted the verdict against Live Nation "only happened because state AGs kept pushing after a federal settlement that let the companies off the hook."
"Trump’s war of choice in Iran is a moral tragedy and economic disaster playing out before our eyes. It is only making the United States and the world less safe," said Sen. Ed Markey.
Senate Republicans on Wednesday once again narrowly stymied a Democrat-led resolution aimed at reining in President Donald Trump's power to wage war against Iran.
Although the war launched by the US and Israel in late February has killed more than 1,700 civilians and sparked a global fuel crisis that has sent prices skyrocketing, that was not enough for 52 Republican senators—every one except libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—who voted to back the president even as the war further erodes his approval rating.
The Democratic caucus was similarly unified, with every member voting for the war powers resolution except the pro-Israel hawk Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
It was the fourth war powers resolution to fail in the Senate since Trump launched the war on February 28, The last measure in late March fell short by a nearly identical margin.
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) called Democrats' continued attempts to check Trump's war powers "exhausting" in comments to reporters on Tuesday. "Doing a war powers resolution just undermines the president. I don’t believe [the Democrats] would do that if the president had a ‘D’ behind his name.”
After more than two weeks of delay, a similar bill will be brought to the floor in the House of Representatives on Thursday. Its sponsor, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it has a good chance of passing.
But without a similar bill passing the Senate, it would remain a purely symbolic gesture, with no ability to limit Trump's power as he sends thousands more troops to the region immediately after saying the war was "close to over."
"Trump’s war of choice in Iran is a moral tragedy and economic disaster playing out before our eyes. It is only making the United States and the world less safe," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) after voting for the war powers resolution. “We have seen thousands of civilian deaths in Iran and Lebanon. More than 100 Iranian schoolgirls were killed by American weapons, and 13 American servicemembers were killed, and hundreds have been injured."
He added, "This dangerous, unnecessary, and expensive war has cost American taxpayers around $50 billion so far, with the Trump administration seeking hundreds of billions of dollars more as part of a $1.5 trillion military budget."
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), an Army National Guard veteran who sponsored the blocked resolution, suggested in her remarks before the vote that Republicans who opposed the resolution would be putting "Trump’s ego first" ahead of American interests and enabling more "chaos."
The two-week ceasefire agreement is set to expire on April 21. A week later, the war will hit the 60-day mark, after which troops must be withdrawn unless their deployment is approved by Congress, though the White House can request a 30-day extension by citing "national security" concerns.
According to Politico, some Republicans—even those who voted against the war powers resolution on Wednesday—have indicated that the 60-day mark may be a turning point for them.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is retiring after the next election, said that the administration "has got to start answering questions" about the war's trajectory, especially as it requests tens of billions of dollars in emergency funding.
Duckworth, on the other hand, said she has seen more than enough.
"After one half-assed day of so-called 'negotiations,' he’s whipsawed to his next idea: a dangerous, complex, partial military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—once again launching a risky new front in this war at our service members’ expense… with no justification, explanation, or even ‘concept of a plan’ of how to get to an end-state," she said.
She added, "As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the bill would stop Trump from "trying to snatch up billions of taxpayer dollars to line his own pockets and settle personal scores."
Four Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled legislation aimed at ending what they described as President Donald Trump's "plunder" of US taxpayers.
The Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act—cosponsored by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Dave Min (D-Calif.)—was crafted in response to Trump's effort to get the federal Internal Revenue Service to hand him a $10 billion settlement for the 2020 leak of his tax records and his demand that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) pay him $230 million over its past criminal investigations of him.
Among other things, the bill would bar both the president and the vice president, as well as their immediate family members, from collecting settlement payments from the federal government while in office.
The proposed legislation would also prohibit both the president and the vice president from filing administrative claims for damages while in office, and would only allow presidents and vice presidents to "collect compensatory damages awarded by a federal court if the court appoints an independent counsel to represent the agency and makes all proceedings public."
The bill allows former presidents and vice presidents to collect damages from the federal government, but only if the agency being sued "appoints career expert staff to lead the agency’s review or adjudication of any administrative claim brought by the former president/VP, and no official appointed by any president/VP is involved in handling the claim."
Additionally, any settlement made to a former president or vice president must be made public within seven days.
Warren said that the legislation was necessary to stop Trump from "trying to snatch up billions of taxpayer dollars to line his own pockets and settle personal scores."
Raskin accused Trump of exploiting the power of his office to "loot billions of dollars from American taxpayers," an operation that he described as the "ongoing scandal of this ruthlessly corrupt administration."
"The ‘Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act’ will prevent the president from pursuing the emerging MAGA grift of suing the government as a ‘plaintiff’ on bogus grounds," Raskin added, "and then settling the suit as ‘defendant’ for big bucks, a collusive settlement scam they recently executed with the disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who waltzed off with more than a million dollars for a bogus claim already dismissed by a federal court."
Flynn settled with the DOJ last month in a case in which he accused the government of "improperly and politically" targeting him, after he was charged with making false statements to the FBI in 2017.
The Democrats' bill has earned the endorsements of government watchdogs Democracy Defenders Action, Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO).
Debra Perlin, vice president of policy at CREW, praised the bill for establishing "common sense guardrails to protect against corrupt payouts to the president and the vice president during their terms in office and after they depart."
"Since returning to office, Donald Trump keeps finding troubling new ways to enrich himself at the taxpayers' expense," Perlin noted. "The president’s lawsuit against the IRS for $10 billion is emblematic of a pattern of self-dealing and corruption that appears pervasive in his administration."