Around the world, the frustration of ordinary people with the economy, unemployment, corruption, and repression has reached critical mass. They’re mad as hell, as the famous movie line goes, and they’re not going to take it anymore. The people are taking to the streets in protest. And it’s working — maybe.

On February 27, Tunisian Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi announced his resignation under pressure from the masses. This came just a few weeks after his ally, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, was driven from power after weeks of intensive civil resistance from the grassroots.

Meanwhile, the people of Egypt have driven dictator Hosni Mubarak out of the country following 18 days of demonstrations.

And, in Libya, things are not looking good for Muammar Gaddafi, as of this writing. The people there, too, have had enough.

On the other side of the world, working folks in Wisconsin continue protesting Governor Scott Walker’s proposed union-busting budget bill which would cut state workers’ collective bargaining rights. And, on February 26, people all around the U.S. participated in solidarity rallies in support of the Wisconsin workers.

This is what democracy looks like.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya will result in true democracies that will be better for the people than the governments that sparked their revolutions.

Similarly, there is no guarantee that the protests in Wisconsin will prevent Governor Walker from eventually getting his way.

But it is a start.

It is the only truly practical way for the people to fight corruption and repression.

And it is the only way that true democracy can be born.

We spent the first eight years of this century hearing about how the Bush administration was going to spread democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the world. But history offers all too many examples to prove that you cannot spread democracy at the point of a gun.

Democracy has to start at the grassroots.

Like in Philadelphia in the 1770s.

Like in Tunisia today.

And in Egypt.

And in Libya.

And in Wisconsin.

This is where the people hold the power. And isn’t that what democracy is all about?

Whenever I write or speak about my opposition to the death penalty, I invariably hear from death penalty proponents who argue that killing the killer serves the best interests of the victim’s family, giving them closure.

But not all families are thirsty for revenge. In fact, there are at least two organizations in the U.S. – Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation (MVFR) and Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR) – which actively work for abolition of the death penalty.

And there is Margaret Hawthorn, the mother of a murder victim who testified in New Hampshire on February 1 in opposition to a bill that would expand that state’s death penalty

Below are some excerpts from Hawthorn’s moving testimony, followed by a link to the complete text.

I am Margaret Hawthorn, mother of Molly Hawthorn MacDougall, who was murdered in her home on April 29, 2010.

Molly was two weeks from graduating from nursing school….

[...]

As tragic and senseless as Molly’s death is, I am relieved this is not a capital case. Another death would only increase my family’s trauma, and would not bring Molly back. I understand the bill being introduced today would make a case like hers capital because her murder was a home invasion.

As a child I came to my own conclusion that the death penalty was wrong. But, like anyone who believes the death penalty is wrong, I later had to consider the question, “Easy for you to talk of non-violence, but what if it were your loved one?”

Now it is my loved one. As a grieving mother, I have a voice I would never have chosen….

[...]

Revenge is tricky, self-destructive. It doesn’t turn out sweet, seldom plays out the way one thinks it will. Too often family members find the execution of their loved one’s murderer doesn’t bring the hoped-for closure. I don’t want to allow room for revenge to impose its disappointment on me.

I can’t begin to describe how painful it is to learn to live in a world devoid of Molly’s physical presence. I haven’t begun to approach forgiveness. Trauma still wraps its armor around me, protecting me from taking in more than I can survive. In the meantime, I trust the state to make reasoned decisions that show compassion for all while I ride an emotional roller coaster I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

There may never be a turn around in the murderer’s heart, and I know not to count on it. My healing can’t rest on what happens to or within another person. The state can best help me by funding ongoing private counseling and support groups with professional facilitators, and allowing me to go about the work of healing … free from the specter of another death.

I do believe some people are so broken that for the safety of others they need to be contained, permanently. I am not naïve enough to think everyone can be rehabilitated and returned to society. On and off for nearly twenty years I have served as a facilitator with the Alternatives to Violence Program, a Quaker initiative that helps inmates – and groups on the outside – seek non-violent ways to respond to conflict. Having been inside New Hampshire prisons, I’m aware it is a grim existence. Eliminating the death penalty is not synonymous with letting people off the hook.

[...]

When I think about how to best honor Molly, I am certain it is by living into the values she embraced. She trained to do life-supporting work. Her love for people and deep compassion led her to choose a career of caring for others. She would not want anyone killed in her name.

What an amazing testimony by an obviously very strong woman!

>> Read her full testimony at: http://tinyurl.com/4tvwbef

On February 11, Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak stepped down, leaving the Egyptian military in charge until a new government can be established. Mubarak’s resignation came after more than two weeks of protests in which the people of Egypt called for an end to Mubarak’s repressive regime.

This is an impressive victory for the grassroots, but the hard work of building a new government now begins. And hopefully the new government will be worthy of the popular effort it took to get this far. Such is a recurring theme in statements by some of the world’s leading human rights organizations.

Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, praised the resolve of the Egyptian people in demanding dignity, human rights, and social justice. But, he pointed out, “the departure of one man is not the end.”

“Those in power must grasp this opportunity to consign the systematic abuses of the past to history,” said Shetty. “Human rights reform must begin now.”

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, agrees, saying, “This is a dramatic victory for the Egyptians who showed courage and determination in demanding their rights. The army should seize this historic moment and ensure a speedy transition to a new era of democracy and human rights. There is still a long way to go.”

Neil Hicks, International Advisor for Human Rights First, called on Washington to support the right kinds of changes in Egypt. “This is a critical moment for the U.S. government to make clear its intention to support the Egyptian people – not the next despot,” he said.

Hicks continued: “[On February 9] in the U.S., ‘Mubarakism without Mubarak’ is what one witness said we needed at a Congressional hearing on developments in Egypt. This will not stand. The United States is not the arbiter of power in Egypt. It cannot appoint and dismiss presidents at its will, nor write and rewrite Egyptian laws. These powers belong to the Egyptian people. However, the Mubarak regime has relied on U.S. assistance to deny the Egyptian people basic rights and freedoms again and again. If the U.S. government continues the status quo, it will be endorsing the same despotism that has brought us to this point of crisis.”

Human Rights First is calling on President Obama to take the following steps:

• Push for the transfer of power to a more representative, inclusive transitional authority, not solely composed of Suleiman and Mubarak’s military advisors.

• Push for a new constitutional and legislative reform committee that is not made up of regime loyalists and Mubarak appointees. It should be nominated through a process of open consultation with the opposition and independent figures.

• Use our points of contact with the Egyptian military to help ensure a genuine, inclusive transitional process.

Time will tell if Obama will follow this very reasonable advice.

This is an opportunity for Obama to start earning that Nobel Peace Prize. I hope he will not let the people of Egypt down.

In January, former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison. He had been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. But he has been accused of some things that are far more disturbing than those charges might suggest.

Burge, who is white, allegedly spent decades torturing black murder suspects – shocking, burning, and suffocating them – until they confessed. Kind of like what happens to the brown detainees at Gitmo, but in Chicago instead.

While I am pleased to see Burge behind bars, I am disappointed that he was convicted not for torturing the suspects but merely for lying about the torture.

But torture with impunity seems to be a recurring theme in this once-great nation these days.

Sure, little Lynndie England and some other low-level soldiers got prison time – and rightly so – when their abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib came to light. But their crime was simply having too much fun following the misguided orders they were given.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and their cohorts remain free despite having authorized the torture of detainees in the “war on terror” – a fact that Bush brags about in his memoir Decision Points. Abu Ghraib may have been the work of a few bad apples, as was an excuse at the time; but those apples happened to be sitting in the West Wing.

And clearly they knew that what they were doing was wrong. Why else would they have ordered their legal counsel to find a way to legally “justify” the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and other prisoner abuse? Why else would they have gone so far as to even redefine what constitutes torture?

The rest of the world sees this and wants some accountability for the Bush administration’s war crimes. Spain, in fact, launched criminal proceedings in 2009 against six Bush administration officials. The case, however, has gone nowhere. I am not confident that similar investigations by other countries will lead to justice either, although Bush recently canceled a trip to Switzerland, where there was a chance that he might be arrested. Instead, he will stay home in his cushy Texas residence, outside the reach of international justice.

When confronted with the issue, President Obama insists that we should “look forward and not backwards.”

By doing nothing to hold the Bush administration accountable, the Obama administration is essentially signaling that torture is not worth punishing – at least not when the torturers are wealthy or powerful.

This, apparently, is Obama’s idea of looking forward.

And this, sadly, is no change I can believe in.

Things remain volatile in Egypt, where protesters have been filling the streets for several days calling for President Hosni Mubarak to resign. The military is even involved at this point. It’s become violent. Some protesters have been killed. And, so far, Mubarak has shown no intention of leaving.

Human rights groups have been weighing in on the protests, defending the people’s right to demonstrate, and condemning what appears to be unnecessary violence against the protesters.

Joe Stork, Deputy Middle East Director for Human Rights Watch (HRW), observed that “[p]olice and plainclothes agents seem to be shooting people without justification, using live bullets or firing teargas canisters straight at protesters.” Stork called for those using excessive force be held to account, along with those giving the orders to shoot, “no matter how senior.”

Amnesty International (AI) has also condemned Egyptian security forces’ “disproportionate and unnecessary use of live rounds and lethal force against protesters.” Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, called on the Egyptian authorities to “rein in the security forces to prevent bloodshed.”

AI has pointed out that under international law “police may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. In particular, they must not use firearms against persons except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury.”

Some groups are calling on the Obama administration to take a tougher stance on the situation.

HRW has “urged the United States to immediately suspend all assistance to and cooperation with Egyptian law enforcement agencies because of the suspicion they opened fire on peaceful protesters.”

According to Neil Hicks, International Policy Advisor for Human Rights First (HRF), “The Obama administration must signal that it has turned the page from the old policy of toleration of oppression by its Egyptian ally in the name of stability. As well as being contrary to principles of universal human rights and democracy which the administration has pledged to uphold everywhere, recent events in Tunisia and now in Egypt have shown that repression does not bring stability.”

These are valid expectations indeed. However, we must keep in mind that the Obama administration is itself continuing many of the Bush administration’s post-9/11 policies of repression and intimidation here at home, and may appear to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Talk, as they say, is cheap.

But, in cases like this, it is better than silence.