"Does the US Department of Defense see protest movements and social
activism in different parts of the world as a threat to US national
security? If so, why? Does the US Department of Defense consider
political movements aiming for large scale political and economic change
as a national security matter? If so, why? Activism,
protest, 'political movements' and of course NGOs are a vital element
of a healthy civil society and democracy - why is it that the DoD is
funding research to investigate such issues?"
Minerva's programme director Dr Erin Fitzgerald said "I appreciate
your concerns and am glad that you reached out to give us the
opportunity to clarify" before promising a more detailed response.
Instead, I received the following bland statement from the DoD's press
office:
"The Department of Defense takes seriously its role in the security
of the United States, its citizens, and US allies and partners. While
every security challenge does not cause conflict, and every conflict
does not involve the US military,
Minerva helps fund basic social science research that helps increase
the Department of Defense's understanding of what causes instability and
insecurity around the world. By better understanding these conflicts
and their causes beforehand, the Department of Defense can better
prepare for the dynamic future security environment."
In 2013, Minerva funded a University of Maryland project in
collaboration with the US Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory to gauge the risk of civil unrest due to climate
change. The three-year $1.9 million project is developing models to anticipate what could happen to societies under a range of potential climate change scenarios.
From the outset, the Minerva programme was slated to provide over $75
million over five years for social and behavioural science research.
This year alone it has been allocated a total budget of $17.8 million by
US Congress.
The internal email from Prof Steve Corman, a principal investigator
for the project, describes a meeting hosted by the DoD's Human Social
Cultural and Behavioural Modeling (HSCB) programme in which senior
Pentagon officials said their priority was "to develop capabilities that
are deliverable quickly" in the form of "models and tools that can be
integrated with operations."
washingtonsblog | While many Americans understand why the NSA is conducting mass
surveillance of U.S. citizens, some are still confused about what’s
really going on.
In his new book, No Place to Hide, Glenn Greenwald writes:
The
perception that invasive surveillance is confined only to a
marginalised and deserving group of those “doing wrong” – the bad people
– ensures that the majority acquiesces to the abuse of power or even
cheers it on. But that view radically misunderstands what goals drive
all institutions of authority. “Doing something wrong” in the eyes of
such institutions encompasses far more than illegal acts, violent
behaviour and terrorist plots. It typically extends to meaningful dissent and any genuine challenge. It is the nature of authority to equate dissent with wrongdoing, or at least with a threat.
The
record is suffused with examples of groups and individuals being placed
under government surveillance by virtue of their dissenting views and
activism – Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, anti-war activists, environmentalists. In the eyes of the government and J Edgar Hoover’s FBI, they were all “doing something wrong”: political activity that threatened the prevailing order.
The
FBI’s domestic counterintelligence programme, Cointelpro, was first
exposed by a group of anti-war activists who had become convinced that
the anti-war movement had been infiltrated, placed under surveillance
and targeted with all sorts of dirty tricks. Lacking documentary
evidence to prove it and unsuccessful in convincing journalists to write
about their suspicions, they broke into an FBI branch office in
Pennsylvania in 1971 and carted off thousands of documents.
Files
related to Cointelpro showed how the FBI had targeted political groups
and individuals it deemed subversive and dangerous, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, black nationalist movements, socialist and communist organizations, anti-war protesters and various rightwing groups.
The bureau had infiltrated them with agents who, among other things,
attempted to manipulate members into agreeing to commit criminal acts so
that the FBI could arrest and prosecute them.
Those revelations
led to the creation of the Senate Church Committee, which concluded:
“[Over the course of 15 years] the bureau conducted a sophisticated
vigilate operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of first
amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that
preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of
dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.”
These
incidents were not aberrations of the era. During the Bush years, for
example, documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
revealed, as the group put it in 2006, “new details of Pentagon
surveillance of Americans opposed to the Iraq war, including Quakers and student groups“.
The Pentagon was “keeping tabs on non-violent protesters by collecting
information and storing it in a military anti-terrorism database”. The
evidence shows that assurances that surveillance is only targeted at
those who “have done something wrong” should provide little comfort,
since a state will reflexively view any challenge to its power as
wrongdoing.
The opportunity those in power have to characterise political opponents
as “national security threats” or even “terrorists” has repeatedly
proven irresistible. In the past decade, the government, in an echo of
Hoover’s FBI, has formally so designated environmental
activists, broad swaths of anti-government rightwing groups, anti-war
activists, and associations organised around Palestinian rights. Some individuals within those broad categories may deserve the designation, but undoubtedly most do not, guilty only of holding opposing political views. Yet such groups are routinely targeted for surveillance by the NSA and its partners.
One
document from the Snowden files, dated 3 October 2012, chillingly
underscores the point. It revealed that the agency has been monitoring
the online activities of individuals it believes express “radical” ideas
and who have a “radicalising” influence on others.
***
The
NSA explicitly states that none of the targeted individuals is a member
of a terrorist organisation or involved in any terror plots. Instead,
their crime is the views they express, which are deemed “radical“, a term that warrants pervasive surveillance and destructive campaigns to “exploit vulnerabilities”.
Among
the information collected about the individuals, at least one of whom
is a “US person”, are details of their online sex activities and “online
promiscuity” – the porn sites they visit and surreptitious sex chats
with women who are not their wives. The agency discusses ways to exploit
this information to destroy their reputations and credibility.
theantimedia | It is extremely important to note that in all of recorded history, an
insurgency that matured through the phases and reached this stage has
never been quelled through force. Ever. It may have been delayed, but
the insurgency simply went underground until opposition forces relaxed.
In some cases it took 800 years to achieve an insurgent victory. Once an
insurgency reaches this stage, it wins. It is that simple. See: Irish Republic Army.
At this point, in a form of bizarre just deserts, the only option law
enforcement has is the same option it offered to the American people,
which prompted this cycle: comply or die.
Certain police departments may believe they are isolated from the
violence because of their geographic location. They aren’t. Because of
social media, events that historically would have only prompted violence
within the immediate vicinity can prompt violence on the other side of
the nation. We are so close to an open insurrection in this country that
it boggles the mind. If police proceed with a law enforcement
crackdown, events could spiral out of control and open insurrection
could happen tomorrow.
Some in the media are calling for the arrests
of the leaders of Black Lives Matter, Cop Block, and other
organizations. This is possibly the worst move law enforcement could
make. This gives the cause martyrs. To continue the Irish comparison,
after the Easter Rising
the British government arrested, interned, and even executed some of
the rebellion’s leaders. The names of those men are still recited in
songs today, 100 years later. It fanned the flames of rebellion and
as Éamon de Valera is said to have remarked while waiting for the
British government to decide between executing or imprisoning him,
“every one of us they shoot brings ten more to the cause.” Today, with
social media, the effects of martyr-based propaganda are even stronger.
As a more recent example, ask those associated with the Anonymous
collective how much influence people like Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Swartz,
and Dennis Collins hold. Two of them are deceased, one sits rotting in a
federal prison, and yet they are still massive recruiting tools.
Is this guy really saying to give in to violence? Yes. That is
exactly what I am saying. There was an opportunity for a negotiated
peace after Ferguson. Law enforcement chose to refuse. Law enforcement
chose to dismiss the threat. Law enforcement chose to listen to pundits
within the media that were only interested in pandering to their
viewers. Now, that time has past. My best advice: immediately
decommission the MRAPs, end no-knock raids for non-violent offenders,
make certain the suspect is home and that you have the correct house
before executing a raid, issue body cameras to all officers, end
intrusive electronic surveillance, decommission the drones, and adopt a
“do not fire until fired upon” policy. The end result of this scenario
will be law enforcement demilitarizing; the only thing left to determine
is how many cops and innocents die along the way.
Those in political office do not care about police officers’ lives.
The last time the United States came this close to an open insurrection
we had a President that understood insurgency. In fact, he understood it
so well that he is responsible for the SEAL Teams and Green Berets having the role they have today. He understood that once it reaches a certain point, violent revolution is inevitable. He said:
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”
slate | This is the central thing to understand about what happened in
Dallas: Black people who target whites are fundamentally allied with
white people who target blacks. They’re on the same team: the race war
team. It’s a lot like the global struggle over jihadism, in which
Muslims who hate Christians collaborate, in effect, with Christians who
hate Muslims. In the case of jihadism, the real struggle isn’t between
two religions. It’s between people who want religious war and people who don’t. The same is true of race: Either you’re on the race war team, or you’re against it.
WaPo | They struggle to believe that the human indignity of being seen,
apparently, as only a close-range shooting target by so many of those
entrusted to protect and serve, can produce such heinousness. They
refuse to understand what it means to be shot by police at 2.5 times the
rate of whites, as are black males, according the The Washington Post’s
database.
They don’t, or maybe can’t, comprehend what it is like
to know that you make up 24 percent of all deaths at the end of law
enforcement’s muzzle despite being just 12 percent of the population.
Instead,
they’ve tried to find another reason Johnson could turn into a Charles.
Maybe he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after his tour in
Afghanistan? Maybe he was otherwise mentally disturbed? Maybe he was
radicalized?
Especially for the families of the victims of
Johnson’s outburst, he understandably will be seen forever as the madman
he became. But as the best-selling white author of many sports books,
Peter Golenbock, noted on Facebook on Friday: “For years we have seen
the pictures of senseless murders of black men and children by white
policemen. Afterwards, the cops are rarely indicted and never
convicted.”
Golenbock continued, before knowing Johnson was the
sole shooter: “After all these years a group of blacks, tired of this
and obviously military trained, started shooting back in Dallas
yesterday at white cops, and now everyone is scared to death. What is
surprising is that this hasn’t occurred earlier.”
What is
fortunate for America is that most black people, like those in the
#BlackLivesMatter movement who marched that dreadful Thursday in
downtown Dallas, just seek a fairer shake.
ronpaulinstitute | This was a drone sent in to kill an American suspected of a crime.
Police
claim that continuing the negotiations was pointless and attempting to
capture him would have put officers at risk. He was supposedly shooting.
While no sane person wants police officers to be killed, risk is
something we are told they willingly accept when they sign up for police
duty. There are plenty of low-risk jobs out there.
The media
and opinion-leaders are presenting us with a false choice: if we
question the use of drones to kill Americans -- even if we suspect they
have done very bad things -- we somehow do not care about the lives of
police officers. That is not the case. It is perfectly possible to not
want police officers to be killed in the line of duty but to
wholeheartedly reject the idea of authorities using drones to remotely
kill Americans before they are found guilty.
African-American Dallas protester Mark Hughes was wrongly identified
by Dallas Police as a suspect in the shootings. Police tweeted photos
of Hughes marching with protesters openly carrying a rifle, as is
permitted in Texas. Police claimed was involved in the shooting. He was a
suspect just like Johnson was a suspect. During questioning they told Hughes that they had video of him shooting people,
which was a lie. What if police had sent in a drone to take out Mark
Hughes? What will happen in the future to a future Mark Hughes, falsely
accused by police of being involved in a shooting? Will we come to
accept murder without trial?
For
farmers, the transition from manned aircraft to drones is an easy
choice to make. Not only are they much cheaper, but they also provide
imaging tools, which can be used for detecting a variety of crop-related
issues, ranging from problems with irrigation to measuring chlorophyll
levels in plants.
So today I want to talk about the next step in
agri-tech evolution: robots. Although most modern farmers don’t have to
spend their days in the field anymore, sweating and toiling under the
sun while harvesting crops or tending to cattle, they still spend a
considerable amount of time servicing machines that harvest and spray
for them. If this part of the production were automated, farmers would
have more time (and money) to invest in expanding and perfecting their
production capacities.
They’d also boost yields in the process.
If
you think using robots in agriculture is too futuristic, think again:
They are already assisting with a growing number of back-breaking
activities in fields all over the world.
WaPo | I’m afraid that incidents such as those of the past several days will
reinforce a view that violence is not only justified but appropriate.
That such incidents will drive police and the communities they serve
further apart, dampening any interest in reconciliation.
But I’m
also optimistic. Even relationships that have been undermined by a long
history of distrust and anger can be repaired. We have seen some
remarkable progress in truly challenging situations, including police
departments in Richmond, Calif., and Camden, N.J., just to name a few.
We
can learn from those successes, and from successes outside the United
States. In Northern Ireland, for example, police and the Irish
Republican Army were in a state approaching open warfare for years
before establishing a tentative, then more lasting, relationship in the
late 1990s. More recently, U.S. military personnel put community
policing principles into practice with great effect in counterinsurgency
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If positive relationships
can be established or repaired in those environments, surely we can do
the same in the context of domestic policing. Surely we must.
theatlantic | Commission staffers had produced a blistering and radical draft report on November 22, 1967. The 176-page report, “The America of Racism,” recounted the deep-seated racial divisions that shaped urban America, and it was damning about Johnson’s beloved Great Society programs, which the report said offered only token assistance while leaving the “white power structure” in place. What’s more, the draft treated rioting as an understandable political response to racial oppression. “A truly revolutionary spirit has begun to take hold,” they wrote, “an unwillingness to compromise or wait any longer, to risk death rather than have their people continue in a subordinate status.” Kerner then nixed the report, and his staff director fired all 120 social scientists who had worked on it.
Nevertheless, the finalKerner Reportwas still incredibly hard-hitting: “This is our basic conclusion: Our Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” Though the commissioners had softened the language from the first draft, much of the data remained the same and the overall argument was still incredibly powerful. The report focused on institutional racism. This meant that racism was not just a product of bad individuals who believed that African Americans were inferior to white Americans, but that these racial hierarchies were literally embedded in the structure of society.
“Segregation and poverty,” the report said, “have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans. What white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.” The riots in Newark and Detroit, the report continued, “were not caused by, nor were they the consequences of, any organized plan or ‘conspiracy.’” The rioters were educated and had been employed in recent years; most of them were furious about facing constant discrimination when seeking new employment, trying to find a place to live, or, worst of all, interacting with hostile law-enforcement officials.
The police received the most scrutiny in the report. In a haunting section, the report explained, “Negroes firmly believe that police brutality and harassment occur repeatedly in Negro neighborhoods.” The rioting had shown that police enforcement had become a problem not a solution in race relations. More aggressive policing and militarized officers had become city officials’ de facto response to urban decay. “In several cities, the principal response has been to train and equip the police with more sophisticated weapons.” The report stressed that law-enforcement officers were not “merely a spark factor” to the riots but that they had come to symbolize “white power, white racism, and white oppression.”
FP | To hear the Guatemalan government tell it, the Maya Biosphere
Reserve, a sprawling national park in the northern department of Petén,
is the crown jewel of the Central American park system. Look on a map,
and you’ll see the protected area spreads across the northern fifth of
the country like a green carpet. Within those borders lie the famous
Mayan ruins at Tikal and El Mirador, as well as huge swaths of the Maya Forest,
the Americas’ largest tropical rainforest outside the Amazon, an
invaluable storehouse of both carbon stocks and rare plants and
wildlife, among them Guatemala’s last population of macaws.
But that rosy picture hides a grimmer reality. Journey to these
protected areas of northern Guatemala, and you’ll find something
resembling an ongoing ecological catastrophe. In Laguna del Tigre
National Park, nestled in the heart of the reserve, the tall acacia and
mahogany trees have been cut and burned, exiling the macaws to the tiny
fringe of forest that remains. You can see this damage on a map included
in an annual report
published by the National Council of Protected Areas (CONAP), the
Guatemalan national park service, in partnership with Western
environmental NGOs, and paid for in part by the U.S. Department of the
Interior. As the map shows, the Maya Biosphere Reserve is bisected by
what appears to be creeping fungus — illegal cattle ranches, which have
cleared about 8 percent of the reserve since 2000. These ranches stand
as a parable for the drug war. According to Guatemalan park guards, U.N.
researchers, and prosecutors alike, the unintended cause of the
deforestation is a drug war victory: a successful interdiction campaign
that redirected billions of dollars of drug cash across Guatemala,
funding a trade that threatens to destroy Central America’s greatest
forest.
According to a report
by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), until the early 2000s,
Central America was a relative sideshow in the Western Hemisphere’s
cocaine trade. The drug largely moved from Colombia across the Caribbean
into either Mexico or the southern United States. But starting around
2002, aggressive U.S. law enforcement and interdiction campaigns closed
the Caribbean route, seizing some 200 tons of cocaine. Other victories
followed in allied states. Security forces in Mexico largely shut down
direct drug flights into the country. In South America, the Colombian
government broke the power of the country’s main cartels.
But the drug trade is a river of money stretching from the Andes to
North America. Dam it in one place and — as long as there are still
users in the United States — it will find another course.
theverge | Police in Dallas used a bomb disposal robot to kill a suspect afterlast night’s deadly shootingduring a protest. In a press conference, Dallas police chief David Brown said that the robot was deployed after negotiations with the suspect failed. "We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was," said Brown. "Other options would have exposed our officers to great danger. The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb."
It’s not entirely clear what the "device" in question was, although it may have been one of the small explosives that are normally used to safely detonate larger bombs. A previous statement, from Dallas’ mayor, said only that the suspect had died after police used explosives to "blast him out."
Police have used remote-controlled bomb disposal robots for other purposes; San Jose police talked a man out of suicide last yearafter deliveringa phone and pizza to him via one. But this is the first known case where a department has described using one as a weapon, defense technology expert Peter Singer posted on Twitter, although he notes it's been used this way informally by US troops and insurgents. Unlike with the "killer robots" thathave ethicistsmost worried, any decisions in Dallas were made clearly by humans — it’s much more like an advanced tool used in an unexpected way than anything artificially intelligent or designed for murder. Still, beyond the unmanned drones used in bombing strikes, it’s one of the first known times that a robot has been intentionally used to kill a human outside the battlefield.
Criminality correlates a lot better to class than race. It's just that in many areas, class correlates pretty well with race. Looking at our nation's history, when the Black Panthers stuck to talking about race issues, the FBI didn't like them but dealt with them. Even though the Black Panthers were arming themselves and talking of revolution. However, as soon as the Black Panthers started talking about class and showing common cause with white people, the FBI exterminated them. Food for thought.
If this little unpleasantness stays rooted in race, it'll blow over. If it gets anywhere near economic issues, all hell will break loose. As soon as it looked like Occupy Wall Street was going to stick around, Obama coordinated public and private militias and took them out. As ever, what Empires fears most is a peasant revolt.
whitehouse | "But regardless of the outcome of such investigations, what's clear is
that these fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are
symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice
system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after
year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law
enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.
"In the meantime, all Americans should recognize the anger, frustration,
and grief that so many Americans are feeling -- feelings that are being
expressed in peaceful protests and vigils. Michelle and I share those
feelings. Rather than fall into a predictable pattern of division and
political posturing, let’s reflect on what we can do better. Let’s come
together as a nation, and keep faith with one another, in order to
ensure a future where all of our children know that their lives matter."
British Prime Minister David Cameron is "shocked and horrified" by the shootings, Downing Street has said.
The Prime Minister is expected to discuss the tragic incident with
Barack Obama on the margins of the Nato summit which both are attending
in the Polish capital, Warsaw.
The deaths - and injuries to six other officers - have been blamed on
snipers who opened fire during a protest in the Texas city over this
week's fatal police shootings of two black men in Louisiana and
Minnesota.
Mr Cameron's official spokeswoman told a regular Westminster media
briefing: "The Prime Minister is shocked and horrified by the terrible
scenes we have seen overnight.
"He is due to be at the Warsaw summit and I think he will have the opportunity to talk to President Obama about it directly.
"I think he would echo what the President has said, which is that
these attacks on police officers simply doing their job and trying to
keep people safe are horrific and cannot be justified."
ICH |
The Russian president was meeting with foreign journalists at the
conclusion of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum on June
17th, when he left no one in any doubt that the world is headed down a
course which could lead to nuclear war.
Putin railed against the
journalists for their "tall tales" in blindly repeating lies and
misinformation provided to them by the United States on its
anti-ballistic missile systems being constructed in Eastern Europe. He
pointed out that since the Iran nuclear deal, the claim the system is
to protect against Iranian missiles has been exposed as a lie.
The
journalists were informed that within a few years, Russia predicted the
US would be able to extend the range of the system to 1000 km. At that
point, Russia's nuclear potential, and thus the nuclear balance between
the US and Russia, would be placed in jeopardy.
Putin
completely lost patience with the journalists, berating them for lazily
helping to accelerate a nuclear confrontation by repeating US
propaganda. He virtually pleaded with the western media, for the sake
of the world, to change their line:
We know year by year
what's going to happen, and they know that we know. It's only you that
they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens
of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the
impending danger - this is what worries me. How do you not understand
that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they
pretend that nothing is going on. I don't know how to get through to
you anymore.
Does anyone in the reeking garbage heap that is
mainstream western media have a conscience? Do they even have enough
intellect to get what Putin is saying - that they are helping to push
the planet towards World War III?
marketwatch | Eleven police officers were shot by at least two snipers in Dallas
Thursday night during a protest over police brutality, leaving five
officers dead and wounding six, throwing the city into chaos and turning
parts of downtown into a massive crime scene by Friday morning.
Dallas
Police Chief David Brown said the snipers had opened fire on officers
from “elevated positions” during the protests. A civilian was also
wounded.
Three suspects were taken into custody, including a woman.
A fourth suspect exchanged gunfire with police in a tense, hourslong
standoff with police overnight, but that confrontation ended early
Friday morning, according to a city spokesperson. Sana Syed, a Dallas
public information officer, said she couldn’t confirm the status of the
fourth and final suspect, but said “the standoff is over.”
The
suspect had told police negotiators that “the end is coming,” and that
bombs had been placed around the garage and downtown with the aim of
killing more law-enforcement personnel, Chief Brown said, adding that he
had asked his staff for a plan to end the standoff.
Police are
working on the assumption that all four may have been involved in the
attack. It appeared the suspects had knowledge of the protest route,
allowing them to take up “triangulated” positions above the march and
target officers.
monbiot | When politicians do terrible things and suffer no consequences,
people lose trust in both politics and justice. They see them,
correctly, as instruments deployed by the strong against the weak.
Since the First World War, no prime minister of this country has done
something as terrible as Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq. This unprovoked
war caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the
mutilation of hundreds of thousands more. It flung the whole region into
chaos, chaos which has been skillfully exploited by terror groups.
Today, three million people in Iraq are internally displaced, and 10 million need humanitarian assistance.
Yet Mr Blair, the co-author of these crimes, whose lethal combination
of appalling judgement and tremendous powers of persuasion made the
Iraq war possible, saunters the world, picking up prizes and massive
fees, regally granting interviews, cloaked in a force field of denial
and legal impunity. If this is what politics looks like, is it any
wonder that so many people have given up on it?
The crucial issue – the legality of the war – was, of course, beyond
Sir John Chilcot’s remit. A government whose members were complicit in
the matter under investigation (Gordon Brown financed and supported the
Iraq war) defined his terms of reference. This is a fundamental flaw in
the way inquiries are established in this country: it’s as if a
defendant in a criminal case were able to appoint his own judge, choose
the charge on which he is to be tried and have the hearing conducted in
his own home.
But if Brown imagined Sir John would give the authors of the war an
easy ride, he could not have been more wrong. The Chilcot report, much
fiercer than almost anyone anticipated, rips down almost every claim the
Labour government made about the invasion and its aftermath. Two weeks
before he launched his war of choice, Tony Blair told the Guardian:
“Let the day-to-day judgments come and go: be prepared to be judged by
history.” Well, that judgement has just been handed down, and it is
utterly damning.
Blair and his government and security services, Chilcot concludes,
presented the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s supposed weapons
of mass destruction with “a certainty that was not justified”: in other
words they sexed up the evidence. Their “planning and preparations for
Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.” They ignored warnings
– which proved to be horribly prescient – that “military action would
increase the threat from Al Qaida” and “invasion might lead to Iraq’s
weapons and capabilities being transferred into the hands of
terrorists.”
theintercept | this case does not exist in isolation. It exists in a political climate where secrecy is regarded as the highest end, where people have their lives destroyed for the most trivial – or, worse, the most well-intentioned – violations of secrecy laws, even in the absence of any evidence of harm or malignant intent. And these are injustices that Hillary Clinton and most of her stalwart Democratic followers have never once opposed – but rather enthusiastically cheered. In 2011, Army Private Chelsea Manning was charged with multiple felonies and faced decades in prison for leaking documents that she firmly believed the public had the right to see; unlike the documents Clinton recklessly mishandled,none of those was Top Secret. Nonetheless,thisis what then-Secretary Clinton said in justifying her prosecution:
I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected andwe will continue to take necessary steps to do so.
Comey’s announcement also takes place in a society that imprisons more of its citizens than any other in the world by far, for more trivial offenses than any western nation – overwhelmingly when they are poor or otherwise marginalized due to their race or ethnicity. The sort of leniency and mercy and prosecutorial restraint Comey extended today to Hillary Clinton is simply unavailable for most Americans.
What happened here is glaringly obvious. It is the tawdry by-product of a criminal justice mentality in which – as I documented in my 2011 bookWith Liberty and Justice for Some– those who wield the greatest political and economic power are virtually exempt from the rule of law even when they commit the most egregious crimes, while only those who are powerless and marginalized are harshly punished, often for the most trivial transgressions.
Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked with Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection. But Hillary Clinton is the opposite of unimportant. She’s the multi-millionaire former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State, supported by virtually the entire political, financial and media establishment to be the next President, arguably the only person standing between Donald Trump and the White House.
Like the Wall Street tycoons whose systemic fraud triggered the 2008 global financial crisis, and like the military and political officials who instituted a worldwide regime of torture, Hillary Clinton is too importantto be treated the same as everyone else under the law. “Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,”
WaPo | When FBI Director James B. Comey stepped to the lectern to deliver his remarks
about Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, he violated time-honored Justice
Department practices for how such matters are to be handled, set a
dangerous precedent for future investigations and committed a gross
abuse of his own power.
Some have praised Comey’s
remarks as much-needed truth-telling from a fearless, independent
law-enforcement authority, an outcome Comey no doubt had in mind. But in
fact, his willingness to reprimand
publicly a figure against whom he believes there is no basis for
criminal charges should trouble anyone who believes in the rule of law
and fundamental principles of fairness.
Justice Department rules
set clear guidelines for when it is appropriate for the government to
comment about individuals involved in an ongoing investigation, which
this matter was until prosecutors closed it Wednesday. Prosecutors and
investigators can reassure the public that a matter is being taken
seriously, and in some rare cases can provide additional information to
protect public safety, such as when a suspect is loose and poses a
danger.
And when the department closes an investigation, it
typically does so quietly, at most noting that it has investigated the
matter fully and decided not to bring charges.
These practices
are important because of the role the Justice Department and FBI play in
our system of justice. They are not the final adjudicators of the
appropriateness of conduct for anyone they investigate. Instead, they
build cases that they present in court, where their assertions are
backed up by evidence that can be challenged by an opposing party and
ultimately adjudicated by a judge or jury.
In a case where the
government decides it will not submit its assertions to that sort of
rigorous scrutiny by bringing charges, it has the responsibility to not
besmirch someone’s reputation by lobbing accusations publicly instead.
Prosecutors and agents have followed this precedent for years.
In this case, Comey ignored those rules to editorialize about what he called carelessness by Clinton and her aides in handling classified information, a statement not grounded in any position in law.
tomdispatch | Consider Syria. The expansion of the free market in a country where
there was neither democratic accountability nor the rule of law meant
one thing above all: plutocrats linked to the nation’s ruling family
took anything that seemed potentially profitable. In the process, they
grew staggeringly wealthy, while the denizens of Syria’s impoverished
villages, country towns, and city slums, who had once looked to the
state for jobs and cheap food, suffered. It should have surprised no one
that those places became the strongholds of the Syrian uprising after
2011. In the capital, Damascus, as the reign of neoliberalism spread,
even the lesser members of the mukhabarat, or secret police, found themselves living on only $200 to $300 a month, while the state became a machine for thievery.
This sort of thievery and the auctioning off of the nation’s
patrimony spread across the region in these years. The new Egyptian
ruler, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, merciless toward any sign of
domestic dissent, was typical. In a country that once had been a
standard bearer for nationalist regimes the world over, he didn’t
hesitate this April to try to hand over
two islands in the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia on whose funding and aid his
regime is dependent. (To the surprise of everyone, an Egyptian court
recently overruled Sisi's decision.)
That gesture, deeply unpopular among increasingly impoverished
Egyptians, was symbolic of a larger change in the balance of power in
the Middle East: once the most powerful states in the region -- Egypt,
Syria, and Iraq -- had been secular nationalists and a genuine
counterbalance to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf monarchies. As those
secular autocracies weakened, however, the power and influence of the
Sunni fundamentalist monarchies only increased. If 2011 saw rebellion
and revolution spread across the Greater Middle East as the Arab Spring
briefly blossomed, it also saw counterrevolution spread, funded by those
oil-rich absolute Gulf monarchies, which were never going to tolerate
democratic secular regime change in Syria or Libya.
Add in one more process at work making such states ever more fragile:
the production and sale of natural resources -- oil, gas, and minerals
-- and the kleptomania that goes with it. Such countries often suffer
from what has become known as “the resources curse”: states increasingly
dependent for revenues on the sale of their natural resources -- enough
to theoretically provide the whole population with a reasonably decent
standard of living -- turn instead into grotesquely corrupt
dictatorships. In them, the yachts of local billionaires with crucial
connections to the regime of the moment bob in harbors surrounded by
slums running with raw sewage. In such nations, politics tends to focus
on elites battling and maneuvering to steal state revenues and transfer
them as rapidly as possible out of the country.
This has been the pattern of economic and political life in much of
sub-Saharan Africa from Angola to Nigeria. In the Middle East and North
Africa, however, a somewhat different system exists, one usually
misunderstood by the outside world. There is similarly great inequality
in Iraq or Saudi Arabia with similarly kleptocratic elites. They have,
however, ruled over patronage states in which a significant part of the
population is offered jobs in the public sector in return for political
passivity or support for the kleptocrats.
In Iraq with a population of 33 million people, for instance, no less than seven million
of them are on the government payroll, thanks to salaries or pensions
that cost the government $4 billion a month. This crude way of
distributing oil revenues to the people has often been denounced by
Western commentators and economists as corruption. They, in turn,
generally recommend cutting the number of these jobs, but this would
mean that all, rather than just part, of the state’s resource revenues
would be stolen by the elite. This, in fact, is increasingly the case in
such lands as oil prices bottom out and even the Saudi royals begin to cut back on state support for the populace.
Neoliberalism was once believed to be the path to secular democracy
and free-market economies. In practice, it has been anything but.
Instead, in conjunction with the resource curse, as well as repeated
military interventions by Washington and its allies, free-market
economics has profoundly destabilized the Greater Middle East.
Encouraged by Washington and Brussels, twenty-first-century
neoliberalism has made unequal societies ever more unequal and helped
transform already corrupt regimes into looting machines. This is also,
of course, a formula for the success of the Islamic State or any other
radical alternative to the status quo. Such movements are bound to find
support in impoverished or neglected regions like eastern Syria or
eastern Libya.
Note, however, that this process of destabilization is by no means
confined to the Greater Middle East and North Africa. We are indeed in
the age of destabilization, a phenomenon that is on the rise globally
and at present spreading into the Balkans and Eastern Europe (with the
European Union ever less able to influence events there). People no
longer speak of European integration, but of how to prevent the complete
break-up of the European Union in the wake of the British vote to leave.
The reasons why a narrow majority of Britons voted for Brexit have
parallels with the Middle East: the free-market economic policies
pursued by governments since Margaret Thatcher was prime minister have
widened the gap between rich and poor and between wealthy cities and
much of the rest of the country. Britain might be doing well, but
millions of Britons did not share in the prosperity. The referendum
about continued membership in the European Union, the option almost
universally advocated by the British establishment, became the catalyst
for protest against the status quo. The anger of the "Leave" voters has
much in common with that of Donald Trump supporters in the United
States.
The U.S. remains a superpower, but is no longer as powerful as it
once was. It, too, is feeling the strains of this global moment, in
which it and its local allies are powerful enough to imagine they can
get rid of regimes they do not like, but either they do not quite
succeed, as in Syria, or succeed but cannot replace what they have
destroyed, as in Libya. An Iraqi politician once said
that the problem in his country was that parties and movements were
“too weak to win, but too strong to lose.” This is increasingly the
pattern for the whole region and is spreading elsewhere. It carries with
it the possibility of an endless cycle of indecisive wars and an era of
instability that has already begun.
WaPo |FBI Director James B. Comey said Tuesday that while Hillary
Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” in how they handled
emails while she was secretary of state, the bureau would not recommend criminal charges. Here is a transcript of Comey’s prepared remarks released by the FBI:
Good
morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of
Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as
Secretary of State.
After a tremendous amount of work over the
last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the
case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I
would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we
found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
This
will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am
going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would,
because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of
intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this
statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part
of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.
I
want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in
this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you
will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.
doomsteaddiner | A while back I wrote a 5 part series analyzing the relationship between Money, Energy, Waste and Thermodynamics I titled "The Money Valve".
The effort there was to show that the way the monetary system works is
to regulate the downhill flow of an energy stock as it is dissipated and
turned into waste of various kinds. The physical waste that stacks up
in landfills, the CO2 that collects in the atmosphere, the pollution
that works its way into the groundwater, rivers, lakes and finally into
the biggest toilet of them all, the world oceans, etc.
I looked at the major players in this game, Goobermints, Banks,
Industry, the Military and Consumers, but I missed a very important
connection. How the War Machine itself directly produces Waste! In
fucking COPIOUS QUANTITY AND FAST!
This came to me in another epiphany when I was considering how Mother
Russia has recently been upgrading and increasing it's Military power in
a number of areas, due to the constant and increasing threat from NATO
on its borders. NATO is moving missiles into states bordering Russia
which were formerly part of the old Soviet Union, and in response the
Ruskies have formed up entirely new divisions to drop on these borders
also. It's not just manpower they're ramping up here, they're upgrading
their jets and boats and coming up with their own hi-tech drone systems
as well.
Besides those investments in military personnel and hardware, they're doing NATO one better in the Death From Above
campaign against ISIS down in Syria, which is no cheap operation.
Where is all the money coming from for this bizness, which does not have
any direct form of revenue coming out of it? It's not like Mother
Russia is swimming in cash these days, like the other Oil exporting
nations their budget has been hit hard by the collapse in oil prices.
Nevertheless, over the last 15 years, Mother Russia has somehow found
the money to keep upgrading their military hardware, apparently actually
doing better with this task than NATO and the FSoA. Their new Jets
apparently actually WORK, unlike the F-35s.
So now we can answer the question: What is War Good For?
It's good for the ECONOMY, stupid! lol.
At least it is good for a Waste Based Economy, which is the only type of economy Homo Saps have run since Agriculture supplanted H-G living.
What War does is to DESTROY much if not all of what was built before, which then means it must all be REBUILT! That provides a lot of new jobs! In our current situation, at least in the 1st World, we have a SURPLUS
of housing. You might not believe that since there are so many
homeless people, but it's true. The problem for the homeless is not
that the housing doesn't exist for them, the problem is they can't AFFORD that housing.
The next thing that War does is to disproportionately remove a large
slice of the Poor population, from both the sides of the Winners and
Losers of the War. It is the poor mostly conscripted as grunts used as
Cannon Fodder in Wars, and the poor also suffer the most civilian
casualties. They can't get out of the way. The wealthy people in a
society generally can find somewhere to run and hide until the war is
over.
In Biblical terms, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Famine, Pestilence, War and Death took a 25% cut of the Homo Sap population each time they showed up.
This past Saturday, June 25th, Harris talked about her work to a
group of journalists and bloggers who traveled to Washington D.C. from
different corners of the country to hear from leaders of the criminal
justice reform movement. Harris was the first speaker at FreedomWorks’ #JusticeForAll event, and as the leader of USJAN, she set the tone for what turned out to be a fascinating conference.
The veteran litigator opened her speech by outlining USJAN’s goals, explaining the organization believes “our [criminal] code just doesn’t make sense.” That’s why their “goal is to shrink criminal codes” and “get rid of these unfair, unnecessary duplicative and inconsistent laws.”
But it was something else she told the crowd a few minutes later that got attendees worked up.
“The fastest growing segment of the prison population in America,” Harris articulated, “is women … and nobody is talking about that.”
According to the Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation (FAMM), the female prison population in the United States has grown
by over 800 percent in the last 30 years, while the male population
grew by 416 percent during the same period. Despite this staggering
growth, violent criminals are not being sent to prison in droves.
Instead, nearly two-thirds of female prisoners are incarcerated for
nonviolent offenses.
About 56 percent of incarcerated women are in jail due to the drug
war or over property crimes, FAMM reports. These types of offenses
usually carry mandatory minimums, which are sentences that must be
imposed no matter what. This strips judges of the ability to consider
mitigating circumstances.
Due to mandatory minimums, FAMM contends, many women are given sentences that do not fit the crime — and the result is tragic.
Because 60 percent of women in prison are also mothers to children
under the age of 18, the drug war has negatively impacted countless
families; the number of American children whose mothers are in jail has
more than double since 1991.
When data is broken down into racial classifications, we also learn
there’s a serious racial element to incarceration in the United States.
According to FAMM, 380 out of every 100,000 black women in America
are in jail, while 147 out of every 100,000 Hispanic women and 93 out of
every 100,000 white women are incarcerated. While whites account for
79.8 percent of the U.S. population and 63.8 percent of women in America
are white, only 45.5 percent of the female prison population is white. “By contrast,” the FAMM report explains, “black women represent 32.6 percent of female prisoners, but only 12.8% of the general population,” making black children “nearly 7.5 times more likely than white children to have a parent in prison.”
rollingstone | One of the underpublicized revelations of the financial crisis, for
instance, was that millions of Americans found themselves unable to get
answers to a simple questions like, "Who holds the note to my house?"
People want more power over their own lives. They want to feel some
connection to society. Most particularly, they don't want to be dictated
to by distant bureaucrats who don't seem to care what they're going
through, and think they know what's best for everyone.
These are legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, they came out in this
past year in the campaign of Donald Trump, who'd exposed a tiny flaw in
the system.
People are still free to vote, and some peculiarities in the
structure of the commercial media, combined with mountains of public
anger, conspired to put one of the two parties in the hands of a
coverage-devouring billionaire running on a "Purge the Scum" platform.
But choosing a dangerous race-baiting lunatic as the vehicle for the
first successful revolt in ages against one of the two major parties
will have many profound negative consequences for voters. The most
serious will surely be this burgeoning movement to describe voting and
democracy as inherently dangerous.
Donald Trump is dangerous because as president, he'd likely have
little respect for law. But a gang of people whose metaphor for society
is "We are the white cells, voters are the disease" is comparably scary
in its own banal, less click-generating way.
These self-congratulating cognoscenti could have looked at
the events of the last year and wondered why people were so angry with
them, and what they could do to make government work better for the
population.
Instead, their first instinct is to dismiss voter concerns as
baseless, neurotic bigotry and to assume that the solution is to give
Washington bureaucrats even more leeway to blow off the public. In the
absurdist comedy that is American political life, this is the ultimate
anti-solution to the unrest of the last year, the mathematically perfect
wrong ending.
Trump is going to lose this election, then live on as the reason for
an emboldened, even less-responsive oligarchy. And you thought this
election season couldn't get any worse.
NYTimes | FOR
more than two centuries, we have been reading the Declaration of
Independence wrong. Or rather, we’ve been celebrating the Declaration as
people in the 19th and 20th centuries have told us we should, but not
the Declaration as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
wrote it. To them, separation from Britain was as much, if not more,
about racial fear and exclusion as it was about inalienable rights.
The Declaration’s beautiful preamble distracts us from the heart of the document, the 27 accusations
against King George III over which its authors wrangled and debated,
trying to get the wording just right. The very last one — the ultimate
deal-breaker — was the most important for them, and it is for us: “He
has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to
bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages,
whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all
ages, sexes and conditions.” In the context of the 18th century,
“domestic insurrections” refers to rebellious slaves. “Merciless Indian
savages” doesn’t need much explanation.
In fact, Jefferson had originally included an extended attack
on the king for forcing slavery upon unwitting colonists. Had it stood,
it would have been the patriots’ most powerful critique of slavery. The
Continental Congress cut out all references to slavery as “piratical
warfare” and an “assemblage of horrors,” and left only the sentiment
that King George was “now exciting those very people to rise in arms
among us.” The Declaration could have been what we yearn for it to be, a
statement of universal rights, but it wasn’t. What became the official
version was one marked by division.
Upon
hearing the news that the Congress had just declared American
independence, a group of people gathered in the tiny village of
Huntington, N.Y., to observe the occasion by creating an effigy of King
George. But before torching the tyrant, the Long Islanders did something
odd, at least to us. According to a report in a New York City
newspaper, first they blackened his face, and then, alongside his wooden
crown, they stuck his head “full of feathers” like “savages,” wrapped
his body in the Union Jack, lined it with gunpowder and then set it
ablaze.
hotair | Finally, let’s stop focusing on the fact that this meeting was inappropriate because Clinton’s wife
is under investigation by Lynch’s Justice Department. I mean, that’s
bad, but it’s actually letting Lynch and Clinton off the hook a bit. By
focusing on the appearance of conflict because Hillary Clinton is being investigated, we are willfully overlooking the very real conflict in the fact that Clinton himself is under investigation, as the Grand Poo-bah at the Clinton Foundation. (Fox News)
The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use
of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether
the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State
Department business may have violated public corruption laws,
three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told
Fox News.
This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.
“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton
Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and
whether regular processes were followed,” one source said.
Yes, the investigation into the intersection of Clinton Foundation
donations and the State Department slimes Hillary Clinton since it
happened during her tenure as Secretary of State, but what about Bill
Clinton? If the State Department and Hillary Clinton acted improperly or
illegally by commingling staff and by granting favors to Clinton
Foundation donors, isn’t the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton
equally guilty of wrongdoing?
This may explain why the day after the surreptitious meeting in
Phoenix, Lynch’s Justice Department informed a judge they were going to drag their feet on the release of emails connecting the former president’s foundation and the State Department: (Daily Caller)
Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal
court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing
correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four
top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a
closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.
If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the
communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective
first term as President. The four senior Clinton aides involved were
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large
Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff
Huma Abedin.
I guess when all of this adds up, it’s clear why Lynch and her FBI
agents were so intent on keeping this inappropriate meeting private.
DOTE | Implicit bias is usually associated (in research) with racial bias. Thus the Aeon article cited at outset goes through this exercise.
Do you think racial stereotypes are false? Are you sure? I’m not
asking if you’re sure whether or not the stereotypes are false, but if
you’re sure whether or not you think that they are. That might seem like a strange question. We all know what we think, don’t we?
But of course the whole point is that we don't know what we think.
...Another consequence [of ISA theory] is that we might be sincerely mistaken about our own beliefs.
Return to my question about racial stereotypes. I guess you said you think they are false. But if the ISA theory is correct, you can’t be sure you think that.
Studies show that people
who sincerely say that racial stereotypes are false often continue to
behave as if they are true when not paying attention to what they are
doing.
Such behavior is usually said to manifest an implicit bias,
which conflicts with the person’s explicit beliefs. But the ISA theory
offers a simpler explanation. People think that the stereotypes are true
but also that it is not acceptable to admit this and therefore say they are false. Moreover, they say this to themselves too, in inner speech, and mistakenly interpret themselves as believing it. They are hypocrites but not conscious hypocrites. Maybe we all are.
Maybe we're all unconscious hypocrites. In fact, that is part of the
Flatland claim. The Flatland model also says that "implicit bias" is far
more general than simple racial bias. We can't be sure what we think
because those biases exist in the unconscious, which by definition is
inaccessible to us.
Now, consider an essay which just appeared in The Guardian called—and I'm not kidding—Why elections are bad for democracy. The author is named David VanReybrouck.
Brexit is a turning point in the history of western democracy. Never before has such a drastic decision been taken through so primitive a procedure — a one-round referendum based on a simple majority.
Never before has the fate of a country—of an entire continent, in fact—been changed by the single swing of such a blunt axe, wielded by disenchanted and poorly informed citizens.
I'm here to tell you that there is nothing more democratic than a simple up/down referendum where each vote counts equally. Nothing. That's as democratic as things get.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...