RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Drones and the Conscientious Objector Print
Sunday, 22 May 2016 08:26

Excerpt: "Over the course of American warfare, the battlefield has grown increasingly less intimate. If the soldiers at Lexington and Concord had to be within 100 feet to seriously injure their British foes, killing by drones allows US troops to be half a world away from their targets. The psychological toll, however, has not necessarily dissipated in kind."

A Yemeni boy walked past a mural depicting a US drone. (photo: Mohammed Huwais/AFP/Getty Images)
A Yemeni boy walked past a mural depicting a US drone. (photo: Mohammed Huwais/AFP/Getty Images)


Drones and the Conscientious Objector

By John Kaag and Clancy Martin, The Boston Globe

22 May 16

 

ver the course of American warfare, the battlefield has grown increasingly less intimate. If the soldiers at Lexington and Concord had to be within 100 feet to seriously injure their British foes, killing by drones allows US troops to be half a world away from their targets. The psychological toll, however, has not necessarily dissipated in kind.

The words above are from an open letter to the Obama administration, crafted by four former Air Force servicemen, each of whom played a role in the nation’s targeted killing program. The moral pang of the letter reflects a very basic ethical tenet, in the words of German philosopher Immanuel Kant: “Every man has a conscience and finds himself observed . . . by an internal judge . . . [that] follows him like his shadow when he plans to escape.”

Concluding the letter, the former soldiers write that after suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, “We were cut loose by the same government we gave so much to — sent out in the world without adequate medical care, reliable health services, or necessary benefits. Some of us are now homeless. Others of us barely make it.”

Drone warfare has largely been absent from this year’s presidential elections so far, with most of the national security debate focused on the threat of the Islamic State. Yet the next commander-in-chief will undoubtedly be forced to deal head on with a rapidly evolving military, one that increasingly depends on unmanned aircraft to target enemies. To date, Donald Trump has not outlined his policy on drones but has advocated for broader aerial offensives against the Islamic State. Hilary Clinton, who was involved in the Obama administration’s drone operations in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan, has repeatedly endorsed the targeted killing campaign overseas as a way to combat terrorist threats. Nonetheless, whoever assumes the presidency in 2017 will have choices to make regarding the scope of the Unites States’ drone war, and — perhaps just as importantly — the way that it is overseen by both the armed forces and the American public.

At the center of this decision-making must be the soldiers being asked to fight it. Indeed, now is the time for American citizens to reevaluate the moral standing of war on terror but also to revisit longstanding norms regarding conscientious objection, whistle-blowing, and military loyalty.

Several years ago now, The New York Times published an op-ed by one of the authors titled “Drones, Ethics, and the Armchair Soldier,” which argued that the physical remove of drone warfare would give pilots the space to engage in moral reflection in real time, the type of careful reflection that the urgency and danger of traditional warfare often preclude. This argument did not depend on the strange syllogism that philosophy begins in leisure, that warriors now have leisure, that therefore warriors are now philosophers. It was a more modest — and logical — claim, that the standoff capabilities of drones will place operators and military personnel in morally vexed situations (that is the case with all war-fighting, we assume) but also give them unprecedented freedom to consider the moral and legal status of their decisions.

Consider the case of Jim, a drone operator who has been ordered to execute an airstrike on a known terrorist camp in a foreign country. He can see the terrorists in the camp preparing for a suicide bombing, and his missile strike is the only sure way to stop the attack. But he can also see that there are children playing within the likely kill-zone of where the missile will strike. They may or may not be severely injured or killed — it’s going to be a close call. Everyone in the so-called kill chain — the series of people who must be consulted for legal authorization of the strike — has been consulted and signed off on the missile launch. These are high-value terrorists and, as Jim watches their underlings don suicide vests, an imminent threat. Jim has been ordered to make the strike. But he can see those children playing, and he just can’t bear to pull the trigger. What can Jim do?

In the United States, conscientious objection to engaging in war is permitted on secular and moral ground — but only if the individual objects to war on the whole, in what Carol Ficarotta, professor of philosophy at the Air Force Academy, calls “global conscientious objection.” Members of the US armed forces are not allowed to engage in selective conscientious objection: That is, refusing to engage in particular wars or, more specifically, particular military assignments on the basis of a moral objection to that course of action.

On the face of it, this policy makes good sense. It is the nature of warfare that soldiers will be required in battle to do things that they would find morally repellent in their ordinary lives — most obviously, killing another human being — and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the kind of discipline necessary to conduct a war if each soldier were free to follow his or her conscience before deciding whether to follow an order. Most of us agree that war is morally necessary at least some of the time, and the purpose of just war theory is to provide us with secure moral footing for the kind of warfare we can conduct.

Just war theory does distinguish between acts of war that are morally justified and those that are not, allowing room for debate about the morality of forcing a soldier to engage in a particular action or assignment that he or she considers to be immoral. Before drone surveillance and strikes, this moral problem did not arise in quite the same way because the person dropping the bomb or firing the missile would likely have had neither the knowledge of the immediate consequences of the strike nor the time to contemplate those consequences and consider alternative courses of action. Drones allow for both, opening up both moral dilemma and moral opportunity, including Jim’s selective conscientious objection to performing this strike. “A morally reluctant soldier ought to be treated no different than, say, a physician who cannot in good conscience perform an abortion,” Ficarotta concludes, “We should not compel people to act contrary to their most deeply held convictions on such important matters as life and death.”

We should remember a subtle distinction between conscientious objection and disobeying an illegal order. As Whit Kaufman, an expert in the Just War tradition, recently noted: “Every soldier is in fact required to disobey illegal orders (to deliberately kill civilians, for example). This applies where it is clearly an unjust action, like the My Lai massacre.” But this is different from conscientious objection, where there is a personal moral objection to an action, which is not obviously illegal. In Kaufman’s words, “This goes beyond the law and enters the realm of personal morality.” This situation seems to describe the experiences of Jim quite directly.

In Jim’s case, and in general, drone warfare is justified on the basis of imminent threat to national security: The high-value terrorists are going to launch another attack, or (as in Jim’s case) the suicide bombers are donning their vests. But we should recognize that often imminent threat is at best vaguely and ideologically defined, and reasonable minds may differ about what constitutes an imminent threat. This is what a kill-chain is meant to address, but at the very end of that kill-chain is Jim, with his finger on the trigger, who bears the most immediate and onerous responsibility for the consequences of the strike. Maybe if the threat is that imminent, we should put some boots on the ground.

But suppose that we don’t want to allow selective conscientious objection, perhaps because we recognize that someone — even if it isn’t Jim — is going to have to make the missile strike, and we don’t want soldiers deferring moral responsibility in that way. We’d be right to be worried about soldiers who actually wanted to launch a missile that might kill children or other innocent bystanders, and we’re relieved to learn that Jim does so only with grave moral reservations.

Another interesting case is provided by the recent movie “Eye in the Sky,” when a colonel (Helen Mirren) asks one of her soldiers to recalculate the likelihood that a child within a missile’s likely kill-zone will die as a consequence of the strike. Her higher-ups in the kill-chain have informed her that unless she can get the likelihood of the child’s death close to 50 percent, she cannot order the strike. She stands over her soldier until he massages his computer into giving him something close to the statistics she wants, although everyone in that command center knows that nothing has really changed for that child on the ground. After the strike, she warns the distraught statistician that he will file his report with the statistics needed for launching the missile.

This distraught statistician is now in the notoriously awkward position of the whistle-blower: Should he break the chain of command and tell the truth in his report — “I was ordered to massage the statistics so that we could order the strike” — or should he do what he was told? Again, the fact that drone strikes provide us with much more time and information for moral reflection than older forms of warfare raises the ethical stakes. If the colonel knew that there was robust protection for whistle-blowers in the case of drone strikes, she would probably not have ordered her soldier to massage the statistics or file what he knows to be a fudged report. Because the use of “kill lists” in particular and drone strikes in general are highly controversial, it may be morally appropriate to enhance the protections for whistle-blowers involved in this kind of warfare. Carefully protected whistle-blowing might be the best way to provide the possibility of transparency in what is necessarily a practice conducted in secrecy.

The culture of the military does not encourage whistle-blowing, and indeed sometimes whistle-blowing is morally blameworthy. Depending on the particular military circumstances, it may even count as treason. Blowing the whistle is always a last resort, in part because it is a clear violation of loyalty, which most of us consider a moral virtue.

Loyalty, however, is one of the most important but also the most degenerate of virtues, what we might call an ambivalent virtue. We want our soldiers to be loyal soldiers, and we applaud their loyalty to the military and our country, but we don’t applaud the same attitude of unquestioning loyalty when we see it displayed by terrorists or others committed to unworthy or immoral causes.

What standard should we use to evaluate the loyalties of military personnel who object to military actions that may violate the Constitution? This is the case of some drone operators who object to striking American citizens abroad. But even that narrow scope may be degenerate and possibly morally repugnant. After all, it depends on in-group/out-group evaluations (your life matters if you are in the group of American citizens, but not if you are out of that group) rather than a general regard for innocent human life or, in some cases, basic human rights.

As the presidential campaign heats up, it’s important to note the disturbing disjoint between first-person testimonials of soldiers and the political rhetoric that is often used to gloss over the damage that drone warfare has already done to local populations abroad. Hillary Clinton, for example, in marked contrast to the October open letter, spoke to the Guardian in 2014 about collateral damage in drone strikes: “The numbers about potential civilian casualties I take with a somewhat big grain of salt,” the presumptive Democratic nominee remarked, “because there has been other studies which have proven there not to have been the number of civilian casualties. But also in comparison to what?”

It appears that some of the men and women carrying out the missions that Clinton referenced could not, in good conscience, take on their duties with the same “big grain of salt,” and their concerns could not be set aside by appealing to the false dichotomy of drone warfare and traditional warfare. Drone warfare increases our opportunities for moral deliberation, and thus, for doing the right thing, even when all of the options seem undesirable. But it also brings with it the burden of all moral deliberation: asking tough questions that have no easy answers.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Canine Terror: Dogs and the Repression of African Americans Print
Sunday, 22 May 2016 08:24

Excerpt: "In 2014, twenty-four-year-old Maurice McCreary was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison after fatally shooting a police dog that had latched onto his arm as McCreary ran from the police. Federal law now states that a person can receive up to ten years in prison for assaulting, maiming, or killing a police dog."

A civil rights protester attacked by police dogs in Birmingham, AL in 1963. (photo: Bill Hudson)
A civil rights protester attacked by police dogs in Birmingham, AL in 1963. (photo: Bill Hudson)


The Canine Terror: Dogs and the Repression of African Americans

By Tyler Parry and Charlton Yingling, Jacobin

22 May 16

 

Since slavery, dogs have been used to intimidate and control African Americans.

n 2014, twenty-four-year-old Maurice McCreary was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison after fatally shooting a police dog that had latched onto his arm as McCreary ran from the police. Federal law now states that a person can receive up to ten years in prison for assaulting, maiming, or killing a police dog.

McCreary’s case is not an isolated one. Dogs have been a tool for the intimidation and control of African Americans since the inception of slavery. And as his experience shows, government authorities have often viewed African-American lives as more expendable than those of their canine attackers.

A Perfect Hatred

Dogs were important to both colonization and the maintenance of black chattel slavery throughout the Americas. According to some reports, indigenous peoples were literally “fed to the dogs” in the Caribbean and throughout the continental Americas.

These animals were tools of surveillance and fear, helping to annihilate indigenous populations and solidify the expansion of American capitalism through slavery.

Breeders honed dogs’ superhuman biological systems, maximizing their ability to smell, hear, outrun, outlast, signal, attack, and sometimes execute black victims.

Most feared were the “Cuban Bloodhounds,” specifically bred and celebrated for their ferocity and tenacity in subduing black rebellions. By the eighteenth century, Cuba was the epicenter for breeding and training these terrifying creatures.

Cuban Bloodhounds were physically imposing: “the size of a very large hound” with cropped ears and pointed noses. Their skins were “much harder than that of most dogs” and their “training would kill any other species of dog.”

Breeders incorporated violent racism into the training process, believing dogs could be taught to sense race. One visitor observed Cuban trainers forcing black men to abuse the dogs by whipping them daily, encouraging the dogs, still chained to the ground, to bite their abusers.

Once the dogs acquired “a perfect hatred of [their] tormentor,” the man charged with whipping the dog would run to the woods, daring it to chase him.

British and French rivals began purchasing these dogs from Spanish officials to suppress black revolts in their own colonies, granting the Cuban Bloodhound international notoriety.

Dogs were used to terrorize the maroons into surrender during the Second Maroon War of Jamaica (1795–96). In the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), the exhibitions of canine violence proved to be one of the final horrors of French colonialism.

Bloodhounds in Washington

The legend of these animals’ fierceness and utility grew throughout the Americas. Between 1835–1842 the US government brought them to what is now Florida to fight the Seminole Nation, which comprised a collection of runaway slaves and indigenous peoples who united to contest the US government’s imperial expansion.

Abolitionists criticized the maneuver, citing the bloodhounds’ nefarious reputations in the earlier conflicts. From then on the Cuban hound became the preferred breed among US slavers, who increasingly deployed the animals across the South to support King Cotton.

By the 1840s the practice of keeping “slave dogs” was widespread. Newspaper advertisements — like one in the West Tennessee Democrat describing the “Finest dogs for catching negroes” — document the rise of professional slave hunting. Trackers interbred Cuban hounds with local dogs as slave hunting became a profitable venture for white men throughout the South.

Like their Cuban compatriots, Americans aimed to train their dogs to react to the black body as their ultimate adversary. Oral tradition and ex-slave memoirs are full of tales of these specially trained canines kept by masters or local white men.

Former slave James Brown remembered how his master’s “big bulldog” would attack black men who had the misfortune of entering the plantation unannounced. Solomon Northup recounts the presence of dogs during his escape:

. . . looking up the bayou, I saw Tibeats and two others on horse-back, coming at a fast gait, followed by a troop of dogs. There were as many as eight or ten. Distant as I was, I knew them. They belonged on the adjoining plantation.

The dogs used on Bayou Boeuf for hunting slaves are a kind of blood-hound, but a far more savage breed than is found in the Northern States. They will attack a negro, at their master’s bidding, and cling to him as the common bull-dog will cling to a four footed animal. Frequently their loud bay is heard in the swamps, and then there is speculation as to what point the runaway will be overhauled . . .

In black American folklore, freedom in Canada is linked to escape from these dogs. As Harriet Tubman supposedly sang:

Farewell, ole Master, don’t think hard of me,

I’m traveling to Canada, where all de slaves are free.

De hounds are baying on my track,

Ole Master comes behind,

Resolved that he will bring me back.

Indeed, Afro-Canadian activists often highlighted the irony of bloodhounds chasing fugitive slaves through the streets of Washington, DC — the capital of the first constitutional democracy.

An 1854 story recounted a scene near the White House: a large bloodhound frantically tracked a scent, before diving behind some boards in a lumberyard.

A witness reported hearing “the most hideous and heart-rending screams of a child . . . here, almost under the stars and stripes of a nation’s flag, which so boasts of her freedom, was . . . a scene . . . appalling and terrific in the extreme.” The slave owner scolded the once-fugitive child, “God damn you, I’ll learn you to run away!”

The witness exclaimed that his heart palpitated wildly with indignation, and the event compelled him “to read through Mrs. Stowe’s world-renowned Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

Stowe’s influential anti-slavery novel (published in 1852) included violent scenes of dogs being used to discipline and punish black Americans, and helped to bolster the sectionalism that led to the Civil War.

During the Civil War, African Americans took advantage of the South’s crumbling infrastructure and the Union army’s presence to abscond. This encouraged dog-wielding slave hunters to expand throughout the rural South.

But the dogs also trailed and attacked white Union soldiers escaping from Confederate prisons. These experiences gave northerners a new paradigm for understanding the horrors of southern slavery.

In response to a Confederate soldier who declared it disgraceful for the North to allow a black man to kill a white man on the battlefield, Jon McElroy, a Union soldier, retorted, “Is that as bad as running white men down with bloodhounds?”

Black Expendability

The Civil War ended with a Union victory, but southern police continued to use the canine to terrorize black populations.

In 1894, the Tennessee-based newspaper Rideau Record lauded bloodhounds as “indispensable to the complete equipment of a good police department.” The nonchalant discussion largely revolved around the ubiquitous practice of using canines to terrorize black Americans.

The report was not shy about connecting contemporary convict tracking to slave hunting: the dogs “scented the trembling darky in the thicket” when they attempted to flee their plantations. The “deep-toned, dismal howl” of their canine pursuer was “to the fleeing slave more ominous of evil and [even] more dreaded than the sharp cry of the ‘paterole’ in pursuit.”

The editorial also showcased a technique for dog training that held hauntingly familiar racial overtones. The author celebrated the skills of Jude, a bloodhound owned and trained by a rural police department near Chattanooga.

The department showed off Jude’s tracking talents, inviting locals to observe a training ritual that required “a negro to run through the woods . . . [and] after the negro had been given twenty minutes’ start, the dog was put on the trail.”

The description is captivating, as both fugitive and pursuer engage in a contest that is as much mental as it is physical. Despite the black man’s herculean efforts to eliminate his scent, Jude locates him in the branches of a tree over a mile from the starting point.

Trainers invited the faux escapee, who was under the impression that the animal would not attack him, to come down and admit defeat. But “he hadn’t got his foot on the ground before Jude made a dash for him, and the way he skinned back up that tree was a caution.”

The publication’s tone is generally lighthearted and unapologetic, and in an interesting point of comparison, the bloodhound receives a name, while the “negro” remains anonymous, reiterating the southern philosophy of black expendability that became a hallmark of the Jim Crow period.

The story was not unique to Tennessee. Other newspapers reported similar techniques: a “negro boy” given a twenty-minute head start in order to condition a young bloodhound to trail his scent, anticipating that black Americans would be the objects of the dog’s future pursuits.

Deployed dogs also reinforced a broader ideology from the slave era. They substantiated a historical understanding that even dogs themselves “knew” race. This supported the idea that blackness was biologically immutable and allowed the harsh enforcement of segregation in the South through the 1960s.

Some early twentieth-century police manuals even promoted the popular theory that African Americans had a unique smell and produced a stronger scent than Euro-Americans.

Trainers agreed that “hounds work better when entered to one particular scent,” and advocated racialized dog training in which only black subjects were used to train bloodhound puppies to trail human subjects.

While no injuries were reported during these training exercises, the symbolism behind the pursuit of a black body was not lost on the observers who recognized the use of hounds from the slave-hunting practices prior to the Civil War.

The author of a 1903 article in the Age called “Slavery in Alabama” bemoaned the sharecropping system that replaced slavery in the South and preyed upon poor African-American sharecroppers by placing them in perpetual debt.

The article denounced how the workers were treated with “great severity” and received whippings for disobedience. Further, sharecroppers who attempted to abscond “were hunted down in the old slavery day’s fashion with bloodhounds.”

Indeed, the South’s obsession with bloodhounds proved robust. After a 1905 report that Mississippi was allocating state funds to train police dogs to hunt fugitives, a concerned citizen named Edward Day warned society would revert to “barbarism” if such policies went unchecked.

Day was especially concerned about the use of African Americans for bait in training sequences, citing the precedents set during slavery.

He emphasized the historical link between canines and black men in the United States: “No wonder that often in such communities at the baying of a pack of bloodhounds Negroes at their work were seen to tremble in every limb, such horror had they of being called upon to run before the dogs.”

Ferguson’s Dogs

The infusion of black Americans’ lived experience with the presence of police dogs persisted during the Civil Rights era. By the early 1960s, images of black protesters viciously attacked by police dogs confronted Americans nationwide.

Activists seized on these emotional triggers and repeatedly highlighted the practice in public venues. John Lewis, a Civil Rights activist and repeat victim of police brutality, spoke at the 1963 March on Washington and condemned the use of “police dogs” against “young children and old women” engaged in “peaceful demonstration.”

Nina Simone sang of the “bloodhounds” who pursued black people in “Mississippi Goddamn!”. Margaret Walker’s poem “Jackson, Mississippi” discussed how she was kept “fenced in by new white police billies, / Fist cuffs and red-necked brothers of Hate Legions, / Straining their leashed and fiercely hungry dogs. . .”

Fifty years later, studies continue to draw attention to similar instances of racialized canine violence in urban areas. A 2013 Los Angeles Police Department report revealed that a troublingly high number of African American and Latino LA residents had been bit by police dogs.

A curiously worded disclaimer read, “We want to make very clear at the outset that we are not arguing that deputies call for or deploy canines with specific, conscious intent to single out persons because of their race or ethnicity, although some of them, reflective of deplorable elements of American society, might.”

The statement simultaneously forecloses on and raises the possibility of individual dog handlers’ racist intentions when siccing dogs on people of color.

More recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that officers in the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) in Missouri only deployed police dogs against black victims, many of whom gave no provocation for the attack.

The victims included an unarmed fourteen-year-old African American boy who received a puncture wound from the dog bite, a sixteen-year-old male who was dragged by his legs out of a closet by a dog, and an African American man who was bitten, yet still accused of being armed even after a search turned up nothing.

The DOJ report concluded that Ferguson police “appear to use canines not to counter a physical threat but to inflict punishment.”

Modern law enforcement’s use of dogs for their effect, rather than their utility, fits neatly into dogs’ historical role of instilling fear and submission in African Americans. The police’s continuation of this tradition reveals their real mission in communities of color.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Mexico Says Yes to Marriage Equality Print
Sunday, 22 May 2016 08:21

Ruiz writes: "Even though the legislative process will now have to take its due course, this announcement is an enormous step towards the inclusion and defense of the Mexican LGBT community."

Enrique Pena Nieto. (photo: Flickr)
Enrique Pena Nieto. (photo: Flickr)


Mexico Says Yes to Marriage Equality

By Vanessa Calva Ruiz, The Hill

22 May 16

 

his week during a ceremony to commemorate the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHOT), President Enrique Peña Nieto announced that he would be sending a package of initiatives to Congress to legalize same-sex marriage in Mexico. The initiatives would imply a constitutional reform to Article 4 establishing that marriages should be celebrated without discrimination due to ethnic origin, disability, social or health condition, religion, and now gender or sexual orientation. Furthermore, the Federal Civil Code would also be reformed to ensure marriage equality.

This historic moment follows and alludes to key rulings by the Supreme Court of Justice, which last year established that state bans against same-sex marriage were unconstitutional; since the ruling is considered “jurisprudential thesis”, it didn’t invalidate existing state laws, couples still needed to sue the state in order to be married. Thus the President’s action eliminates this legal move and establishes the right to marry permanently in the Constitution and Civil Code.

Growing up in Mexico City, I experienced a dynamic, cosmopolitan city filled with diversity and novelty. However, one thing missing from the majestic views of the Mexican capital were rainbow flags; there was a vibrant gay community but it was usually unseen, confined within the spectrum of its own sub-culture. People knew of “gays” but there wasn’t any interest in having a serious discussion of their rights. Stereotypes and a lack of information severely hindered people speaking out about their sexual orientation and gender identity. That social environment only added to the numerous questions, fears, and insecurities I was overwhelmed with when I realized I was gay, and the much needed conversations to adequately address the needs of my community seemed far way.

Even though the legislative process will now have to take its due course, this announcement is an enormous step towards the inclusion and defense of the Mexican LGBT community. Despite significant legal progress in measures targeting discrimination in health services, labor rights and bullying, according to the 2010 National Survey on Discrimination in Mexico (ENADIS), 52% of those surveyed believe that the main issues for LGBT people is discrimination, followed by a lack of acceptance (26.2%) and stigma (6.2%). Even more daunting, 4 out of 10 people would not be willing to share their household with someone who is gay.

This announcement, and the full participation of the federal government in commemorating IDAHOT, continued to lift the veil that has shrouded past conversations about LGBT rights. The fact that the President, and all the ministries and agencies that make up the Executive engaged in symbolic actions of support—such as changing their social media icons to support LGBT rights on this date for just the second time in Mexico’s history—is worth recognition. Even more so, the fact that a president openly discussed the freedom of sexual orientation and gender identity in terms of public policy and guaranteed constitutional rights is paramount.

These reforms do not only impact couples that want to get married—it impacts every single member of the LGBT community that has felt ignored, that had to hide his or her sexual orientation or gender identify, that endured bullying, rejection, violence, discrimination and even death. This goes beyond “acceptance” by the general public, this is about equality, rights, and standing against discrimination. Through these initiatives, Mexico voiced an historic sí in favor of marriage equality, and permanently opened the door that promotes the visibility and inclusion of LGBT people and their needs in public policy and law. This is certainly just a first step, but the depth of its footprint will be felt in the lives of millions.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Obama Alienates Millions With His Incendiary Pro-Knowledge Remarks Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Saturday, 21 May 2016 13:24

Borowitz writes: "President Obama handed the Republican Party a gift for the general election by making a series of offensive pro-knowledge remarks at Rutgers University over the weekend, a leading Republican official said on Monday."

President Barack Obama. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
President Barack Obama. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


Obama Alienates Millions With His Incendiary Pro-Knowledge Remarks

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

21 May 16

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

resident Obama handed the Republican Party a gift for the general election by making a series of offensive pro-knowledge remarks at Rutgers University over the weekend, a leading Republican official said on Monday.

According to Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, the President’s inflammatory comments, in which he offered full-throated praise for such controversial fields of knowledge as math and science, are sure to come back to haunt the Democrats in November.

“If President Obama was trying to alienate millions of Americans in one speech, mission accomplished,” Priebus told Fox News. “When I watched him speak, I said to myself, ‘Well, Christmas came early this year.’ ”

While many Republicans expected Obama to walk back his ill-advised praise of knowledge, facts, and evidence, the White House as of Monday morning had refused to do so.

“The President seems to be doubling down on this, which is not surprising,” Priebus said. “This is a man who never met a fact he didn’t like.”

The R.N.C. chairman said that the Party was already creating negative ads that would make extensive use of the President’s polarizing pro-knowledge rant.

“This fall, we will ask the American people, ‘Do you want four more years of knowledge, or do you want something else?’ ” Priebus said. “Because the Republican Party has something else.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
US Downplays a New Syrian Massacre Print
Saturday, 21 May 2016 13:08

Lazare writes: "The Obama administration claims Syrian rebels in Ahrar al-Sham deserve protection from government attack although they have close ties to Al Qaeda and joined its official Syrian affiliate in a slaughter of Alawites."

Syrians carry a wounded man after airstrikes hit the town of Duma in 2015. (photo: Sameer Doumy/Getty Images)
Syrians carry a wounded man after airstrikes hit the town of Duma in 2015. (photo: Sameer Doumy/Getty Images)


US Downplays a New Syrian Massacre

By Daniel Lazare, Consortium News

21 May 16

 

The Obama administration claims Syrian rebels in Ahrar al-Sham deserve protection from government attack although they have close ties to Al Qaeda and joined its official Syrian affiliate in a slaughter of Alawites, writes Daniel Lazare.

n May 12, at dawn, members of Al Nusra and an allied Syrian rebel group known as Ahrar al-Sham stormed the Alawite village of Al-Zahraa, reportedly killing 19 people and abducting 120 others. In typical Salafist fashion, Ahrar al-Sham then posted a grisly YouTube video showing jihadis chanting Allahu akbar – “God is great” – and pointing in triumph to a bloody female body sprawled across the floor.

The incident, which occurred about 10 miles north of Aleppo, couldn’t have been more embarrassing for the United States since, just a day earlier, it had blocked a Russian proposal to formally designate Ahrar al-Sham as a terrorist group.

Under intense questioning, State Department spokesman John Kirby grew visibly flustered as he struggled to defend US policy.

“I’m not going to get into internal deliberations one way or the other,” he said of the discussions among the 17 members of the International Syria Support Group, the United Nations body in charge of Syrian peace talks in Vienna. When a reporter from the “Russia Today” TV network demanded to know why, he sputtered:

“I’m telling you – look, you’re putting – I love how you do this, try to put everything on the United States.  The International Syria Support Group is an international – it represents the international community. Iran is a member. Russia is a member. Saudi Arabia – I could go on and on and on. All of them collectively made this decision.”

This was nonsense since it was the U.S. that led the charge against the resolution to classify Ahrar al-Sham as terrorist and Russia that was forced to back down. Kirby was simply dodging the issue. But if his inability to take responsibility shows anything, it is how uncomfortable at least some Washington officials have become with the Obama administration’s Syrian policy.

Obama’s Quagmire

And it’s no wonder. Syria is Obama’s Vietnam, a quagmire that grows messier and messier the harder he tries to escape – and Ahrar al-Sham shows why. One of the largest rebel factions in Syria, the so-called “Free Men of Syria,” began in 2011 as more or less an Al Qaeda spin-off with Mohamed Baheya, a long-time aide to Osama bin Laden and his successor Ayman al-Zawahiri, occupying one of the group’s top spots. But for tactical reasons, it chose to adopt a more moderate tone.

Last July, for instance, it published op-eds in the Washington Post and the London Telegraph declaring that Syria should not be controlled “by a single party or group” and that any future government should aim at “striking balance that respects the legitimate aspirations of the majority as well as protects minority communities and enables them to play a real and positive role in Syria’s future.”

It sounded reasonable enough, especially once Robert S. Ford, Obama’s former ambassador to Syria, followed up a few days later with an article for Washington’s Middle East Institute arguing that Ahrar is worth dealing with because it believes that religious minorities should be allowed to hold low-level political positions provided “they possess the right qualifications.”

Did the White House take its ex-ambassador’s advice? The answer, all too typically, was yes and no. Aware that the group opposes democratic self-rule and believes in imposing shari‘a at gunpoint, Obama kept it at an arm’s length. But at the same time he resisted pressure to classify it as terrorist and made no objection when it joined forces with Al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria, to form a new coalition calling itself Jaish al-Fatah, or Army of Conquest.

When Turkey and Saudi Arabia supplied the new alliance with U.S.-made TOW missiles so it could launch a major offensive in Syria’s northern Idlib province in March 2015, the administration held its tongue as well. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Climbing into Bed with Al-Qaeda.”]

It was a policy of neither-nor that allowed the administration to maintain “plausible deniability” while doing nothing to ruffle the feathers of Ankara or Riyadh as they cheered Ahrar al-Sham and Al Nusra on.

Besides, Turkey and Saudi Arabia had a point. However bigoted and reactionary, Ahrar al-Sham was a large and effective force at a time when secular rebels were increasingly rare. As long as the White House continued to back “regime change,” it couldn’t help collaborating with distasteful groups that were nonetheless effective on the battlefield.

The result, as Kirby’s dismal performance shows, has been to play down atrocities, plead ignorance, and then, when that doesn’t work, change the subject to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad alleged misdeeds instead.

When asked about reports that Ahrar al-Sham militants were “comingling” with Al Nusra – which is to say fighting side by side with Al Qaeda – State Department spokesman Elizabeth Trudeau replied on May 11 that “it’s very difficult to tease that out” because information is incomplete.

When asked who was to blame for the atrocities in Al-Zahraa, her colleague Kirby refused to say two days later because “we don’t have a whole lot of specific information about these attacks right now.” Three days after that, he was still reluctant to assign blame because, he said, the facts remained up in the air: “The only other thing I would say is regardless of who was responsible for this attack, there’s no excuse for killing innocent civilians, none whatsoever.”

Knowing Nothing

If the State Department was in no hurry to find out, it was because it didn’t want to know. “We are working with all members of the ISSG,” Kirby went on, “to use the appropriate amount of influence that they have … over groups in Syria to get everybody to abide by the cessation.”

If Ahrar al-Sham was guilty of mass murder and abduction, then the U.S. would use its influence to see to it that its behavior was less … extreme. What’s going on here? Is Ahrar al-Sham playing the U.S. for a fool? Or is the Obama administration using such groups to advance its strategic goals?

The answer is a bit of both. The best way to understand bizarre behavior like this is to see it in the context of a vast imperial breakdown that is now unrolling across much of the Middle East.

America’s two main partners in the great Syrian misadventure are both in a state of deepening crisis. Not only is Turkey lurching toward dictatorship under an increasingly authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but its economy is crashing as well. The Istanbul stock market fell eight percent after Erdogan forced Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu out of office on May 5 while the Turkish lire fell nearly six percent in a single day. Corporate bankruptcies are up, growth is down, and tourist income is falling amid bombings and civil war in the Kurdish southeast.

But America’s other partner – Saudi Arabia – is even worse as it lurches from one disaster to the next. The war in Yemen is costing the kingdom and its Sunni Arab allies an estimated $200 million day, with the lion’s share borne by Riyadh. This is money that the Saudis can ill afford given a budget deficit projected to reach 13.5 percent of GDP this year due to an 18-month slump in oil prices.

Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s “Vision 2030,” his grandiose economic plan for weaning the kingdom off oil, is meeting with widespread skepticism while the kingdom is so short of cash that it is considering paying contractors with IOU’s. When the Binladin Group, the kingdom’s largest construction company, laid off 50,000 foreign employees late last month, workers responded by rioting and setting fire to seven company buses. (Yes, Osama bin Laden was a member of the family that owns Binladin Group.)

Politically, the news is nothing short of ghastly. Under the late King Abdullah, the kingdom rapidly descended into fear and paranoia as it sent troops into neighboring Bahrain to crush democratic protests by the country’s 70-percent Shi‘ite majority and funneled billions of dollars to anti-Assad rebels in hopes of toppling Syria’s pro-Shi‘ite government.

Saudi Extremism

But where Abdullah was actually a mild reformer, believe it or not, his brother, Salman, who took over in January 2015, is a hardliner whose answer to criticism by Western human rights groups was to step up the number of public executions immediately after taking office and then doubling them again in 2016.  Salman’s March 2015 agreement with Erdogan to supply Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and other jihadist groups with TOW missiles was in keeping with this increasingly xenophobic mindset.

It was the response of a beleaguered monarch convinced that Shi‘ite militants are pressing in on the kingdom from all sides and that the only way to hold them off is by stepping up aid to Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.

But such efforts have only added to the kingdom’s woes. While Al Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were able to eke out a short-term victory in Syria’s northern Idlib province, the only effect was to bring Russia into the war and tip the scales back in favor of Assad.

As a result, the Saudi kingdom now finds itself back on the defensive in Syria as well as in Yemen where the war against Shi‘ite Houthi rebels is hopelessly stalled. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival Iran is rebuilding its ties to the world community after the April 2015 nuclear accord with the U.S. The more the kingdom struggles to assert itself, the more vulnerable its position grows.

“Were the Saudi monarchy to fall, it might be replaced not by a group of liberals and democrats but rather by Islamists and reactionaries,” warned Fareed Zakaria last month in the Washington Post. This is the nightmare that causes policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic to wake up in a cold sweat.

With oil prices off more than 50 percent from their peak in mid-2014, Saudi Arabia’s vast oil fields are worth less and less. But the prospect of a quarter of the world’s proven fossil-fuel reserves coming under the control of Al Qaeda or ISIS (as Islamic State is also known) is still too much to bear. So something – anything – must be done to maintain the status quo.

Buying Time

Thus, the administration dithers and stalls in the hope that a magic solution will somehow appear. Obviously, Obama made a big mistake in August 2011 in calling on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. With Arab Spring demonstrations erupting across the country and the Baathist regime seemingly nearing a breaking point, it seemed like an easy call. But it wasn’t.

Five years later, Assad is still in power while Obama finds himself on the hook to the Saudis, who want to see their bête noire toppled at all costs and are therefore determined to hold the U.S. to its word. Obama can’t afford another war in the Middle East or a military showdown with Russia.

He also knows that the Free Syrian Army, America’s favorite rebel faction, is a hollow shell no matter how much money and materiel the CIA sends its way. So he finds himself cooperating in one way or another with dangerous Sunni jihadists who, ideologically speaking, are no different from the terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11.

The upshot is a policy that makes no sense other than as a delaying tactic. Obama bombs Al Nusra to show he’s still serious about beating back Al Qaeda but includes its inseparable ally, Ahrar al-Sham, among the “non-terrorist” groups exempt from Syrian government attack under the terms of the May 5 Aleppo ceasefire agreement. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret Behind the Yemen War.”]

Obama condemns terrorism but maintains back-channel communications with Ahrar al-Sham even though it’s nothing more than Al Qaeda-lite. He bombs Islamic State to show that he’s serious about combating ISIS but gives it a free pass whenever it goes up against Assad. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How US-Backed War on Syria Helped ISIS.”]

Obama calls for peace but refuses to condemn those responsible for atrocities like those in Al-Zahraa. Finally, Obama calls for a negotiated settlement but threatens to impose something called “Plan B”  if Assad doesn’t step down. That mysterious escalation could mean dividing the country along ethnic or religious lines, arming the rebels with portable anti-aircraft weapons known as Manpads, or something else entirely.

In truth, Obama is just trying to keep the lid on until Jan. 20 when the Syria mess becomes somebody else’s problem. At that point, he may well wind up on the Saudi payroll like Bill and Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair – assuming, that is, that the entity known as Saudi Arabia still exists.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Next > End >>

Page 2036 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN