RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
We Don't Need New Terror Laws to Defeat the Far Right Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43875"><span class="small">Branko Marcetic, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 12 January 2021 09:09

Marcetic writes: "Last week's riot was an attempt to undermine the nation's democratic procedures. The response from some political elites is unwittingly trying to do the same through calls for unnecessary new terror laws."

Police officers in riot gear walk toward the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. (photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
Police officers in riot gear walk toward the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. (photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)


We Don't Need New Terror Laws to Defeat the Far Right

By Branko Marcetic, Jacobin

12 January 21


Last week's riot was an attempt to undermine the nation’s democratic procedures. The response from some political elites is unwittingly trying to do the same through calls for unnecessary new terror laws.

ou may remember Arkansas senator Tom Cotton’s op-ed. Surveying the chaos, carnage, and “mob rule” that had engulfed the country, Cotton asserted that “strong leaders maintain order not only to protect their people from criminal violence but also to preserve confidence in civilization,” and called for protesters and rioters to be put down with military force if need be.

“No quarter for insurrectionists,” he insisted, meaning the military and law enforcement were to kill, not capture, the protesters, an order that is unambiguously barred by both US and international law.

You may remember this. Or you may not. Because this wasn’t the infamous, unhinged op-ed Cotton published in the New York Times back in June 2020 in response to the George Floyd protests, which sparked widespread outrage and internal revolt within the paper that published it, leading to the resignation of an editor, and a retraction and apology, with Times management acknowledging that the piece was “incendiary,” “needlessly harsh, and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate.”

No, this was a Wall Street Journal op-ed Cotton published just last week in response to the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters. The new piece makes virtually the same arguments, and about virtually the same group of protesters. (Like the first op-ed, this one was heavily focused on the anti-police brutality movement of last year). What’s different is the accepting silence and lack of outrage that has greeted the more recent op-ed.

These very different responses to what are in essence identical op-eds calling for police and military violence against protesters aren’t a coincidence. They reflect an alarming and swiftly emerging consensus within the political and media elite in the wake of last week’s events, that the mass of Trump supporters who rushed the Capitol — not just the small number who came armed and appeared ready to carry out some sort of organized violence, but even those who merely walked around and took selfies — must be treated as terrorists and dealt with exactly as Cotton has fantasized about dealing with all civil unrest.

Long before the dust had cleared, CNN almost instantly approved the use of the label “domestic terrorism” for last week’s events, which its reporters wasted no time in deploying. Lawmakers and political figures, liberal and conservative, united to do the same, whether Lindsay Graham, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or the GOP communications director. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), one of the group of CIA Democrats recruited by the party in 2018, told MSNBC it was now domestic terrorism — not Russia, as the party has been trying to terrify its constituents into believing for four years — that was the country’s biggest national security threat.

This framing was adopted almost immediately, meaning it was prompted by what commentators called the initial wave of “silly costumes, people taking selfies,” and not the “darker, more violent, more sinister” images that came to the fore later, depicting a smaller cabal of armed protesters apparently embarking on organized violence.

“Every person who forced their way into the Capitol should be arrested,” wrote Vox reporter German Lopez just hours after the incident. “Lock them all up.”

“There needs to be a vigorous effort to use the extensive available photography to identity as many mob members as possible, arrest them, try them, and punish them,” wrote liberal commentator Matthew Yglesias the day of. “If this goes down in the books as a fun day at the zoo for the people involved, we will see more of it.”

“The people who breached our capitol and vandalized it, urinating and defecating and smashing historic and precious artifacts that belong to the country, not to them personally, are criminals and terrorists,” wrote MSNBC anchor Joy Reid some days later. “Every one of them should be behind bars. No exceptions.”

Such comments weren’t referring to those protestors who have been suspected of planning to attack lawmakers or take them hostage. For these commentators, doing any kind of property damage in the Capitol, or even simply entering it, was what constituted serious lawbreaking, even terrorism, and needed be punished “with the full force of the law” (as Cotton put it) — a standard that would easily ensnare as terrorists everyone from labor rights campaigners and antiwar protesters, to anti-police brutality demonstrators, a small minority of whom have carried out property destruction and physical violence against police and even lawmakers.

Meanwhile, even as evidence increasingly indicated that police were involved in and supported last week’s events, the idea of vesting them with more power has emerged as the de facto response to them. Figures as disparate as conservative scholar Norman Ornstein and Politico contributing editor Bill Scher have come out in support of a domestic terrorism law, which Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois is now swiftly introducing.

This is all happening even as terrorism experts, usually the most bullish in using tragedies to push for vesting military and law enforcement with more powers and resources, are warning of the dangers to civil liberties that such a law would pose. And it’s mere months after collective alarm that Trump was using the national security state for an authoritarian or even fascist power grab, and widespread warnings that this exact kind of law is a threat to freedom, democracy, and people of color. It would be absurd if it wasn’t so alarming.

Make no mistake. The purpose of all of this is not merely to go after the participants in last week’s incident at the Capitol, but to empower the government’s repressive bureaucracies to clamp down on all types of civil unrest and protest. Some of those calling for J20-style mass arrests and prosecution of those involved last week are, helpfully, honest about this.

When Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf predicted that the measures and powers activated against those involved in the riot will be “also used in the future against leftists,” Yglesias responded that it “seems like an okay outcome,” because “the prolonged looting and vandalism across many cities [last summer] was also very bad and reeling it in on all sides would be appropriate.”

Cotton himself has recognized this shift, and is positively giddy. As he put it last week:

Some liberals appear to have shed their reservations about the use of force now that the mob carries different signs and chants different slogans. Some of the same pundits who called roughly half the country “fascists” last year for thinking troops may be necessary to restore order now ask where the troops were on Wednesday.

Poised to capitalize on this emerging liberal-conservative alliance is President-elect Joe Biden, whose vaunted ability to work with Republicans has been almost exclusively limited to increasing the size and power of the national security state. Biden has played major roles in at least three Republican-led assaults on civil liberties over his career, all justified initially by national security and terrorism, and all ultimately directed at nonviolent Americans for unrelated activities.

Biden was a key architect of the federal “war on drugs,” which has in practice become a civil liberties–shredding war on the poor and people of color, and resulted in state murders like those of Breonna Taylor. He played a major role in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, passed in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, later called “one of the worst statutes ever passed” for gutting habeas corpus and sending innocent men to the execution chamber. And he has relentlessly claimed credit, with good reason, for the Patriot Act, the widely criticized surveillance bill passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks that has been used to go after antiwar activists, law-abiding Muslims, and many others (Biden, in fact, was disappointed the bill didn’t go further).

Long before last week, Biden had quietly pledged to pass a domestic terrorism law that would grant Trump the kind of powers that civil libertarians have long feared Trump might have available to use, and he was quick to label the Capitol protesters “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists.” Biden’s major goals as president are to restore a sense of “normalcy,” and to demonstrate that the typically gridlocked US political system can still work.

Ramming through a domestic terrorism law could quickly fulfill both goals, allowing Democrats and Republicans to come together on a high-profile issue, and giving the government more power to clamp down on future civil unrest — including, as liberals like Yglesias and reactionaries like Cotton fervently hope, when that unrest is driven by issues progressives care about.

Don’t let anyone tell you that opposing such measures and raising these concerns means you support far-right terrorism, as some will inevitably charge. Such lazy talking points are the hallmark of authoritarians who wish to silence debate and use crises and tragedies as excuses to increase repressive powers as quickly as possible.

There are clear, narrow measures that can and should be taken in response to this incident, including investigating and prosecuting those who planned violence, launching an independent investigation into the security failures of last week, and running a broader inquiry into, and subsequent house-cleaning of, far-right elements in law enforcement throughout the country. Whether you decide to call last week a protest, a riot, an insurrection, or terrorism, it makes little sense to vest even more repressive powers in precisely those people who are suspected of being complicit in it.

There is a clear thread running through the protests of 2020 to what happened last week, and that’s the far right, authoritarian, and conspiratorial thinking that is more and more infecting US law enforcement. Unfortunately, for the political and media elite, the problem is a fear of protest and unrest more generally. The fears of authoritarianism under Trump weren’t crazy. Giving the next Trump everything he needs to pull it off is.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The 7 Critical Truths About the Capitol Attack Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35918"><span class="small">Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Monday, 11 January 2021 13:54

Moore writes: "This attack on the Capitol was an Inside Job in which some Republican members of Congress and their staffs assisted the mob in getting into and through the Capitol building."

Michael Moore. (photo: The New York Times)
Michael Moore. (photo: The New York Times)


The 7 Critical Truths About the Capitol Attack

By Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page

11 January 21

 

HE 7 CRITICAL TRUTHS:

1. This attack on the Capitol was an Inside Job in which some Republican members of Congress and their staffs assisted the mob in getting into and through the Capitol building.

2. Various elements of law enforcement also assisted in the attack, as did rogue cops and current and ex-military from around the country. Current members of the NYPD and the Seattle police force have been identified in footage as part of the mob. Reports say they’ve also identified active duty troops partipating in the attack - plus a police chief and a sheriff - as members of the mob. The guy inside the House chamber carrying the large number of police-grade handcuff zip-ties is a retired Lt. Colonel.

3. Trump was the ringleader and the inciter - and when cries of help were made to him to send in the National Guard to protect the Capitol and our elected representatives, Trump refused.

4. This attack was a dry run for more violent attacks the terrorists are planning to launch before the Inauguration.

5. Why did members of Congress tell their staffs to stay home on Wednesday “for their own safety?” Everyone knew there would be trouble. Yet, stunningly, 1,900 Capitol Police were told to stay home on Wednesday. Only 400 reported to work. It was designed for them to be overrun.

6. Of the very few terrorists who have now been arrested, not one of them has been charged with domestic terrorism. “Trespassing” is the most common charge.

7. White supremacists were everywhere in the mob. Some wore T-shirts proclaiming, “6 Million Was Not Enough.” Our military and police departments across the country have been infiltrated by white supremacists and hard-core racists. Defunding them will defang them. Everyone knows had that mob been Black, they’d all be dead. We need to start over with a whole new concept of criminal justice, and new anti-racist peacekeeping officers.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I've Been Tracking the Far Right for Years. Then Lin Wood 'Exposed' Me as the QAnon Shaman Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57889"><span class="small">Spencer Sunshine, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Monday, 11 January 2021 13:51

Sunshine writes: "When the insurrectionists stormed the Capitol, I was sitting in my Brooklyn apartment in my pajamas, following live Twitter feeds. At some point I started getting messages that someone was accusing me of being a prominent QAnon activist who'd been photographed at the riot."

Spencer Sunshine and QAnon activist Jake Angeli. (image: Daily Beast/Getty Images)
Spencer Sunshine and QAnon activist Jake Angeli. (image: Daily Beast/Getty Images)


I've Been Tracking the Far Right for Years. Then Lin Wood 'Exposed' Me as the QAnon Shaman

By Spencer Sunshine, The Daily Beast

11 January 21


It’s a story about how purely anti-Semitic conspiracies get toned down and then circulated more broadly, while retaining the same storyline and targeting the same individuals.

hen the insurrectionists stormed the Capitol, I was sitting in my Brooklyn apartment in my pajamas, following live Twitter feeds. At some point I started getting messages that someone was accusing me of being a prominent QAnon activist who’d been photographed at the riot. As someone who’s written about the far right for years and had been the subject of their conspiracy theories before, I shrugged it off.

Then I started getting more messages. This time from old friends—classmates from college, even ex-girlfriends—to see if I was OK. It slowly dawned on me that the tweeter was not a run-of-the-mill unhinged person but a famous unhinged person: Trumpist attorney Lin Wood, who worked on the Kraken lawsuit and had over a million followers. Threats naturally followed, and Wood’s tweet was reported in TheNew York Times as part of a story debunking the false claims that antifa had secretly stoked the right-wing violence.

Wood’s Twitter was quickly suspended, but not before the post had, at least the last time I took a screenshot, 28,000 retweets and 47,000 likes. For days, right-wing social media and blogs have, repeating Wood’s claim, declared that I am actually the QAnon activist Jake Angeli. Nicknamed “Q Shaman,” he is known for his distinctive outfit—including Halloween-ey plastic horns and face paint—and high-octane rants against a supposedly satanic, pedophilic “deep state.” Angeli has arm and chest tattoos, while I have none, and he’s more than a decade younger than me, as evidenced by comparing my bulging middle-aged midsection to his muscular physique. While Angeli, who was arrested on Saturday, had loudly complained that he was being smeared as “antifa,” rather than getting his due as a Q stalwart who took the dais in victory, none of that was enough to staunch the talk about my supposed role in this conspiracy.

The broader conspiracy about antifa somehow being behind the violence quickly spread, with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) even repeating it on the House floor when lawmakers returned there on the evening of the invasion. (The FBI later debunked the claim.) And although the secret antifa provocateurs were usually unnamed, insofar as they were named I appeared to be the main culprit.

So how did I come to be the face—or, rather, the name behind somebody else’s face—of a right-wing campaign to deny crimes committed by other right-wingers? What unfolds is a decade-long tale of an ever-morphing conspiracy theory about me, originally forged in the crucible of neo-Nazi anti-Semitism and developed by a variety of small-time far-right figures before a Trumpist grifter injected it onto a national stage. And it’s also a story about how purely anti-Semitic conspiracies get toned down and then circulated more broadly, while retaining the same storyline and targeting the same individuals.

As Richard Hofstadter wrote in his seminal essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” conspiracy theories are often based in a kernel of truth. That kernel began for me with a talk I gave in 2010 on behalf of the now-infamous Rose City Antifa in Portland, Oregon. They had been struggling to expel several anti-Semites who were in left-wing spaces, including a well-known local progressive activist-turned-Holocaust denier. My talk outlined the contours of anti-Semitism and included examples of it being found on the left. Maybe 30 people attended, but it was recorded and put online.

Some fascists pay attention to the left, in hope of making alliances or cross-recruiting members, or simply to know and target their enemies. A New Yorker named Eric Striker—who, in one of the many ironies of this story, is apparently Latino—became obsessed with my talk. He called me an “influential Jew Antifa ideologue” on a 2015 Twitter thread in conversation with two key figures in the emerging alt-right: the Daily Stormer’s Andrew Anglin and “Ricky Vaughn.” (The latter’s Twitter account was found by an MIT election study to be more influential during the 2016 election than those of the Democratic Party or NBC News.)

It was a little ridiculous, but nothing compared to what was to come.

I had been getting other attention from the rapidly growing far right. Older racists like David Duke took swipes at me. My coverage of the Oregon militia movement in 2016 was widely attacked. On the webpage of the Three Percenters’ founder, one memorable comment called for me to be hung from a tree with ATF agents.

Another small-time New York far-right conspiracy theorist picked the story up, proclaiming on a podcast that I was the “leader of antifa.” But it was after the August 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville that the conspiracy was lit on fire. I was in the counter-demonstration and the car attack. Afterward the neo-Nazis and their sympathizers on 4chan and 8chan decided, perhaps egged on by Striker and the recent podcast, that I was the antifa leader. In fact, I soon became known as the “international leader of antifa”—since Jews are always thought of as international conspirators. (In fact, only part of my family is Jewish, but anti-Semites typically follow the “one drop of blood” rule.)

Death threats flooded my social media accounts, spreading to anyone I was affiliated with. I removed comments on my public Facebook, only to have fascists go after people who had “liked” my posts—forcing me to take the whole account down. There was a concerted effort on 4chan to dox me. Hours of Charlottesville footage was sorted through to find pictures of me standing around at different parts of the protest. Finally someone made a hit list of hundreds of “antifa” at Charlottesville. I was No. 3.

Needless to say, things were tense for a while. Living in New York City, legally carrying a gun was not an option. I was broke and strained to pay for things like cabs to limit my public exposure. (For a brief moment, cresting off the sudden popularity of the so-called alt-right, especially right around Charlottesville, there were about a half-dozen fascist groups in New York City.) I looked behind my back a lot. I made sure never to announce where I was going, and only did public talks with security guards present.

I foolishly went on assignment for Colorlines to cover another far-right rally the next month, the Mother of All Rallies in Washington, D.C. Since there was a dueling Juggalo rally at the same time, I thought that, between the police and the clown-faced anti-racists, there wouldn’t be a problem. I was wrong. The other rally was far away and no police were present. Another conspiracy theorist—who I call the Fraudster—saw me and started shouting that I was “antifa.” (The Fraudster did 10 years for a phishing scam and has filed hundreds of frivolous lawsuits.) This was revealing because it showed that he had been spending copious amounts of time in neo-Nazi discussion circles; he was taking their talking points about Jewish targets and laundering them into this own, seemingly non-Nazi, conspiracies. I was soon surrounded by a group of Proud Boys and would probably have been beaten had I lost my composure. (Compared to what happens at protests now, 2017 seems like halcyon days.) A video of this was put on YouTube.

Next, a frothing fascist named Daniel McMahon (who used aliases like Pale Horse and Jack Corbin) picked up the ball. He was sitting in his rich parents’ home in Florida and armed to the teeth; his own mother told authorities she was afraid her son might become a mass shooter. I had apparently gotten on his radar during the Oregon events, but now he became obsessed with me. Known for his prolific and wanton threats, he declared me his “#1 enemy.” Other comments included that I was “the most evil Jew in the USA,” “down right pure evil,” and that I was “a global Antifa leader. He is also a kike.” (One of my favorite comments on his posts was that my “eyes speak of an emptiness aside from a consuming hatred. Like a beast that needs to be put down.”)

It was sort of funny, except it wasn’t. In October 2018, Robert Bowers walked into Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue and murdered 11 worshipers. The social media account he interacted with the most was McMahon’s. Considering McMahon’s fixation on me, I’ve wondered if Bowers had considered assassinating me. Although much too little and much too late, McMahon was arrested in September 2019 for sending racist threats to a Black city council candidate in Charlottesville as well as stalking a woman in Florida. He eventually got three and a half years and is currently in prison. After his arrest, I mostly dropped off the fascist radar. This did not upset me.

Leading up to the Capitol protest, rumors circulated on the far right, as they had several times before, that antifa boogeymen were going to infiltrate this protest disguised as MAGAs. In the week before, the Fraudster decided to recycle the footage he had taken of me before, telling people to watch out for me at the D.C. rally. A YouTube video of me at the 2017 event popped up from a small account; by its own description, it is a ban-violator on its ninth rendition. There were also a few tweets. I didn’t think much of this; it was just another conspiracy theorist desperately recycling the bottom scrapings of his content barrel.

But little sparks can start fires. According to the Fraudster, Wood “probably” took the (already false) claims from the Fraudster’s Facebook account. Wood used the claim I was going to be in D.C. undercover to finger me as the antifa double agent directing events. I don’t know why Wood backstabbed Angeli by claiming he was an antifa agent. Perhaps Wood thought Angeli’s horns were discrediting the Trumpists’ big moment in the spotlight.

There are two lessons here, about anti-Semitism and social media. The first is that ideas cooked up by neo-Nazis can get “washed out” by removing references to Jews directly or to obvious codewords, like “Zionist bankers” or “Rothschilds.” But the initial targets who are often Jewish (or labeled as such) are kept, and the whole storyline remains intact. So whereas Nazis and other anti-Semites hold that the “Jews control the left and undermine the virtuous nation,” now “antifa is manipulating protests to discredit the patriots trying to save the nation.” I doubt that very many of the thousands of Trumpists who think I’m Angeli are motivated by anti-Semitism. But once you see the development of the conspiracy theory about me, without the anti-Semitism I would never have become a cut-rate George Soros.

Second, the amazingly quick explosion of these narratives show how short the trip is from the margins to the mainstream for wild conspiracy claims. What is one day a neo-Nazi narrative can the next be something that you see on your aunt’s Facebook post. All it took was one deranged lawyer with a Twitter account to convince millions of people that some guy wearing pajamas in Brooklyn is the secret mastermind behind an unfolding national disgrace.

I’m a bit curious about what the next permutation of the conspiracy theory about me will bring. But to be honest, I’m a bit nervous, too.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: 725,000 Petition President, DOJ to Stop the Killings Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57362"><span class="small">Barbara Koeppel, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 11 January 2021 12:54

Koeppel writes: "President Trump and his Department of Justice will take their final bows in a blaze of bloodletting. This week, the last three of 13 death row prisoners will be executed. The other ten were executed from July through early December."

Protesters at the MLK memorial in Washington DC last Saturday hoping to stop the DOJ's three executions set for this week. (photo: Scott Langley)
Protesters at the MLK memorial in Washington DC last Saturday hoping to stop the DOJ's three executions set for this week. (photo: Scott Langley)


725,000 Petition President, DOJ to Stop the Killings

By Barbara Koeppel, Reader Supported News

11 January 21

 

resident Trump and his Department of Justice (DOJ) will take their final bows in a blaze of bloodletting. This week, the last three of 13 death row prisoners will be executed. The other ten were executed from July through early December.

The administration’s timing is unabashedly political, since Trump et al. want a done deal before Biden (known to oppose the death penalty) takes the helm. They also want to give a parting gift to the Republican base and champion their law and order credentials. In fact, since all 13 prisoners had been on death row for over two decades, it is crucial to question the timing.

The only good news is that although 61 percent of White Americans still support the death penalty, the number of those opposing it is mushrooming: Over 500,000 Americans signed a Death Penalty Action (an anti-death penalty group) petition to stop the three executions scheduled for this week.


Protesters at the MLK memorial in Washington DC last Saturday hoping to stop the DOJ's three executions set for this week. (photo: Scott Langley)

According to Abe Bonowitz, the group’s director, the reason so many signed the petition is that they were repulsed by the administration’s goal to kill as many as possible before January 20. The half-million names are even more remarkable since they were collected in less than a month – starting the day after the tenth execution was carried out on December 11.

Bonowitz says, “We delivered the petitions to the Department of Justice and the President. As of today, neither has responded.”

Equally remarkable, another group, “Save Dustin Higgs,” collected about 275,300 petitions in only four weeks. Higgs, a Black man, is slated to die this Friday, January 15, which happens to be Martin Luther King’s birthday. The symbolism is striking – since King preached nonviolence until the day he was assassinated.

Higgs (who has written a children’s book and essays while on death row) was convicted of shooting three women in 1993. At his trial, the prosecution argued that although Higgs was driving the car when the women were shot, it was Higgs who ordered his friend, Willis Haynes, to kill them. Like the details in a John Grisham novel, Haynes swore this wasn’t true – that Higgs didn’t order him to do it. Also, all the witnesses claimed that Higgs didn’t pull the trigger. But neither the jury nor judge listened. Haynes was convicted of the murders and sentenced to life in prison. Higgs was convicted and sentenced to die.

Why the discrepancy? Shawn Nolan, Higgs’s lawyer, says “Haynes’s case came first, and the jury didn’t recommend the death penalty. Higgs’s case followed, and the court was determined to get a death sentence.” (Still more Grisham-like details.)

Nolan is asking Judge Tanya Chutkan in the D.C. Federal District Court for a preliminary injunction to stop the execution. “My client has Covid-19 and an X-ray shows the virus has severely damaged his lungs. If he gets injected with pentobarbital, the drug used in the executions, it will be like water-boarding him, torturing him to death.” Nolan says that if Judge Chutkan denies the request, he’ll appeal to the Circuit Court of D.C. If that fails, he’ll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has no idea what they’ll decide.

This past Saturday, on a bitterly cold afternoon, Higgs’s family and friends, along with the families of other men on death row, gathered at the Martin Luther King memorial (in Washington, D.C.) to console each other and protest the killings.

The sun shining on the larger-than-life King statue was stark, as was the irony that Higgs will be executed on King’s birthday: either the Department of Justice knows this and chose the date as the administration’s last hurrah, or possibly in Barr and Rosen’s DOJ no one even noticed the symbolism.

In fact, the rash of executions had such high priority that the top two men at DOJ – former attorney general William Barr and his deputy, Jeffrey Rosen, who now heads the department – personally took on the task of choosing who would die. Early in 2020, they made a list to pick the 12 men and one woman out of the 62 on death row to execute. Their rationale was these 13 were the “worst of the worst.”

Who are the remaining two (besides Higgs)? There’s Lisa Montgomery, who will be executed Tuesday afternoon. Montgomery suffers from such severe mental illness that she isn’t aware of her surroundings. Also, she suffers a past crippled by constant sexual abuse from age seven onwards; her mother and step-father prostituted her in a special room they built alongside their house for the clients.

The other is Cory Johnson, who will die on January 14. In 1992, when he was 23, he was convicted of killing rival gang members. Johnson’s IQ is somewhere between 70 and 75, which means he’s intellectually disabled. Although a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision barred the death penalty for those with such low IQs, neither the jury nor the judge heard this evidence.

As the clock ticks down to Tuesday afternoon, various groups are making last-ditch efforts to block the bloodlust. Charlie Sullivan, president of International CURE (a prison reform group) and a former priest, has asked people to contact Everett Kelley, president of AFGE, the umbrella national union for the correctional officers’ union, to urge his members to refuse to take part in the executions. Sullivan says they have a right to decline.

He adds that “during the Vietnam War, we used to say that you couldn’t have a war if no one showed up. And it’s the same now. You can’t have an execution if no one is there to carry it out.” Kelley has yet to respond.

John Clark, a former officer in the AFGE Bureau of Prisons Union in Michigan and former warden at two federal prisons, petitioned Kelley to “publicly encourage members at Terre Haute to decline to participate in the killing of three prisoners this week. Executions go against the best human values.… And I know from staff and administrators that they put an unfair and permanent emotional burden on those who are involved.”



Barbara Koeppel is a Washington DC-based investigative reporter who covers social, economic, military, political, foreign policy and whistleblower issues.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Resign, Senator Cruz. Your Lies Cost Lives Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57887"><span class="small">The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board</span></a>   
Monday, 11 January 2021 11:34

Excerpt: "In Texas, we have our share of politicians who peddle wild conspiracy theories and reckless rhetoric aiming to inflame."

Senator Ted Cruz addresses the press during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. (photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
Senator Ted Cruz addresses the press during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. (photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images)


Resign, Senator Cruz. Your Lies Cost Lives

By The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board

11 January 21

 

n Texas, we have our share of politicians who peddle wild conspiracy theories and reckless rhetoric aiming to inflame.

Think U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert’s “terror baby” diatribes or his nonsensical vow not to wear a face mask until after he got COVID, which he promptly did.

This editorial board tries to hold such shameful specimens to account.

But we reserve special condemnation for the perpetrators among them who are of sound mind and considerable intellect — those who should damn well know better.

None more than U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

A brilliant and frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court and a former Texas solicitor general, Cruz knew exactly what he was doing, what he was risking and who he was inciting as he stood on the Senate floor Wednesday and passionately fed the farce of election fraud even as a seething crowd of believers was being whipped up by President Donald Trump a short distance away.

Cruz, it should also be noted, knew exactly whose presidency he was defending. That of a man he called in 2016 a “narcissist,” a “pathological liar” and “utterly amoral.”

Cruz told senators that since nearly 40 percent of Americans believed the November election “was rigged” that the only remedy was to form an emergency task force to review the results — and if warranted, allow states to overturn Joe Biden’s victory and put their electoral votes in Trump’s column.

Cruz deemed people’s distrust in the election “a profound threat to the country and to the legitimacy of any administrations that will come in the future.”

What he didn’t acknowledge was how that distrust, which he overstated anyway, was fueled by Trump’s torrent of fantastical claims of voter fraud that were shown again and again not to exist.

Cruz had helped spin that web of deception and now he was feigning concern that millions of Americans had gotten caught up in it.

Even as he peddled his phony concern for the integrity of our elections, he argued that senators who voted to certify Biden’s victory would be telling tens of millions of Americans to “jump in a lake” and that their concerns don’t matter.

Actually, senators who voted to certify the facts delivered the truth — something Americans haven’t been getting from a political climber whose own insatiable hunger for power led him to ride Trump’s bus to Crazy Town through 59 losing court challenges, past state counts and recounts and audits, and finally taking the wheel to drive it to the point of no return: trying to bully the U.S. Congress into rejecting tens of millions of lawfully cast votes in an election that even Trump’s Department of Homeland Security called the most secure in American history.

The consequences of Cruz’s cynical gamble soon became clear and so did his true motivations. In the moments when enraged hordes of Trump supporters began storming the Capitol to stop a steal that never happened, desecrating the building, causing the evacuation of Congress and injuring dozens of police officers, including one who died, a fundraising message went out to Cruz supporters:

“Ted Cruz here,” it read. “I’m leading the fight to reject electors from key states unless there is an emergency audit of the election results. Will you stand with me?”

Cruz claims the message was automated. Even if that’s true, it’s revolting.

This is a man who lied, unflinchingly, on national television, claiming on Hannity’s show days after the election that Philadelphia votes were being counted under a “shroud of darkness” in an attempted Democratic coup. As he spoke, the process was being livestreamed on YouTube.

For two months, Cruz joined Trump in beating the drum of election fraud until Trump loyalists were deaf to anyone — Republican, Democrat or nonpartisan journalists, not to mention state and federal courts — telling them otherwise.

And yet, Cruz insists he bears no responsibility for the deadly terror attack.

“Not remotely,” he told KHOU Thursday. “What I was doing and what the other members were doing is what we were elected to do, which is debating matters of great import in the chamber of the United States Senate.”

Since the Capitol siege, Cruz has condemned the violence, tweeting after the death of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that “Heidi and I are lifting up in prayer” the officer’s family and demanding the terrorists be prosecuted.

Well, senator, those terrorists wouldn’t have been at the Capitol if you hadn’t staged this absurd challenge to the 2020 results in the first place. You are unlikely to be prosecuted for inciting the riots, as Trump may yet be, and there is no election to hold you accountable until 2024. So, we call for another consequence, one with growing support across Texas: Resign.

This editorial board did not endorse you in 2018. There’s no love lost — and not much lost for Texans needing a voice in Washington, either.

Public office isn’t a college debate performance. It requires representing the interests of Texans. In your first term, you once told reporters that you weren’t concerned about delivering legislation for your constituents. The more you throw gears in the workings of Washington, you said, the more people back home love you. Tell that to the constituents who complain that your office rarely even picks up the phone.

Serving as a U.S. senator requires working constructively with colleagues to get things done. Not angering them by voting against Hurricane Sandy relief, which jeopardized congressional support for Texas’ relief after Harvey. Not staging a costly government shutdown to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2013 that cost the economy billions. Not collecting more enemies than friends in your own party, including the affable former House Speaker John Boehner who famously remarked: “I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

We’re done with the drama. Done with the opportunism. Done with the cynical scheming that has now cost American lives.

Resign, Mr. Cruz, and deliver Texas from the shame of calling you our senator.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 Next > End >>

Page 233 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