RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN: While Bernie Supporters Are Locked Out of the Cabinet, 'Moderate' Corporatists Are Moving In Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 28 December 2020 13:50

Solomon writes: "Sometimes a couple of nominations convey an incoming president's basic mindset and worldview. That's how it seems with Joe Biden's choices to run the Office of Management and Budget and the State Department."

Bernie Sanders in Milford, New Hampshire, on Tuesday. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders in Milford, New Hampshire, on Tuesday. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


While Bernie Supporters Are Locked Out of the Cabinet, 'Moderate' Corporatists Are Moving In

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

28 December 20

 

ometimes a couple of nominations convey an incoming president’s basic mindset and worldview. That’s how it seems with Joe Biden’s choices to run the Office of Management and Budget and the State Department.

For OMB director, Biden selected corporate centrist Neera Tanden, whose Center for American Progress thrives on the largesse of wealthy donors representing powerful corporate interests. Tanden has been a notably scornful foe of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing; former Sanders speechwriter David Sirota calls her “the single biggest, most aggressive Bernie Sanders critic in the United States.” Who better to oversee the budget of the U.S. government?

For Secretary of State, Biden chose his longtime top foreign-policy adviser, whose frequent support for U.S. warfare included pushing for the disastrous 2011 military intervention in Libya. Antony Blinken is a revolving-door pro who has combined his record of war boosterism with entrepreneurial zeal to personally profit from influence-peddling for weapons sales to the Pentagon. Who better to oversee diplomacy for the U.S. government?

Standard news coverage tells us that Tanden and Blinken are “moderates.” But what’s so moderate about being on the take from rich beneficiaries of corporate America while opposing proposals that would curb their profits in order to reduce income inequality and advance social justice? What’s so moderate about serving the military-industrial complex while advocating for massive “defense” spending and what amounts to endless war?

Unless they fail to get Senate confirmation, Tanden and Blinken will shape future history in major ways.

As OMB director, Tanden would head what The Washington Post describes as “the nerve center of the federal government, executing the annual spending plan, setting fiscal and personnel policy for agencies, and overseeing the regulatory process across the executive branch.”

Blinken is ready to be the administration’s most influential figure on foreign policy, bolstered by his longstanding close ties with Biden. As staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Biden chaired the panel’s mid-2002 crucial sham hearings on scenarios for invading Iraq, Blinken helped grease the skids for the catastrophic invasion.

Overall, purported “moderates” Tanden and Blinken have benefited from favorable mass-media coverage since their nominations were announced several weeks ago. Most of the well-documented critical accounts have appeared in progressive outlets such as Common Dreams, Democracy Now, The Daily Poster, In These Times and The American Prospect. But some unappealing aspects of their records have been reported by the mainstream press.

“In her nine years helming Washington’s leading liberal think tank, Neera Tanden mingled with deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America,” The Washington Post reported in early December. “At formal pitches and swanky fundraisers, Tanden personally cultivated the bevy of benefactors fueling the $45 million to $50 million annual budget of the Center for American Progress.”

The Post added: “As OMB director, Tanden would have a hand in policies that touch every part of the economy after years spent courting corporate and foreign donors. These regulatory decisions will have profound implications for a range of U.S. companies, dictating how much they pay in taxes, the barriers they face and whether they benefit from new stimulus programs.”

Blinken’s eagerness to cash in on the warfare state — when not a formal part of the government’s war-making apparatus — is well-documented and chilling. In a healthier political culture, Blinken’s shameless insistence on profiteering from military weapons sales, as spelled out in a Nov. 28 New York Times news story, would have sunk his nomination for Secretary of State.

As for Tanden, in recent years her Center for American Progress received between $1.5 million and $3 million from the United Arab Emirates, which is allied with Saudi Arabia in waging a long and murderous war on Yemen. CAP refused to back a Senate resolution calling for the U.S. government to end its military support for that war. On a range of foreign-policy issues, Tanden has shown dedication to militarism again and again and again.

By many accounts, progressive organizing was a key factor in preventing the widely expected nomination of hawkish Michèle Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense. (RootsAction.org, where I’m national director, was part of that organizing effort.) Last week, the withdrawal of torture defender Mike Morell from consideration for CIA director was a victory for activism led by CodePink, Progressive Democrats of America, Witness Against Torture and other groups.

During the first weeks of 2021, such organizing could be effective in helping to derail other nominations. High on the deserving list are Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom “Mr. Monsanto” Vilsack, a loyal ally of corporate Big Ag, and Director of National Intelligence nominee Avril Haines — whose record as former deputy director of the CIA included working to prevent accountability for agency personnel who engaged in torture, as well as crafting legal rationales for drone strikes that often killed civilians.

Such deplorable nominees don’t tell the whole story of Biden’s incoming team, which includes some decent economic and environmental appointees. “There’s no question that progressive focus on personnel has led to far better outcomes than when Obama put a corporate- and bank-friendly Cabinet together with little resistance,” The American Prospect’s executive editor, David Dayen, correctly pointed out last week. At the same time, none of Biden’s high-level nominees were supporters of the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign or are fully in sync with the progressive wing of the party.

The brighter spots among Joe Biden’s nominations reflect the political wattage that progressives have generated in recent years on a wide array of intertwined matters, from climate to healthcare to economic justice to structural racism. Yet, with few exceptions, Biden’s current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic. It’s hardly incidental that the list of key White House staff is overwhelmingly dominated by corporate-aligned operatives and PR specialists.

Wishful thinking aside, on vital issue after vital issue, it’s foreseeable that Biden — and the people in line for the most powerful roles in his administration — will not do the right thing unless movements can organize effectively enough to make them do it.



Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

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
 
Not Just Another Pipeline Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57710"><span class="small">Louise Erdrich, The New York Times</span></a>   
Monday, 28 December 2020 13:50

Erdrich writes: "The expansion of Enbridge's Line 3 pipeline is a breathtaking betrayal of Minnesota's Indigenous communities - and the environment."

A young Line 3 protester in Palisade, Minn., near a construction site this month. (photo: Alex Kormann/Star Tribune/AP)
A young Line 3 protester in Palisade, Minn., near a construction site this month. (photo: Alex Kormann/Star Tribune/AP)


Not Just Another Pipeline

By Louise Erdrich, The New York Times

28 December 20


The expansion of Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline is a breathtaking betrayal of Minnesota’s Indigenous communities — and the environment.

y daughter and I are walking along the fast-flowing stream of pure darkness that is the young Mississippi River. We are two hours north of Minneapolis, in Palisade, Minn., where people are gathering to oppose the Line 3 pipeline. Patches of snow crunch on pads of russet leaves as we near the zhaabondawaan, a sacred lodge along the river’s banks. It is here that Enbridge is due to horizontally drill a new pipeline crossing beneath the river. We enter the lodge. The peace, the sweetness, the clarity of the water is hard to bear. The brush and trees hardly muffle the roar of earth-moving and tree-felling equipment across the road. The pipeline is almost at the river.

Last month, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s administration signed off on final water permits for Enbridge to complete an expansion of its Line 3 pipeline. After the final section is built in Minnesota, the pipeline will pump oil sands and other forms of crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to Superior, Wis., cutting through Indigenous treaty lands along the way. Lawsuits — including one by the White Earth and Red Lake nations and several environmental organizations, and another by the Mille Lacs Nation — are pending. But construction has already started.

This has been a brutal year for Indigenous people, who have suffered nearly double the Covid-19 mortality rate of white Americans. We have lost many of our elders, our language keepers. Covid has also struck an inordinate number of our vibrant young. Nevertheless, tribal people worked hard on the elections. The Native vote became a force that helped carry several key areas of the country and our state. On the heels of those victories, the granting of final permits to construct Enbridge’s Line 3, which will cross Anishinaabe treaty lands, was a breathtaking betrayal. The Land of 10,000 Lakes is already suffering from climate change. Yet Minnesota’s pollution control and public utility agencies refused to take the future of our lakes into account, or to consider treaty rights, in granting permits.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Erik Prince Now Owes the President* a Favor. Think About That. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Monday, 28 December 2020 09:30

Pierce writes: "Doing business with the ex-Blackwater chief is bad news, and currying favor with him by pardoning his war criminal employees is doing serious business with him."

Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater Worldwide and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, has at times served as an informal adviser to Trump administration officials. (photo: Jeenah Moon/Reuters)
Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater Worldwide and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, has at times served as an informal adviser to Trump administration officials. (photo: Jeenah Moon/Reuters)


Erik Prince Now Owes the President* a Favor. Think About That.

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

28 December 20


Doing business with the ex-Blackwater chief is bad news, and currying favor with him by pardoning his war criminal employees is doing serious business with him.

rik Prince is perhaps the most dangerous private citizen in the country. He created Blackwater to launder mercenary activities around the world, and then changed the company's name after some of his hirelings murdered civilians in Iraq, which we will get to in a moment. He held clandestine meetings in out-of-the-way places on behalf of the president's campaign, and the president* named his sister, Betsy DeVos, to be Secretary of Education, a job for which she was as qualified as I would be to fly a 747, and a job in which she did very little, and all of it badly. These are people with too much power and too much influence. On Tuesday evening, the president* did Prince a solid. From the Washington Post:

A White House statement said the pardons, on a list of 20 Trump granted with less than a month remaining in his presidency, were “broadly supported by the public,” specifically naming Fox News host Pete Hegseth and a number of conservative lawmakers. One of the contractors, Nicholas Slatten, has been serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. Three others — Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard — were sentenced to between 12 and 15 years on manslaughter convictions. The four men, all veterans, worked for the now-defunct Blackwater Worldwide security firm, which had been contracted by the State Department to provide protection for U.S. diplomats in Iraq.

Investigators for the military and the FBI later described the shootings, in which the contractors unleashed a blaze of gunfire and grenade explosions in a busy Baghdad square, as unprovoked and unjustified. Federal prosecutors said that many of the victims, including women and children, some with their hands in the air, “were shot inside of civilian vehicles while attempting to flee.” The incident came during a particularly dark period of the Iraq War and led to outcries in Iraq and the United States that private contractors — many of them former military personnel — were unsupervised and given unaccountable power in war zones.

The massacre in Nisour Square for which the four Blackwater guards were doing time was as bad an incident as can be found in the history of that godawful cluster of fck. A cabdriver got shot in the back. A mother and her infant son were killed, and one of the Blackwater contractors kept firing into crowds of civilians even while the other contractors begged him to stop. But, as we have learned over time, the president* has a sweet-tooth for war criminals of one kind or another. All they have to do is to get someone to plead their case on Fox News, thereby guaranteeing the president*'s attention, and they're halfway home. One recalls the letter sent by a government prosecutor to President Richard Nixon after Nixon, partly at the behest of George Wallace, pardoned William Calley, the butcher of My Lai.

Sir: It is very difficult for me to know where to begin this letter as I am not accustomed to writing letters of protest ... I have been particularly shocked and dismayed at your decision to intervene in these proceedings in the midst of public clamor. ... Your intervention has, in my opinion, damaged the military judicial system and lessened any respect it may have gained as a result of the proceedings. ... I would expect the President of the United States ... would stand fully behind the law of this land on a moral issue which is so clear and about which there can be no compromise.

The pardons to people who worked for him, probably doled out to keep himself out of jail, don't shock me. After all, this is the second Republican administration in which Bill Barr worked as attorney general that ended with pardons in order to protect the president*'s hindquarters. We all knew these were coming, just as we know a boatload of others are coming as well. But the Blackwater pardons are a different shade of equine. I am not afflicted with paranoid fantasies about militias coming to the president*'s defense as he chains himself to the Resolute desk, but doing business with Erik Prince is bad news, and currying favor with him by pardoning his war criminal employees is doing serious business with him. As the prosecutor wrote to Nixon:

You have subjected a judicial system of this country to the criticism that it is subject to political influence, when it is a fundamental precept of our judicial system that the legal processes of this country must be kept free from any outside influences. What will be the impact of your decision upon the future trials, particularly those within the military.

Erik Prince owes the president* a favor. Ponder that. What’s a minor demon to do when the Devil himself comes to collect?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Say Her Name: Dr. Susan Moore Print
Written by   
Monday, 28 December 2020 09:27

Excerpt: "'I put forth and I maintain: If I was White, I wouldn’t have to go through that.' That was Susan Moore, from her hospital bed in Indianapolis, where she was being treated for COVID-19, and where, an oxygen tube in her nose, she summoned the strength to post a Facebook video about her treatment."

Health-care workers gathered to clap for protesters demonstrating against police brutality in New York in June. (photo: Holly Pickett/WP)
Health-care workers gathered to clap for protesters demonstrating against police brutality in New York in June. (photo: Holly Pickett/WP)


Say Her Name: Dr. Susan Moore

By Aletha Maybank, Camara Phyllis Jones, Uché Blackstock and Joia Crear Perry, The Washington Post

28 December 20


“I put forth and I maintain: If I was White, I wouldn’t have to go through that.”

hat was Susan Moore, from her hospital bed in Indianapolis, where she was being treated for covid-19, and where, an oxygen tube in her nose, she summoned the strength to post a Facebook video about her treatment.

That was Dr. Susan Moore, family physician, University of Michigan Medical School graduate, Black woman. She described how the White doctor treating her “made me feel like I was a drug addict,” refusing to prescribe her additional narcotics when she complained of pain — even though he knew she was a fellow physician. She related how he rejected her plea for additional doses of remdesivir; how “he did not even listen to my lungs , he didn’t touch me in any way”; how he suggested she should just go home.

“This is how Black people get killed, when you send them home and they don’t know how to fight for themselves,” Moore said.

If anyone knew how to fight for herself, it would have been Moore. Still, she was sent home. Less than three weeks later, she was dead, at 52.

The deaths of Mr. George Floyd and so many others mistreated, injured or killed at the hands of our policing system have made us accustomed to seeing the video. But injustice in health care is rarely broadcast from cellphone videos or shared for thousands to witness.

This injustice often remains invisible to the public — unless, of course, you are a member of the community experiencing it.

Covid-19 has exposed the devastating realities of long-standing structural inequities experienced by Black and Brown people in this country. They are more likely than Whites to be infected, and more likely to die.

And the disease has taken a devastating toll, physical and emotional, on the nation’s health-care workers and the system as a whole.

Moore’s video offers a glimpse — even more enraging and heartbreaking in light of her death — of the injustice at the intersection of being a health-care provider and being a person of color during covid-19, and what happens when the system does not work to adequately care for the very people who are there to uphold it.

Her experience offers stark confirmation that there remains a system of structuring opportunity and assigning value based on skin color in this country. That system has a name: racism. No matter how well-intentioned our health-care system is, it has not rooted out the false idea of a hierarchy of human valuation based on skin color and the falser idea that, if there were such a hierarchy, “White” people would be at the top.

This white supremacist ideology has long shaped our values and practices, even in the health-care sector. Moore’s educational background makes her experience slightly more nuanced: Her being a physician brings the privilege of credibility and attracts the attention of many who do not believe that such mistreatment is pervasive.

Yet her experience is all too familiar in Black and Brown communities. That persistent experience of being ignored and harmed is the cornerstone of why Black and Brown people don’t trust our health-care system. Our collective and individual experiences with health-care systems and institutions that harm people of color are not only in the past — they are happening now.

A study in 2016 — only four years ago — showed that many White medical students and residents believed false race-based metrics and narratives, such as that Black people experience pain less than Whites. This is the same false belief held by J. Marion Sims, considered the father of modern gynecology, who performed vaginal surgical procedures on enslaved women without anesthesia.

Appropriate — and standard — pain management was only one of Moore’s calls for help.

If a physician can’t be heard by her own peers to save her life, then who will listen? Who will be held accountable? What actions are necessary to ensure that no one feels that their only way to survive and be heard is by posting a cellphone video on Facebook?

Over the past several months, since the public killing of Floyd, many health-care institutions and associations have made important commitments to acknowledge that racism is a public health threat and to pledge efforts to dismantle racism in the health care system. This is an important step forward. But these commitments are meaningless if not matched by urgent and sustained action.

As a nation, we need to understand four key messages about racism: Racism exists. Racism is a system. Racism saps the strength of the whole society. We must act to dismantle racism.

Say Susan Moore’s name. Heed her message. Do not let her death be in vain.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Snowden and Assange Deserve Pardons. So Do the Whistleblowers Trump Imprisoned. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47190"><span class="small">James Risen, The Intercept</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 December 2020 13:53

Risen writes: "Press freedom advocates must be careful not to indulge Trump's conspiracy theories while they lobby for whistleblower pardons."

Edward Snowden. (photo: Amnesty)
Edward Snowden. (photo: Amnesty)


Snowden and Assange Deserve Pardons. So Do the Whistleblowers Trump Imprisoned.

By James Risen, The Intercept

27 December 20


Press freedom advocates must be careful not to indulge Trump’s conspiracy theories while they lobby for whistleblower pardons.

n 2007, the Bush administration’s Justice Department sent me a letter saying it was conducting a criminal investigation into “the unauthorized disclosure of classified information” in my 2006 book, “State of War.”

When my lawyers called the Justice Department about the letter, the prosecutors refused to say I was not a “subject” of their leak investigation. That was ominous. If I were considered a “subject,” rather than simply a witness, it meant the government hadn’t ruled out prosecuting me for publishing classified information.

Eventually — after the Obama administration took over the case — the Justice Department decided to treat me only as a witness and did not try to prosecute me.

But in the future, the outcome of a similar case for a journalist might be very different if Julian Assange is successfully prosecuted on the charges brought against him by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department.

The Trump administration has charged Assange under the Espionage Act for conspiring to leak classified documents. The indictment focuses on his alleged efforts to encourage former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents to him and WikiLeaks. If the Assange prosecution is successful, it will set a dangerous precedent: that journalists can be prosecuted based on their interactions with sources who provide them with government secrets.

Such a precedent could make it extremely difficult for journalists to cover military, intelligence, and related national security matters, and thus leave the public in the dark about what the government is really doing around the world.

That is why the U.S. indictment of Julian Assange is so dangerous to liberty in America, and why the case against Assange should be dropped and he should be pardoned.

While Trump has still not publicly accepted his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, he has begun to issue a spate of pardons. On Tuesday, he issued pardons to a group that included two convicted of crimes in connection with the Trump-Russia investigation, and four former Blackwater contractors convicted of killing Iraqi civilians.

Despite the stench surrounding Trump’s latest pardons, supporters of several whistleblowers have launched public campaigns to lobby for pardons; the supporters of Assange and Edward Snowden have been the most vocal.

Like Assange, Snowden clearly deserves a pardon. Snowden’s massive 2013 leak documented the full extent of the National Security Agency’s domestic spying on Americans. But rather than recognize that Snowden has performed a public service, the U.S. government has forced him into exile in Russia. Meanwhile, Assange now sits in prison in Britain, awaiting extradition to face prosecution in the United States.

Public support for the pardon of whistleblower Reality Winner has also begun to build. Winner was arrested in 2017 and accused of anonymously leaking an NSA document disclosing that Russian intelligence was seeking to hack into U.S. election voting systems. That document was allegedly leaked to The Intercept, which had no knowledge of the identity of its source. (The Intercept’s parent company supported Winner’s legal defense through the First Look Media’s Press Freedom Defense Fund, which I direct.) She pleaded guilty in the case in 2018 and was sentenced to more than five years in prison, the longest sentence ever imposed in a case involving a leak to the press.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court denied Winner’s request for compassionate early release after she contracted Covid-19 in prison. She remains in federal prison today.

Former Pentagon official J. William Leonard wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post earlier this week calling for Winner’s pardon, arguing in part that her “prosecution constituted overreach by the government.”

But there are other whistleblowers who deserve pardons as well.

During Trump’s four years in office, his administration has arrested and charged eight government officials in leak cases. That is almost equal to the record nine (or 10, depending on how you count) leak prosecutions conducted by the Obama administration over eight years.

Four of the leak cases during the Trump administration were connected to disclosures related to Trump, the circle of people around him, and the Trump-Russia inquiry. The Justice Department was clearly under intense pressure from Trump to go after people who leaked stories that Trump didn’t like.

Winner’s case was the first of those four. In addition, James Wolfe, the director of security for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was charged in 2018 with making false statements to the FBI in connection with a leak investigation into a Washington Post story revealing that the government had obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to monitor Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

Wolfe pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with reporters and was sentenced to two months in prison.

Also in 2018, Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, who was a senior adviser at the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, was charged with disclosing reports about financial transactions related to people under scrutiny in the Trump-Russia inquiry, including former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort. She allegedly leaked the information to BuzzFeed News. In 2020, she pleaded guilty, and her sentencing is now scheduled for January 2021.

In 2019, John Fry, an IRS employee, was charged with leaking suspicious activity reports involving the financial transactions of Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, including information about how a company owned by Cohen received $500,000 from a company with ties to a Russian oligarch. The Trump Justice Department recommended prison time for Fry, but in 2020, a federal judge instead gave Fry probation and ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine.

Other whistleblowers have also been caught up in Trump’s crackdown, including FBI agent Terry Albury, who was arrested in 2018 and charged with leaking information about the systemic racial biases at the bureau, which were reported by The Intercept. And former intelligence analyst Daniel Hale was also arrested in 2019, charged with leaking information about the U.S. military’s use of drones to conduct targeted assassinations, also allegedly to The Intercept.

While most of the public lobbying for pardons for whistleblowers has focused on Assange and Snowden, and to a lesser extent Winner, the other whistleblowers prosecuted by Trump have largely been forgotten.

For the most part, the small press freedom community has made the case for Assange and Snowden on the grounds of the First Amendment, press freedom, and government transparency. Yet the campaign to convince Trump to pardon Snowden and Assange has also attracted a strange group of extreme Trump supporters. They argue that pardoning the two men offers Trump the opportunity to stick it to the so-called deep state.

The “deep state” is, of course, the mythical beast at the heart of so many of Trump’s conspiracy theories. Trump believes that a secret cabal of intelligence and national security officials has been trying to destroy him personally since at least the 2016 campaign.

It is important for press freedom advocates to steer clear of these deep state conspiracy theories and instead continue to argue for the pardons on the merits of press freedom. Indulging in Trump’s fantasies in order to win the pardons will only taint the cause of press freedom in the future.

As a journalist, I have spent much of my career covering, exposing, and criticizing the American national security establishment. Let there be no mistake: There is, in fact, a massive U.S. military-industrial complex, and a newer post-9/11 homeland security-industrial complex. Those two complexes overlap, comprising career military, intelligence, and federal law enforcement officials, executives at giant defense companies, and legions of smaller defense and intelligence contractors, as well as career political figures who take top positions in the defense and intelligence agencies when their party is in power, and become consultants or think-tank pundits when their party is out of power.

The military-industrial complex and the newer homeland security-industrial complex tend to support expansionist American national security and foreign policies, and since 9/11 have pushed for a continuation of American military involvement in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are driven by greed and power, and they believe that endless war is good for business. As I wrote in “Pay Any Price,” my 2014 book, “America has become accustomed to a permanent state of war. Only a small slice of society — including many poor and rural teenagers — fight and die, while a permanent national security elite rotates among senior government posts, contracting companies, think tanks and television commentary, opportunities that would disappear if America was suddenly at peace. To most of America, war has become not only tolerable but profitable, and so there is no longer any great incentive to end it.”

What’s more, the national security establishment’s power stems in part from its ability to suppress the truth about its activities at home and abroad, and thus it seeks to punish whistleblowers and journalists who try to disclose the truth. The CIA, the NSA, and other elements of the national security apparatus frequently apply pressure on the Justice Department and the White House to prosecute whistleblowers who disclose their abuses.

I have had firsthand experience with this ugly phenomenon.

But acknowledging the gravitational pull of a militaristic national security establishment toward war and imperialism doesn’t mean that you believe in the existence of a deep state, as imagined by Trump and his allies.

Demagogues like Trump are dangerously effective at taking bits of truth and weaving conspiracy theories out of them. Trump has taken the truth about the existence of a military-industrial complex and twisted it into a conspiracy theory that claims that the military-industrial complex is actually a deep state out to destroy him personally. It is conspiracy theory victimology taken to its most extreme.

Among Trump’s ardent supporters, talk of a deep state often quickly descends into the madness of vile, rambling QAnon conspiracy theories.

Right-wing pundits and pro-Trump political figures, many of whom were longtime supporters of the government’s draconian counterterrorism measures instituted after 9/11, including the NSA’s illegal domestic spying program, suddenly became skeptics of the national security establishment when Trump began to complain about the investigation, conducted first by the FBI and later by special counsel Robert Mueller, into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible collaboration by the Trump campaign. Trump’s claims that he has been the victim of a “witch hunt,” a “hoax” investigation perpetrated against him by the deep state, have been the central theme of his conspiracy theory-laden presidency. And so ardent Trump supporters who accepted Trump’s deep state conspiracy theories now view pardons for Assange and Snowden through the “Russia hoax” narrative.

Newsmax, the pro-Trump website, recently published a column calling for pardons for Assange and Snowden. “If there is any way to thoroughly get back at the left over the next month, President Trump should make it a priority to pardon those individuals whose clemency would get the attention of the deep state,” wrote Kenny Cody at Newsmax. “For the deep state has worked against this president and his administration unlike any other previously.” Marjorie Taylor Greene, a newly elected Republican representative from Georgia who has been criticized for being a QAnon supporter, also tweeted her support for pardons for Assange and Snowden.

A smattering of Assange supporters are echoing the line of these pro-Trump pundits and right-wing politicians.

For example, Assange’s partner, Stella Morris, said on Fox News recently that she wants Trump to pardon Assange to protect him from the deep state. George Christensen, a member of Australia’s parliament, sent a message to Trump on a website devoted to a pardon for Assange, who is also an Australian. Christensen wrote, “The same people who are trying to take the election from you are the ones trying to prosecute Julian Assange.”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Hawaii Democrat and one-time Democratic presidential candidate, tweeted that Trump should pardon Snowden and Assange because they “exposed the deception and criminality of those in the deep state.”

What makes any endorsement of the deep state trope by advocates of Assange and Snowden particularly dangerous now is that it comes at the same time that Trump is employing his persecution fantasies to claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him by a pro-Biden deep state.

The danger of enabling Trump’s deep state rhetoric was highlighted by a frightening story on Saturday, when the New York Times reported that Trump met on Friday with conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell and discussed making her some sort of “special counsel” to investigate baseless claims of voter fraud that Trump believes cost him the election. The same story revealed that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has talked about trying to seize voting machines from around the country to try to prove the fiction that they were rigged against Trump.

As the pro-Trump supporters pushing for pardons for Assange and Snowden remain silent on so many of the other leak cases brought during the Trump administration, they have also said nothing to counter Trump’s dangerous and hateful anti-press rhetoric, which has created a toxic climate for reporters working in the United States. Trump’s constant attacks on the press have convinced his supporters — as well as local, conservative politicians and law enforcement officials — to intensify their rhetorical, legal, and physical attacks on journalists around the nation.

The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, managed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, shows that there have been 120 cases of a journalist arrested or detained on the job in the United States in 2020. The tracker found that during one week at the height of the racial justice protests in late May and early June, “more reporters were arrested in the U.S. than in the previous three years combined.” The tracker also found that more than a third of those journalists arrested were also beaten, hit with rubber bullets, or chemical agents.

The bottom line: Advocates of press freedom must remain disciplined as they campaign for the pardons for whistleblowers and make their arguments on the merits of press freedom. They must be careful not to indulge Trump’s conspiracy theories while they lobby for the pardons.

Accepting Trump’s insane conspiracy theories in order to get him to do the right thing has been the downfall of many prominent figures during Trump’s presidency. Enabling Trump’s worst instincts never works and only shreds the reputations of those who have sought to appease him.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 Next > End >>

Page 247 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