RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Bob Woodward Has Let Himself Become Trump's Human Shield Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54307"><span class="small">David Sirota, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 12 September 2020 11:04

Sirota writes: "Weeks before the election, Donald Trump is now citing Bob Woodward's self-serving decision to suppress the shocking coronavirus audiotape as proof that he did nothing wrong."

Bob Woodward. (photo: Michael Kovac/Getty Images)
Bob Woodward. (photo: Michael Kovac/Getty Images)


Bob Woodward Has Let Himself Become Trump's Human Shield

By David Sirota, Jacobin

12 September 20


Weeks before the election, Donald Trump is now citing Bob Woodward’s self-serving decision to suppress the shocking coronavirus audiotape as proof that he did nothing wrong.

esterday, we published an essay stating what should be the obvious: Bob Woodward aided Donald Trump’s crime against humanity by suppressing an audiotape definitively proving Trump was misleading the country about the danger of coronavirus.

If you are an MSNBC-watching liberal sitting there denying Woodward’s aiding and abetting — if you are still somehow humming the West Wing theme song to yourself defending the honor of the country’s most famous establishment journalist — then you should take a look at Trump’s Twitter feed this morning. With 200,000 people dead, Trump is now using Woodward’s decision to suppress the tape as a means of defending himself in advance of the 2020 election. Put another way: Woodward has become Trump’s human shield protecting the president on the pandemic — the issue on which he’s most politically vulnerable.

The lesson here should be simple: It is very bad when journalists prioritize their interests over the public interest.

Trump committed a crime against humanity that he should be held accountable for, and the nation’s most famous journalist knowingly helped him. If you aren’t mad about both things, then you have decided to lobotomize yourself and become part of the problem.

In this case, Woodward knew the danger of Trump. In 2018, he published his first book about Trump, where the president’s staff and former advisers described Trump as a paranoid and impulsive idiot they had to insulate and control. In a paid speech with health insurance lobbyists last year, Woodward declared: “When you look behind the scenes of what Trump is doing, the pause that it gives you is ‘Oh my god.’ Every job you have to make a risk assessment. And the risk assessment of Trump just couldn’t be higher.”

Yet knowing that risk assessment, Woodward nonetheless prioritized his interest in selling more books and in maintaining White House access above the journalist’s obligation to publish information both proving Trump was lying, and warning the public about a dangerous situation at the very moment the public was in the dark.

Remember — the tape of Trump admitting coronavirus was deadly and airborne was recorded in early February when there was very little public awareness in the United States of just how lethal the disease is. In fact, two days before Trump made his comments to Woodward, the Washington Post published a story about lawmakers on Capitol Hill pushing the White House to take the pandemic more seriously.

You can easily imagine a Bob Woodward bombshell story in the same Washington Post two days later revealing that contrary to his public statements, the president acknowledged that the situation is dire. You can then imagine that such a revelation might embolden the Democratic lawmakers demanding more aggressive action, and that might have led to tens of thousands fewer casualties. And by Woodward’s own account, he was free to publish such a story — he didn’t have some pre-arranged agreement with Trump to hold publication.

But the story never came and 200,000 people then died because… future book sales.

“Bob Woodward sitting on information about presidential lies until he has a book to promote is… well it’s the difference between being a hungry reporter in 1973 and a palace courtier in 2020,” writes the American Prospect’s David Dayen. “Many people were going to die from minimizing the extent of the pandemic and not acting on knowledge of its impact. An author with as big a financial cushion as Woodward would recognize that and act in the interest of humanity rather than his first printing.”

Of course, I’ve seen people say “well, even if Woodward had published a story, it wouldn’t have made a difference.” Maybe that’s true, maybe it isn’t. Nobody can know. But that distracts from the much more elemental point here: The journalist’s job is to contemporaneously report vital information so that the public is informed. That’s why a free press is so critical to a democracy — it is supposed to provide a check on the government.

Centuries after that most basic tenet of republican democracy was enshrined in the constitution, the most famous member of that free press used his power not to inform the public, but to help a president deceive the public, to the point where the president is this morning citing the deception as proof of his innocence.

Anyone defending this behavior is not only an apologist for 200,000 coronavirus deaths, they are complicit in the ongoing downfall of our democracy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bolivia's Socialist Presidential Candidate: Last November's Coup Was About Plundering Bolivia's Resources Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56168"><span class="small">Luis Arce, Denis Rogatyuk and Bruno Sommer Catalan, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 12 September 2020 08:17

Excerpt: "Massive protests last month forced Bolivia's postcoup government to pledge that elections will take place on October 18."

Luis Arce, presidential candidate for Evo Morales's MAS party. (photo: Juan Ignacio Roncoroni/EPA/Shutterstock)
Luis Arce, presidential candidate for Evo Morales's MAS party. (photo: Juan Ignacio Roncoroni/EPA/Shutterstock)


Bolivia's Socialist Presidential Candidate: Last November's Coup Was About Plundering Bolivia's Resources

By Luis Arce, Denis Rogatyuk and Bruno Sommer Catalan, Jacobin

12 September 20


Massive protests last month forced Bolivia’s postcoup government to pledge that elections will take place on October 18. But Luis Arce, presidential candidate for Evo Morales’s MAS party, told Jacobin that democracy is still in danger, with powerful private interests standing to gain from the continuation of the current regime.

t’s been delayed three times already, but it seems like Bolivia’s repeat presidential election may finally go ahead next month. After the latest postponement sparked mass protests by trade unions and social movements, Jeanine Añez’s post-coup government was forced to sign a law guaranteeing that the contest will go ahead on October 18. But the mass rallies and blockades that paralyzed nearly all of Bolivia’s nine regions in August were also a symptom of a much larger problem — the collapse of what was until recently Latin America’s fastest-growing economy.

Under Añez’s “interim government,” Bolivia has effectively retreated into the neoliberal wilderness that preceded Evo Morales’s presidency. Unemployment skyrocketed to 11.8 percent in July (from 3.9 percent in 2019), poverty is expected to increase by at least 7 percent this year, while extreme poverty is projected to rise by 4.5 percent, as economic growth plummets by 5.9 percent. While this partly owes to the effects of COVID-19, the government’s response to the crisis in fact epitomizes its agenda. It has failed to initiate social programs to financially assist the population, even as it presses on with privatizing key sectors taken back into public hands by Morales’s government, including the communications company ENTEL and the hydrocarbon producer YPFB.

Most shocking has been the “Ventilators Case” (Caso Respiradores), concerning the Añez government’s purchase of hundreds of ventilators from Spain, China, and other countries at prices far above their manufacturing cost. This did, however, bring in millions of dollars of kickbacks for the members of the government itself. The case is but one example of a mass web of corruption and nepotism that has sprawled since the November 2019 coup against Morales.

In this context of gross economic mismanagement, the figure of Luis “Lucho” Arce Catacora stands in stark contrast to the coup government and its allies. The soft-spoken economist is best known in Bolivia and beyond as the architect of the “Bolivian miracle” — the fourteen years of steady economic growth, massive reduction in poverty and inequality levels, combined with programs industrializing the country’s natural gas, oil, and lithium industries. Today, he is the presidential candidate for Morales’s Movement Toward Socialism (MAS-IPSP) party.

Finance minister in Morales’s government from 2006 until the November 2019 coup, he oversaw the nationalization of the hydrocarbon industry, the establishment of a number of social programs, the recognition of the “social-popular” sector of the economy, and a significant rise in the minimum wage. Lucho’s running mate, David Choquehuanca, arguably represents the other side of MAS. He is close to the country’s formidable social movements, as well as the political tradition of Suma Qamaña — the Aymara variant of the “Good Living” indigenous political philosophy that also forms the foundation of Rafael Correa’s Citizens’ Revolution movement in Ecuador.

Lucho sat down with Denis Rogatyuk and Bruno Sommer Catalan to discuss the challenges MAS faces ahead of October’s planned election — and the prospect of a victorious return to power.

DR

Under Evo’s presidency, Bolivia advanced enormously in economic and social terms. But all that changed during the last ten months of the de facto government, with the application of neoliberal reforms and the return of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). What economic damage has this government caused since the coup last November?

LA

Like many countries in the region, Bolivia had twenty years of neoliberalism. And the results [of its return] have been catastrophic — as could be expected.

Even before the pandemic, in the period from November to March, we already saw GDP growth fall by 1.1 percent for the final quarter. We were growing well, above 3.5 percent, but collapsed to 1.1 percent growth in the fourth quarter, which made it possible to achieve just 2.2 percent growth for the whole of 2019. This is a fundamental example that already shows us the effect of neoliberalism. In the first four months of the administration [of Jeanine Añez], the economy shrunk by 5.6 percent.

This has to do with the fact that they displaced the social, community, productive economic model that we had developed and implanted in Bolivia since 2006, with economic and social successes that are widely recognized even by international organizations.

In addition to the practical elimination of public investment — and the paralysis of our public companies — there is the fact that the state’s income has been destroyed. This was achieved through the coup government’s very generous policy of returning favors to certain businesses, letting them off paying taxes and granting them much more favorable conditions. The state does not collect the same revenue as before. So, we face serious economic problems for municipalities, for governorates, and for public universities, which all enjoy some share of this tax income.

This is very much contrary to what [MAS] did. We generated economic surpluses from public companies and natural resources in order to redistribute them among the Bolivian population.

Instead, what we are now seeing is a truly regressive policy — typical of neoliberal governments — of concentrating income in a few hands. This has produced a fall even in people’s bank deposits. Poverty has increased, unemployment is increasing, and the gap between rich and poor — which cost us so much to reduce — is increasing once again.

So, the Bolivian people are feeling in their pockets, in their stomachs, the measures that have been undertaken since November last year. And added to this is the government’s inability to handle the pandemic. It has abandoned Bolivians to their fate: Bolivians have had to look out for ourselves and try to take care of ourselves with traditional medicines because [the de facto government] did not even guarantee the supply of medical products to combat the pandemic in pharmacies. But it did guarantee private clinics everything necessary to be able to face the pandemic.

Another element that has caught our attention is the government’s inability to handle the educational issue. We are the only country in the world that has decided to end the school year in the middle of the year simply because of the inability to teach in another way. After failing to implement an online education policy, they have already decided to end the school year. This shows their utter inability to administer a subject as simple as the schools.

DR

I’d like to discuss your proposed new wealth tax, which seeks to raise an additional $400 million for the industrialization project. What exact levels of wealth are we talking about here?

LA

First, you have to understand some different approaches, because we have taken several in the campaign to boost the Bolivian state’s revenue.

Because of this government, we are running out of income. There was a poor negotiation of gas volumes and prices with Brazil, and Petrobras [the Brazilian state gas and petroleum company] is involved in the administration of our state company.

It has been revealed that one of the active participants in the coup was the current Brazilian government. This was exposed not by MAS but by the Conade [National Committee for the Defense of Democracy] through its representative Waldo Albarracín, who was the rector of the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés. He revealed that the Brazilian ambassador was present at the meeting where Áñez was elected as president, bringing together all those who overthrew the MAS government. We can understand why — basically what they wanted was to get a price cut of $70 million annually for the gas they transport to Brazil.

The truth is that, even apart from the issues I mentioned, Bolivia has no income. So, we must find a way to find resources to reactivate and rebuild the Bolivian economy. To that end, we propose various measures, of which two are especially important.

One is a two-year non-payment of capital and interest on foreign debt to our creditors in the international organizations — meaning, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), all the international organizations where we are shareholders. We want them to give us a debt grace period of two years so that we can all bear the crisis in a more or less equitable way.

Additionally, we have proposed a tax on big fortunes. This will, in fact, impact one of the individuals in the current government — Mr Samuel Doria Medina, [a multimillionaire] who is vice-presidential candidate for Añez’s Juntos coalition. But it will not affect Bolivians who have accumulated the kind of wealth which translates into a little house, a car, a small business. We are not interested in that.

Our policy is to continue the income distribution policy that we have proposed since 2006, to continue developing a more equitable tax system, and, through that, to impose a tax on those who have a lot of assets. In percentage terms, this is going to affect 0.01 percent of the Bolivian population. That means people with a wealth of $10 million, $20 million and above — 99.99 percent of the Bolivian population is not in that band of big fortunes.

But there are also people who have a lot of money which they accumulated thanks to the state and the country’s natural resources. So, we believe it is fair that those people who have become rich in our country pay a higher tax to help those who do not have it. What the state is going to do is collect all those resources to carry out social policies that benefit the poor. It’s a policy of fairer taxation that we have also seen implemented in several other countries.

DR

Do you think Bolivia would go through a debt renegotiation process similar to what happened in the case of Argentina recently?

LA

Bolivia has been paying its debt on time, we have no problem with payment. But what we want is that the international organizations of which Bolivia and other countries, also suffering from the pandemic, are shareholders — the CAF, the IDB, the World Bank, the IMF itself, in short, many international organizations that have been supplied by resources from ourselves — also provide their owners, their shareholders, with part of the profits.

That means relief for the countries that have borrowed from these international organizations. Our proposal is two years’ grace on paying the capital and interest on loans. For Bolivia, that would mean a saving of $1,600 million that could be used to reactivate the economy, to generate better conditions and, therefore, little by little to exit the crisis.

DR

And what role will lithium play in the industrialization process, given that this was also one of the reasons behind last year’s coup?

LA

The lithium issue is very clear. We are the only political party that guarantees that natural resources, including lithium, will not be privatized and handed over to transnationals. Evidently, the economic objective [of the coup] was the control of lithium. Mr Samuel Doria Medina himself has said that it would be very good for Tesla to come to industrialize Bolivian lithium — thus revealing that they were behind the coup last November.

We are not going to be negotiating with transnationals in this way: we have very clear principles. We already made plans with a German manufacturer to come to Bolivia, and they agreed that the lithium battery should be made here, while they would be in charge of the commercialization and Bolivia would, of course, have the absolute majority of the profits of that business. This government put an end to that. But I believe that the population is alert to the issue and is not going to allow a transnational company of any nature return to Bolivia to exploit our natural resources.

MAS is a guarantee that lithium and all natural resources, including gas, minerals, will remain in the hands of the state. We are the only political party that guarantees the Bolivian people that not a molecule of our natural resources is going to be transferred so happily to transnational companies. Our policy proceeds through agreements where the state has an absolute majority in both the control over these businesses and the profits from them.

DR

We have seen unprecedented repression against workers in Senkata and Sacaba and persecution against former MAS ministers, activists, and people who criticize Áñez’s government. Do you think a “truth, justice, and reconciliation” commission is necessary, to rid the country of corruption, to punish the perpetrators of human rights abuses, and to compensate the victims?

LA

Unfortunately, in Bolivia there is a violation of human rights, especially the right of free expression. There are journalists who have denounced acts of corruption and then been threatened, persecuted, and intimidated by the ministries of the de facto regime.

They are closely monitoring social media, with so-called cyber patrolling. In short, we are under a modern dictatorship in Bolivia, with a government that is persecuting not only MAS supporters, but also journalists.

They are persecuting social organizations and social leaders who organized protests over various economic problems. And they are criminalizing the right to protest violations of the constitution.

That is why we want overseers to come to our country, so that they can see the improper use of state structures, the mass nepotism, the abuse against the humble by armed subversive groups. These groups are financed by the government, as in the 1980s, where there were paramilitary groups across Latin America that intimidated the population.

Unfortunately, that is what we are seeing with the motorcycle gangs of the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista [UJC, a far-right group in Santa Cruz]. And here in La Paz, they also want to do the same. In short, this is a very complicated situation to be doing politics. We do not have all the guarantees to do politics and carry out a transparent campaign that guarantees the rights of all of us involved in the campaign, or rights for the social organizations, who cannot protest for fear of imprisonment.

Regrettably, this makes us remember the times of Hugo Banzer’s dictatorship in Bolivia, the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, or Jorge Videla in Argentina. In short, all that has returned, but in a very disguised way. The military may not be in the streets, but these are extremely repressive governments, with a use of power that goes beyond simply managing the state.

BSC

Have you felt that your life is at risk because you decided to stand for the presidency?

LA

Of course. The day I arrived in Bolivia [from Mexico], precisely to participate in the elections, I was already notified that I had to defend myself in a trial in the prosecutor’s office the next day. I already have three or four trials that are being ordered against me, my family has also been intimidated. They really don’t pull any punches in intimidating and persecuting us, to make us regret even trying to challenge for political power. But I think that the Bolivian people have understood that we are determined to carry this process forward.

In October last year, many people mobilized, and for more than twenty-one days they blocked the country. Their slogan was to recover democracy — they said that Morales was a dictator. And now we have had nine months without democracy, a dictatorship. We clearly see that the slogan of democracy was a pretext to seize control over the state, to plunder the wealth that we had generated during this time, distribute it amongst themselves, hand over control of our natural resources once more, and pack the state with their own family members.

DR

We are concerned that there will be fraud in the elections on October 18. How can the international community and political and human rights organizations take measures to ensure that the process is transparent and democratic?

LA

The best way to do it is for [international observers] to come to my country as soon as possible and witness what is going on. There needs to be a proper audit of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal in all the tasks that it is undertaking.

But they demonstrated, by postponing the vote from May 3 to August 2 to September 6 and now to October 18, that they do not have the intention of holding elections in our country.

Therefore, we ask the international community to come, precisely to verify everything that is happening regarding the elections. They can become guarantors that the electoral process is conducted properly and that the political rights of each Bolivian to be able to turn out to vote — and the rights of the candidates themselves — are respected.

That has to happen now. For already today, we are seeing a series of abuses in this campaign. It’s essential that all these organizations, and the international press, don’t wait until October 18 to be in Bolivia. They have to come as soon as possible to witness what we Bolivians have been living through, so that the international community can have truthful information.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Elon Musk Called Me a "Moron" Because I Called Out His Exploitative Labor Practices Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Friday, 11 September 2020 12:45

Reich writes: "He can call me every name in the book - it won't change the fact that he's a modern-day robber baron, through and through."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)


Elon Musk Called Me a "Moron" Because I Called Out His Exploitative Labor Practices

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

11 September 20

 

lon Musk thinks I’m a “moron” because I called out his exploitative labor practices. He neglected to mention that he:

  • Illegally threatened to take away stock options if employees unionized (the judge in this case found Musk and Tesla violated labor laws in 11 additional ways)

  • Fired an employee one day before his stock options vested

  • Fired staff after promising them they could take unpaid time off if they didn’t feel comfortable returning to work during COVID

  • Has had 43 workers’ rights violations filed against his company since 2010

  • Has had 145 complaints filed with California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing since 2014

He can call me every name in the book — it won’t change the fact that he’s a modern-day robber baron, through and through.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
3,000 Dead on 9/11 Meant Everything. 200,000 Dead of Covid-19 Means Nothing. Here's Why. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35798"><span class="small">Jon Schwarz, The Intercept</span></a>   
Friday, 11 September 2020 12:45

Schwarz writes: "To America's leaders, our lives have value only insofar as they can be used to create a desired panic."

A supporter of President Donald Trump wears a Trump mask in Miami, May 10, 2020. (photo: Chandan Khanna/Getty)
A supporter of President Donald Trump wears a Trump mask in Miami, May 10, 2020. (photo: Chandan Khanna/Getty)


3,000 Dead on 9/11 Meant Everything. 200,000 Dead of Covid-19 Means Nothing. Here's Why.

By Jon Schwarz, The Intercept

11 September 20


To America‘s leaders, our lives have value only insofar as they can be used to create a desired panic.

ots of people have ridiculed President Donald Trump for telling journalist Bob Woodward that he “wanted to always play [Covid-19] down … because I don’t want to create a panic.” That’s hilarious, because Trump obviously loves creating panics — about Mexican immigrants, antifa, single-family zoning, and, scariest of all, low-flow toilets.

But Trump was, as he often does, telling us by accident something profound about American politics.

Nineteen years ago today, a group of men from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates hijacked four passenger jets. They successfully flew three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. All in all, they murdered 2,977 people in one day.

By March 19, the day Trump explained his reasoning to Woodward, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had already predicted that the coronavirus would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and possibly as many as 1.7 million.

In the first situation, George W. Bush, then the president of the United States, actively fomented panic. Americans could not sleep safely in their beds unless we invaded Afghanistan. The FBI should be able to obtain the bank records or internet activity of citizens anytime it wanted without a warrant. Saddam Hussein was hiding anthrax in his mustache.

In the second situation, one that was objectively much more frightening, the president of the United States openly acknowledged that he played the danger down. This goes not just for the danger of Covid-19 itself: His administration has also played down the continuing economic danger to tens of millions of Americans.

What accounts for the glaring disparity in reactions?

History shows the answer is as obvious as it is bizarre: Reality often has nothing to do with gigantic government actions. Instead, politics is mostly about illusions that leaders strive to create inside our heads.

In the case of 9/11, the Bush administration did not attempt to respond rationally to the actual events. Instead, they used it as a justification to do what they had always wanted to do but couldn’t get away with. An influential think tank, the Project for a New American Century, had explained the year before that “the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security,” a goal that “transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” Then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told an aide just hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon that he wanted to “go massive — sweep it all up, things related and not,” including Iraq if possible. Both Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, soon explained that they saw 9/11 as an “opportunity.”

By contrast, Covid-19 really did demand a large-scale government response, but there was little that Trump wanted to do. So Trump has delivered hours of a TV show in which he starred, but not enough PPE for doctors and nurses, or contact tracing, or desperately needed funding for states and cities, and people thrown out of work. Bush wanted a pretext to do a lot of things that were unnecessary, such as invading Iraq, while Trump wanted an excuse to do nothing when, in fact, a lot really needed to be done.

Any look at history shows that this is how the world works. Governments decide what they want to do, and then search for some public rationale.

On December 16, 1989, Panamanian troops shot a U.S. soldier and threatened to rape the wife of a Navy officer. But in the world of political illusion, President George H.W. Bush explained that this meant that we had to invade Panama, which we did, killing hundreds or thousands of people (the precise toll is disputed). An anonymous member of Congress accurately said at the time that “the December 16 incidents were the excuse, and not the reason, for the invasion.” There was no actual connection between the attack on Panama and what had happened to the American troops, which would have been totally ignored if Bush hadn’t wanted a war to oust the country’s military leader, Manuel Noriega, who had once been a CIA asset but had turned into an antagonist to U.S. interests.

On August 2, 1964 the U.S.S. Maddox exchanged fire with North Vietnamese ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. No U.S. sailors were killed; the Maddox suffered a single bullet hole. Then on August 4, nothing at all happened, although the U.S. dreamed up an imaginary second attack on the Maddox. In the world of political illusion, the U.S. used these events as justification to escalate a war that ended up killing millions of people in Indochina.

This isn’t just an American thing.

In April 1980, members of Islamic Dawa, an Iraqi Shia organization opposed to Saddam and backed by Iran, threw a grenade at Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minster of Iraq. According to Saddam, this meant that Iraq had to go to war with Iran, which it did, leading to the deaths of a million people on both sides.

In June 1982, Palestinian terrorists attempted to assassinate the Israeli ambassador to the U.K. in London. According to Israel, this meant that it had to invade Lebanon, leading to the deaths of thousands and the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

In September 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, who was Jewish, shot a German diplomat in Paris. According to the Nazi Party’s SA paramilitaries, this required them to carry out Kristallnacht.

Today more than any other, we should understand how much Trump’s berserk honesty tells us about life on earth. Our lives have value insofar as the powerful can use them to create whatever “panic” they desire. If not, we Americans will die quietly in a void, as a thousand of us are currently doing every day from Covid-19.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The US Immigration System Is an Exercise in Mass Cruelty Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56155"><span class="small">Jacob Hamburger, Jacobin</span></a>   
Friday, 11 September 2020 12:45

Excerpt: "A new Netflix series puts the evils of Donald Trump's ICE on full display. The solution to such blatant cruelty isn't to return to Barack Obama's deportation-happy approach, but to finally construct a humane immigration system that isn't tied to the carceral state."

Still from Immigration Nation. (photo: Netflix)
Still from Immigration Nation. (photo: Netflix)


The US Immigration System Is an Exercise in Mass Cruelty

By Jacob Hamburger, Jacobin

11 September 20


A new Netflix series puts the evils of Donald Trump’s ICE on full display. The solution to such blatant cruelty isn’t to return to Barack Obama’s deportation-happy approach, but to finally construct a humane immigration system that isn’t tied to the carceral state.

t was supposed to be the documentary ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) didn’t want you to see. A few weeks before Immigration Nation was set to appear on Netflix, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration was seeking to prevent its release. The filmmakers, Shaul Schwarz and Christina Clusiau, suddenly began receiving aggressive phone calls demanding that they remove certain scenes the agency found unflattering.

In the end, after repeated threats to subpoena footage and bring the “full weight” of the federal government down on the production team, the dispute was resolved, and the six-part series started streaming in early August. Reports that the Trump administration was trying to censor the film ultimately created more buzz for the film.

Yet ICE’s last-minute attacks on Immigration Nation obscured the fact that the agency was perfectly happy to give the filmmakers access to its agents and facilities over several years of filming. ICE’s public affairs director Bryan Cox sat for extensive interviews with Schwarz and Clusiau, while also providing several behind-the-scenes glimpses into how ICE’s local field directors manage their mass arrest operations. While we can’t know for sure what motivated higher-ups in the Trump administration to bully the creators of Immigration Nation, the film clearly portrays ICE like many in the agency want it to be seen.

Despite its somewhat generic title, Immigration Nation does provide a shocking look inside ICE. At the same time, it also contains humanizing profiles of undocumented immigrants, including rare interviews with those currently in detention facilities, and the filmmakers showcase the brave work of activists — often undocumented themselves — fighting against wage theft or ICE collaboration with local police.

As the camera crew follows Stefania Arteaga of the Charlotte-based activist network Comunidad Colectiva, she documents ICE enforcement operations in 2018, and we see the tactics long used against immigrants, but only recently spreading to Americans of all backgrounds, including federal agents refusing to identify themselves, snatching detainees into unmarked vans.

But unsurprisingly for a documentary that relies heavily on access to law enforcement, Immigration Nation suffers one critical flaw: it cannot fully separate its own point of view from the mixed messages coming out of ICE. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the series’s handling of the connection between criminal and immigration enforcement.

The documentary focuses heavily on Trump’s 2017 executive order that effectively undid the Obama administration’s priorities for ICE enforcement. While Obama instructed the agency to prioritize those with serious criminal histories, Trump gave ICE the green light to arrest and remove anyone in the country without legal status. Many of the rank-and-file agents who speak to the filmmakers are enthusiastic about this policy — as one officer puts it, “we’re finally able to do our job…. I honestly still can’t believe that he’s our president.” For another officer, “it’s like Christmas for us.”

Schwarz and Clusiau do not appear to approve of Trump’s Christmas gift to his most loyal federal agents; the impression one gets is that they would prefer a return to the Obama-era policy of deporting “felons, not families.” But despite the Trump administration’s apparent policy shift, ICE representatives continue to justify their harsh approach as necessary to uphold public safety.

Filmed during a public meeting defending collaboration between ICE and local police, Bryan Cox reassures North Carolina residents that “unless they themselves have committed a criminal offense, they themselves have nothing to worry about…. Our focus is on persons who are in the country unlawfully who also commit criminal offenses.”

The filmmakers may not expect the viewer to believe ICE’s spokesperson that only criminals are the agency’s targets. But they almost certainly do intend for us to sympathize with the New York–area agent who confesses that he prefers not to take “collaterals” — arrests of undocumented people who are not on ICE’s radar but who are unlucky enough to find themselves near the main target — because he’d rather be out looking for dangerous felons. Never mind that in the same scene, the agent’s supervisor calls with an instruction to “start taking collaterals,” knowing full well the film crew is in the car.

There is some value in putting the worst evils of ICE — and the series has no shortage of evil, in both the straightforward sadistic and banal Arendtian varieties — into the public view. At the same time, presenting the fundamental problem as trigger-happy ICE agents emboldened by the Trump agenda ends up obscuring the realities of our “immigration nation.”

To take an easy example: at one point, a Trump-supporting deportation officer cheerfully speculates that removals are now “probably double” what they were before. The officer’s enthusiasm for ripping apart families and sending many people to their likely deaths is jarring (particularly after the officer tells the audience that two members of his own family have been deported).

The filmmakers neglect to point out, however, that the officer’s claim isn’t true. Trump’s enforcement agenda has brought about a new reign of terror in immigrant communities, and his administration has inched closer to shutting down the asylum system altogether. But since the immigrants targeted under the last administration often had fewer defenses at their disposal — whether because they included fewer asylum seekers or had more extensive criminal histories — Obama remains the “deporter in chief.”

Most importantly, Immigration Nation perpetuates the myth that prioritizing removals of people with criminal records would create a more humane immigration system. The filmmakers rightly side with activists seeking to end “Section 287(g) agreements,” which deputize local police to conduct federal immigration enforcement. But deporting “felons, not families” also relied on local police and jails to find the “felons” in the first place.

Obama-era ICE agents were less likely to terrorize you at your home or workplace — your local sheriff’s reign of terror was enough. For ICE’s assistant field director in Charlotte, a sadistic thick-necked, goateed man identified in the film as “Bob,” the current system might be more exciting, but the difference is minimal: “Even under the Obama administration when we had the priorities, that really didn’t limit anything…. There was this little fine print at the bottom that said ‘you can arrest anybody you want to….’ And we did!”

Only an immigration regime that is fully decoupled from the police and carceral state, and that no longer mimics the latter’s infrastructure of armed enforcement and mass incarceration, can hope to eradicate the evils depicted in Immigration Nation. It is therefore a shame that the documentary did not include a humanizing portrait of an undocumented person who also happened to have a serious criminal record. (The one slight exception is a man named César who was deported after a conviction for marijuana possession, but who is treated as an exceptionally egregious case because he had served in the Marines.)

To win a more humane immigration system, we will have to challenge the lie that an immigrant who has violated the law must be banished from our society in order to maintain public safety.

Simply displaying the evils of ICE under Trump does little to bring us closer to that goal. In a new age of public impunity, where Trump-loyalist federal agents are snatching protesters off the street, the nativist far right no longer cares about hiding its blatant abuses of federal law enforcement power.

ICE’s public relations team may try to muddy the waters with mixed messages, and its legal team may try to harass critical journalists. But if you put a camera in front of people like the ICE agents who appear in Immigration Nation, they will show you who they are — knowing full well that without a real alternative to the system that put them in power, they have nothing to fear.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 Next > End >>

Page 359 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