RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Democratic Task Force Agreements Will Push Our Country in a Progressive Direction Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44519"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page</span></a>   
Thursday, 09 July 2020 14:13

Sanders writes: "While Joe Biden and I, and our supporters, have strong disagreements about some of the most important issues facing our country, we also understand that we must come together in order to defeat Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history."

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders greet the audience before the June 27 Democratic debate in Miami. (photo: Brynn Anderson/AP)
Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders greet the audience before the June 27 Democratic debate in Miami. (photo: Brynn Anderson/AP)


The Democratic Task Force Agreements Will Push Our Country in a Progressive Direction

By Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page

09 July 20

 

hile Joe Biden and I, and our supporters, have strong disagreements about some of the most important issues facing our country, we also understand that we must come together in order to defeat Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history.

I want to thank all the members of the six task forces who worked hard and in good faith to create these compromise agreements. Though the end result is not what I or my supporters would have written alone, the task forces have created a good policy blueprint that will move this country in a much-needed progressive direction and improve the lives of working families throughout our country.

I look forward to working with Vice President Biden to help him win this campaign and to move this country forward toward economic, racial, social, and environmental justice.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I Played in the NFL. It Needs Way More Than a Black Anthem. Print
Written by   
Thursday, 09 July 2020 13:58

Stallworth writes: "In response to the Black Lives Matter protests, the N.F.L. has decided to play 'Lift Every Voice and Sing,' known as the Black national anthem, in Week 1 of its coming season. As a former N.F.L. player, my initial reaction was: Why?"

The National Football League did not support (from left) Eli Harold, Colin Kaepernick, Eric Reid and other players who kneeled during the playing of the national anthem in 2016 to protest racial injustice. (photo: Mario Jose Sanchez/AP)
The National Football League did not support (from left) Eli Harold, Colin Kaepernick, Eric Reid and other players who kneeled during the playing of the national anthem in 2016 to protest racial injustice. (photo: Mario Jose Sanchez/AP)


I Played in the NFL. It Needs Way More Than a Black Anthem.

By Donté Stallworth, The New York Times

09 July 20

 


If the league wants to show its commitment to its players, it should hire and promote more Black coaches and executives.

n response to the Black Lives Matter protests, the N.F.L. has decided to play “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” known as the Black national anthem, in Week 1 of its coming season.

As a former N.F.L. player, my initial reaction was: Why?

Is this a sign that the N.F.L. is serious now, that it truly wants to honor its commitment to promote racial equality in the league? Or is it just a symbolic gesture, one meant to placate its players, without any meaningful change?

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
UN Special Rapporteur: US Drone Strike Killing Iranian General Soleimani Was Unlawful Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51519"><span class="small">Juan Cole, Informed Comment</span></a>   
Thursday, 09 July 2020 08:26

Cole writes: "Agnes Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has concluded in a new report that the Trump administration's killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport on January 3 was unlawful. Callamard has the responsibility to report on killings by drone."

Iraqi women gather at the scene where Iran's Quds Force top commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed in a U.S. airstrike at Baghdad airport, Iraq, February 13, 2020. (photo: Reuters)
Iraqi women gather at the scene where Iran's Quds Force top commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed in a U.S. airstrike at Baghdad airport, Iraq, February 13, 2020. (photo: Reuters)


UN Special Rapporteur: US Drone Strike Killing Iranian General Soleimani Was Unlawful

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

09 July 20

 

gnes Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has concluded in a new report that the Trump administration’s killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport on January 3 was unlawful. Callamard has the responsibility to report on killings by drone.

Anna Germoni of the Italian TPI.it site interviewed Callamard about her findings.

Callamard noted that her own particular remit is arbitrary murders, and that Trump’s whacking of Soleimani was a first:

“The targeted killing of General Qasem Soleimani is the first case of a drone attack against the representative of the armed forces of a state. Until now, all drone kills that I am aware of have targeted non-state targets, particularly individuals associated with acts of terror.”

That is worth underlining. Trump did something that had never before been done, and which is very dangerous. He used a drone on a high-ranking general in a foreign army of a state– a state with which the United States is not formally at war.

Callamard admitted that there could be circumstances when such killings were justified, if it really was a matter of self defense:

“Killing in self-defense is allowed as a last resort, to protect one’s own life or that of others. The United States would have to demonstrate that it encountered an imminent threat to lives and that, in order to protect those lives, there was no other choice than to use lethal force. So far, no such justification has been demonstrated.”

President Trump initially announced that Soleimani had been coming to Iraq to kill Americans. But the then Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdulmahdi, said it was he who invited Soleimani to Baghdad, since he was trying to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Soleimani came on a commercial flight and checked through security with his diplomatic passport.

Trump never provided a shred of evidence for his allegation. When the Pentagon did up its own report on the incident, it did not include the charge that Soleimani had intended to kill Americans.

Germoni pressed Callamard on this issue, and she answered:

“As for the legality of the U.S. strike against General Soleimani, the information made available by the U.S. authorities does not, in my view, allow us to say that the murder was legal under international law . . . For a drone attack to be legal, it must meet the legal requirements of all applicable international legal regimes, namely: the law governing the use of force between states (ius ad bellum), international humanitarian law (ius in bello) and international human rights law (Ihrl). I believe that, in itself, the ius ad bellum is not sufficient to guide the use of extra-territorial force but that other legal principles apply.

This is an interesting point. Although the strike on Soleimani has tended to be viewed in the light of the law of war, which focuses on proportionality and questions of self-defense, Callamard is saying that human rights law is also relevant to the taking of life and should be entered into the calculation.

In particular, she says that the criterion of imminent threat is crucial. You can’t kill a convicted murderer who served his time, because of past deeds. That would be vigilanteism. Only if the murderer is trying to choke you out and you feel he is trying to kill you or someone else can you blow him away. Callamard says,

“The justifications put forward by the United States have largely focused on Soleimani’s past activities and the serious crimes for which he is held responsible. And there is much evidence linking Soleimani to serious human rights violations in Iran, Syria, Iraq and other countries. But under international law his past involvement in human rights violations or acts of terror is not enough to make his murder lawful . . . Do we have to accept that any country with adequate power and advanced tools to carry out drone or targeted kills can proceed at any time, at its discretion, to strike anyone considered a threat to their interests?”

Callamard concludes that not only was Soleimani’s killing unlawful, it set a very bad precedent. Trump was acting as judge, jury and executioner and arbitrarily killing someone he didn’t like the looks of. But what if that became standard practice? Wouldn’t US officers be in danger of being droned? This consideration had given previous presidents pause when they considered such a course of action. Not Trump.

Read more of the Germoni interview with Callamard in Italian here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Ghislaine Maxwell Is Being Prosecuted by the Public Corruption Unit Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46833"><span class="small">Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Wednesday, 08 July 2020 13:02

McQuade writes: "Normally, a case like this goes to the sex crimes unit. But Ghislaine Maxwell's case has been assigned to public corruption. Here's the likely, and fascinating, reason."

Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested on charges of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse minors.(photo: Matthew Polak/Getty)
Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested on charges of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse minors.(photo: Matthew Polak/Getty)


Why Ghislaine Maxwell Is Being Prosecuted by the Public Corruption Unit

By Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast

08 July 20


Normally, a case like this goes to the sex crimes unit. But Ghislaine Maxwell’s case has been assigned to public corruption. Here’s the likely, and fascinating, reason.

curious detail appears in the press release announcing the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell on charges of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse minors. 

On Thursday, Audrey Strauss, the newly appointed acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that Maxwell had been charged in a six-count indictment accusing her of enticing and transporting a minor to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity, conspiracy to commit those offenses and perjury in connection with a sworn deposition. 

The charges were not a surprise in light of comments by Strauss’s predecessor, Geoffrey S. Berman, last year after Epstein died of an apparent suicide in jail. Berman pledged to the victims of Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking crimes that “our investigation of the conduct charged in the Indictment—which included a conspiracy count—remains ongoing.”

The unusual part of Strauss’s announcement is that the case is assigned to the office’s Public Corruption Unit. The case against Epstein had also been assigned to this unit, which typically focuses on crimes committed by government officials, employees and contractors. Elie Honig, a former prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, told Law and Crime that sex trafficking cases are typically handled out of the office’s Violent and Organized Crime unit. 

So why would this case be assigned to the Public Corruption Unit? Prosecutors assigned to such a unit are trained and experienced in handling some of the nuanced issues that arise when government officials are targets of investigations. Charges often involve sophisticated bribery, extortion or fraud schemes in which the parties deliberately speak in coded language to maintain plausible deniability. 

The case law is replete with gray areas in which quid pro quo arrangements breaching public trust are spun as mere horse-trading politics. Public officials hire top lawyers, and, as natural risk-takers with much to lose, are less inclined to plead guilty than other defendants. As a result, public corruption prosecutors must have the skill set to not only investigate a complex case but also to take it to trial. 

Maxwell is not herself a public official, but maybe she is not the last to be indicted in this case. The assignment of her case to the Public Corruption Unit suggests that the investigation may touch on subjects who are current or former government officials. Facing a potentially lengthy prison sentence if she is convicted, Maxwell has a strong incentive to cooperate with prosecutors by providing substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of others in exchange for a recommendation of leniency. Against whom might she be able to testify?

Let’s start with the origins of the case in the Southern District of Florida. Last year Alex Acosta resigned as U.S. Labor Secretary over his involvement in the case when he served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2008. He negotiated a deal with Epstein that allowed him to plead guilty to a single count of soliciting prostitution and serve a 13-month state prison, most of it at his own office on work release. 

The agreement also included provisions not to charge some of Epstein’s employees or “any potential co-conspirators,” highly unusual language that releases from criminal exposure even defendants whose identities and conduct are unknown. When he negotiated the deal, Acosta ignored the normal practice of notifying the victims. Although no criminal allegations have been filed against Acosta, if the investigation were to include examination of his conduct, that could explain the involvement of the Public Corruption Unit. 

In addition, the reference to “potential co-conspirators” suggests that there may have been other people who assisted Epstein in recruiting, grooming or transporting underage girls to engage in criminal sexual activity. This description could also include anyone who engaged in sexual conduct with the underage girls. It is a crime to knowingly patronize a person under the age of 18 to engage in a commercial sex act. 

Because Acosta’s non-prosecution deal bound only the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of New York is free to charge any of Epstein’s co-conspirators. Again, the assignment of the case to the Public Corruption Unit raises a fair inference that these subjects could be current or former government officials. The charges against Maxwell allege that her crimes occurred in New York, Florida and London. Anyone who traveled with Epstein to these locations or who visited him there and engaged in commercial sex acts with girls they knew to be under 18 could be charged with a federal offense. 

Epstein was friends with many prominent people, including former President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump, who once said of Epstein, “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” While Clinton and Trump would both qualify as public officials, their friendships with Epstein alone are insufficient to merit investigation without articulable factual allegations of criminal conduct. 

Such an allegation has been made about Britain’s Prince Andrew, whom the Southern District of New York has sought to interview. One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, has accused Prince Andrew of having sex with her when she was 17. In June, Berman issued a statement that the British royal had not been cooperative with his prosecutors. 

Berman stated that Prince Andrew was seeking to “falsely portray himself to the public as eager and willing to cooperate with the investigation into Epstein, even though the Prince has not given an interview to federal authorities, has repeatedly declined our request to schedule such an interview. . . If Prince Andrew is, in fact, serious about cooperating with the ongoing federal investigation, our doors remain open, and we await word of when we should expect him.” Prince Andrew, whether as witness, subject or target, would certainly qualify as a public official such that assignment of the case to the Public Corruption Unit would make sense. 

In the coming months, we will see movement on the Maxwell case, as she either goes to trial, pleads guilty or otherwise resolves her case. We may also see additional charges against others who assisted Epstein or who patronized the girls he abused. The prosecutors seem to be preparing for the possibility of defendants whose names are known to the public. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Counterinsurgency Tactics in the Middle East Found Their Way to American Cities Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54986"><span class="small">Elyse Semerdjian, Jacobin</span></a>   
Wednesday, 08 July 2020 13:02

Excerpt: "Many of the repressive police tactics and technologies used in the US have been developed in the Middle East to suppress dissent. Ending police violence at home must involve ending America's wars abroad."

The Israeli Defence Forces in the Gaza Strip. (photo: Getty)
The Israeli Defence Forces in the Gaza Strip. (photo: Getty)


How Counterinsurgency Tactics in the Middle East Found Their Way to American Cities

By Elyse Semerdjian, Jacobin

08 July 20


Many of the repressive police tactics and technologies used in the US have been developed in the Middle East to suppress dissent. Ending police violence at home must involve ending America’s wars abroad.

knee to the neck. A rubber bullet to the eye. A tear gas canister to the head. America spends $100 billion annually on policing, much of it supported by the exchange of material and counterinsurgency tactics used in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the “war on terror.” Raining down on American protesters in the current wave of protests, rubber bullets have a history stretching back to the British policing of Republican protesters in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and the Israeli containment of Palestinians during the First Intifada in 1987. How have the military tactics and technologies used to suppress dissent in the Middle East found their way to America’s cities in the latest round of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests?

A Very Special Friendship

In May, protests erupted after the asphyxiation of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer — an extrajudicial execution for the alleged use of a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill at a convenience store. Mahmoud Abumayyaleh, the store owner who contacted the police about Floyd, is himself a Palestinian-American, but may not see the connection between his being Palestinian and the choke hold that took Floyd’s life.

In 2012, a hundred Minneapolis police officers received training from Israeli consultants in Chicago, while another counter-terrorism training session, cosponsored by the FBI, took place in Minneapolis. Israeli deputy consul Shahar Arieli  commented on the training at the time, “Every year we are bringing top-notch professionals from the Israeli police to share some knowledge and know-how about how to deal with terrorism with our American friends.”

He conceded concerns that “law enforcement operations could violate civil rights,” speaking about a productive collaboration developing “terrorism prevention techniques.” That same year, the Minneapolis Police Department adopted those techniques — frequently used against Palestinians and protesters in the West Bank — and entered them into their use-of-force guidelines. In the last five years, Minneapolis officers have rendered forty-five people unconscious, including George Floyd.

The United States has long been Israel’s primary supplier of military weapons — a “special relationship” forged when the United States transported 2.2 million dollars of military assistance during the 1973 War. Over the decades, a complicated web of aid, military contracts, subsidies, and cash funds have been given to Israel.

More recently, the United States has promised 38 billion dollars over the next decade in military aid to Israel, with President Trump openly acknowledging that arms deals create jobs in the United States. Though it is not called economic stimulus, 100 percent of US aid is flushed back into Israel’s economy, and Israeli arms, in turn, are coveted in the global market because they have been field tested within the laboratory of human suffering called the West Bank and Gaza.

As Jeff Halper argues after September 11, the United States adopted Israel’s “security state” model where constitutional, civil, and human rights are subordinated to security imperatives. With security as the nation’s highest value, Israeli knowledge in policing terrorism, surveillance, behavioral science, profiling, torture, and maiming was transferred to various offices in the United States, among them the Department of Homeland Security, US marshals, police chiefs, Customs and Border Protection agents, the FBI, and the CIA.

At the time of this exchange, Israel was fighting a second Palestinian uprising, the Al-Aqsa Intifada. With the prevalence of civilian suicide bombers, Israel’s counterinsurgency focused on unarmed Palestinian and foreign protesters, as well as journalists resisting the army’s occupation tactics.

During this Second Intifada, a new practice known as “human shields” became military policy, whereby soldiers held the bodies of Palestinians as human armor in an act that left no doubt whose life was disposable in the logic of the occupation. Although Israeli courts made the practice illegal in 2005, it continues to be used in the Occupied Territories.

Because of the live rounds fired during the Second Intifada, Israel offered safety to “embedded journalists,” who would become mouthpieces for the Israeli military. The United States would borrow this policy for journalists a few years later in Iraq, using military law and disorder to undermine the democratic pillar of the free press.

As foreign peace activists and Palestinian protesters were shot with live sniper rounds during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel developed a sophisticated public-relations campaign to counter its global image, part of which included partnerships with US law enforcement.

An extensive 2018 report titled “Deadly Exchange: The Dangerous Consequences of American Law Enforcement Trainings in Israel,” compiled by Researching the American-Israeli Alliance, documents how Israel’s policing tactics were transferred to US personnel. Over 250 police departments have received training inside Israel.

Moreover, Israeli Weapons Industries established two police training centers inside the United States: a police academy in Paulden, Arizona, and the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE) Center, in partnership with Georgia State University in Atlanta. The same university offers degrees to Israeli personnel as a part of these exchanges grounded in the integrated knowledge of counterinsurgency.

Atlanta, one of the great black American cities, created a video integration center modeled after one frequently showcased during a training session in the Old City of Jerusalem. Near Atlanta is GILEE’s predecessor, the School of the Americas, where ten former heads of state in Latin America honed their skills in torture and repression.

That Rayshard Brooks and George Floyd could be killed by police in the street means the rules of the occupation are at play on US soil. Procedurally, the knee to the neck and other choking restraints should only be used when an officer believes their life is in imminent danger.

A week ago, an officer in Bellevue, Washington, restrained an unidentified black woman who asked to speak with the sheriff. As he pushed her to the ground he said, “On the ground or I’ll put you out,” a threat to render her unconscious or possibly dead with his choke hold. What does it say when black people appealing for their legal and human rights are interpreted by the police as life threatening?

The “no knock” warrant that broke down Breonna Taylor’s door and enabled police to shoot her eight times is not only the police equivalent of a drive by shooting, it’s a paramilitary tactic. In 2016, when the Houston shooter was “neutralized” using a robot field-tested in Afghanistan, it marked the first “targeted assassination” of an American citizen. The United States condemned extrajudicial killings in the Occupied Territories before adopting it for use on suspected terrorists.

The hallmark of the “war on terror” was the presumption that any youthful, able-bodied male is a terrorist body. Fighting-age brown male bodies were “neutralized” by the person controlling the drone in Yemen and Afghanistan who, like the police knocking down Taylor’s door, serves as judge, jury, and executioner. In the “war on terror,” all military-aged men were not counted as civilian casualties.

The very presence of the living black body of the African American and the brown body of the Arab are a threat regardless of whether they are carrying a weapon or not, whether they are a criminal or not.

“Humane War” on Home Turf

The killing, maiming, and imprisonment of Palestinian bodies is today considered “worst practice” of the Israeli occupation. When these brutal tactics caused an international backlash during the First Intifada, Israel responded by “softening” its approach with the adoption of rubber bullets — much as the British Army was moved to adopt rubber bullets as an alternative after the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre caused so much bad publicity.

Today, there are more than seventy-five different types of “non-lethal” projectiles labeled rubber bullets. A beanbag round recently entered the skull of a sixteen-year-old protester in Austin causing the kind of injury that has maimed and killed Palestinian protesters for over three decades. While Austin has since banned beanbag rounds, the overall militarization of the American police has effectively Palestinianized dissent in the United States, bringing counterinsurgency tactics that both the United States and Israel have been using against Arabs onto home turf.

In a series of peaceful, unarmed border protests called “The Great March” in Gaza from 2018 to 2019, over 10,000 Palestinians were maimed by Israeli snipers with state-of-the-art scopes on their guns aimed for the knees. Weapons designed to inflict maximum damage without killing by using ammunition that mushrooms and expands within the body.

When we look only at death, we overlook lifelong disability caused by “less-lethal weapons.” This new frontier is called “humane war.” It’s goal is to kill less people while maiming for life. Jasbir Puar has documented how less lethal weapons produce disabled bodies that will be fed back into the capitalist medical industry to be rehabilitated for a profit.

In his prescient work, Rubber Bullets (1998), the late Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi argued that Israel’s choice to use the apparently nonlethal projectiles against Palestinians was a moral turning point that threatened liberal democracy by compromising its principles for the sake of extreme nationalism. Rubber bullets and knees on necks have similarly brought America to the precipice. How do we fight back against the normalization of militarized police violence in our cities and the threat it poses to democracy?

Ending America’s “forever wars” is a start. Activists must demand a ban on surplus materials and tactics training acquired by the police from Israel and US counterinsurgency abroad. The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions national committee issued a powerful statement of solidarity calling for support for BLM.

Such solidarity is built on an understanding that what is happening inside the United States, though not identical, is intimately connected to technologies of colonization and brutal policing overseas, in places like Palestine. Addressing the crisis at home, means looking toward the United States’s influence — and inspiration — abroad.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 Next > End >>

Page 428 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