RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Militarization Is on the Rise in Latin America, Posing a Major Threat to Democracy and Justice Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48792"><span class="small">Brett J. Kyle and Andrew G. Reiter, NACLA</span></a>   
Friday, 03 May 2019 13:23

Excerpt: "Rushing to empower militaries today breaks down hard-won safeguards against repeating the abuses of the past."

Argentine military personnel. (photo: Getty)
Argentine military personnel. (photo: Getty)


Militarization Is on the Rise in Latin America, Posing a Major Threat to Democracy and Justice

By Brett J. Kyle and Andrew G. Reiter, NACLA News

03 May 19


Across the region, militarization is on the rise, posing a major threat to democracy and justice. What can be done?

n July 26, 2018, thousands of protesters, led by the Abuelas del Plaza de Mayo, marched in Argentina to oppose President Mauricio Macri’s plans to empower the military to engage in domestic policing. In a country where a military regime killed thousands of civilians between 1976 to 1983, the prospect of the military on the streets again has opened old wounds and incited a heated debate. Macri defended the change, which was implemented by two executive decrees, as being necessary to enable Argentina to face the security challenges of the 21st century, including drug trafficking and terrorism.

The move is not a surprise. Diminished in size, underpaid, and without a clear role in society, the Argentine military has grown increasingly disgruntled in recent years. Macri campaigned on a promise to improve conditions for the armed forces, and has already implemented a 20 percent salary increase in an effort to close the gap in pay between the military, the police, and gendarmerie, while the military has welcomed the proposed expansion of its role. Traditionally the military is responsible for fighting wars and responding to external threats, the police for policing civilian populations, and the gendarmerie for border enforcement. These distinctions, however, are growing increasingly blurred.

The developments in Argentina are just part of the frightening trend of expanding military power across Latin America. Persistent security challenges, such as gang violence and drug trafficking, are so extensive and so transnational in nature that police forces are having trouble coping. Mounting public pressure for results in combating these problems has led elected civilian governments to turn to their militaries, despite the dangers of empowering the armed forces with internally-focused duties.

The shadow of the military dictatorships across Latin America in the 20th century should inform today’s political leaders. Especially during the Cold War, militaries routinely acted as the ultimate decision-makers in national politics who overthrew governments, suppressed political activity, and committed widespread human rights abuses. These regimes relied on violent repression to maintain power, including coordinating their use of state terror through Operation Condor, the multinational secret alliance among military dictatorships in South America.

Rushing to empower militaries today breaks down hard-won safeguards against repeating the abuses of the past. This has opened a Pandora’s box, and quietly but steadily the military has grown larger and more sophisticated, broadened its mission, and gained significant political influence. Today, the military enjoys a position of power in the region not seen since the Cold War, with dangerous implications for human rights and democracy.     

Growth and Domestic Policing

When new democratic governments came to power in the wake of the Cold War, few approved of the military, and their political influence was significantly lessened. Responding to the recent atrocities committed by the military, the new governments reduced the militaries radically in size, slashed their budgets, and subjected them to increased civilian oversight. Facing few external threats and with internal security now handled by civilian police, most militaries became a shell of their former selves. In addition, civilian governments revoked many of the amnesties for military officers passed by civilian governments as part of democratic transitions, opening the possibility of trying and imprisoning members of the military for past human rights abuses.    

In the last two decades, however, successes in reining in military power have been reversed. Latin America’s militaries have steadily grown to levels not seen since the 1980s. The militaries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have grown by more than 20 percent since their post-Cold War lows. The Brazilian, Bolivian, Mexican, and Venezuelan militaries have at least doubled in size. Colombia’s military has quadrupled, from 175,000 troops in 1990 to 336,000 today. The rest of the region’s militaries have grown in size by an average of 35 percent. At the same time, they have acquired more sophisticated weaponry and become increasingly specialized, with most countries maintaining an array of special forces units trained by the United States. 

A widespread increase in crime, gang violence, and drug trafficking has in part driven this growth. In an attempt to stem the flow of illegal arms and drugs, countries have heavily militarized their borders and regularly conduct joint military operations with neighboring countries. Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay work together to police the tri-border region [explored in more detail throughout this issue.] Peru and Bolivia closely cooperate to combat narcotrafficking. In March, a newly-formed dissident faction of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebel group kidnapped and later killed three Ecuadorian journalists, prompting the Ecuadorian government to send 10,000 troops to the border.

While labeled as border operations, these practices often begin well before one reaches the border, effectively providing militaries with policing powers over large swaths of their countries and bringing them into regular contact with civilians. In January, for example, Brazil activated the new 22nd Jungle Infantry Brigade to protect its northern border with Guyana, French Guiana, and Suriname. But the force also has jurisdiction over the entire states of Maranhão, Amapá, and large parts of Pará near the coast. In many other countries, including the United States, military border patrols also extend far into the interior.

Targeting areas of drug cultivation also grants the military control over large rural areas. Following the recent peace agreement with the FARC, ending a half-century of civil war, Colombia’s military is being retooled and redeployed to intensify its fight against drug traffickers, including the Gulf Clan cartel, which has grown significantly in strength. In January 2018, the government deployed the 9,000-troop Hercules task force, the largest military unit activated in two decades, to the department of Nariño, where the majority of the country’s coca is grown.

Similarly, for Peru, persistent problems such as narcotrafficking and combating remnants of the Shining Path insurgency have renewed the military’s internal security mission. The military’s primary duty is external security, but it still has a domestic role, especially in the Valley of the Apurimac, Ene, and Montero Rivers (VRAEM) emergency zone, where the military, not the civilian Peruvian National Police (PNP) are responsible for security.

Military presence in urban environments in Latin America is also expanding. As regular police forces find themselves increasingly outgunned by well-organized gangs and drug syndicates, the military has displaced the police in internal security. The mandate of the military, however, is to fight enemies of the state through applying violence, not to protect and serve civilian populations, a mandate of policing. For example, military personnel played a lead role in Brazil’s “pacification” policy in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro in 2008, and military presence expanded further when the country hosted the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games. The establishment of a Ministry for Public Security in February 2018, led by an army general, has further institutionalized the military’s mission in day-to-day policing. Also in February 2018, the government authorized a federal intervention in Rio de Jainero, and over 4,000 members of the military now operate in the city.

Jair Bolsonaro, the controversial new president, boasts rhetoric that typically extols the use of unrestrained force in the fight against street crime In his first week of office alone, Bolsonaro appointed six active or former members of the military to his cabinet, giving the institution more political influence than it has had since it governed the country in the 1980s. In January, he deployed troops to Fortaleza and ten other cities across the state of Caera in response to a rise in gang violence.

Meanwhile, in Mexico, then-President Felipe Calderón first deployed the military to fight drug gangs in 2006, and it now operates in 27 of Mexico’s 32 states. The 2017 Law on Internal Security strengthened the military’s role in policing, going so far as to “subordinate civilian law enforcement operations to military authority in some instances.” Under this law, the military was granted new powers, including the ability to conduct its own investigations. It also classified information on military operations, thereby restricting civilian oversight. In November 2018, the Supreme Court ruled this law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it was too ambiguous in defining the appropriate use of force. Mexico’s internal security questions will continue dominating the political debate as the new president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), finds his footing in office. The Supreme Court ruling came just hours after he announced his own security plan, which looked very similar to that of the outgoing administration, with army and navy personnel deployed in policing duties across the country.

Using the military for domestic policing carries significant risks. As highly lethal and insular forces, militaries are more likely to use deadly force and operate with little oversight. Nowhere is this more visible than in the Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, which have some of the highest crime and murder rates in the world. The region’s largest gangs—the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Barrio 18—are estimated to have as many as 85,000 members combined. In response, countries have militarized the problem. In 2016, El Salvador created a new military task force, equipped with helicopters and assault weapons, to fight criminal gangs. In 2018, an investigation revealed that senior members of the Salvadoran military were operating a secret death squad to execute suspected gang members, raising the ghosts of military abuses during the country’s civil war.

Public Pressure and Civilian Empowerment

In contrast to much of the military behavior of the 20th century that Latin American countries have sought to put behind them, in this new era of remilitarization it is often democratically-elected leaders themselves who are looking to the military for solutions to intractable national problems, often at the behest of the civilian population itself.

As countries democratized in the 1980s, citizens had high expectations that quality of life would improve under democracy, but many elected governments performed poorly in the ensuing years. Neoliberal economic policies have led to increased inequality and poverty, while corruption is rampant and many citizens fear for their safety. The majority of respondents across the region feel that their country is “governed for the benefit of the powerful” and disapprove of how the government of the day is running their countries, according to a 2017 survey by the polling organization Latinobarómetro. Asked to identify the most important problem facing their country, crime tops the list for almost every country, with unemployment and corruption typically close behind. In El Salvador, over half of respondents said they are concerned about being a victim of a violent crime all or almost all of the time. In Brazil, that figure is 68%.

Civilian politicians must respond to public demand if they are to stay in office, and failures in performance imperil democracy itself. In an environment of high crime rates, gang violence, and poor public security, citizens may be ready to defect from democracy entirely. Latinobarómetro consistently finds that sizable numbers of respondents feel ambivalent about democracy. In 2016, 23% believed regime type did not matter and a further 15% felt that “under certain circumstances, authoritarian government can be preferable to a democratic one.”

In countries facing the most intense problems with violent crime, dissatisfaction with democracy is even more severe. In Brazil and Northern Triangle countries, nearly 60% say they “wouldn’t mind a non-democratic government in power if it could resolve problems.” These data alone suggest how a figure like Bolsonaro was able to connect with sizable numbers of Brazilian voters in the 2018 presidential campaign through authoritarian-style appeals and promises to meet national challenges with violence.

The military, in contrast, enjoys much higher rates of confidence. Despite the dark histories of military rule, the military is often the most-trusted national institution in Latin American countries. For example, 55% of Brazilians express “a lot” or “some” confidence in the military according to Latinobarómetro; in Mexico that number is nearly 60%. In Guatemala, the gap in public confidence is most striking. Support for the military (44%) is nearly double that of the civilian police (24%). Latinobarómetro reveals that citizens perceive civilian police and judiciaries to be corrupt and ineffective. The public is thus increasingly demanding that the government look to the military to solve major social problems.

No case better illustrates this pattern than Uruguay. The government reported a 66% increase in homicides in the first half of 2018 from the same period the previous year, with blame attributed to an increasingly active network of criminal groups. The government plans to expand the budget for security operations, and in May it authorized the military to engage in domestic policing operations on the border. So far, President Tabaré Vázquez has resisted efforts to expand the jurisdiction of the military any further. In May, he denied a request by the mayor of Lavalleja to deploy the military, proclaiming that “Uruguay is not in a situation of war.”

Yet public pressure is mounting. In a recent poll, three out of four Uruguayans support allowing the military to work with the police to combat crime. Nationalist senator Jorge Larrañaga’s “Live Without Fear” campaign gathered over 375,000 signatures to force a plebiscite on a series of anti-crime measures, including one that would create a new National Guard composed of military personnel that would work in conjunction with police in an internal security role.

Click here to continue reading this article, available open access for a limited time. 

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Trump Puts Ilhan Omar at Risk, Democrats Do Lunch Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 03 May 2019 11:45

Boardman writes: "Protecting Ilhan Omar should be a reflexive no brainer."

Rep. Ilhan Omar. (photo: Patrick Robertson/Getty)
Rep. Ilhan Omar. (photo: Patrick Robertson/Getty)


Trump Puts Ilhan Omar at Risk, Democrats Do Lunch

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

03 May 19

… we’re the party of love, we’re the party of compassion, we’re the party of inclusiveness. What we are fighting for is not for the few, but for the many. Every single one, just this week, when we’ve had the attack in California on a synagogue, it’s the same person who’s accused of attempting to bomb a mosque. So I can’t ever speak of Islamophobia and fight for Muslims, if I am not willing to fight against anti-Semitism. We collectively must make sure that we are dismantling all systems of oppression.

– Rep. Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Democrat, April 30, 2019

f the 435 members of Congress elected in 2018, Ilhan Omar won her race with more votes than 428 of her colleagues of both parties won theirs. She is a black woman born in Somalia, an immigrant, a Muslim, intelligent and outspoken. From her first moment in Congress, right-wing bigots have targeted her with whatever smear seemed useful. The most effective has been the bogus claim that she’s anti-Semitic, rooted in imaginary evidence. Democrats failed to understand the fraud and still haven’t rallied around a party member whose life has been endangered by the occupant of the White House. Media reports routinely include comments referring to the accusations of anti-Semitism as if they were real, giving continuing credence to political lies. All in all, it is a massive cluster-fiasco of incompetence and bad faith from a huge portion of the supposed “leadership” class in the US.

On April 30, Black Lives Matter organized a rally on Capitol Hill calling for “Hands Off Ilhan Omar.” More than a hundred African American women leaders in and out of Congress gathered in Omar’s support, issuing a call to Congress to censure President Trump for endangering the life of a sitting member of Congress. There is no doubt that a Trump tweet on April 12 constituted reckless endangerment with an incendiary but false incitement against Ilhan Omar. The tweet sparked a sharp increase in death threats against the congresswoman by tying her to the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11, with no basis in fact.

WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

Tweet from Pres. Trump, 6:35 p.m., April 12, 2019, accompanying a 43-second fraudulent attack video dishonestly suggesting that Rep. Ilhan Omar was somehow accountable for the attacks of 9/11, a fascistic meme of Islamophobic demagoguery of the first order.

The 43-second video is a polished production, with the same manipulative slickness as the Nazi propaganda films of Leni Riefenstahl. This was more than just another apparently casual tweet from the White House. This tweet required production and planning. It was apparently inspired by an April 9 tweet from Rep. Dan Crenshaw,  Texas Republican, who once called for toning down political rhetoric. Crenshaw supports Trump’s border wall, denies climate change, opposes any ban on assault weapons, and voted against the election reform act of 2019. His tweet about Rep. Omar used an out-of-context quote to create a political lie based on a racist trope:

Omar’s choice of words is similar to President Bush’s language in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and both require context to determine meaning. Crenshaw’s policing of right-wing political correctness had its own problems, since he forwarded, without qualification, a tweet that called CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, “a terrorist organization” – another lie.

Piling on in the endless demonization of Ilhan Omar, GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called on Democrats to enforce dishonest Republican perceptions. Well, Democrats had done it before, right?

The next day, Omar responded to Crenshaw:

Two days later, the president raised the ante with his unconscionable 9/11 Big Lie. For the Democrats, whether they liked it or not, this was a moment of truth.

Establishment Democrats have failed dismally to react responsibly to the dishonest attacks on Ilhan Omar, mustering neither courage nor coherence in the face the latest form of McCarthyite bullying over the past four months. The president’s over-the-top tweet using 9/11 as a bludgeon gave Democrats another chance to behave honorably. Some of the presidential candidates did, but the first response appears to have come from New York Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. [The Twitter date stamps are mysterious. There are two sets, an hour apart. I have followed the same sequence for all the tweets, so while the exact time may be wrong, the interval seems correct.]

The first Democratic presidential candidate to respond was Bernie Sanders, with prompt and unambiguous support:

A few minutes later, Elizabeth Warren issued an even stronger condemnation, with a direct rebuke to the president and a direct challenge to her fellow elected officials:

As the evening wore on, Gov. Jay Inslee tweeted that Trump was jeopardizing Omar and all Muslims. Former congressman Beto O’Rourke tweeted that Trump’s action was “incitement to violence” without mentioning Omar. Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s tweet accused Trump of using 9/11 “to incite his base against a member of Congress, as if for sport,” without mentioning Omar. Senator Amy Klobuchar’s tweet tried to have it both ways, referring to an arrest for a threat on Omar’s life but noting that she had disagreed with Omar before. And that was reportedly all the significant Democratic response to a president deliberately putting a congresswoman in the cross-hairs. The next day’s responses were generally weaker or absent. There was no word of note from Speaker Nancy Pelosi or the rest of the House “leadership.”

Since April 13, there has been no effort to censure the president for reckless endangerment of a Congress member’s life. The president committed this crime in plain sight and House Democrats do nothing. By doing nothing, House Democrats signal that as far as they’re concerned, Ilhan Omar is fair game. Most of the presidential candidates are no better. This is shameful. My guess is that most Trump supporters look at Democrats with greater scorn than ever for their unwillingness to defend one of their own. As far as Ilhan Omar is concerned, most Democrats have acted and continue to act without principle, without courage, without integrity. This doesn’t seem like a really great way to win an election in 2020. Standing up to bigots should be one of the easier things to do politically. If Democrats can’t do that, what can they do?

It looks like the Democratic establishment has been doing things the Washington way for so long they can’t see themselves clearly in the mirror anymore. No matter who Ilhan Omar truly is, no one has a right to lynch her, and those who stand by and watch the lynching happen are just despicable. Here’s the way Ilhan Omar described herself to her supporters on April 30:

Here’s the thing that really offends a lot of people and the reason that we are here. I was born—I was born as a very liberated human being, to a country that was colonized, that recognized that they can colonize the land but they can’t colonize your mind, to people who recognized that all of us deserve dignity and that no human being was ever, ever going to tell you that you are less than them. Thirteen people organized for our independence in Somalia. So I was born in that breath of recognizing that they might be more powerful than you are, that they might have more technology than you have, they might think that they are wiser than you, they might control all of the institutions, but you control your mind, and that is what sets you free.

… the thing that upsets the occupant of the White House, his goons in the Republican Party, many of our colleagues in the Democratic Party, is that—is that they can’t stand—they cannot stand that a refugee, a black woman, an immigrant, a Muslim, shows up in Congress thinking she’s equal to them. But I say to them, “How else did you expect me to show up?”

… So, I know my place in this society. All of you know your place in this society. And it’s one that is equal to every single person that walks in it.

Protecting Ilhan Omar should be a reflexive no brainer. Protecting Ilhan Omar is so obviously the right thing to do, it should come easily to anyone of conscience. This is not rocket science. This is not morally ambiguous. To protect Ilhan Omar is to protect us all. The Democratic Party doesn’t seem to have a clue that it is in the midst of an existential litmus test. Does the Democratic Party actually stand for anything anymore? There’s still time to figure it out, if they start soon. A good starting place would be to stop going for the bait of trolling Republican bigots. Is it some perverse political calculation that brings on timidity, silence, cowardice, a betrayal of the best American values to appease the values of the worst Americans? If the Democratic Party lacks the strength to defend and protect Ilhan Omar just because she’s human, then all the talk of American values and freedoms and principles and “the soul of the nation” is just more political garbage.

Email This Page


William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

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

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Medicare For All's Moment Is Here. Don't Back Down. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50709"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, BuzzFeed</span></a>   
Friday, 03 May 2019 10:52

Sanders writes: "A decade ago, when I introduced legislation guaranteeing medical care to every American, the proposal was cast as a 'radical' and 'unrealistic' measure, and I could not convince a single senator to cosponsor the bill. Ten years later, our Medicare for All bill has widespread support in the House and Senate."

Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Mark Wilson/Getty)
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Mark Wilson/Getty)


Medicare For All's Moment Is Here. Don't Back Down.

By Bernie Sanders, BuzzFeed

03 May 19


Those who make billions from our broken health care system will spend enormous amounts trying to divide us. But we cannot rest, and we cannot back down.

decade ago, when I introduced legislation guaranteeing medical care to every American, the proposal was cast as a "radical" and "unrealistic" measure, and I could not convince a single senator to cosponsor the bill.

Ten years later, our Medicare for All bill has widespread support in the House and Senate, and polls show Medicare for All is supported by a majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans.

As the House this week held historic hearings about Medicare for All, we must remember that this transformation did not happen by accident. It happened because Americans from all walks of life understand that we have a dysfunctional health care system designed to make huge profits for the drug companies and the insurance companies, while tens of millions remain uninsured or underinsured and we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

And these Americans are now fighting back. They are not only resisting Trump's efforts to throw 32 million people off the health care they have; they are demanding that health care in the United States be considered a right, not a privilege.

Now, because of these grassroots efforts, we are on the verge of a historic victory — and that reality is prompting a backlash from the powerful special interests that continue to reap hundreds of billions of dollars from the status quo.

But our message must be clear: We must remember the lessons of history and refuse to back down.

This is not going to be an easy fight. To try to stop our movement’s momentum for Medicare for All, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have recently formed a front group called the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future. In reality, this is a partnership to protect health industry profits. Through deceptive ads, the group’s goal is to try to persuade legislators to oppose Medicare for All, or divide and confuse us with weaker proposals.

This group’s members aren’t patients or consumers or people impacted by our current health care system — they are insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying group. These groups spent $143 million on lobbying in 2018 to try to preserve a system that is a disaster for millions of Americans, but that is making big money for CEOs. In 2017 alone, while Americans were getting crushed by higher premiums and prescription drug prices, the top 65 health care CEOs made $1.7 billion in compensation, and the 25 highest-paid CEOs in the pharmaceutical industry made roughly $440 million.

So it should be no surprise that these companies and their political groups will spend enormous sums of money to try to stop us.

But let us be absolutely clear: These frantic attempts to derail our progress are a sign that we are winning — and that means we cannot rest, we cannot back down, and we cannot accept any substitute.

We must stand firm in unequivocally declaring that through a Medicare for All system, we are going to make health care a human right for all people in this country. Our bill expands Medicare to cover all people and to cover long-term care. It will reduce overall health care spending and finally end the situation whereby Americans are forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying for medicine.

And here is some good news to remember as we begin the 2020 presidential election campaign: If we keep pushing, history suggests that we will be victorious.

Recall that in the mid–20th century, President Harry Truman first proposed guaranteeing health care to seniors. This idea was billed as radical, “un-American,” and an attack on basic freedom that would be a political loser. And because of that withering assault, the idea stalled in Congress for years — until voters made their voices heard.

In 1960, America elected John F. Kennedy after he campaigned in support of Truman’s idea. That election prompted a health care bill to finally begin being debated in Congress, and Kennedy at the time noted that “what we are now talking about doing, most of the countries of Europe did years ago.”

Of course, the legislation was initially blocked by Republicans and conservative Democrats, who argued that if the proposal passed, it would be nothing short of the end of the republic. Americans, though, were not deterred — they fought back with a 1964 election landslide that was so enormous, the new Congress was all but forced to immediately pass what is now known as Medicare.

“It took a big election, with voters changing the balance of power on Capitol Hill,” as Princeton historian Julian Zelizer wrote.

More than a half-century after that achievement, we are now at a similar moment in American history.

This is a moment that requires us to say louder and more clearly than ever that health care is a human right, not a privilege.

This is a moment to point out that Medicare is the country’s most popular and cost-effective health care program — and that by expanding it to cover everyone, we will save Americans money.

This is a moment to say that we cannot accept any more Americans dying or going bankrupt for lack of medical care.

This is a moment to proudly declare that Medicare for All’s time has come.

In short, this is a moment to stand up, not stand down. If we do that, we will win.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50707"><span class="small">Neal Katyal, The New York Times</span></a>   
Friday, 03 May 2019 08:17

Katyal writes: "We have a system in place for our government to uncover evidence against a sitting president. And it’s working."

Attorney General William Barr testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. (photo: Erin Schaff/The New York Times)
Attorney General William Barr testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. (photo: Erin Schaff/The New York Times)


Why Barr Can’t Whitewash the Mueller Report

By Neal Katyal, The New York Times

03 May 19


We have a system in place for our government to uncover evidence against a sitting president. And it’s working.

any who watched Attorney General William Barr’s testimony on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which followed the revelation that the special counsel Robert Mueller had expressed misgivings about Mr. Barr’s characterization of his report, are despairing about the rule of law. I am not among them. I think the system is working, and inching, however slowly, toward justice.

When it comes to investigating a president, the special counsel regulations I had the privilege of drafting in 1998-99 say that such inquiries have one ultimate destination: Congress. That is where this process is going, and has to go. We are in the fifth inning, and we should celebrate a system in which our own government can uncover so much evidence against a sitting president.

Some commentators have attacked the special counsel regulations as giving the attorney general the power to close a case against the president, as Mr. Barr did with the obstruction of justice investigation into Donald Trump. But the critics’ complaint here is not with the regulations but with the Constitution itself. Article II gives the executive branch control over prosecutions, so there isn’t an easy way to remove the attorney general from the process.

READ MORE

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Thursday, 02 May 2019 13:27

Levin writes: "Imagine: you're the Attorney General of the United States and have a big decision to make, in this case whether or not to charge the president with obstructing justice."

Sen. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. (photo: Alex Wong/Vanity Fair)
Sen. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. (photo: Alex Wong/Vanity Fair)


Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

02 May 19


It took just eight minutes for Harris to destroy the attorney general’s “no obstruction” story.

magine: you’re the Attorney General of the United States and have a big decision to make, in this case whether or not to charge the president with obstructing justice. The special counsel has written an exhaustive report citing numerous situations that sure sound like obstruction attempts—asking the White House counsel to lie to investigators, for instance—and it appears the only reason they weren’t successful is because staffers refused to do the Big Guy’s bidding, apparently unaware of how the mafia is supposed to operate. No, you’ve decided, you’re not going to charge the POTUS with a crime—a conclusion that, deep down inside, you know you made months prior. Instead, you’re going to tell the American public that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Should be an open-and-shut case but, on the off chance anyone asks, it would probably be a good idea to actually read the underlying evidence you claimed wasn’t robust enough to charge the president, right? Actually, in the case of one William Barr, the answer is somehow wrong-o!

Noting that the special counsel’s report contained “a great deal of evidence,” including witnesses’ notes and memos, congressional testimony, interviews, and former F.B.I. director James Comey’s memos, Senator Kamala Harris asked Barr during his congressional hearing on Wednesday, “In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Again, one would have expected the answer to be Of course, I did! What kind of cockamamie question is that? but, somehow, it wasn’t! “No,” Barr told the former prosecutor. “We accepted the statements in the report as factual record, we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.” What about departed Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, Harris wondered. How ‘bout that guy? Did he “review the underlying evidence . . . that supports the conclusions in the report?” Again, the answer was no.

“Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report,” Harris asked, as Cory Booker struggled to conceal his smile watching the senator from California nail Barr to the wall. “No,” Barr answered. “Yet you represented to the America public that the evidence was not ‘sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense?’” Harris pressed.

Backed into a corner, Barr attempted to A.G.-splain to Harris—who, incidentally, served as the Attorney General of California for six years—how all this works and why it’s completely absurd to expect him to have looked at all the evidence before deciding there wasn’t enough of it to charge Donald Trump. “This is not a mysterious process,” Barr said. “In the Department of Justice we have [prosecution] memos every day coming and we don’t go and look at the underlying evidence.” To which Harris responded, effectively, you’re fucking kidding me, right?

“As the Attorney General, you run the U.S. Department of Justice. If in any U.S. attorneys office around the country the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision, about in this case the person who holds the highest office in the land, and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence?” To which Barr essentially responded, that’s above my pay grade.

“That’s a question for Bob Mueller,” he said. “He’s the U.S. attorney, he’s the one who presents the report.”

“But you made the charging decision, sir.”

“What, uh—”

“You made the decision not to charge the president.”

“In a [prosecution] memo—”

“You said it was your ‘baby,’ what did you mean by that?”

“It was my baby to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public.”

“And who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice.”

At this point, Barr tried his hardest to say “mine” without actually saying “mine.”

“Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor, in this case the A.G.”—note, this is Barr—“and the deputy A.G. who decide on the final decision and that is based on the memo as represented by the U.S. attorney’s office.”

“I think you’ve made it clear that you have not looked at the evidence and we can move on.”

Elsewhere during Harris’s time, she got Barr to effectively admit that Trump has asked him to investigate his enemies, in a delightful exchange in which half of the Attorney General’s responses were stutters, umms, and uhhs.

Harris: Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested you open an investigation into anyone?

Barr: Um, I wouldn’t, uh—

Harris: Yes or no?

Barr: Could you repeat that question?

Harris: Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested you open an investigation into anyone? Yes or no please, sir.

Barr: Uh, the president or anyone else—

Harris: It seems you’d remember something like that and be able to tell us.

Barr: I’m trying to grapple with the word “suggest”. . . there have been discussions of matters out there that . . . they have not asked me to open an investigation but . . .

Harris: Perhaps they’ve suggested?

Barr: I wouldn’t say suggested—

Harris: Hinted?

Barr: I don’t know.

Harris: Inferred?

Barr: I . . . don’t know.
Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 Next > End >>

Page 901 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