RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Policies That Harm Black Bodies Deserve the Same Outrage as Blackface Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50084"><span class="small">Shanita Hubbard, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 February 2019 14:56

Hubbard writes: "Racism and bigotry are woven into the fabric of this nation. Dismissing this notion, or pretending that progress made with social inequality negates the point, is intellectually dishonest at best. Without question, racism is fully present in America."

Ralph Northam's medical school yearbook page. (photo: AP)
Ralph Northam's medical school yearbook page. (photo: AP)


Policies That Harm Black Bodies Deserve the Same Outrage as Blackface

By Shanita Hubbard, Guardian UK

03 February 19


Governor Ralph Northam faces calls to resign over a yearbook photo. That’s good, but voter suppression and other racist policies deserve equal outrage

acism and bigotry are woven into the fabric of this nation. Dismissing this notion, or pretending that progress made with social inequality negates the point, is intellectually dishonest at best. Without question, racism is fully present in America.

Yet it appears the impetus to publicly demand accountability for racism is largely commenced by blatant examples, rather than practices and policies that directly harm people of color. The recent conversations around Virginia governor Ralph Northam fully illustrate this point.

A photo from a 1984 yearbook shows a man in blackface standing next to a person dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan. It was made public on Friday. In response, the governor seemingly declared that he was in the photo, though he did not say which man was him. The following day, he said he was not in the photo, but mentioned that he once wore a dark shoe polish on his face as part of a Michael Jackson costume.

Unsurprisingly, the backlash was swift, with Republicans and Democrats calling for his resignation. And with good cause. The blackface picture is not only transparently racist, it is another painful reminder of how normalized this behavior is. In 1984, this picture was included in a yearbook. Northam says he had never seen the yearbook before Friday. If he had, he presumably would never have imagined it would have political ramifications.

This absolutely warrants the public outcry it is receiving, and demanding our leaders be held accountable for their actions is the mark of a healthy democracy. But if the litmus test for accountability is transparent racism, then this same vigor must be applied to policies and practices and the politicians who impose them.

Bipartisan outrage and immediate public acknowledgment of racism must extend beyond images of blackface. The same citizens and politicians who boldly acknowledge that Northam should be held accountable should join the group of people who are ignored when publicly addressing other aspects of our political landscape that are racist and detrimental.

Voter suppression not only meets this same standard, it threatens democracy itself. Yet it has reportedly occurred several times within recent elections, to less outrage from politicians and even some private citizens.

An investigation conducted by the Associated Press indicated that since 2012, in his position as Georgia secretary of state, Brian Kemp cancelled more than 1 million voter registrations. Kemp, the Republican opponent of Democrat Stacey Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial election, also froze 53,000 registrations. A huge portion of those belonged to African American voters; many were unaware their registration was on hold.

In 2017, the AP said, Kemp cancelled 670,000 registrations. Asked about this, he called it “voter roll maintenance”. Given that many of those impacted by this “maintenance” were African Americans, this act can be viewed more as a form of voter suppression. After a tumultuous and historic election, Kemp became governor by a slim margin.

In Republican states, voter suppression also appears to be done preemptively, when the population of communities of color begins to rise. According to census estimates, Texas has experienced a large growth in the Hispanic population. In 2010, the state had 9.7 million Hispanics. In 2017 it was 11.2 million, while the population of white Texans had only increased by approximately half a million people to 11.9 million. It is projected that by 2022, Texas will be majority Hispanic.

Perhaps this is a factor in the state’s recent announcement that it will cut 95,000 people from the voter rolls because “they don’t seem to be citizens”. The League of United Latin American Citizens has filed suit against Texas secretary of state David Whitley, claiming a violation of the Voting Rights Act and an attempt to deter Latinos from voting.

From Texas to Georgia, claims of voter suppression are not uncommon. Voter suppression impacts the ability of marginalized communities to fully participate in the democratic process upon which this nation prides itself. It silences voices and systemically targets people of color in an attempt to strip them of power. It makes them more susceptible to living with the ramifications of policy decisions that could disproportionately harm them. It is by all accounts racist and harmful.

Yet the public outcry and demand to hold those responsible accountable are not nearly as loud as the outrage about politicians apparently in blackface. Holding Governor Northam accountable and demanding his resignation is more than fair. In fact, a zero tolerance policy around racism should be the standard. I just hope this becomes more of a practice with politicians who were smart enough to avoid evidence of blackface, but still impose policies that harm black and brown bodies.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'Be a Man': What Does That Mean in Modern America? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40147"><span class="small">Harry Bruinius, The Christian Science Monitor</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 February 2019 14:53

Bruinius writes: "Almost a decade ago, when Timothy Malefyt was doing research on the nitty-gritties of masculinity for his client Gillette, he and his small team of corporate anthropologists observed what they considered to be a 'paradoxical' set of masculine values among NASCAR fans."

Gillette Super Bowl ad. (photo: Gillette)
Gillette Super Bowl ad. (photo: Gillette)


'Be a Man': What Does That Mean in Modern America?

By Harry Bruinius, The Christian Science Monitor

03 February 19


Beyond angst over ads and concern that America is afraid to let boys be boys, there are areas of agreement: Neither men nor women should be boxed into stereotypes. Both should be able to be themselves.

lmost a decade ago, when Timothy Malefyt was doing research on the nitty-gritties of masculinity for his client Gillette, he and his small team of corporate anthropologists observed what they considered to be a “paradoxical” set of masculine values among NASCAR fans.

On the one hand, there was a lot of drinking, bawdy jokes, and loud behavior among the men they observed at the Texas Motor Speedway in Ft. Worth, says Mr. Malefyt, the former director of cultural discoveries for the advertising firm BBDO Worldwide in New York. And the raucous groups of men were also relentlessly competitive about nearly everything: who had the best food, the best barbecue grill, or the most tricked out motor home.

His research took place in 2010, and at first blush their observations might seem to fit the same kinds of masculine behaviors that many believe might start out as merely busting chops but eventually end up fueling the attitudes that underlie widespread problems, including bullying and sexual harassment.

That was part of the message of the pre-Super Bowl Gillette ad that seemed to take the nation’s men to task. Riffing on the company’s decades-old slogan, the ad presents a collage of “toxic” behaviors that led to the emergence of the #MeToo movement and asks, “Is this the best a man can get?”

Yet the particular culture of male camaraderie among NASCAR fans was actually a lot more complex, Malefyt says. The men also placed a particular value on cooperation and sharing, he says, and they had explicit, rock-solid rules against any kind of violent behavior.  

“They shared their drinks with strangers; they offered to help fix broken grills, camping gear, and drive-around carts, and even discussed how their favorite racer helped other racers before a race by donating parts for broken down cars,” says Malefyt, now a professor of advertising at Fordham University in New York.

“And there were a lot of younger boys that would come along with their dads, kind of like learning how to be a man – like this cult of male camaraderie was passed down generationally to help boys grow into productive men,” he says.

The end result was an ad campaign, “Young Guns,” that celebrated what his team saw as the particular values of NASCAR fans: friendly competition, ingenuity at work, strong friendship, and intergenerational bonding.

And while the nation’s fast-evolving ideas about sex and gender have exposed a number of raw cultural nerves over the past few years, questions about the nature of American masculinity have given the country a particular jolt, as the #MeToo movement especially has exposed the startling scope of harassment and even assault among some of the country’s most visible and powerful leaders.

But even within an era of gaping political divides, there are signs that the conversation is becoming more nuanced and complex, even with overlapping points of agreement.

“We’re being challenged to ask the question more in the affirmative, asking about, what is healthy masculinity?” says Ariella Rotramel, professor of gender, sexuality, and intersectionality studies at Connecticut College in New London. “And I don’t think that has often been the conversation we have been having culturally.”

“To me, the most interesting thing to think about now is really, how can people proactively think about what it means to be masculine, or to be identified as a man, in a way that is positive?” Professor Rotramel continues, noting the ugly tradition of defining masculinity in the negative, using the image of feminine weakness or feminine slurs to describe men who don’t measure up.

‘Morality 101’

“I wasn’t terribly annoyed by the Gillette ad, even if it was a little overdramatic,” says David French, a conservative social thinker and senior fellow at the National Review Institute in Washington, who has been outspoken on what he sees as an outright assault on traditional masculinity.

“I mean, basically the Gillette ad was saying bad things are bad; good things are good,” Mr. French continues. “We shouldn’t be bullies; we should protect from bullies. We shouldn’t be harassers; we should protect people from harassers. I mean, that’s sort of Morality 101.”

On social media last month, the backlash to the ad was often ferocious. But overall, Gillette’s campaign was generally well received, according to a Morning Consult poll released last month. More than 60 percent of all adults felt positively about the ad, including nearly half of Republicans and 75 percent of Democrats. Some 57 percent of men felt positively about the ad, led by wide majorities of Millennials and Gen X men, as did 64 percent of women.

At the same time, too, there are signs that younger men and women are consciously rethinking the more rigid kinds of social expectations based on gender.

Tim Larkin, a noted self-defense expert, knows he already “looks the part” of the traditional masculine male with his brush cut, defined jawline, deep voice, and brick-house build. Trained as a Navy Seal and special-ops intelligence officer and now a member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame, he says he can look pretty imposing when he stands in front of one of his self-defense classes.

“And whether or not this facade is real or not really doesn’t matter,” Mr. Larkin says. Most of his clients would already assume he’s a guy who can easily defend himself. So his female instructors, those of average height and build, he says, are often better at conveying his techniques, developed for anyone of any size or gender.

“When she can show just how capable she is, she can really get across the idea of how to injure the human body as quickly as possible, because you don’t want to deal with bigger, faster, stronger,” says Larkin, who’s given a Ted Talk and written a book, “When Violence IS the Answer.”

And while he’s part of a growing chorus of men who have been feeling a little uneasy with all the discussions about “toxic masculinity” these days, Larkin says it’s been a good thing that women have been able to get out of what could be called a boxed-in notion of femininity, or the idea of “the white knight coming to save the fair maiden.”

“You’re talking to somebody who’s married to a police captain in Las Vegas,” Larkin says. “She’s an extremely capable woman in a male dominated space, and, yeah, I think that there are more leadership roles that you’re seeing made available for my daughters.”

‘Be yourself,’ unless you’re a boy

But there’s almost a certain irony in the growing cultural acceptance of female aggression, with ever more models of successful female athletes embracing hard-nosed competition, French suggests. Both he and Larkin, in fact, see a disturbing trend in the nation’s anti-bullying campaigns and other efforts to address boys’ aggressive behaviors.

“It’s something we’ve seen in schools and that we’ve seen in the larger culture,” French says. “This idea that boys, who have this kind of innate restless energy, that there’s something wrong with them, and that they need to calm down rather than be channeled in the proper direction.”

Indeed, it’s interesting, he says, that within the liberal cultural values that otherwise might emphasize that boys and girls should “be yourself,” it’s a value that often applies to everyone except the man who has what could be considered the traditional male characteristics.

“I think one of the traditional ways to deal with the inherent nature of boys – that desire to be risk takers, that more aggressive nature, that nature of physical strength, or all of those things that are more typically associated with boys than girls – has been to shape and mold a young man to utilize those characteristics for virtuous ends and not to deny them, and not to repress them.”

Both he and Larkin expressed concern that boys’ sense of adventure was being squashed.

In January, the American Psychological Association released its first ever “Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men,” and it came to the nearly opposite conclusion. According to these guidelines, males socialized to adhere to “traditional masculinity such as emotional stoicism, homophobia, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance and competitiveness” can lead to “aggression and violence as a means to resolve interpersonal conflict” as well as “substance abuse, incarceration, and early mortality.”

Such gender-specific guidelines, however, ignore the growing understanding of gender as a spectrum, not one of two boxes to tick.

“The whole idea of gender as binary with inherent traits is moving to the idea of gender on a scale or on a continuum,” says Malefyt, the corporate anthropologist.

“And there are different qualities and characteristics that are in both men and women, and it’s more about how masculine or feminine behaviors come out in different situations,” he continues. “So I think where we’re really at is in an age where we’re looking at how we're redefining all these issues.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Torture, Murder and Misconduct Under Color of Law Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 February 2019 12:44

Kiriakou writes: "According to a prisoner who witnessed the incident, Rainey was screaming, 'I can't take it no more! I'm sorry! I won't do it again!' No guards responded to the man's screams."

Prisoner behind bars. (photo: Getty)
Prisoner behind bars. (photo: Getty)


Torture, Murder and Misconduct Under Color of Law

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

03 February 19

 

arren Rainey was a schizophrenic, 50-year-old drug dealer serving two years in a Miami, Florida, prison for cocaine possession when, on June 23, 2012, he defecated in his cell while in a mental haze. The guard on duty, Roland Clarke, didn’t take well to Rainey’s mental breakdown, so he dragged his prisoner into the shower, tied him up inside one of the stalls, and with a jury-rigged control, scalded him. Clarke left Rainey in the shower for two hours. According to a prisoner who witnessed the incident, Rainey was screaming, “I can’t take it no more! I’m sorry! I won’t do it again!” No guards responded to the man’s screams. When Clarke went to remove his victim, Rainey was dead, and much of his skin had peeled off and was lying in a pile on the shower floor. He had been boiled to death.

Two years later, the medical examiner declared Rainey’s death an “accident.” No charges were filed against Clarke or against any of the other corrections officers (CO) on duty that day. The Florida Department of Corrections closed its own investigation because, if the medical examiner said that no crime was committed, there was nothing to investigate. In 2017, five years after Rainey’s death, state prosecutors, in a 101-page report, also concluded that it was an accident, coupled with complications of mental illness and “exposure to a hot shower.” There would be no prosecution, although eventually the state paid Rainey’s family $4.5 million in a wrongful death suit, and Warden Jerry Cummings was fired, albeit more than two years after Rainey’s death.

Roland Clarke was not the only CO accused of wrongdoing at the same time that Rainey was killed. Former prison psychologist George Mallinkrodt and an anonymous prison employee and told the Miami Herald that COs “made a sport” of agitating mentally ill prisoners, hoping for an excuse to beat them. The anonymous CO also said that mentally ill prisoners were routinely threatened with “the shower treatment.” And in a complaint to the Justice Department, Mallinkrodt wrote that “guards taunted, tormented, abused, beat, and tortured chronically mentally ill inmates on a regular basis, hoping to provoke a response so the inmate could be punished.”

One prisoner, Joseph Swilling, said that guards once handcuffed him behind his back and led him down a hallway out of the range of security cameras, where they threw him on the floor and repeatedly kicked him.

Richard Mair, a murderer who hung himself two months after the Rainey killing, wrote a suicide note and put it in his underwear accusing COs of sexually assaulting prisoners and forcing black and white prisoners to fight each other for the guards’ amusement. Remember, nobody was disciplined, fired, or prosecuted for any of this behavior.

So what happened to Roland Clarke? He finally quit his job two years after killing Darren Rainey, but only after a Miami Herald exposé caused worldwide consternation. He then quickly found work with the Miami Gardens Police Department as a patrol officer, and he just as quickly got himself into trouble. He was disciplined for running a red light and smashing into a car that had a green light. He was also disciplined for calling a tow truck to tow away a car that belonged to a drowning victim without first securing a wallet and cell phone inside. They disappeared before detectives could examine them.

Soon after joining the force, Clarke was “counseled” by his captain and two sergeants about not “having personal relationships while on the job.” He apparently ignored the admonition. In 2016, he was suspended for five days after an Internal Affairs Division investigation found that he was routinely visiting a woman at her house while he was supposed to be on the job in a different part of town.

Two years later, Clarke was accused of the same thing – visiting yet another woman at her house while he was supposed to be on patrol. They had sex on multiple occasions, and there were photos, emails, and text messages to prove the allegation. As it turned out, the woman reported Clarke to the police department because he wouldn’t marry her; he was already married to another police officer. The department then initiated surveillance on him, and his wife filed for divorce.

Clarke’s reaction was one of defiance. He told a fellow officer in a conversation that was recorded: “Look what my side bitch did to me. That bitch tried to get me fired. ’Cause she know I can’t come around there acting crazy with her ’cause I’m an officer, so this ho called anonymously, saying, ‘This n**** be coming to my house and fucking me on duty.’”

So what does the police department do with a problem cop like Clarke? Miami Gardens mayor Oliver Gilbert told the Miami New Times that he wants to fire Clarke, although he has no authority to do so. Police Chief Delma Noel-Pratt has offered no comment. Meanwhile, Roland Clarke, already responsible for the death of one man, untrustworthy, a bad cop, is still on the street.

Email This Page


John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

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: Tom Brady's New England Patriots Are Team MAGA, Whether They Like It or Not Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50083"><span class="small">Corbin Smith, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 February 2019 11:56

Smith writes: "This past weekend, the Super Bowl-bound New England Patriots held a rally for their sweatiest fans at Gillette Stadium. Brady gave a speech. It ended ... unnervingly."

Tom Brady. (photo: Patrick Smith/Getty Images)
Tom Brady. (photo: Patrick Smith/Getty Images)


Tom Brady's New England Patriots Are Team MAGA, Whether They Like It or Not

By Corbin Smith, The Daily Beast

03 February 19


Their star quarterback, coach, and owner all supported Trump. But that’s not the only thing that makes the Super Bowl LIII-bound Patriots the preferred team of white nationalists.

his past weekend, the Super Bowl-bound New England Patriots held a rally for their sweatiest fans at Gillette Stadium. Brady gave a speech. It ended… unnervingly.

WE’RE STILL HERE! WE’RE STILL HERE! Obviously, Brady is referring to his aging, decrepit, cheating-ass squad’s progression to the big game. But, imagine you didn’t know anything about football, or who Tom Brady was, or anything like that. You would think that you were watching some square-jawed grifter throwing red meat to the hogs at an alt-right rally, screaming at the libs who thought Nancy Pelosi and her gender warriors were gonna keep DECENT AMERICAN FOLKS from BEING HERE.

Of course, even if you do know stuff about Brady you may still think he’s on his way to pursuing this line of grifting. He flashed a red MAGA hat, an accoutrement that is gaining more and more traction as a symbol of white nationalism in America, in his locker back in the primary days. He wasn’t the only one! Patriots’ Coach Bill Belichick wrote a goddamn letter to Trump right before the end of the campaign that basically amounted to an endorsement, that Trump then read on stage. And Pats’ owner Robert Kraft is also his pal, and was even shouted out at Trump’s pre-Inauguration dinner in D.C. for his most deep-pocketed donors.

The whole institution of Boston sports, from root to stem, is tinged with the sort of racism that brought Trump into office. The Boston Red Sox were the last MLB team to desegregate, more than a decade after Jackie Robinson entered the league. The Sox’s first owner, Tom Yawkey, was an infamous racist whose speech was peppered with racial slurs. Larry Bird became a symbol of white resentment during his time in the NBA, his jersey appearing as a symbol of white entitlement to black spaces in Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. His large teammate, Kevin McHale, was spotted at a Trump rally during the election.

And hey, it’s not like their fans are cool guys, either! Dave Portnoy, the founder of Barstool Sports, a toxic masculinity-humping outpost for the world’s worst people, is a Boston sports fan. A Red Sox fan yelled a racial slur and threw a bag of peanuts at Adam Jones a mere two seasons ago. Yankees’ pitcher CC Sabathia told ESPN, “I’ve never been called the N-word” anywhere but in Boston.

Bill Russell, the legendary Celtics center and 11-Time NBA champion, the greatest Boston athlete of all time by a considerable margin, called Boston a “Flea Market of racism” in his wonderful memoir Second Wind. “It had all varieties, old and new, and in their most virulent form. The city had corrupt, city hall-crony racists, brick-throwing, send-‘em-back-to-Africa racists, and in the university areas phony radical-chic racists… Other than that, I liked the city.”

Remember that scumbag teen, bused into DC by his racist-ass private school to protest a woman’s right to choose, smirking at a Native American military veteran while wearing that dumb little red hat as his schoolmates stood around and did tomahawk chops? Remember how, at first, everyone saw what was happening for what it was, entitled little shits being racist and disrespectful, until this kid’s wealthy parents hired a PR firm to run interference and coach him up to do an interview where, even if he was saying the right things on paper, he still seemed like a low-boil sociopath?

The people I am sitting here roasting for their support of Trump have tried to run the same playbook. Brady backed off a little when his wife clearly told him to, said that he didn’t actually have political opinions at all, that actually he was “a positive person,” and that Trump was just his friend he supported because he always supports his friends, even if he did think it would be cool if he won. I’m not actually with him, he’s just my friend is somehow even more unnerving in its way, because what kind of weirdo do you have to be to be friends with Donald Trump? Is he a fun guy to hang out with? Is Brady really so vacant that he hangs out with this doddering fool for access to golf courses? If Brady really does want to satisfy the Daniel Radcliffes of the world, wouldn’t he find it in his heart to distance himself from the president everyone hates? But he doesn’t, presumably because he sees nothing wrong with it, because his worldview lines up with that of our racist president.

Kraft insists he doesn’t agree with Trump’s rhetoric on Kaepernick, but it’s not as if he’s cast the man aside. Belichick won’t even deign to answer a question on that matter, because he is a robotic psychopath who only thinks and talks about football.  

Look, it doesn’t matter if the Patriots like it or not, they are the official team of American White Nationalism, the MAGA Boys On the Field. You can’t implicitly or explicitly support Trump, who reads speeches written by Stephen Miller as a matter of course, play in a market whose sporting culture is renowned for its racism, have a decade-plus organizational obsession with undersized white receivers, and be called, no shit, the Patriots, without getting the vile Fox News Soup that poisoned half the country on your shirt. Try to put on a bib of distancing yourself, deflecting questions, telling everyone your wife told you to stop talking about it, that shit isn’t gonna work. You’re the MAGA Kid. It’s on you forever. It stalks and haunts you.

When you root for the Patriots, you are associating yourself with a virulent and revolting strain of politics that seeks to Make America Great Again—which is to say, white, European, English-speaking. And look, I understand if you’ve been rooting for Boston teams your whole life. Fandom is a hard drug to quit. But please, look at yourself, look at who these guys put out for, and reconsider. Think about if you would want to find yourself in a crowd of sweaty, white men chanting WE’RE STILL HERE while a Trump supporter egged you on. Are you one-hundred percent sure you’re comfortable with that?

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Great Middle East Head-Fake Print
Sunday, 03 February 2019 09:36

Taibbi writes: "On the surface, it was a truly bipartisan defeat of Trump. A full 22 of those 68 yeas were Democrats. But every Senate Democrat who's even rumored to be running for president voted nay."

American troops look out toward the border with Turkey from a small outpost near the town of Manbij, northern Syria, on February 7th, 2018. (photo: Susannah George/AP/REX/Shutterstock)
American troops look out toward the border with Turkey from a small outpost near the town of Manbij, northern Syria, on February 7th, 2018. (photo: Susannah George/AP/REX/Shutterstock)


The Great Middle East Head-Fake

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

03 February 19


A Senate vote on Syria and Afghanistan withdrawals proves Washington is still clueless and in danger of re-electing Trump

he New York Times tweet was triumphant, music to #Resistance ears:

On the surface, it was a truly bipartisan defeat of Trump. A full 22 of those 68 yeas were Democrats.

But every Senate Democrat who’s even rumored to be running for president voted nay. The list included Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar and Jeff Merkley. Sherrod Brown did not vote.

Was it possible that their reluctance was connected to the fact that survey after survey shows the public has lost appetite for our Middle East wars, especially in Afghanistan?

The “stinging rebuke” in the Senate that has Washington buzzing was a graphic example of how out of touch the capital is with the rest of the country, which would like more of a say in when, where and why we go to war.

Start with the fact that the Senate never demanded a vote on the presence of American troops in Syria. Just last year, in fact, it did the opposite.

On December 19th, 2017, Virginia’s Tim Kaine — the latest ex-vice presidential candidate whose face America couldn’t pick out of a police lineup — sent a letter to then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and then-Defense Secretary James Mattis asking about a December 15th, 2017 Wall Streeet Journal article on Syria.

Kaine was concerned because a “U.S. official” told the Journal we were changing our mission there, from combating ISIS to an “explicit new goal” preventing “Iran and its proxies” from establishing a “presence” on Syrian territory.

Kaine cried foul:

If these reports accurately reflect your intentions, the actions you are likely considering far exceed the counter-ISIS mandate and lack domestic or international legal authority…

Summing up, Kaine bluntly asked:

What is the legal basis for using military force to compel Bashar al-Assad into participating in political negotiations?

The Pentagon replied via Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Policy David Trachtenberg, whose letter basically said the Trump administration didn’t need no stinking authority.

Trachtenberg insisted they were covered by the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which he said permitted force against terrorists connected to the 9/11 attacks, but also any threats that “may re-emerge and that may not be covered by the 2001 AUMF.”

Translation: We’re covered by a 16-year-old law that gives us authority to pursue terrorists and any other threats not covered by that law.

Mary Waters, assistant Secretary of State for legislative affairs, said that while the U.S. wouldn’t “seek to fight the government of Syria or Iran or Iranian-supported groups in Iraq or Syria,” it would “not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend… forces engaged in operations to defeat ISIS and degrade Al Qaeda.”

In other words, the “explicit new goal” in Syria was a bait-and-switch. Trump planned on using the terrorist-fighting authority in AUMF to explain being on Syrian territory in the first place, and if we happened to engage with the forces of another sovereign country like Syria or Iran while there, that would only be in “U.S. national self-defense.”

As a result, as has been reported over and over, no matter what your opinion on America’s occupation of Syrian territory, it is almost certainly illegal. Or, as Time put it, there’s never been a legal explanation for our presence there that “passes the laugh test.”

Having been told off by the Trump team, the Senate meekly got together to craft a new AUMF. The proposal among other things would trigger a 60-day review period by lawmakers, in the highly probable event a president decided to make war against a new country.

But nobody on the Senate Foreign Relations committee believed they could get the measure passed. “I think it’s going to be very difficult to get to the finish line on this,” predicted Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD). So even that pathetic ask for a fig leaf of congressional authority for future wars went nowhere.

A few months later, the Trump administration — changing course from the president’s own earlier statement that “I want to get out” of Syria — leaked news of a new “indefinite” occupation plan that sounded strikingly like regime change. This is from a September 6thWashington Post report citing “senior State Department officials”:

The administration has redefined its goals to include the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria, and establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians…

This seemingly momentous decision was never voted on or debated in Congress, though the latter did not object. Apparently, lawmakers were too busy wolfing down military contractor donations to issue a “stinging rebuke” over having their institutional authority over the war-declaring process bypassed for the umpteenth time since 9/11.

A month or so later, Mattis testified on the Hill about four soldiers killed in Niger in early October. He told Congress the Niger mission was authorized under title 10 “train and equipprovision, which permits the Secretaries of Defense and State to “provide training and equipment” to “one or more foreign countries” for the “purpose of building the capacity of such forces.”

Add Niger, then, to the list of active combat missions not expressly debated or approved by Congress. Instead, Congress long ago handed blanket authority to the executive branch to send forces to “one or more” foreign countries. No “stinging rebuke” there, either.

Yet when Trump decided he was going to withdraw forces from Syria and Afghanistan, suddenly it was We Are The World time on the Hill. Republicans and the non-presidential candidates on the Democrat side joined hands to renounce the executive branch for daring to withdraw troops from somewhere without permission.

Meanwhile, in the House, Reps. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) and Van Taylor (R-TX) launched another bipartisan bill, seeking to limit funds the president could use to withdraw troops from either Syria or South Korea.

The proposal is an awesome comedy. It doesn’t really demand the president ask Congress for permission to withdraw troops.

Instead, the bill would require the “Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence” to issue a report to Congress reassuring them that the moves would not “would not undermine the nation’s security,” as the New York Times put it.

People who are applauding this series of moves as a big win for the anti-Trump cause must not have been following his campaign a few years ago, when bashing foreign wars became central to his successful run to the White House.

“We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria,” he barked in 2016, adding that under him, we would be “getting out of the nation-building business.”

Despite countless insults to veterans — from the McCain “I like people who weren’t captured” debacle to the Humayun Khan episode to moronic comments about PTSD — Trump did well on Election Day in areas with high numbers of battlefield casualties. Some academics speculated the “casualty gap” in key states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan may have helped turn the race for Trump.

Think about what this week’s sequence of events has told those voters.

The constitutional idea that Congress does the declaring of wars, while presidents only command them, is designed to give voters extra input on this most crucial of decisions, i.e. when we’re going to risk American lives (to say nothing of foreign ones).

But Congress has been abdicating that responsibility for a while now. Two successive presidents made a joke of it, expanding limited authorization to go after 9/11 terrorists into nearly two decades of open-ended Middle East missions. We were bombing seven countries when Trump took office, and probably 99 percent of voters couldn’t have named them.

When Trump tried to withdraw troops from two countries, what happened? Congress, snoring on this issue since at least 2001, threw a fit that the president was acting unilaterally.

Members of the House went so far as to propose a law that essentially requires the assent of not just the Pentagon, but the Director of National Intelligence (!) to dial back military deployments. And people wonder where “deep state” paranoia comes from?

Ask the Democratic presidential hopefuls who voted nay yesterday how any of this is going to go over outside the Beltway. If Congress refuses to stop wars and the president isn’t allowed to, exactly where does the ordinary person have input on these questions?

It’s not that voters don’t care about the fate of the Kurds or worry about the possibility of the Taliban “recapturing” Afghanistan.

It’s that they’ve lost confidence in Washington’s ability to avoid making these situations worse through military action, especially since they’ve now officially told us they will not take “no” for an answer, when it comes to war.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 Next > End >>

Page 987 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