RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Donald Trump, American Oligarch Print
Monday, 03 October 2016 10:31

Mayer writes: "The key measure of an American oligarch's success is the difference between his official tax rate and his effective rate-the amount that actually comes out of his pocket on April 15th. By that yardstick, Trump achieved the oligarch's ultimate ambition: for almost two decades, he had the ability to live like a sultan while paying nothing - less than a cleaning lady or a kid in his first job - to support the public good."

Donald Trump. (photo: Bill Clark/Roll Call)
Donald Trump. (photo: Bill Clark/Roll Call)


Donald Trump, American Oligarch

By Jane Mayer, The New Yorker

03 October 16

 

his past summer, when Donald Trump dumped his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, in the midst of revelations about Manafort’s financial ties to Russian oligarchs, Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, wrote that the real problem wasn’t that Trump is sympathetic to Russian oligarchs, it was that “he is a Russian oligarch.” Trump, Applebaum explained, is “an oligarch in the Russian style—a rich man who aspires to combine business with politics and has an entirely cynical and instrumental attitude toward both.”

Now, with the Times reporting that congressionally crafted loopholes for real-estate magnates could have enabled Trump to legally evade all income taxes for eighteen years, while earning as much as fifty million dollars a year, we have a perfect example of how oligarchic interests have made inroads in the United States. The question now is whether the American public favors this trend.

One definition of an oligarch, according to the Northwestern University political scientist Jeffrey A. Winters, the author of “Oligarchy,” is an individual with enough money to employ the protection of what he calls the “wealth defense industry.” Oligarchs worldwide face threats of different kinds, but in the U.S. the greatest threat is from redistribution—which is achieved by the state imposing progressive income taxes. So the “wealth defense industry” in America—sophisticated accountants, consultants, lawyers, lobbyists, and think-tank apologists—is uniquely focussed on carving out tax loopholes for its rich clients. The key measure of an American oligarch’s success, Winters notes, is the difference between his official tax rate and his effective rate—the amount that actually comes out of his pocket on April 15th. By that yardstick, Trump achieved the oligarch’s ultimate ambition: for almost two decades, he had the ability to live like a sultan while paying nothing—less than a cleaning lady or a kid in his first job—to support the public good.

In Trump’s eyes, as he put it in his first Presidential debate against Hillary Clinton, last week, “That makes me smart.”

As they struggled to deal with the revelations from the Times this weekend, Trump’s surrogates doubled down on his argument that paying no income taxes was a sign of “genius—absolute genius,” as Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, put it on the Sunday talk show “This Week.” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is the chair of Trump’s transition team, said much the same on “Fox News Sunday”: “There’s no one who’s showed more genius in their way to move around the tax code.” The surrogates also tried a line from a Trump campaign statement that went out last night: that the candidate “knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President, and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.”

If Americans turn out to agree with this statement, that would signal a profound shift from embracing the ideal of political equality and joint sacrifice, which has been the basis of our democracy, to accepting the might-is-right form of governance in oligarchic states. To reach this point, though, would require a truly significant change. As Steven R. Weisman noted in the Washington Post, while Americans have long loved to grouse about paying taxes, polls show that a majority think that the amount they pay is “fair.” What really infuriates them, though, is when other Americans, particularly the wealthy or ultra-wealthy, and corporations, dodge their tax bills. In a recent study conducted by Pew Research, Weisman notes, six out of ten Americans said they were troubled that the rich weren’t paying their fair share. Mitt Romney discovered how unforgiving the American public could be about this when, in 2012, the multimillionaire Republican nominee was forced to reveal that he had paid an effective federal tax rate of 14.1 per cent, which is less than most middle-class Americans, while simultaneously criticizing the poor as “takers.” Trump and his surrogates are hoping that Americans will admire his guile, but they may discover that the country’s worship of success is tempered by a deeply ingrained respect for fair play.

The defense of tax avoidance by Trump and his surrogates may be a particularly hard sell in light of his relentless trash-talking of America’s roads, airports, schools, military, and other publicly financed projects. “Our country’s becoming a Third World country!” Trump reiterated at a rally in Manheim, Pennsylvania, on Saturday night. If so, voters might fairly say, as Hillary Clinton did at last week’s debate, “Maybe because you haven’t paid any federal income tax for a lot of years.”

During that debate, Trump’s best line of attack was to hit Clinton for having been involved in politics for thirty years while so many problems have festered. But the same point could be made about him. For decades, Trump has been part of the private sector that has used its wealth and power to carve out tax loopholes for its own self-interest. This may be acceptable in Russia, and other oligarchic parts of the world, but whether it’s O.K. in America, too, is now on the ballot next month.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Blatant Disrespect Being Shown to Angela Davis for Comments on Clinton Print
Sunday, 02 October 2016 13:25

Savali writes: "There have been intense, wide-spread and polarizing responses to my article on a statement made by scholar, freedom fighter, former political prisoner and icon Angela Davis during her Sept. 30 keynote address at the Black Matters: The Futures of Black Scholarship and Activism conference at the University of Texas at Austin."

Angela Y. Davis, who began her academic career at UCLA 45 years ago, is back as regents' professor in the gender studies department, teaching about feminism and prison abolition. (photo: Katie Falkenberg/Los Angeles Times)
Angela Y. Davis, who began her academic career at UCLA 45 years ago, is back as regents' professor in the gender studies department, teaching about feminism and prison abolition. (photo: Katie Falkenberg/Los Angeles Times)


ALSO SEE: Angela Davis: 'I Am Not So Narcissistic to Say I
Cannot Bring Myself to Vote for Hillary Clinton'

The Blatant Disrespect Being Shown to Angela Davis for Comments on Clinton

By Kirsten West Savali, The Root

02 October 16

 

here have been intense, wide-spread and polarizing responses to my article on a statement made by scholar, freedom fighter, former political prisoner and icon Angela Davis during her Sept. 30 keynote address at the “Black Matters: The Futures of Black Scholarship and Activism conference at the University of Texas at Austin.

During her address, Davis said, “I have serious problems with the other candidate, but I am not so narcissistic to say I cannot bring myself to vote for her.”

“Her” being Hillary Clinton as opposed to white supremacist, fascist and completely disreputable Donald Trump. No, I’m not adding caveats here about Hillary Clinton. Check my record on that. Now, in this space, I want to clarify a few things that really should not need clarification.

Angela Davis did not “endorse” Hillary Clinton as some Clinton supporters have breathlessly claimed—and to claim otherwise is just as ridiculous as those small-minds who claim a vote against Clinton is a vote for Trump who, as Davis has previously noted, “traffics in white rage.” What Davis did is make plain her electoral strategy embedded within her broader commitment to realizing collective liberation for black people.

She did not say that she was “with her”; she said that she was with us.

As noted in the article, Davis is just as committed to independent politics and liberation from a white supremacist system as she has always been.

I absolutely believe that Davis is operating from a position that she believes to have the true interests of Black, Latinx, Indigenous, working class people and those living in deep poverty at the center—as she always has. I do not, however, trust the same to be true of most Clinton supporters who are now cheering Davis’ comment. In my experience, these are the same supporters pretending that the extensive damage New Democrats have done—by covertly rebranding themselves as Republicans with a heart—has not devastated communities of color.

Undeniably, Davis’ statement at the Black Matters conference carries tremendous weight—primarily because it creates space to discuss diverging and converging paths to freedom and liberation. As Davis said during her keynote, “We should have learned by now … the arena of electoral politics militates against the expression of radical militant perspective.”

Angela Davis. On the current election.

A video posted by Jo (@jonubian) on

According to attendees’ tweets, Davis also said that she tries not to tell young people what to do because she resented that when she was younger. That is important to note here because the conversations surrounding Davis’ comment have largely devolved into reductionist charges that she is trying to shame people into voting for Hillary Clinton. These discussions are dangerous, misleading and frankly, embarrassing.

Without question, using the term “narcissism” is politically loaded right now because that kind of argument—egocentric, immature, ignorant, naive, selfish, dangerous—is being lobbed indiscriminately by mostly middle-class liberals at anyone who isn’t voting for Hillary Clinton. There is a movement that is full of people who are not only saying what they want to see in concrete terms and presenting pathways to those possibilities, but actively divesting from politicians who don’t work toward those goals. That cannot and should not be reduced to mere “narcissism.”

Still, that in no way, shape or form should indict Angela Davis—Angela Davis—on charges of not being committed to us and fighting for us with the means that she believes to be most effective. Choosing to not vote for a third-party candidate is not synonymous with no longer being invested in the construction of an independent party; that struggle, as Davis has said, is an ongoing, urgent and strenuous process.

I have reached out to Angela Davis in hopes that she will sit in circle with those of us who have modeled her radicalism in our own lives so she may answer any questions that we may have.

But the truth is she owes us no explanation. She has placed her life on the line for us. She is on the forefront of emancipatory, intersectional black feminist thought and the fight for liberation for oppressed people around the world. And she has consistently called out the white supremacist project that is the United States of America for what it is.

Be clear: If we’ve reached the point in the ride where we cannot engage Angela Davis with respect, then we’re going in the wrong direction.

But let me also say to HRC supporters who don’t align with Davis’ radical politics (at all): back up with the “Look Angela Davis said it; my Clintonians and I are right and everyone else is ignorant” narrative. Give us 50 feet. Don’t hide behind Angela Davis to push neoliberal politics and your favorite. The brilliance of Angela Davis—and the love and care she has shown for oppressed people around the world—goes far beyond this election.

What she stands for, many of you have never and would never—even if gifted the opportunity.

In this election, the Who is just as important to contend with as the Why. This does not mean that we can not disagree with the Why; Davis has encouraged us to challenge our heroes, herself included.

Still, I will build on Davis’ statement here and say that it is equally as important that we challenge our comrades.

Going forward, it is my deepest hope that we all engage Angela Davis’ statement in the context that it was given, and engage her with the love and respect that she has always shown us and that she unequivocally deserves.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 02 October 2016 10:42

Weissman writes: "Faced with two differently flawed major party candidates for president, most of us have already made our choice, especially after their first debate. What could anyone possibly say at this point to change our minds? But since you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to vote and why."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: The New York Times)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: The New York Times)


Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

02 October 16

 

aced with two differently flawed major party candidates for president, most of us have already made our choice, especially after their first debate. What could anyone possibly say at this point to change our minds? But since you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to vote and why.

I will not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Bernie Sanders has done. But I will reluctantly vote for her. I know of no other realistic way to defeat Trump and his followers by the largest possible majority.

Like many of you, I see Trump and his followers as an existential danger to Muslims, Latinos, and African-Americans, an insult to women, and a threat to the creation of a progressive America. His hate-filled campaign empowers white supremacists, who have never accepted the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. His demonization of Islam rallies religious conservatives who think America should be a Christian nation. His authoritarianism and his endless claim that “only I can solve your problems” raise the specter of “a man on horseback,” if not an orange-haired fascist Führer.

Why, then, don’t I vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein?

Many friends and colleagues who vote in states where Clinton appears to have a sizeable lead may well vote for Jill. But it's a risky gamble. During the primaries, the polls – and even the legendary Nate Silver's probability predictions – proved glaringly unreliable. How can we trust the numbers to be any more accurate in this strange and extremely consequential election? How can we risk a protest vote on a candidate who has almost no chance of being seen or heard, and absolutely no chance of defeating Donald Trump?

Does voting for Clinton trap us forever into having to vote for a lesser evil? That is up to us. Bernie is trying to meet this challenge both inside and outside the Democratic Party. He has helped create groups like Our Revolution and Brand New Congress, which are funding progressive candidates for all levels of government.

Bernie himself has chosen to work within the Clinton campaign, stressing the progressive nature of the Democratic Party platform to which Hillary agreed, and promising to hold her feet to the fire once she’s elected.

He has also agreed to work with Senator Elizabeth Warren to fight against Hillary selecting any Wall Street figures to serve in her cabinet. I suspect that Hillary will roll right over them, but the fight is worth the effort.

Make no mistake. I greatly admire Hillary Clinton for her intellect and determination. Becoming the country’s first female presidential candidate from a major political party has been a huge success for her, her family, and all of America, especially our young people, boys as well as girls. I also agree with Bernie and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, an advisor to Hillary, that she is more progressive than Obama, though that is not a very high standard.

She has publicly acknowledged the need to rein in Wall Street. If she does, I think we should all support her efforts. But I am not optimistic. She continues to peddle the discredited myth of mostly free-market, neo-liberal economics.

She has said many times that the vast inequality of wealth in America destroys our democracy. She has promised to fight this inequality. I hope she does. But she limits what she can do by the close ties she continues to maintain with Wall Street and major multinational corporations.

Under pressure from Bernie’s supporters, she has promised to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But every time she defends her husband’s energetic support for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, as she did in her first debate with Trump, she loses more support from former Democratic voters who saw NAFTA send American factories to Mexico, kill well-paying jobs, and destroy living and working communities, mostly in what we now call the Rust Belt.

You can see why I’m so unhappy about having to vote for Clinton just to vote against Trump. But the main reason I cannot endorse Hillary should be obvious from all that I’ve written. Simply put, I cannot go along with her interventionist, liberal imperialist foreign policy, whether in Syria or Libya, and her eagerness to engage in a new Cold War with Russia.

Endless, no-win wars in Muslim countries will only encourage more terrorist attacks, spurring on the racial and religious hatred that Donald Trump and his followers are now preaching. A cold war with Russia raises the risk of nuclear confrontation that we could all lose. And all the military spending, planning, and plotting will only take time, focus, and resources away from building a truly progressive America.

Some wishful thinkers have argued that Hillary has good reasons to turn away from her war-like ways and focus on her progressive aspirations. If she does, let us all applaud. If she does not, I will continue to oppose her. I expect most of you will do the same.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.

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
 
Pentagon Paid Millions to Create Fake Terrorist Videos Print
Sunday, 02 October 2016 08:54

Excerpt: "The Pentagon gave a controversial UK PR firm over half a billion dollars to run a top secret propaganda program in Iraq, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal."

Still image from ISIS propaganda video. (photo: PA)
Still image from ISIS propaganda video. (photo: PA)


Pentagon Paid Millions to Create Fake Terrorist Videos

By Crofton Blackand and Abigail Fielding-Smith, The Daily Beast

02 October 16

 

A controversial foreign PR firm known for representing unsavory characters was paid millions by the Pentagon to create fake terrorist videos.

he Pentagon gave a controversial UK PR firm over half a billion dollars to run a top secret propaganda program in Iraq, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

Bell Pottinger's output included short TV segments made in the style of Arabic news networks and fake insurgent videos which could be used to track the people who watched them, according to a former employee.

The agency's staff worked alongside high-ranking U.S. military officers in their Baghdad Camp Victory headquarters as the insurgency raged outside.

Bell Pottinger's former chairman Lord Tim Bell confirmed to the Sunday Times, which has worked with the Bureau on this story, that his firm had worked on a "covert" military operation "covered by various secrecy documents."

Bell Pottinger reported to the Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Council on its work in Iraq, he said.

Bell, one of Britain's most successful public relations executives, is credited with honing Margaret Thatcher's steely image and helping the Conservative party win three elections. The agency he co-founded has had a roster of clients including repressive regimes and Asma al-Assad, the wife of the Syrian president.

In the first media interview any Bell Pottinger employee has given about the work for the U.S. military in Iraq, video editor Martin Wells told the Bureau his time in Camp Victory was "shocking, eye-opening, life-changing."

The firm's output was signed off by former General David Petraeus - then commander of the coalition forces in Iraq - and on occasion by the White House, he said.

Bell Pottinger produced reams of material for the Pentagon, some of it going far beyond standard communications work.

The Bureau traced the firm's Iraq work through US army contracting censuses, reports by the Defense Department's Inspector General and federal procurement transaction records, as well as Bell Pottinger's corporate filings and specialist publications on military propaganda. We interviewed half a dozen former officials and contractors involved in information operations in Iraq.

There were three types of media operations commonly used in Iraq at the time, said a military contractor familiar with Bell Pottinger's work there.

"White is attributed, it says who produced it on the label," the contractor said. "Grey is unattributed and black is falsely attributed. These types of black ops, used for tracking who is watching a certain thing, were a pretty standard part of the industry toolkit."

Bell Pottinger's work in Iraq was a huge media operation which cost over a hundred million dollars a year on average. A document unearthed by the Bureau shows the company was employing almost 300 British and Iraqi staff at one point.

The London-based PR agency was brought into Iraq soon after the U.S. invasion. In March 2004 it was tasked by the country's temporary administration with the "promotion of democratic elections" -a "high-profile activity" which it trumpeted in its annual report.

The firm soon switched to less high-profile activities, however. The Bureau has identified transactions worth $540 million between the Pentagon and Bell Pottinger for information operations and psychological operations on a series of contracts issued from May 2007 to December 2011. A similar contract at around the same annual rate-$120 million-was in force in 2006, we have been told.

The bulk of the money was for costs such as production and distribution, Lord Bell told the Sunday Times, but the firm would have made around £15m a year in fees.

Martin Wells, the ex-employee, told the Bureau he had no idea what he was getting into when he was interviewed for the Bell Pottinger job in May 2006.

He had been working as a freelance video editor and got a call from his agency suggesting he go to London for an interview for a potential new gig. "You'll be doing new stuff that'll be coming out of the Middle East," he was told.

"I thought 'That sounds interesting'," Wells recalled. "So I go along and go into this building, get escorted up to the sixth floor in a lift, come out and there's guards up there. I thought what on earth is going on here? And it turns out it was a Navy post, basically. So from what I could work out it was a media intelligence gathering unit."

After a brief chat Wells asked when he would find out about the job, and was surprised by the response.

"You've already got it," he was told. "We've already done our background checks into you."

He would be flying out on Monday, Wells was told. It was Friday afternoon. He asked where he would be going and got a surprising answer: Baghdad.

"So I literally had 48 hours to gather everything I needed to live in a desert," Wells said.

Days later, Wells's plane executed a corkscrew landing to avoid insurgent fire at Baghdad airport. He assumed he would be taken to somewhere in the Green Zone, from which coalition officials were administering Iraq. Instead he found himself in Camp Victory, a military base.

It turned out that the British PR firm which had hired him was working at the heart of a U.S. military intelligence operation.

A tide of violence was engulfing the Iraqi capital as Wells began his contract. The same month he arrived there were five suicide bomb attacks in the city, including one a suicide car bomb attack near Camp Victory which killed 14 people and wounded six others.

Describing his first impressions, Wells said he was struck by a working environment very unlike what he was used to. "It was a very secure building," he recalled, with "signs outside saying 'Do not come in, it's a classified area, if you're not cleared, you can't come in.'"

Inside were two or three rooms with lots of desks in, said Wells, with one section for Bell Pottinger staff and the other for the US military.

"I made the mistake of walking into one of the [U.S. military] areas, and having a very stern American military guy basically drag me out saying you are not allowed in here under any circumstances, this is highly classified, get out-whilst his hand was on his gun, which was a nice introduction," said Wells.

It soon became apparent he would be doing much more than just editing news footage.

The work consisted of three types of products. The first was television commercials portraying al Qaeda in a negative light. The second was news items which were made to look as if they had been "created by Arabic TV", Wells said. Bell Pottinger would send teams out to film low-definition video of al Qaeda bombings and then edit it like a piece of news footage. It would be voiced in Arabic and distributed to TV stations across the region, according to Wells.

The American origins of the news items were sometimes kept hidden. Revelations in 2005 that PR contractor the Lincoln Group had helped the Pentagon place articles in Iraqi newspapers, sometimes presented as unbiased news, led to a Department of Defense investigation.

The third and most sensitive program described by Wells was the production of fake al Qaeda propaganda films. He told the Bureau how the videos were made. He was given precise instructions: "We need to make this style of video and we've got to use al Qaeda's footage," he was told. "We need it to be 10 minutes long, and it needs to be in this file format, and we need to encode it in this manner."

US marines would take the CDs on patrol and drop them in the chaos when they raided targets. Wells said: "If they're raiding a house and they're going to make a mess of it looking for stuff anyway, they'd just drop an odd CD there."

The CDs were set up to use Real Player, a popular media streaming application which connects to the internet to run. Wells explained how the team embedded a code into the CDs which linked to a Google Analytics account, giving a list of IP addresses where the CDs had been played.

The tracking account had a very restricted circulation list, according to Wells: the data went to him, a senior member of the Bell Pottinger management team, and one of the U.S. military commanders.

Wells explained their intelligence value. "If one is looked at in the middle of Baghdad...you know there's a hit there," he said. "If one, 48 hours or a week later shows up in another part of the world, then that's the more interesting one, and that's what they're looking for more, because that gives you a trail."

The CDs turned up in some interesting places, Wells recalled, including Iran, Syria, and even America.

"I would do a print-out for the day and, if anything interesting popped up, hand it over to the bosses and then it would be dealt with from there," he said.

The Pentagon confirmed that Bell Pottinger did work for them as a contractor in Iraq under the Information Operations Task Force (IOTF), producing some material that was openly sourced to coalition forces, and some which was not. They insisted that all material put out by IOTF was "truthful".

IOTF was not the only mission Bell Pottinger worked on however. Wells said some Bell Pottinger work was carried out under the Joint Psychological Operations Task Force (JPOTF), which a US defense official confirmed.

The official said he could not comment in detail on JPOTF activities, adding "We do not discuss intelligence gathering methods for operations past and present."

Lord Bell, who stood down as chairman of Bell Pottinger earlier this year, told the Sunday Times that the deployment of tracking devices described by Wells was "perfectly possible", but he was personally unaware of it.

Bell Pottinger's output was signed off by the commander of coalition forces in Iraq. Wells recalled: "We'd get the two colonels in to look at the things we'd done that day, they'd be fine with it, it would then go to General Petraeus".

Some of the projects went even higher up the chain of command. "If [Petraeus] couldn't sign off on it, it would go on up the line to the White House, and it was signed off up there, and the answer would come back down the line'.

Petraeus went on to become director of the CIA in 2011 before resigning in the wake of an affair with a journalist.

The awarding of such a large contract to a British company created resentment among the American communications firms jostling for Iraq work, according to a former employee of one of Bell Pottinger's rivals.

"Nobody could work out how a British company could get hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. funding when there were equally capable U.S. companies who could have done it," said Andrew Garfield, an ex-employee of the Lincoln Group who is now a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. "The American companies were pissed."

Ian Tunnicliffe, a former British soldier, was the head of a three person panel from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)-the transitional government in Iraq following the 2003 invasion-which awarded Bell Pottinger their 2004 contract to promote democratic elections.

According to Tunnicliffe, the contract, which totaled $5.8m, was awarded after the CPA realized its own in-house efforts to make people aware of the transitional legal framework ahead of elections were not working.

"We held a relatively hasty but still competitive bid for communications companies to come in," recalls Tunnicliffe.

Tunnicliffe said that Bell Pottinger's consortium was one of three bidders for the contract, and simply put in a more convincing proposal than their rivals.

Iraq was a lucrative opportunity for many communications firms. The Bureau has discovered that between 2006 and 2008 more than 40 companies were being paid for services such as TV and radio placement, video production, billboards, advertising and opinion polls. These included US companies like Lincoln Group, Leonie Industries and SOS International as well as Iraq-based firms such as Cradle of New Civilization Media, Babylon Media and Iraqi Dream.

But the largest sums the Bureau was able to trace went to Bell Pottinger.

According to Glen Segell, who worked in an information operations task force in Iraq in 2006, contractors were used partly because the military didn't have the in-house expertise, and partly because they were operating in a legal "grey area".

In his 2011 article Covert Intelligence Provision in Iraq, Segell notes that U.S. law prevented the government from using propaganda on the domestic population of the U.S. In a globalized media environment, the Iraq operations could theoretically have been seen back home, therefore "it was prudent legally for the military not to undertake all the...activities," Segell wrote.

Segell maintains that information operations programs did make a difference on the ground in Iraq. Some experts question this however.

A 2015 study by the Rand Corporation, a military think tank, concluded that "generating assessments of efforts to inform, influence, and persuade has proven to be challenging across the government and DoD."

Bell Pottinger's operations on behalf of the U.S. government stopped in 2011 as American troops withdrew from Iraq.

Bell Pottinger changed ownership after a management buyout in 2012 and its current structure has no connections with the unit Wells worked for, which closed in 2011. It is understood the key principals who were involved in this unit deny any involvement with tracking software as described by Wells.

Wells left Iraq after less than two years, having had enough of the stress of working in a war zone and having to watch graphic videos of atrocities day after day.

Looking back at his time creating propaganda for the US military, Wells is ambivalent. The aim of Bell Pottinger's work in Iraq was to highlight al Qaeda's senseless violence, he said-publicity which at the time he thought must be doing some good. "But then, somewhere in my conscience I wondered whether this was the right thing to do," he added.

Lord Bell told the Sunday Times he was "proud" of Bell Pottinger's work in Iraq. "We did a lot to help resolve the situation," he said. "Not enough. We did not stop the mess which emerged, but it was part of the American propaganda machinery."

Whether the material achieved its goals, no one would ever really know, said Wells. "I mean if you look at the situation now, it wouldn't appear to have worked. But at the time, who knows, if it saved one life it [was] a good thing to do."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Those Most Likely to Be Stopped and Frisked in Trump's America Are Those Not Voting for Him Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 01 October 2016 14:14

Pierce writes: "Dear Constitutional Conservatives: I've been checking in with Reuters, and wondering something. Where y'all at?"

Donald Trump speaking at a rally. (photo: Charlie Leight/Getty Images)
Donald Trump speaking at a rally. (photo: Charlie Leight/Getty Images)


Those Most Likely to Be Stopped and Frisked in Trump's America Are Those Not Voting for Him

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

01 October 16

 

ear Constitutional Conservatives: I've been checking in with Reuters, and wondering something.

Where y'all at?

With the race tightening between Trump and Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the final weeks before the Nov. 8 election, the Republican candidate recently began wooing African-American voters. Stop-and-frisk, however, has been the target of protests and successful legal challenges in New York and other big American cities in recent years as a tactic that unfairly singles out minority citizens and violates their civil rights. In the tactic, officers stop pedestrians, question them and then search them for weapons or contraband. At the town hall, Trump praised stop-and-frisk, according to an excerpt of the interview released by Fox News. He made his statement in response to an audience member's question about what the New York businessman would do to reduce crime in predominantly black communities across the nation, said the two people, Geoff Betts and Connie Tucker.

Alexandra Jaffe of NBC News tweeted out the complete answer given out by El Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago.

Sean Hannity, the Trump campaign's finger-puppet in chief, hosted the town hall. In his off hours, Sean plugs an online course on the Constitution taught by the good folks at wingnut diploma mill, Hillsdale College.

Me? I'd rather be taught juggling by Edward Scissorhands.

Anyway, I would like to hear again from all those good liberals who believe that the real threat to civil liberties in this country is something Hillary Rodham Clinton said 20 years ago. I think that would be amusing right now.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 Next > End >>

Page 1881 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