RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The World's Biggest Carbon Emitters Officially Join the Paris Climate Deal, No, Obama Isn't "Bypassing" Congress Print
Sunday, 04 September 2016 13:27

Excerpt: "On Saturday, the United States and China formally joined the Paris Agreement, a historic global pact to curb greenhouse gas pollution and build resilience to the damaging effects of climate change."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers a keynotes address at the U.S.-China Climate-Smart/Low-Carbon Cities Summit held at a hotel in Beijing, Tuesday, June 7, 2016. (photo: Andy Wong/AP)
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers a keynotes address at the U.S.-China Climate-Smart/Low-Carbon Cities Summit held at a hotel in Beijing, Tuesday, June 7, 2016. (photo: Andy Wong/AP)


The World's Biggest Carbon Emitters Officially Join the Paris Climate Deal, No, Obama Isn't "Bypassing" Congress

By Gwynne Taraska and Andrew Light, ThinkProgress

04 September 16

 

n Saturday, the United States and China formally joined the Paris Agreement, a historic global pact to curb greenhouse gas pollution and build resilience to the damaging effects of climate change. The agreement sets a number of collective goals, such as limiting global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, and calls on countries to submit new and increasingly ambitious national targets every five years to reduce emissions.

“The challenge of climate change could define contours of future,” Obama said after submitting the documents to the United Nations. “Some day we may see this as the moment when we decided to save our planet.”

The announcement by the United States and China signifies a major step toward the Paris Agreement taking effect — and will again demonstrate that developed and emerging economies are now working in tandem to make the transition to non-polluting energy. The pact will come into force 30 days after it is formally joined by at least 55 countries representing at least 55percent of global emissions. Together, the United States and China — the world’s largest emitters — account for 38 percent of global greenhouse gas pollution. With other major economies slated to join in the near term, the agreement is expected to take effect this year.

It is not widely known that there are different categories of international agreements in the United States. Adding to the confusion is the fact that all agreements are commonly called “treaties” in conversational or international settings.

Yet it is appropriate — and should be entirely uncontroversial — for the United States to join the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement rather than a treaty. The expected announcement by President Obama is well within the purview of executive authority and is in keeping with longstanding practice in the United States. Moreover, the authority for U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement stems in no small measure from a treaty signed by a Republican president and approved by the Senate with strong bipartisan support.

Types of international agreements in the United States

In the United States, there are two types of agreements that are binding under international law: treaties and executive agreements. Whereas treaties are submitted to the Senate for approval by a two-thirds majority, executive agreements are made pursuant to the authority of a preceding treaty, a statute, or the foreign affairs power of the president. These authorities are not mutually exclusive.

Executive agreements account for the vast majority — more than 94 percent — of internationally binding agreements in the United States. They can be found throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations, on matters of both major and minor significance, and in most areas of international cooperation, including cooperation that tackles difficult environmental problems. For example, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, or LRTAP, was entered into as an executive agreement during the Carter administration and strengthened through protocols during both the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

Categorizing Paris

In the United States, the Paris Agreement is an executive agreement. There are several reasons for this.

The Paris Agreement was not created in a vacuum. The United States is already a party to a prior international climate agreement, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, which it joined as a treaty during the George H.W. Bush administration with bipartisan support from the Senate. “I am pleased to support this fine agreement,” said Senator Mitch McConnell in 1992. “I congratulate President Bush on his courageous leadership on the issue of global climate change.”

Framework conventions are umbrella documents: they create sub-agreements over time that promote their mission. The parties to the UNFCCC negotiated the Paris Agreement under the umbrella of the treaty, which notably already commits the United States to pursue emissions reductions without setting legally binding national targets.

Had the Paris Agreement veered sharply from the UNFCCC and set legally binding national targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution — as did the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States did not join — or to provide climate finance, it would have led to a serious discussion about the appropriate route for U.S. ratification.

But the spirit of the Paris Agreement, for good or ill, is about creating momentum rather than legal obligation. While the pact itself is binding under international law — and, importantly, the provisions on measuring and reporting on progress on country commitments are binding — the climate targets that countries set for themselves are not. Countries must submit national goals; they are not compelled to achieve them. There is no penalty for failure.

While some may see this structure as a weakness of the pact, it has helped lead to the creation of the first climate agreement with sufficient participation and ambition from both developed and developing countries to actually bend the global emissions curve downward. Countries representing approximately 95 percent of global emissions came to Paris with nationally supported pledges for emissions reductions. By contrast, only about 25 percent of global emissions were covered under the Kyoto Protocol at the time it went into force.

The authority for U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement lies not only in the constitutional foreign affairs power of the president but also in the consent of the Senate to the umbrella treaty. Supplementing such authorities is the fact that the pact is consistent with U.S. law, such as the Clean Air Act, which has a strong history of bipartisan support. New legislation is not required in order for the United States to meet its binding Paris obligations.

There is no algorithm to dictate whether the United States should join a given pact as an executive agreement or a treaty. Instead, the administration must weigh a set of considerations, which may include the existence of a preceding treaty or the existence of laws that could implement the agreement domestically. In the case of Paris, the characteristics of the pact and the history of U.S. diplomatic practice suggest that it is appropriately classified as an executive agreement.

Just as important as the pact’s classification, however, is the issue of continuing the momentum from the Paris summit. Unsupported claims questioning the legal authority for the United States to join the agreement could slow the resolve of other countries to join the agreement and pursue ambitious emissions reductions.

The conversation should now pivot to the pressing issues of implementing the goals set in Paris and setting more ambitious goals in the future in order to prevent the most dangerous effects of climate change.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Isn't It a Bigger Deal That Trump Is Being Advised by Sadistic Pervert Roger Ailes? Print
Sunday, 04 September 2016 13:23

Goldberg writes: "A vicious misogynist and workplace predator is working with the Republican presidential nominee. This is not normal."

Roger Ailes was too toxic to remain at Fox. Why is he involved with Trump's campaign? (photo: Fred Prouser/Ralph Freso/Reuters/Getty Images/Slate)
Roger Ailes was too toxic to remain at Fox. Why is he involved with Trump's campaign? (photo: Fred Prouser/Ralph Freso/Reuters/Getty Images/Slate)


Why Isn't It a Bigger Deal That Trump Is Being Advised by Sadistic Pervert Roger Ailes?

By Michelle Goldberg, Slate

04 September 16

 

A vicious misogynist and workplace predator is working with the Republican presidential nominee. This is not normal.

n a new New York magazine story, the invaluable Gabriel Sherman gives us fresh details of the depravity of ex-Fox News head Roger Ailes. Sherman quotes a former television producer who says Ailes told her, “If you want to make it in New York City in the TV business, you’re going to have to fuck me, and you’re going to do that with anyone I tell you to.” He reports that Ailes’ longtime executive assistant, Judy Laterza, recruited comely young women for her boss, including an intern who later told the Washington Post that Ailes had propositioned her: “If you sleep with me, you could be a model or a newscaster.” Sherman quotes Karem Alsina, a former Fox makeup artist, describing female anchors coming to see her before private meetings with Ailes: “They would say, ‘I’m going to see Roger, gotta look beautiful!’” One of these anchors, said Alsina, “came back down after a meeting, and the makeup on her nose and chin was gone.”

Sherman has reported even more disturbing stories about Ailes in the past. In July, he gave us the story of Laurie Luhn, Fox’s former director of booking, who claims that Ailes sexually extorted and psychologically tortured her for more than two decades. Among other things, he insisted she perform an erotic dance while he made a video, which, Ailes said, he was going to keep in a safe-deposit box “just so we understand each other.” For his latest piece, Sherman reports that he interviewed 18 women “who shared accounts of Ailes’s offering them job opportunities if they would agree to perform sexual favors for him and for his friends.” In some cases, writes Sherman, Ailes “threatened to release tapes of the encounters to prevent the women from reporting him.” Sherman also reports that Gretchen Carlson, who is suing Ailes for sexual harassment, secretly recorded his overtures.

There is abundant evidence, then, that Ailes is a vicious misogynist and a workplace predator. So why isn’t it a bigger deal that he’s advising the Republican presidential nominee?

To some extent we all know the answer. Donald Trump is a maelstrom. There is so much chaos around him, and so many startling violations of so many political norms, and no one has the bandwidth to process it all. On Thursday, half his Hispanic advisers quit in the wake of his demagogic Phoenix immigration speech. On Twitter, he’s feuding with both Mexico’s president and Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski, whom he called “crazy and very dumb.” As Paul Waldman points out in the Washington Post, there’s been a notable lack of press attention to the illegal contribution Trump’s foundation made to the PAC of Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, at a time when Bondi was receiving complaints from Floridians who said they’d been cheated by Trump University.

If the Clinton Foundation were accused of doing anything this outrageous, it would be front-page news. The difference in how the two candidates are covered stems, in part, from a long-standing mainstream media tendency to view everything about Bill and Hillary Clinton in the most invidious possible light. But it’s also a result of the fact that Trump is consistently able to bury his old misdeeds with new misdeeds, until all the outrages start to blur together. This week, Mother Jones published an exposé of Trump Model Management’s violation of immigration law and exploitative labor practices. There was enough there to eat up an ordinary news cycle. Instead, the story was just a blip.

Still, in a better world, journalists would ask Trump why Ailes, who was too toxic to remain at Fox, is involved with his campaign. According to the New York Times, Ailes is advising Trump on the fall presidential debates. On Twitter, Sherman posted a blurry CNN screengrab showing Ailes getting out of Trump’s plane in Phoenix this week. He may not be on Trump’s payroll, but he’s part of his inner circle.

So far, Trump has defended Ailes and cast aspersions on the women accusing him. “I can tell you that some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he’s helped them, and even recently,” Trump said in July. “And when they write books that are fairly recently released, and they say wonderful things about him. And now, all of a sudden, they’re saying these horrible things about him.”

It’s no surprise, of course, that Trump doesn’t take sexual harassment seriously. His own misogyny is extremely well-documented. His first wife, Ivana Trump, accused him of rape in a sworn deposition, saying that he’d assaulted her in a rage after a plastic surgeon she’d recommended botched his scalp surgery. (She’s since said she didn’t mean “rape” in a “literal or criminal sense,” but she’s never recanted her description of what happened.) Trump’s new campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, has been charged with domestic violence and accused of sexual harassment. In such company, Ailes doesn’t really stand out. That doesn’t mean we should treat his presence in a presidential campaign as normal.

Trump should be asked about Ailes every day as long as they’re working together, even informally. He should be asked not just why he’s associating with Ailes, but whether Ailes is being left alone with any of the women on his campaign. Keeping Ailes around, after all, is not just immoral; he is a one-man hostile work environment. Perhaps the involvement of a disgraced sexual sadist is low on the list of things that are wrong with the Trump campaign. That’s not a reason to ignore it.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Racists Are Smearing Chobani Yogurt for Hiring Muslim Refugees Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=28665"><span class="small">Amel Ahmed, Al Jazeera America</span></a>   
Sunday, 04 September 2016 13:18

Kirchick writes: "Chobani yogurt head Hamdi Ulukaya is a wildly successful capitalist. So what did he do wrong, by alt-right standards? He hires Muslim refugees."

Hamdi Ulukaya. (photo: Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images)
Hamdi Ulukaya. (photo: Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images)


Racists Are Smearing Chobani Yogurt for Hiring Muslim Refugees

By James Kirchick, The Daily Beast

04 September 16

 

amdi Ulukaya is the model American immigrant success story.

In 2005, the Turkish-born Kurdish entrepreneur purchased a defunct Kraft foods plant in upstate New York with an $800,000 loan from the Small Business Administration. In just a few years, his Chobani yogurt went from selling a few containers at a Long Island kosher grocery to being the No. 1 selling yogurt brand in the country with annual revenue topping $1.5 billion. In addition to employing more than 2,000 people directly—all of whom earn above minimum wage and enjoy generous benefits—the company purchases 4 million pounds of milk from American farmers every day.

Ulukaya dotes on his employees like a parent. “To me, there are two kinds of people in this world,” he told The New York Times. “The people who work at Chobani and the people who don’t.” Earlier this year, he gave shares amounting to 10 percent of Chobani to his workers; a rare move for a CEO to make after the value of his highly profitable company has been established. Chobani is also a corporate sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Team. Not bad for a Turkish guy selling Greek yogurt—that in itself a subtle rebuke to centuries of enmity between the two countries.

In addition to earning a raft of honorary Ph.Ds., Ulukaya has been named a World Entrepreneur of the Year by Ernst & Young, is the recipient of the United Nations Global Leadership Award, and has committed himself to Warren Buffett’s “Giving Pledge,” promising to donate at least half of his wealth to charity. To that end, Ulukaya founded an organization called Tent, which assists refugees in achieving new lives. Ulukaya, who grew up in a town near the Syrian border, says he was inspired in his activism by the plight of the some 2 million Syrians now living in Turkish refugee camps.

And that’s where the nativist forces supporting Donald Trump’s presidential campaign enter the picture. In 2012, Chobani opened the world’s biggest yogurt plant, in Twin Falls, Idaho. In addition to being one of the country’s largest milk-producing states, Idaho also happens to be one of the five highest refugee-absorbing states per capita, due to its low cost of living and 3.9 percent unemployment rate. About 30 percent of Chobani’s Twin Falls work force is composed of refugees, a hiring practice that originated with the company’s first factory in upstate New York, where many members of the community had been resettled from places like Vietnam, Burma, and Nepal. Ulukaya has written of the “growing need for the private sector to step up and help use its innovation, voice, and resources to address the global forced migration crisis,” and hiring refugees to work in Chobani’s factories has been his way of putting his money where his mouth is.

For his humanitarianism and thinking outside the traditional corporate box, Ulukaya now stands at the center of a vicious smear campaign. Earlier this year, in a piece originally headlined “American Yogurt Tycoon Vows to Choke U.S. With Muslims,” a writer for the far-right conspiracy-mongering website World Net Daily falsely claimed that refugees were being sent to Twin Falls specifically for the purpose of working at the Chobani plant and that Ulukaya was “call[ing] on [the] biggest American companies to join [an] Islamic surge.” (That line was later removed from the piece, as was the headline, since changed to the slightly less inflammatory “U.S. Yogurt Billionaire Asks Businesses to Hire More Foreign Refugees.”) The allegations have since migrated to the similarly paranoid precincts of Breitbart.com, the “alt-right” repository of white nationalism and xenophobia whose former executive chairman, Steve Bannon, recently merged seamlessly into the Trump campaign as its CEO. At Breitbart, the story of Chobani’s refugee employees has taken on new life as the centerpiece of a broader intrigue. For the past month, Breitbart reporter Lee Stranahan has been filing dispatch after dispatch from the Idaho town alleging a nexus of disease, rape, and jihad—all with Chobani and Ulukaya at its center.

In breathless tones, Stranahan, who according to his Twitter bio recently relocated to Twin Falls, attacks Ulukaya as a “globalist corporatist,” two epithets that, in the newfangled dialect of Breitbartian-Trumpian nationalism, signify one’s dubious, non-American loyalties. According to Stranahan, refugee resettlement in Twin Falls is “a situation connected to the drive for cheap labor by the local food processing industry that Chobani is a major part of.”

Another author writing at Breitbart claims that Idaho has “been a popular destination for refugees in recent years… in large part due to Ulukaya’s efforts to import refugees to work in his yogurt factory” and that Ulukaya is “a figure of controversy for his decision to fill his yogurt plants with foreign refugees rather than unemployed Americans. (Eds: An earlier version of this article incorrectly credited those quotes to Stranahan.)

But Idaho’s status as a destination for refugees dates back to the arrival of Vietnamese boat people in the late 1970s, long before the Chobani plant broke ground in 2011. Since then, the state has welcomed about 30,000 refugees from more than 50 countries. Falsely accusing Chobani and its CEO of “importing” foreign labor conflates a long-standing federal refugee resettlement program with the relatively recent hiring decisions of a private company.

This isn’t Breitbart’s only conflation with respect to the yogurt plant. Another story, under the non sequitur headline “TB spiked 500 percent in Twin Falls during 2012, as Chobani Yogurt Opened Plant,” insinuates that the company is somehow responsible for a tuberculosis epidemic in the Idaho hamlet. Never mind that the increase in TB cases exclusively ascribed to Twin Falls actually occurred across an eight-county public health district; there exists no evidence that any of the TB cases in Twin Falls were Chobani employees, or even refugees, for that matter. Furthermore, the “500 percent” “spike” consists of an increase from one case in 2011 to six in 2012, back down to a single case last year.

The most sensational component of Breitbart’s “special report” concerns an inappropriate sexual encounter, misleadingly labeled a “gang rape,” involving three refugee minors and a 5-year-old Twin Falls girl in June. Local anti-Muslim activists seized upon the incident, which is under investigation by authorities, and launched a campaign to discredit the entire refugee resettlement program, which Stranahan ominously labels “Idaho’s Globalist Devil’s Bargain.” Last month, a white nationalist organization called the American Freedom Party issued robocalls across Idaho informing listeners that the “nonwhite invasion of their state and all white areas constitutes white genocide.” (This is the same racist outfit that endorsed Trump, calling him the “Great White Hope,” and paid for robocalls on his behalf in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses.)

In a piece headlined “Twin Falls Refugee Rape Special Report: Why are the Refugees Moving In?” Stranahan writes that the use of refugee labor by Chobani and other food companies in southern Idaho has led to unspecified “civic consequences,” the insinuation being that these businesses are somehow responsible for the June incident and that the entire refugee resettlement program should be scrapped on account of the behavior of three refugee children.

Given how much Trump and Breitbart bemoan the loss of manufacturing to overseas competition and extol America’s rural values, one might have expected the populist website to applaud Chobani’s employing thousands of Americans in well-paid jobs and support for the country’s agricultural sector. “This has been a shot in the arm,” the head of a Twin Falls paving company said back in 2011, when Chobani broke ground on its plant.

“The kind of success that Chobani is experiencing in the Magic Valley is setting a great example of regional collaboration between employers and community leaders throughout Idaho,” Republican Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter enthused earlier this year, after the company announced a $100 million expansion to build a global research and development center in Twin Falls. “And it has economic development leaders all over America standing up and taking notice of what Idaho has to offer.”

Ultimately, however, the unfounded and hysterical attacks on Chobani, its employees, and its visionary founder are a perfect distillation of Breitbart and the presidential campaign onto which it has so shamelessly hitched itself. A toxic mix of lies, innuendo, xenophobia, and resentment, these screeds exemplify a zero-sum worldview in which gains made by the foreign-born must, somehow, come at the expense of “real” Americans, who, by the way, don’t need your stinking, healthy, low-sugar, gluten-free, kosher, halal, foreign yogurt.

Hamdi Ulukaya’s business ethics—fair, compassionate, cosmopolitan—are a direct repudiation of Donald Trump’s cutthroat, selfish, racist greed. And perhaps that’s what grates Breitbart most about this green card-holding, tax-paying Turkish immigrant and the business he built from scratch. For at its heart, the Trump phenomenon is a revolt of the thuggishly second-rate, a collection of mediocrities and opportunists for whom dragging down their betters provides a fillip to wallowing alone in self-pity.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: In Attempted Hit Piece, NYT Makes Putin Hero of Defeating TPP Print
Sunday, 04 September 2016 12:31

Wheeler writes: "In an remarkable hit piece NYT spent over 5,000 words yesterday trying to prove that all of WikiLeaks' leaks are motivated from a desire to benefit Russia."

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in March. (photo: Alexei Nikolsky)
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in March. (photo: Alexei Nikolsky)


In Attempted Hit Piece, NYT Makes Putin Hero of Defeating TPP

By Marcy Wheeler, emptywheel

04 September 16

 

n an remarkable hit piece NYT spent over 5,000 words yesterday trying to prove that all of WikiLeaks’ leaks are motivated from a desire to benefit Russia.

That of course took some doing. It required ignoring the evidence of the other potential source of motivation for Julian Assange — such as that Hillary participated in an aggressive, and potentially illegal, prosecution of Assange for being a publisher and Chelsea Manning for being his source — even as it repeatedly presented evidence that that was Assange’s motivation.

Putin, who clashed repeatedly with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state,

[snip]

In late November 2010, United States officials announced an investigation of WikiLeaks; Mrs. Clinton, whose State Department was scrambled by what became known as “Cablegate,” vowed to take “aggressive” steps to hold those responsible to account.

[snip]

Another person who collaborated with WikiLeaks in the past added: “He views everything through the prism of how he’s treated. America and Hillary Clinton have caused him trouble, and Russia never has.”

It also required dismissing some of the most interesting counterexamples to the NYT’s thesis.

Sunshine Press, the group’s public relations voice, pointed out that in 2012 WikiLeaks also published an archive it called the Syria files — more than two million emails from and about the government of President Bashar al-Assad, whom Russia is supporting in Syria’s civil war.

Yet at the time of the release, Mr. Assange’s associate, Ms. Harrison, characterized the material as “embarrassing to Syria, but it is also embarrassing to Syria’s opponents.” Since then, Mr. Assange has accused the United States of deliberately destabilizing Syria, but has not publicly criticized human rights abuses by Mr. Assad and Russian forces fighting there.

As I have noted, there is a significant likelihood that the Syria files came via Sabu and Anonymous from the FBI — that is, that it was actually an American spy operation. Even aside from how important a counterexample the Syrian files are (because they went directly contrary to Putin’s interests in protecting Assad, no matter how bad they made Assad’s western trade partners look), the provenance of these files and Assange’s current understanding of them deserve some attention if NYT is going to spend 5,000 words on this story.

But the most remarkable stunt in this 5,000 screed is taking Wikileaks’ efforts to show policies a great many people believe are counterproductive — most importantly, passing trade deals that benefit corporations while hurting real people, but also weakening other strong hands in climate change negotiations — and insinuating they might be a Putinesque plot. This bit requires editorial notes in line:

From November 2013 to May 2016, WikiLeaks published documents describing internal deliberations on two trade pacts: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would liberalize trade [ed: no, it would protect IP, the opposite of liberalizing trade] between the United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim countries, and the Trade in Services Agreement, an accord between the United States, 21 other countries and the European Union.

Russia, which was excluded, has been the most vocal opponent of the pacts [this is presented with no evidence, nor even a standard of evidence. I and all of America’s TPP opponents as well as TPP opponents from around the world must redouble our very loud effort], with Mr. Putin portraying them as an effort to give the United States an unfair leg up in the global economy.

The drafts released by WikiLeaks stirred controversy among environmentalists, advocates of internet freedom and privacy, labor leaders and corporate governance watchdogs, among others. They also stoked populist resentment against free trade that has become an important factor in American and European politics. [Here, rather than admitting that this broad opposition to these trade deals shows that Putin is not the most vocal opponent of these pacts — contrary to their foundational assumption in this section — they instead portray a wide spectrum of well-considered activism as unthinking response to Putinesque manipulation. And note, here, a news outlet is complaining that ordinary citizens get access to critically important news, without even blushing? Also note the NYT makes no mention of the members of Congress who were also begging for this information, which makes it easier to ignore the profoundly anti-democratic nature of these trade agreements.]

The material was released at critical moments, with the apparent aim of thwarting negotiations, American trade officials said. [In a piece obscuring the unpopular and anti-democratic nature of these trade deals, the NYT gives these sources anonymity.]

WikiLeaks highlighted the domestic and international discord on its Twitter accounts.

American negotiators assumed that the leaks had come from a party at the table seeking leverage. [That anonymity again: NYT is protecting some bitter trade negotiators who’ve invented a paranoid conspiracy here. On what grounds?]

Then in July 2015, on the day American and Japanese negotiators were working out the final details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, came what WikiLeaks dubbed its “Target Tokyo” release.

Relying on top-secret N.S.A. documents, the release highlighted 35 American espionage targets in Japan, including cabinet members and trade negotiators, as well as companies like Mitsubishi. The trade accord was finally agreed on — though it has not been ratified by the United States Senate — but the document release threw a wrench into the talks.

“The lesson for Japan is this: Do not expect a global surveillance superpower to act with honor or respect,” Mr. Assange said in a news release at the time. “There is only one rule: There are no rules.” [That the US spies on trade negotiations was of course not news by this point. But it is, nevertheless, worthy to point out.]

Because of the files’ provenance, United States intelligence officials assumed that Mr. Assange had gotten his hands on some of the N.S.A. documents copied by Mr. Snowden.

But in an interview, Glenn Greenwald, one of the two journalists entrusted with the full Snowden archive, said that Mr. Snowden had not given his documents to WikiLeaks and that the “Target Tokyo” documents were not even among those Mr. Snowden had taken.

The next paragraph goes on to note that the same NSA documents focused on climate negotiations between Germany and the UN, which seems to suggest the NYT also believes it is in petro-state leader Putin’s interest for the US attempts to dominate climate change negotiations to be thwarted, even as Assange describes US actions as protection petroleum interests, which of course align with Putin’s own.

In other words, as a central piece of evidence, the NYT spent 11 paragraphs repackaging opposition to shitty trade deals — a widely held very American view (not to mention a prominent one is most other countries affected) — into something directed by Russia, as if the only reasons to oppose TPP are to keep Russia on an equal shitty neoliberal trade footing as the rest of us, as if opposing the deals don’t benefit a whole bunch of red-blooded Americans.

That’s not only logically disastrous, especially in something billed as “news,” but it is very dangerous. It makes legitimate opposition to bad (albeit widely accepted as good within beltway and I guess NYT conventional wisdom) policy something disloyal.

NYT’s argument that Putin was behind WikiLeaks’ NSA leaks doesn’t hold together for a lot of reasons (not least that those two topics are probably not what Putin would prioritize, or even close). But it also has the bizarre effect, in a hit piece targeting Assange and Putin, of making Putin the hero of the anti-TPP movement.

And yet, NYT’s three journalists don’t seem to understand how counterproductive to their “journalistic” endeavor that argument is.

Update: As Trevor Timm notes, NYT worked with WL on the TPP release.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Hillary Clinton Courts Henry Kissinger's Endorsement Even After Meeting His Victims Print
Sunday, 04 September 2016 10:33

Jilani writes: "Hillary Clinton's campaign has been seeking the endorsement of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and their efforts may pay off, as there are reports that he is expected soon, alongside former Secretary of State George Schultz, to issue a joint endorsement of Clinton."

Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger. (photo: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger. (photo: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images)


Hillary Clinton Courts Henry Kissinger's Endorsement Even After Meeting His Victims

By Zaid Jilani, The Intercept

04 September 16

 

illary Clinton’s campaign has been seeking the endorsement of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and their efforts may pay off, as there are reports that he is expected soon, alongside former Secretary of State George Schultz, to issue a joint endorsement of Clinton.

While those inside the national security community in Washington, D.C., may applaud the endorsement, Kissinger’s legacy of war crimes — from complicity in the 1973 coup in Chile to spearheading the saturation bombing of Indochina — has made him far less popular among human rights observers.

Clinton is well aware of that legacy. As secretary of state, she traveled to areas of the world that were devastated by policies Kissinger crafted and implemented.

The most relevant example is in 2012, when she visited Laos’s Cooperative Orthotic & Prosthetic Enterprise, a joint project between NGOs and the government of Laos dedicated to helping people with physical disabilities get prosthetic limbs and be rehabilitated. The project’s creation was prompted by the millions of submunitions littered across Laos, left over from the U.S. air war on the country during the conflict in Indochina.

A 2009 government report estimated that there are still 300 casualties annually from leftover ordinance.

During Clinton’s visit she met with Peter Kim, a young man who at age 16 happened upon an unexploded American bomb and lost both of his hands and his eyesight. “For everyone who works to help prevent injury and then to help survivors, and to the people of Laos, and I wish everything good for you,” Clinton told Kim as reporters watched on.

Kissinger served as President Richard Nixon’s secretary of state when that president expanded the U.S. air war in Laos. During the 1971 ground invasion of the country, Nixon complained about the media’s critique of the operation, leading Kissinger to quip that if “Britain had a press like this in World War II, they would have quit in ’42.”

The bombings made Laos, “per capita, the most heavily bombed country on earth,” with around a ton of bombs being dropped for every person in the country.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 Next > End >>

Page 1912 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