Dear Friend,
Nellie Massacre 1983 forced to accept NRC in Assam; Is Delhi’s Anti-Muslim pogrom a plan to forcefully implement All India NRC…? The planned attack on Muslims in Delhi 2020, is similar to Anti-Muslim Gujarat riots 2002, then CM and now PM were silent for 3 days
Kindly support honest journalism to survive. https://countercurrents.org/subscription/
If you think the contents of this news letter are critical for the dignified living and survival of humanity and other species on earth, please forward it to your friends and spread the word. It's time for humanity to come together as one family! You can subscribe to our news letter here http://www.countercurrents.org/news-letter/.
In Solidarity
Binu Mathew
Editor
Countercurrents.org
Is Delhi’s Anti-Muslim pogrom a plan to forcefully implement All India NRC?
by Syed Azharuddin
Nellie Massacre 1983
forced to accept NRC in Assam; Is Delhi’s Anti-Muslim pogrom a plan to forcefully implement All India NRC…? The planned attack on Muslims in Delhi 2020, is similar to Anti-Muslim Gujarat riots 2002, then CM and now PM were silent for 3 days
(The planned attack on Muslims in Delhi 2020, is similar to Anti-Muslim Gujarat riots 2002, then CM and now PM were silent for 3 days)
Muslims for Independence of India: Very much surprising to know that around 5,00,000 Muslims got martyred for the Independence of India since revolt of 1857 followed by The Reshmi Rumaal Tehreeq in 1905, The Mopla movement in 1921, The Non-cooperation Movement in 1920, the Swadeshi Movement in 1905, The Quit India movement in 1942 and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar lost Central Elections in 1946, the Bengal Muslim League vacated one of its seats and in by poll Dr. Ambedkar won. This gesture paved the way for his entry into the Constituent Assembly and the rest is history of Independence in 1947 and the making of Constitution. After the huge sacrifices India is now home to nearly 200 million Muslims, yet witnessing several communal riots after independence from the British Empire.
Muslims for Democratic India: The sacrifices given by Muslims of India didn’t stopped at 1947 but till continued, before Independence they fought for freedom and after independence they are fighting for existence even in this digital era where world is considered as a global village.
Since 2 months or more, our country has seen massive and sustained protests against the union government’s divisive, dangerous and discriminatory citizenship Amendment Act. This has been a movement which has not only affirmed equal citizenship as a right, but a collective value that is the basis of any constitutional democracy.
In January, 23 alone killed in the state of Uttar Pradesh and most of the dead were Muslim daily wagers who succumbed to alleged police bullets as fact finding reports claimed, 5 killed in Assam and 2 in Karnataka, 100’s got injured, 1000’s were detained during anti-CAA protests across the nation.
The time line of major communal riots in India after Independence:
Kolkata riots – 1964
This riot was believed to be instigated by violence in East Pakistan now Bangladesh, after 16 years of Independence the hindus attacked Muslim mill workers in Kolkata, violence spread in rural areas of West Bengal and had left over a hundred people dead, 438 people were injured. Over 7000 people were arrested. 70,000 Muslims have fled their homes and 55,000 were provided protection by the Army of India. Muslims in Kolkata started living in ghettoize since then.
Gujarat riots – 1969
It refers to the communal violence between Hindus and Muslims during September–October 1969, in Gujarat, India. The Gujarat’s first major riot and most deadly violence in independent India, that involved massacre, arson and looting of Muslims on a large scale. According to the official figures, 660 people were killed, 1074 people were injured and over 48,000 lost their property. Unofficial reports claim as high as 2000 deaths. The Muslim community suffered the majority of the losses. Out of the 512 deaths reported in the police complaints, 430 were Muslims. Property worth 42 million rupees was destroyed during the riots, with Muslims losing 32 million worth of property.
Less Talked Riots – 1970 and 1980
Bhiwandi Riots in 1970 was an instance of anti-Muslim violence which occurred on 7 and 8 May in the Indian towns of Bhiwandi, Jalgaon and Mahad. There were large amounts of arson and vandalism of Muslim-owned properties. Similarly, in Moradabad – 1980, an estimated 2,500 people were killed. The official estimate is 400 and other observers estimate between 1,500 and 2,000. Local police were directly implicated in planning the violence.
Nellie massacre – 1983
According to Government records, 1819 persons belonging to the religious minority community i.e, Muslims were brutally killed during a six-hour period started in morning February 18th, 1983 at 14 villages of Nagaon district. (Unofficial figure of people lost lives were 10,000). Later police filed 688 criminal cases in connection with Nellie massacre and only 310 cases were charge-sheeted and the remaining 378 cases were closed due to the police that claimed lack of evidence. But all the 310 charge sheeted cases were dropped by the subsequent Government as a part of the Assam Accord, 1985; therefore not a single person even had to face the trial for the gruesome massacre. Nellie massacre is described as one of the worst pogroms since World War II.
Anti-Sikh riots – 1983
The Operation Blue Star, was an Indian military operation carried out between 1 and 8 June 1984, ordered by PM Indira Gandhi to remove religious leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his armed militants from the buildings of the Harmandir Sahib complex in Amritsar, Punjab. Bhindranwale died and militants were removed from the temple complex, it was criticized by Sikhs worldwide who had interpreted it as an assault on Sikh religion. 4 months later, on 31 October 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards followed by a series of anti-Sikh pogroms for five days continuously, starting Oct. 31, reports claim 2,800 to 17,000 Sikhs were killed across India. The violence, however, was centered in Delhi. Later 20,000 left the city and at least 1000 displaced according to reports.
Hashimpura Massacre – 1987
The Hashimpura massacre is an incident of mass murder which took place in the month of May, 1987 near Meerut in Uttar Pradesh, India. In 1987 Meerut communal riots in between March to June death toll was recorded as 350. Delhi High court in 2018 convicted 16 out of 19 personnel of the Provincial Armed Constabulary who rounded up 42 Muslim youths from the Hashimpura locality, took them to the outskirts of the city, shot them in cold blood and dumped their bodies in a nearby irrigation canal. After few days, the dead bodies were found floating in the canal and a case of murder was registered. 19 men were accused of having performed the act. After 3 decades on October 31, 2018, the Delhi High Court convicted the 16 personnel of the PAC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, venturing the trial courts verdict.
Bombay riots – 1992
Hindu extremist groups attacked and destroyed the historical Babri Masjid in Ayodhya city of Uttar Pradesh. The mosque was built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 16th Centuary. Following the incident, wide-scale communal riots took place in Mumbai, heart of bollywood industry. The riots began on 6th December and raged on for a month. Officially 900 people were killed, more than 2,000 injured and many displaced. Media recorded it as “a pre-planned pogrom,” that had been in the making since 1990, and stated that the destruction of the mosque was “the final provocation”. A high-ranking member of the special branch, V. Deshmukh, gave evidence to the commission tasked with probing the riots and said the failures in intelligence and prevention had been due to political assurances that the mosque in Ayodhya would be protected, that the police were fully aware of the Shiv Sena’s capabilities to commit acts of violence, and that they had incited hate against the minority communities. The Muslim community was left empty hand even after the democratic, legal and political struggle of more than two and half decades for the justice, but accepted the Supreme Court judgment in the interest of communal harmony in 2019 and Babri Masjid land is handed over to majority community of India.
Gujarat riots – 2002
On 28th February, anti-Muslim pogrom occurred in the western state of India, Gujarat then Narendra Modi was Chief of State and now the Prime Minister of India. According to official figures, the riots ended up with 1,044 dead, 223 missing, and 2,500 injured. Of the dead, around 80% were Muslims. other reports claimed the death toll were in between 1900-2000. Many brutal killings and rapes were reported on as well as widespread looting and destruction of Muslims property. Then CM was accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as were police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them. Almost 20,000 Muslim homes and businesses and 360 places of worship were destroyed. Roughly, 150,000 people were displaced. The riots started after Muslims were blamed for allegedly burning a train which left 59 Hindu people dead. A year before, justice Nanavati-Mehta Commission gives clean to Narendra Modi for Anti-Muslim riots of Gujarat in 2002.
Muzaffarnagar riots -2013
The clashes between two communities of Muzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh, India in August–September, resulted in at least 62 deaths, 42 were Muslims and 20 were Hindus and injured 93 and left more than 50,000 displaced. The exact numbers of deaths is of much debate as, in Public Interest Litigation filed by a victims of the violence, in the Supreme Court, the number of deaths is suggested to be over 200. This riot has been described as “the worst violence in Uttar Pradesh in recent history”, Supreme Court of India while hearing petitions in relation to the riots held the Akhilesh Yadav led Samajwadi Party, prima facie guilty of negligence in preventing the violence and ordered it to immediately arrest all those accused irrespective of their political affiliation. The state government then formed an SIT to probe the riot cases and SIT has filed charge sheets in 175 cases. Police had registered cases against 6,869 people and arrested 1,480 people in connection with the said riots. According to the SIT, 418 accused have been acquitted in 54 cases due to lack of evidence.
Genocide in Delhi – 2020
75 days crossed, since anti-CAA movement begun from JMI followed by AMU and MANUU and Shaheenbagh 24×7 sit-in iconic protests came light which gave birth to more than 150 Shaheenbagh across India and at least 17 in Delhi – the capital of India. According to media reports on 23rd February, after the hateful speech against Muslims by right-wing politician his followers started carrying out despicable acts of violence as the police ineffectively looks on. Residents of Maujpur, Bhajanpura, Chandbagh, Seelampur, Jaffrabad and other areas of Northeast Delhi were afraid that hate filled mobs might run through at any moment, unchecked by police or state authorities. On 27th late night it was officially declared that 38 people killed after the attack by right wing goons, which began after provocative speeches by politicians of hindutva ideology and on which Delhi High Court ordered police to File FIR Against Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma, but the same day Judge S Muralidhar who gave the order got transferred to Punjab and Haryana High Court from Delhi. This shows the clear agenda of state and administration against the minority community.
Syed Azharuddin is a social activist
Harrowing hearts and sowing hatred? Spare a thought for harvest season also!
by Ashutosh Sharma
Majority community must understand that hate crimes breed retaliatory hate crimes. It would be a big mistake to believe growing trend of targeted violence against Muslims to be infertile.
Blame Rests With Right-Wing For Fomenting Riots In Delhi
by Ashraf Lone
When I say that the right wing is responsible for the anti-Muslim riots happening in Delhi, it means that the right wing, aka the RSS and BJP, its media and its affiliates are
entirely responsible for the mess.
When I say that the right wing is responsible for the anti-Muslim riots happening in Delhi, it means that the right wing, aka the RSS and BJP, its media and its affiliates are entirely responsible for the mess. From failing on the economic front to other policies, the right wing party wants to hide its failures and is not living up to its promises such providing crores of jobs, etc. It is using the unemployed Hindu youth as fodder to keep them busy. From demonizing Muslims and calling them outsiders to calling to shoot the protestors and openly daring not to amend or revoke CAA, the right-wing BJP has been somewhere responsible for all the trouble and the riots in Delhi.
Having lived in Delhi for about six years (while studying at JNU) and enjoying everything in this beautiful city with such a huge diversity, I could have never imagined that this could happen in (forgetting for some time about 1984 anti-Sikh riots). Delhi had left 1984 behind, and it had progressed on many fronts. From roads to flyovers, the Metro and some world class institutions, Delhi is not what it was decades ago.
I used to walk on the streets of Delhi for many miles from JNU to RK Puram, from JNU to Vasant Kunj and Connaught Place, Rajiv Chowk, Sarojini Nagar without any hesitation or fear. But now, at the present moment, I can’t imagine walking in Delhi streets and markets freely. I may have to prove/hide my identity at every step, in every street, and this is a severe blow to Delhi, to what I believe in and have enjoyed for many years.
In the last few days of violence in Delhi, mostly Muslims, their houses, shops along with a mosque were set on fire by Hindu mobs. So was Delhi’s diversity and multi-culturalism. Terror and mayhem are everywhere, and around 20 people have lost their lives. This is very unfortunate for a city that boasts and thrives on diversity—where people from all religions across India come to study and bring with them different languages and cultures. It is not only unfortunate but also exposes the threat the divisive, right wing ideology and its affiliates pose to this country.
Muslims are a part of this country as much a Hindu or any other non-Muslim. The people of India must rise against this terror unleashed on Muslims and other minorities in India and save its secularism from this hate-filled group. The inclusive and diverse India is what Indians should feel proud of.
Ashraf Lone, JNU, New Delhi
33 Turkish soldiers confirmed killed in Idlib airstrike
by Countercurrents Collective
At least 33 Turkish soldiers have been killed and an unspecified number of soldiers were injured in an airstrike in Syria’s Idlib province. Turkish officials blamed the strike to the Syrian military. Casualties from the strike were being treated at hospitals in the border town of Reyhanli.
At least 33 Turkish soldiers have been killed and an unspecified number of soldiers were injured in an airstrike in Syria’s Idlib province. Turkish officials blamed the strike to the Syrian military. Casualties from the strike were being treated at hospitals in the border town of Reyhanli.
Turkish officials have called the NATO secretary-general and the U.S. national security adviser in relation to the events in Idlib, Turkish Anadolu Agency (AA) reported.
Citing Hatay province Governor Rahmi Dogan the AA said: “In Idlib, Turkey’s armed forces were targeted by the regime elements in an airstrike.” The governor was talking to media on Thursday.
Hatay is the Turkish province bordering Idlib.
The Hatay governor earlier said that nine soldiers had been killed. But minutes later the death toll was revised to 33.
Speaking to the AA, Dogan stressed that there was no shortage of blood at the hospitals.
The governor noted that medics have been “taking all necessary interventions” to treat the wounded.
Dogan’s statement comes amid a high-level Turkish security meeting chaired by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It has been presumed that the high-level security meeting focused on the incident.
Other reports on social media claimed Thursday that dozens of Turkish troops were killed in a “Russian” airstrike and dozens more were injured.
The reports also said: The hospitals in Hatay were struggling to cope with the influx of the wounded.
But none of this has so far been confirmed by Ankara.
Erdogan’s press secretary Fahrettin Altun told reporters in the early hours of Friday that Turkey is retaliating to the “illegitimate regime that has pointed the gun at our soldiers,” by launching air and artillery strikes against Syrian targets.
Altun described the events in Idlib as genocide, saying Turkey will now allow the repetition of “what happened in Rwanda and Bosnia” there. “The blood of our heroic soldiers will not be left on the ground,” Altun said, according to AA. “Our activities on the ground in Syria will continue until the hands reaching for our flag are broken.”
The situation in Idlib, the last remaining rebel stronghold in Syria, has escalated dramatically in the recent weeks with Syria ramping up its offensive against Islamist militants to reclaim strategic towns, which prompted Turkish military to send thousands of its own troops and hardware to back its allies, fighting against the forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Turkey using artillery fire, says Russia
Shortly before Turkey’s announcement, the Russian military accused the Turkish side of using “artillery fire” as well as “reconnaissance and attack drones” to target the Syrian army positions, without specifying when the strikes have taken place.
While Turkey ruled out its pullout from Idlib, demanding Russia withdraws its support from advancing Syrian troops instead, Russia has accused Turkey of supporting militants there in violation of the previously agreed arrangement to set up a de-escalation zone.
Damascus to pay heavy price, says Turkish VP
Turkey’s vice president Fuat Oktay has vowed revenge on Syrian forces after 33 Turkish soldiers were killed in the rebel-held Idlib province.
Ankara earlier said it had launched air and artillery strikes in retaliation.
Oktay unleashed a scathing verbal attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad and the forces loyal to Damascus shortly after a 6-hour marathon emergency security meeting chaired by Erdogan concluded in Ankara in the early hours of Friday.
Oktay spoke plainly, referring to the Syrian leader as “the head of a terror state” who “would go down in history as a war criminal” in a written statement reported by the AA, adding that Damascus would “pay [a] heavy price” for what he called a “treacherous attack on Turkish troops.”
Footage purportedly capturing recent air raids by the Turkish military on Syrian positions has circulated in Turkish media alongside reports that some 1,709 targets were destroyed within the last 17 days of Turkey’s onslaught in Idlib.
Despite suffering casualties, Turkey previously said it would not withdraw from Idlib province until the Syrian government pulls the plug on its offensive. Damascus has refused to do, arguing that its armed forces are targeting terrorists there.
An attack on NATO, says AKP
“An attack on Turkey is an attack on NATO. We expect that certain steps will be taken to [create] a no-fly zone” in Idlib, spokesperson for the ruling AKP party, Omer Celik, told reporters in Ankara early on Friday.
Social media in Turkey blacked out
Social media platforms across Turkey winked out after reports of an airstrike in Syria killing dozens of Turkish soldiers fueled rumors of an all-out war. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and YouTube were all reported down.
Twitter was the first to go, with national provider Turk Telekom shutting off access around 11:30 pm local time on Thursday. This was shortly after news broke that at least nine – the number has continued to rise since – Turkish soldiers were killed in Syria’s Idlib province.
This was followed by all other social networks, clustered by provider, according to multiple services monitoring internet outages across the globe.
Accounts of major media outlets remained active as they flashed updates about the alleged Syrian airstrike and the Turkish response.
Among the rumors circulating on social media in the aftermath were reports that Turkey will open its borders for Syrian refugees to cross into Europe, and the parliament in Ankara intended to declare war on Syria in the morning.
Turkey goes to NATO
It has been officially confirmed that Turkey has reached out to NATO and Washington.
There is speculation that Turkey might invoke Article 5 and get the alliance involved in a shooting war with Syria and Russia.
Phones were also ringing at the NATO headquarters, the White House and the Pentagon, as Turkish media reported contacts with alliance Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, U.S. national security adviser Robert O’Brien and Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
Esper and his Turkish counterpart Hulusi Akar were “exploring ways the United States can work together with Turkey and the international community,” Pentagon press secretary Alyssa Farah said on Thursday, giving no further details.
“We stand by our NATO ally Turkey and continue to call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, Russia, and Iranian-backed forces,” the U.S. State Department said in a statement.
“Oh my gosh,” was the response of U.S. envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson, when journalists told her about the airstrike on Thursday. “This is a new development. This is a big development,” she said, adding that “Of course, everything is on the table.”
Her comments led to speculation that NATO might be considering invoking Article 5, the provision of its charter that says an attack on one member is an attack on them all.
Trouble with Article 5
The trouble with Article 5 is that it does not cover actions of alliance members in foreign territory, which Idlib is.
“Nothing has been really brought up for a decision in NATO,” Hutchinson said. However, she quickly shifted to expressing hope that Ankara now understands the U.S. and NATO are its true and real allies – not Russia, with whom Erdogan has been increasingly cooperating in recent years.
NATO’s Stoltenberg “condemned the continued indiscriminate air strikes by the Syrian regime and its backer Russia in Idlib province,” the alliance’s press service said.
He also called on Russia and Syria to “stop their offensive, to respect international law and to back UN efforts for a peaceful solution” in Syria and urged “all parties to de-escalate this dangerous situation.”
Rubio and Graham calls for intervention
Hawkish US senators such as Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) have already called for intervention. Graham released a statement on Thursday evening – Washington time – calling for the US to lead the way in establishing a no-fly zone over Syria.
“The world is sitting on its hands and watching the destruction of Idlib by Assad, Iran, and the Russians,” Graham said. “I am confident if the world, led by the United States, pushed back against Iran, Russia, and Assad that they would stand down, paving the way for political negotiations to end this war in Syria.”
Rubio repeated his endorsement of the Washington Post’s editorial call for U.S. intervention in Syria from the day before, also blaming Russia and Syria while declaring that “Erdogan is on the right side here.”
Rubio and Graham have advocated U.S. intervention in Syria for years, however – while President Donald Trump has sought to withdraw from the country after the demise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).
Trump
Trump is yet to comment on the situation in Turkey. His most recent tweet was on Thursday morning, announcing a campaign rally in South Carolina.
Julian Assange, the Glass Cage and Heaven in a Rage: Day Four of Extradition Hearings
by Dr Binoy Kampmark
Thursday, February 27, Woolwich Crown Court. The first round of extradition hearings regarding Julian Assange’s case concluded a day early, to recommence on May 18th. It ended on an insensible note very much in keeping with the woolly-headed
reasoning of Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is of the view that a WikiLeaks publisher in a cage does not put all heaven in a rage.
How Democracy Ends – Not With a Bang But With a Whimper
by Karen J Greenberg
Strand by strand, our democratic fabric is unravelling before our eyes. Unfortunately, Americans have all too often looked the other way as disappearing customs, principles, and institutions threaten to turn fundamental pillars of American democracy into relics from the past, as obsolete as the black-and-white television sets of my childhood.
In this fast-paced century, rife with technological innovation, we’ve grown accustomed to the impermanence of things. Whatever is here now will likely someday vanish, possibly sooner than we imagine. Movies and music that once played on our VCRs and stereos have given way to infinite choices in the cloud. Cash currency is fast becoming a thing of the past. Cars will soon enough be self-driving. Stores where you could touch and feel your purchases now lie empty as online shopping sucks up our retail attention.
The ever-more-fleeting nature of our physical world has been propelled in the name of efficiency, access to ever more information, and improvement in the quality of life. Lately, however, a new form of impermanence has entered our American world, this time in the political realm, and it has arrived not gift-wrapped as progress but unpackaged as a profound setback for all to see. Longstanding democratic institutions, processes, and ideals are falling by the wayside at a daunting rate and what’s happening is often barely noticed or disparaged as nothing but a set of passing problems. Viewed as a whole, however, such changes suggest that we’re watching democracy disappear, bit by bit.
Plenty of Checks But No Balances
A recent sign of our eroding democratic world was on display earlier this month with the eradication of trust in the impeachment process. Impeachment, of course, was the Constitution’s protection against the misuse of power by a president. When all was said and done and the Senate had let Donald Trump off the hook, it was clear enough that the power, the threat, of impeachment had itself been thoroughly hollowed out and made ineffectual.
On both sides of the aisle, senators agreed that the president had erred. Republican Lamar Alexander, for example, thought his actions were “wrong” and “inappropriate”; Republican Joni Ernst believed that he had “mishandled” things; while Rob Portman and Susan Collins, echoing Alexander’s sentiments, also labeled his actions “wrong.” It made no difference. The four of them like all the other Republican senators except Utah’s Mitt Romney had, to say the least, no appetite for removing their party’s president from office.
But the real lesson the country should have taken home was this: in the future, it would be foolish to place the slightest hope for protecting democracy in the process that Founding Father James Monroe once described as “the main spring of the great machine of government.” Today, no matter the facts, impeachment is dead in the partisan waters, an historical anomaly that’s long outlived its time.
The failure of impeachment also brought to light the weakness of the constitutional principle of checks and balances. In theory, when it comes to presidential behavior, Congress and the courts have the power to rein in the chief executive. But in this century, both congressional and judicial restraints have proven anemic. One of the many obvious things highlighted by the recent impeachment acquittal in the Senate is Congress’s ultimate ineffectuality when it comes to presidential power.
Donald Trump’s unabashed willingness to use his veto power in a fulsome, even autocratic, fashion only underscores this presidential reality. Recently, for instance, he confirmed that he will veto any bill passed by Congress requiring that he consult that body before launching military attacks on Iran. If recent history holds any lesson for us, it’s that Trump will do no such consulting, especially given the historic weakness of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Congress passed it to emphasize the necessity of getting its consent for war, but ever since its inception Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all found ways around it.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the courts, Attorney General William Barr has boldly stated his belief that the president’s power dwarfs that of the other branches of government. “In recent years,” he claimed late in 2019, “both the legislative and judicial branches have been responsible for encroaching on the presidency’s constitutional authority.” True to his word, Barr has worked to ensure that the Justice Department has barely a scintilla of independence from the president, even as he lamented Trump’s public display via tweet of controlling the attorney general and that very department.
Of course, Barr’s modest protest about that tweeting rang hollow, given his actions. He played the central role in taking the sting out of the Mueller Report by publicly misrepresenting its conclusions before it was released. His Justice Department endeavored to give blanket immunity from testifying to Congress to individuals close to the president, decreeing that they were not compelled to appear, even when subpoenaed to do so — an assertion overruled by a federal judge but left unresolved in the courts to date.
Barr has also publicly rewritten history to contest, as he put it, the “grammar school civics class version of our Revolution… [as] a rebellion against monarchial tyranny.” Instead, he claimed, in making their new system, what the founders really feared was the tyranny of the “prime antagonist,” the British legislative body or parliament. And within days of the Senate’s acquittal of the president, Barr was once again on the march against obstacles to any presidential assertion of power. He even overruled his own prosecutors in the wake of a tweet by the president, and called for a reduction in the seven-to-nine year sentencing recommendations they were planning to make for presidential pal Roger Stone.
Like the impeachment process, the theory and practice of checks and balances now lies in ruin in a country whose billionaire president has written plenty of checks without balances of any sort. Think of him, in fact, as our very own unfounding father.
Questioning the Legitimacy of the American Election System
Tellingly, the failure of the impeachment process and the collapse of the system of checks and balances have coincided with the onset of the primary season for election 2020. And the anti-democratic virus is visibly spreading in that direction as well. Some Senate Republicans, especially Maine’s Susan Collins, tried to hide behind the notion that, thanks to his impeachment, if not conviction, President Trump had “learned” a salutary lesson “from this case.” Within 24 hours, however, it was clear that the president had “learned” nothing, except that he could do what he pleased. It was, it turned out, the democratic system that had learned a lesson — and not a good one either.
In the case of the caucuses and primaries, those building blocks of presidential elections, our institutions seem as frail and ineffectual as the impeachment process itself. Failing to produce a discernible result in a timely manner, the future not only of the Iowa caucus but of caucuses in general is now being reconsidered. That caucus has, since 1972, been the first moment in the electoral process. It has also long been questioned, given the way that state ill-represents the diversity of the country. But the catastrophic collapse of this year’s version of the Iowa caucus process had nothing to do with issues of diversity and everything to do with interference, incompetence, and finally a disastrous “coding error” in an app.
As the New York Times reported, “the irregularities in the results are likely to do little to restore public confidence in the Iowa caucuses.” As a result, its days as first in the nation may indeed be over. In fact, caucuses in general may be headed for the graveyard. As former presidential candidate Julian Castro recently tweeted, the lessons learned in Iowa surpassed that of a single state, revealing instead “that our democracy has been mis-served by a broken system.” Even Tom Perez, the head of the Democratic National Committee, has weighed in, supporting a conversation about moving from caucuses to primaries in the remaining caucus states.
Once again, an established democratic institution is poised to be tossed into the trash bin of history.
Not surprisingly, an increasingly errant political process is being reflected in the culture at large. To take but one example: the newspaper candidate endorsement. This year, bizarrely enough, for the first time in its history, the New York Times chose to endorse not one candidate but two (Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren), a gesture that was tantamount to endorsing no one at all.
The paper’s editorial board simply punted, stating that they didn’t want to choose between two visions: “Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.” In fact, their endorsement of “the most effective advocates for each approach” suggested that they were really endorsing a category rather than a specific candidate; namely, a woman. As the last sentence of the piece revealingly stated: “May the best woman win.”
The Boston Globe promptly followed suit, rejecting the very idea of a candidate endorsement, despite a 200-year history of providing them. The Globe’s editorial board argued instead that the first two states in the primary season — Iowa and New Hampshire — were insufficiently diverse to justify their position in the order of primary states. It was time, they explained, “to call for the end of an antiquated system that gives outsized influence in choosing presidents to two states that, demographically, more resemble 19th-century America than they do the America of today.” Essentially, they did what the New York Times had done. They chose to take a stand on an issue rather than on a candidate. Are endorsements, too, no longer a piece of the disintegrating American political process? (A week later, The Las Vegas Sun likewise hedged its bet and endorsed two candidates rather than one; in its case, Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar.)
The truth is that the very legitimacy of the American electoral system is now in question. Given Russian interference in the 2016 election (verified by a Senate Intelligence Committee report), not to mention reports on the same in the 2020 campaign, the increasing successes of aggressive voter suppression campaigns and lawsuits, and oft-repeated mantras from Donald Trump and his followers about potentially “rigged” elections, doubts aplenty are already afloat about the legitimacy of next November’s election results, no matter what happens on the ground.
The Great Unraveling
As 2020 dawns, this erosion of our democratic institutions hardly comes out of the blue. Democratic principles have been visibly eroding since the beginning of this century. As I described in my book Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State, the build-up in presidential powers began with George W. Bush who, after the 9/11 attacks, claimed that a “unitary” presidency was a more viable form of government than that prescribed by any separation-of-powers doctrine and its promise of checks and balances. Citing a national emergency that September, he would launch his “global war on terror” through a series of secret programs, including an offshore system of torture and injustice that left Congress, the courts, and the American public largely out of the conversation.
In the process, he removed the need for true accountability from the imperial presidency and the administration that went with it. Whether intentionally premising the decision to invade and occupy Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on a lie, staunchly refusing to prosecute those who implemented a policy of torture for suspects in the war on terror hatched in the White House and the Justice Department, or allowing a vast, warrantless, secret surveillance program against Americans as well as foreigners after 9/11, the Bush presidency shredded the concept of executive restraint. In the process, it left its unchecked acts on the table for any future president.
Barack Obama chose to “look forward” not back when it came to the CIA’s global torture program and continued to run the war on terror under the expansive Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by Congress in September 2001. In the process, by avoiding accountability for the new version of an imperial presidency, he left the door open for Donald Trump to begin to create what could, in essence, prove to be a system of executive autocracy in this country.
Given the precedents created in the post-9/11 years, it really should be no surprise that President Trump ignores legalities and precedent, while refusing to observe restraints under the guise of security concerns, and expects not to face accountability. In the process, there is no question that the Trump presidency has already taken the template of the untethered executive and its anti-democratic excesses to a new level, simultaneously defying restraints while brazenly purging anyone who might disagree with him.
As Peter Bergen pointed out in discussing his new book, Trump and His Generals: The Cost of Chaos, with the resignations or firings of generals once in top cabinet positions, Trump has succeeded in surrounding himself with “a group of yes-men, a small amount of yes-women, and family members.” Indeed, week by week, executive departments are rearranged and re-staffed to fill the administration with those willing to say yes, and only yes, to whatever the president wants.
Thirty-four years ago, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., described American history as moving in 30-year cycles, alternating between liberal and conservative eras that, over the long haul, kept the Constitution and the country in balance. And indeed, there have been a few glimmers of light on the horizon recently, including a willingness of the courts, for instance, to halt an executive order allowing state and local officials to reject the resettlement of refugees in their communities.
But examples like that are too few and far between to qualify even as serious indicators of a cyclical return to normalcy, while, strand by strand, our democratic fabric is unravelling before our eyes. Unfortunately, Americans have all too often looked the other way as disappearing customs, principles, and institutions threaten to turn fundamental pillars of American democracy into relics from the past, as obsolete as the black-and-white television sets of my childhood.
Karen J. Greenberg, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, as well as the editor-in-chief of the CNS Soufan Group Morning Brief. She is the author and editor of many books, including Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State and The Least Worst Place: Guantánamo’s First 100 Days. Julia Tedesco contributed research to this article.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Originally published in TomDispatch
Copyright Karen J. Greenberg
David Ray Griffin’s The Christian Gospel for Americans: A Systematic Theology
by Edward Curtin
The Christian Gospel for Americans is his crowning achievement, a rare marriage of spiritual contemplation and social analysis that
brings to life Jesus and the Hebrew prophets for contemporary Americans.
Reciprocal Altruism
by Anandi Sharan
Treating others with trust and happiness, and hoping for their self-realisation seems to be natural behaviour that follows natural laws.
Love in the Time of Riots
by Zeenat Khan
Donald and Melania Trump took a lesson as to how it feels to be humble in the presence of one of the world’s most beautiful creation of such awesome magnitude, as they admired its beauty. For once, even if it was coerced, Donald and Melania Trump acted like a couple in love when they took a sunset stroll outside the Taj Mahal, a symbol of everlasting love.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.