By Max Blumenthal

CNN’s leading media turd, Wolf Blitzer.

A parade of American securitocrats from administrations both past and present appeared on stage to defend endless global warfare and total information awareness while uniting in a single voice of condemnation against a single whistleblower bunkered inside the waiting room of Moscow International Airport: Edward Snowden.

Security Forum participants expressed total confidence in the American empire, but could not contain their panic at the mention of Snowden.

Seated on a stool before an audience packed with spooks, lawmakers, lawyers and mercenaries, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer introduced recently retired CENTCOM chief General James Mattis. “I’ve worked with him and I’ve worked with his predecessors,” Blitzer said of Mattis. “I know how hard it is to run an operation like this.”

Reminding the crowd that CENTCOM is “really, really important,” Blitzer urged them to celebrate Mattis: “Let’s give the general a round of applause.”

Following the gales of cheering that resounded from the room, Mattis, the gruff 40-year Marine veteran who once volunteered his opinion that “it’s fun to shoot some people,” outlined the challenge ahead. The “war on terror” that began on 9/11 has no discernable end, he said, likening it to the “the constant skirmishing between [the US cavalry] and the Indians” during the genocidal Indian Wars of the 19th century.

“The skirmishing will go on likely for a generation,” Mattis declared.

Mattis’ remarks, made beside a cable news personality who acted more like a sidekick than a journalist, set the tone for the entire 2013 Aspen Security Forum this July. A project of the Aspen Institute, the Security Forum brought together the key figures behind America’s vast national security state, from military chieftains like Mattis to embattled National Security Agency Chief General Keith Alexander to top FBI and CIA officials, along with the bookish functionaries attempting to establish legal groundwork for expanding the war on terror.

Partisan lines and ideological disagreements faded away inside the darkened conference hall, as a parade of American securitocrats from administrations both past and present appeared on stage to defend endless global warfare and total information awareness while uniting in a single voice of condemnation against a single whistleblower bunkered inside the waiting room of Moscow International Airport: Edward Snowden.

With perhaps one notable exception, none of the high-flying reporters junketed to Aspen to act as interlocutors seemed terribly interested in interrogating the logic of the war on terror. The spectacle was a perfect window into the world of access journalism, with media professionals brown-nosing national security elites committed to secrecy and surveillance, avoiding overly adversarial questions but making sure to ask the requisite question about how much Snowden has caused terrorists to change their behavior.

Jeff Harris, the communications director for the Aspen Institute, did not respond to questions I submitted about whether the journalists who participated in the Security Forum accepted fees. (It is likely that all relied on Aspen to at least cover lodging and travel costs). CNN sponsored the forum through a special new website called CNN Security Clearance, promoting the event through Twitter and specially commissioned op-eds from participating national security figures like former CIA director John McLaughlin.

Another forum sponsor was Academi, the private mercenary corporation formerly known as Blackwater. In fact, Academi is Blackwater’s third incarnation (it was first renamed “Xe”) since revelations of widespread human rights abuses and possible war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan threw the mercenary firm into full damage control mode. The Aspen Institute did not respond to my questions about whether accepting sponsorship from such an unsavory entity fit within its ethical guidelines.

“Exterminating People”

John Ashcroft, the former Attorney General who prosecuted the war on terror under the administration of George W. Bush, appeared at Aspen as a board member of Academi. Responding to a question about U.S. over-reliance on the “kinetic” approach of drone strikes and special forces, Ashcroft reminded the audience that the U.S. also likes to torture terror suspects, not just “exterminate” them.

“It’s not true that we have relied solely on the kinetic option,” Ashcroft insisted. “We wouldn’t have so many detainees if we’d relied on the ability to exterminate people…We’ve had a blended and nuanced approach and for the guy who’s on the other end of a Hellfire missile he doesn’t see that as a nuance.”

Hearty laughs erupted from the crowd and fellow panelists. With a broad smile on her face, moderator Catherine Herridge of Fox News joked to Ashcroft, “You have a way with words.”

But Ashcroft was not done. He proceeded to boast about the pain inflicted on detainees during long CIA torture sessions: “And maybe there are people who wish they were on the end of one of those missiles.”

Competing with Ashcroft for the High Authoritarian prize was former NSA chief Michael Hayden, who emphasized the importance of Obama’s drone assassinations, at least in countries the U.S. has deemed to be Al Qaeda havens. “Here’s the strategic question,” Hayden said. “People in Pakistan? I think that’s very clear. Kill ’em. People in Yemen? The same. Kill ’em.”

Jane Harman, formerly (D-CA), a sworn ally of the repressive establishment.

"Ambassador" John Negroponte: No forum for ghouls would be complete without the presence of this longtime supervisor of deathsquads all over the Third World.

General Keith Alexander Director, National Security Agency; Commander, U.S. Cyber Command. Alexander typifies the integration of corporate agendas with intel/military bureaucracies.

“We don’t smoke [drug] cartel leaders but personally I’d support it,” remarked Philip Mudd, the former deputy director of Bush’s Counterterrorism Center, earning more guffaws from his fellow panelists and from Herridge. Ironically, Mudd was attempting to argue that counter-terror should no longer be a top U.S. security priority because it poses less of a threat to Americans than synthetic drugs and child obesity.

Reflection was not on the agenda for most of the Security Forum’s participants. When asked by a former US ambassador to Denmark the seminal question “This is a great country, why are we always the bad guy?” Mudd replied, “They think that anything the U.S. does [in the Middle East], even though we helped Muslim communities in Bosnia and Kuwait, everything is rewritten to make us the bad guys.”

The clamoring about U.S. invasions, drone strikes, bankrolling of Israel’s occupation, and general political meddling, could all be written off as fevered anti-Americanism borne from the desert canyons of the paranoid Arab mind.

And the wars could go on.

Delusions of Empire

Throughout the three days of the Security Forum, the almost uniformly white cast of speakers were called on to discuss recent geopolitical developments, from “Eye-rak” and “Eye-ran” to Egypt, where a military coup had just toppled the first elected government in the country’s history.

Mattis carefully toed the line of the Obama administration, describing the overthrow of Egypt’s government not as a coup, but as “military muscle saddled on top of this popular uprising.”

Warning that using terms like “coup” could lead to a reduction in U.S. aid to Egypt, where the military controls about one-third of the country’s economy, Mattis warned, “We have to be very careful about passing laws with certain words when the reality of the world won’t allow you to.”

Wolf Blitzer mentioned that Egypt’s new military-imposed foreign minister, Nabil Fahmy, had been a fixture in Washington during the Mubarak days. “These are people the West knows, the U.S. knows,” he said of the new cabinet in Cairo. “I assume from the U.S. perspective, the United States is so much more happy with this.”

Later, one of the few Arab participants in the forum, Al Jazeera DC bureau chief Abderrahim Foukara, claimed that the Arab revolts were inspired by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. “The iconic image of Saddam being pulled out of a hole did something to the dynamic between ruler and ruled in the Arab world,” Foukara claimed.

With the revolts blurring the old boundaries imposed on the Arab world during the late colonial era, former CIA director John McLaughlin rose from the audience to call for the U.S. to form a secret, Sikes-Picot-style commission to draw up a new set of borders.

“The American government should now have such a group asking how we should manage those lines and what should those lines be,” McLaughlin told the panelists, who dismissed the idea of a new Great Game even as they discussed tactics for preserving U.S. dominance in the Middle East.

ABC’s Chris Isham asked Jim Jeffrey, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, why, with a recession on its hands and Middle Eastern societies spiraling out of control, should the U.S. remain militarily involved in the region. Without hesitation, Jeffrey rattled off the reasons: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and “world oil markets.”

“What could we have done better?” Isham asked the ambassador.

“Probably not too much.”

NSA Heroes, Saving Lives of Potential Consumers

While participants in the Security Forum expressed total confidence in American empire, they could not contain their panic, outrage, and fear at the mere mention of Snowden.

“Make no mistake about it: These are great people who we’re slamming and tarnishing and it’s wrong. They’re the heroes, not this other and these leakers!” NSA chief General Keith Alexander proclaimed, earning raucous applause from the crowd.

Snowden’s leaks had prompted a rare public appearance from Alexander, forcing the normally imperious spy chief into the spotlight to defend his agency’s Panopticon-style programs and its dubious mechanisms of legal review. Fortunately for him, NBC’s Pete Williams offered him the opportunity to lash out at Snowden and the media that reported the leaks, asking whether the “terrorists” (who presumably already knew they were being spied on) had changed their behavior as a result of the leaks.

“We have concrete proof that terrorists are taking action, making changes, and it’s gonna make our job harder,” Alexander declared, offering nothing to support his claim.

Alexander appeared in full military regalia, with colorful decorations and medallions covering his left breast. Casting himself as a stern but caring father who has the best interests of all Americans at heart, even if he can’t fully disclose his methods, he turned to the crowd and explained, “The bad guys…hide amongst us to kill our people. Our job is to stop them without impacting your civil liberties and privacy and these programs are set up to do that.”

“The reason we use secrecy is not to hide it from the American people, but to hide it from the people who walk among you and are trying to kill you,” Alexander insisted.

Corporations like AT&T, Google and Microsoft that had been compelled to hand over customer data to the NSA “know that we’re saving lives,” the general claimed. With a straight face, he continued, “And that’s good for business because there’s more people out there who can buy their products.”

Self-Reporting

So who were the “bad guys” who “walk among us,” and how could Americans be sure they had not been ensnared by the NSA’s all-encompassing spying regime, either inadvertently or intentionally? Nearly all the Security Forum participants involved in domestic surveillance responded to this question by insisting that the NSA had the world’s most rigorous program of oversight, pointing to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts as the best and only means of ensuring that “mistakes” are corrected.

“We have more oversight on this [PRISM] program than any other program in any government that I’m aware of,” Alexander proclaimed, ramming home a talking point repeated throughout the forum.

“I can assure these are some of the judges who are renowned for holding the government to a very high standard,” John Carlin, the Assistant US Attorney General for National Security, stated.

But in the last year, FISA courts received 1,856 applications for surveillance from the government. In 100 percent of cases, they were approved. As for Congress, only two senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, demanded the NSA explain why PRISM was necessary or questioned its legality. Despite the fact that the entire regime of oversight was a rubber stamp, or perhaps because of it, none of those who appeared at the Security Forum to defend it were willing to consider any forum of independent civilian review.

“You have to do [domestic surveillance] within a closed bubble in order to do it effectively,” Dennis Blair, the director of National Intelligence conceded under sustained grilling from the Washington Post‘s Barton Gellman, one of the reporters who broke Snowden’s leaks and perhaps the only journalist at the Security Forum who subjected participants to tough scrutiny.

When Gellman reminded Alexander that none of the oversight mechanisms currently in place could determine if the NSA had improperly targeted American citizens with no involvement in terror-related activity, the general declared, “we self-report those mistakes.”

“It can’t be, let’s just stop doing it, cause we know, that doesn’t work,” Alexander maintained. “We’ve got to have some program like [PRISM].”

The wars would go on, and so would the spying.

Reinstituting Public Confidence

During a panel on inter-agency coordination of counter-terror efforts, Mike Leiter, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC), suggested that one of the best means of preserving America’s vast and constantly expanding spying apparatus was “by reinstituting faith among the public in our oversight.”

Even as current NCC director Matthew Olsen conceded, “There really are limits in how transparent we can be,” Leiter demanded that the government “give the public confidence that there’s oversight.

Since leaving the NCC, Leiter has become the senior counsel of Palantir Technologies, a private security contractor that conducts espionage on behalf of the FBI, CIA, financial institutions, the LAPD and the NYPD, among others. In 2011, Palantir spearheaded a dirty tricks campaign against critics of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, including journalists, compiling electronic dossiers intended to smear them. Palantir’s target list included progressive groups like Think Progress, SEIU and U.S. Chamber Watch.

In the friendly confines of the Aspen Institute’s Security Forum, Leiter did his best to burnish his company’s tarnished image, and do some damage control on behalf of the national security apparatus it depends on for contracts. Like most other participants, Leiter appeared in smart casual dress, with an open collar, loafers, a loose-fitting jacket and slacks.

“Just seeing us here,” he said, “that inspires [public] confidence, because we’re not a bunch of ogres.”

Author’s Website: http://maxblumenthal.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and best-selling author whose articles and video documentaries have appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, The Nation, The Guardian, The Independent Film Channel, The Huffington Post, Salon.com, Al Jazeera English and many other publications. He is a writing fellow for the Nation Institute. His book, Republican Gomorrah: Inside The Movement That Shattered The Party, is a New York Times and Los Angeles Times bestseller. Order a copy here.

By Stephen Lendman

People support Snowden all over the world .

Swedish Sociology Professor Stefan Svallfors nominated him. He praised his “heroic effort at great personal cost.”  He revealed NSA’s lawless global spying. He told millions worldwide what they need to know. He did so at great risk.  He deserves high praise, not persecution. He showed “individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms,” said Svallfors. 

His nominating letter states:

“Best committee members!

I suggest that the 2013 Peace Prize (be) awarded to the American citizen Edward Snowden.

Edward Snowden has – in a heroic effort at great personal cost – revealed the existence and extent of the surveillance, the US government devotes electronic communications worldwide.

By putting light on this monitoring program – conducted in contravention of national laws and international agreements – Edward Snowden has helped to make the world a little bit better and safer.”

Through his personal efforts, he has also shown that individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms.  This example is important because since the Nuremberg trials in 1945 (it’s) been clear that the slogan ‘I was just following orders’ (rings hollow) as an excuse for acts contrary to human rights and freedoms.”

Despite this, it is very rare that individual citizens have the insight of their personal responsibility and courage Edward Snowden showed in his revelation of the American surveillance program.  For this reason, he is a highly (deserving) candidate.

The decision to award the 2013 prize to Edward Snowden would – in addition to being well justified in itself – also help to save Nobel (Committee members) from the(ir) disrepute (resulting from) the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award US President Barack Obama 2009 award.

It would show (their) willingness to stand up in defense of civil liberties and human rights, even when such a defense (would) be viewed with disfavour by the world’s dominant military power.”

Sincerely,

Stefan Svallfors 
Professor of Sociology at Umea University

Honoring Obama wasn’t the first disgraceful award. Many others preceded it. More followed. Nobel hypocrisy is longstanding. Worthy recipients are rare. War criminals win often.  Doing so mocks peace. It reflects gross injustice. Perhaps committee members believe war is peace. Don’t expect them to explain why scoundrels regularly win. Political expediency, not worthiness, matters most.

Russian Duma International Committee of the Russian State head Alexey Pushkov is right, saying:

“Not in a million years will the United States allow Snowden to get the Peace Prize. But his nomination is significant. Many in the West see him as a champion of democracy.”

Millions do worldwide. This type support is reward enough. It’s priceless. It can’t be bought. It can’t be denied. It can’t be ignored. It has meaning. It’s what Nobel scoundrels lack – integrity to do what’s right regardless of risks involved.

Svallfors is credentialed to submit nominations. Qualified individuals include:

• members of national assemblies and governments;

• international courts members;

• university rectors;

• social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology professors;

• peace research organizations;

• foreign policy institutes;

• former Nobel recipients;

• board members of organizations awarded the prize;

• active Nobel Committee members; and

• former Committee advisors.

Annual awards are supposed to be given to “person(s) who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”  Nobel words ring hollow. Awards reflect polar opposite principles. They’re not what members claim. It happens with disturbing regularity. It doesn’t surprise. Snowden’s eligible for the December 2014 award. The deadline for this year’s nominations ended in February. Winners are invited to Oslo to receive it. Snowden can’t come.

Norway rejected his asylum request. Washington pressured its decision. Aftenposten is Norway’s largest circulation broadsheet.  It said granting him asylum’s the diplomatic equivalent of war on America. It’s why most countries reject him. They cravenly support what’s wrong.

Norway’s a NATO country. The North Atlantic Alliance is America’s imperial tool. It’s a killing machine. It’s for offense, not defense.  It advances Washington’s imperium. It does so destructively. Norway’s one of 12 founding members. It’s been one since April 4, 1949.

Imagine if China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, or other independent countries pressured Norway and other Western countries not to grant one of their citizens asylum.

Their request would be denied. Their ambassadors would be called on the carpet. Perhaps they’d be expelled. Western hypocrisy is longstanding. Double standards are common practice.  Washington rules apply. Rule of law principles are spurned. Democratic values are mocked. Honor and integrity don’t matter. It doesn’t surprise.

On July 16, Russia Today headlined “Russia receives Snowden temporary asylum request,” saying:

Russia’s Federal Migration Service(FMS) confirmed receipt. Processing may take several months. In the meantime, he’ll either be transferred temporarily to a refugee center or allowed to choose his own accommodations.

A previous article said he’ll be given freedom of movement. He’ll get special permit permission to do so. He’ll have it in a matter of days.  According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s apprised of what’s happening. He abstained from the process.

“If we are talking about temporary asylum, then this issue is not for the president, but the FMS, where it is not even reviewed on a chief’s level,” said Peskov.

On Tuesday, human rights lawyer Anatoly Kucherena said Snowden “handed over his application to Sheremetyevo’s (FMS) staff.”

“I told him about all the intricacies of the procedure.”

“It was decided that a staff member from the FMS office will come to the airport to accept Snowden’s temporary asylum request, as he is not allowed to leave Sheremetyevo’s transit zone.”

“He is being pursued by the US government. That’s what he wrote.”

“I am quoting – and he fears for his life, safety, that he will be tortured or receive the death penalty.”

His situation is very difficult. He’s a man without a country. He’s wrongly pursued for doing the right thing. He’s no criminal.

He’s undecided whether to remain in Russia or move to a permanent safe haven. If granted temporary asylum, he may decide to say if permitted to do so.

“Talking to me,” said Kucherena, “he did not mention that he was going to move to another country after he receives asylum. It looks to me like he has not made a final decision.”

He had a choice. He could have applied for political or temporary asylum. He chose the latter because review time is months shorter.  He’s tired of living in airport transit zone limbo. Temporary asylum grants humanitarian status. It postpones or avoids deportation.

If approved, he can stay in Russia 12 months. He can be granted another year and a third. Perhaps longer with FMS approval. According to FMS’ Public Chamber head Vladimir Volokh:

For the next several days, Snowden will either remain in Sheremetyevo’s transit zone or move temporarily to an asylum center.

“Right now we are beginning the first stage – the definition of (his) legal status,” Volokh said.  He “would have to be in the transit area, or FMS can transfer him to the temporary accommodation for refugees for internally displaced persons.”

Russia Today interviewed Anatoly Kucherena. He explained the complexities of Russia’s asylum process.  It’s decision to review his request is based on human rights considerations.

“In terms of his legal status,” said Kucherena, “receiving political asylum or temporary asylum would not change status. In terms of receiving political asylum status, the procedure is quite long – 6 months.”

“Receiving temporary asylum will only take up to 3 months. He chose this option.”  He’s tired of transit zone limbo. He wants resolution soon as possible. If FMS “rules in favor of his petition, he will be issued a refugee ID.”   It permits free movement anywhere for a year. He’ll have “full rights and privileges of a Russian citizen.”  He’ll make his own accommodation arrangements. Kucherena agreed to represent him.

“Russia’s humane approach in resolving this issue, without a doubt bears witness to the fact that no matter who or which country the individual comes from, in times of such difficult personal troubles, we have to act humanely toward that individual,” he said.

“I believe that under such circumstances and his written petition, it is necessary for him to be granted temporary asylum.”

“I think it will be a humane step, and since Russia is acting humanly, the US government cannot view it as a hostile step or hostile behavior toward the US.”

Kucherena believes Snowden’s a man of his word. He’s morally and legally right. His fears are credible. He’s ideologically driven. He calls it “unacceptable to violate universal human rights on such a large scale.”  He may decide to stay in Russia. He told Kucherena he’d like to stay. If granted permission he’ll “become a citizen with all rights and privileges.”

For now, Russia’s his safest option. Travel outside its borders is too hazardous to risk. He may decide to stay permanently.  He’s got plenty of time to resolve his final status. He’ll get competent help doing so.

A Final Comment

The Movement of the Icelandic Parliament, EU Pirate parties, and former Tunisian Secretary of State for Sport & Youth nominated Bradley Manning for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.  So did past award winner Mairead Maguire, saying:

“I have chosen to nominate US Army Pfc Bradley Manning, for I can think of no one more deserving.”

“His incredible disclosure of secret documents to Wikileaks helped end the Iraq War, and may have helped prevent further conflicts elsewhere.”  Manning connected important dots. He did so for millions. He exposed war horrors graphically. He did so at great risk. He suffered horrendously for doing the right thing.

Maguire’s right. No one’s more deserving. Let America try explaining why it plans imprisoning a peace prize honoree. Lift the bar beyond its reach. Show its ugly face. Make it answerable for gross injustice. Let the whole world know better than before.  Eugene Debs should have won. In 1924, he was nominated. Nobel Committee members rejected him. On April 13, 1919, he was imprisoned. He opposed WW I. He was against America’s involvement.

Woodrow Wilson called him a traitor. He urged draft resistance. He faced 10 sedition counts. His trial defense called no witnesses. He alone addressed the court.  He spoke for two hours. He was convicted. At sentencing, he spoke again. Journalist Heywood Broun called his speech “one of the most beautiful and moving passages in the English language.”

“He was for that one afternoon touched with inspiration. If anyone told me that tongues of fire danced upon his shoulders as he spoke, I would believe it.”

In part, he said:

“Your honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the form of our present government; that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in the change of both but by perfectly peaceable and orderly means….”

“I am thinking this morning of the men in the mills and factories. I am thinking of the women who, for a paltry wage, are compelled to work out their lives; of the little children who, in this system, are robbed of their childhood, and in their early, tender years, are seized in the remorseless grasp of Mammon, and forced into the industrial dungeons, there to feed the machines while they themselves are being starved body and soul….”

“Your honor, I ask no mercy. I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail.”

“I never more fully comprehended than now the great struggle between the powers of greed on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of freedom.”

“I can see the dawn of a better day of humanity. The people are awakening. In due course of time they will come into their own.”

Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.”

“I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. It rejected him. In 1920, he ran for president in Atlanta, GA prison. He got 919,799 write-in votes.  On December 23, 1921, Warren Harding commuted his sentence to time served. He wasn’t pardoned. He returned to Terre Haute, IN. Thousands greeted him.  In 1924, Finnish socialist Kark Wiik nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He did so because Debs “work(ed) actively for peace during WW 1.” He considered it waged for “the interest(s) of capitalism.”

No award was granted that year. On October 20, 1926, heart failure took him. On October 26, a supporter said his epitaph should read:

“He who labored incessantly for others, at last found rest. He who waged ceaseless strife on behalf of his brothers has entered into the eternal peace.”

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.  It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

By Rowan Wolf, Editor in Chief
Cyrano’s Journal Today

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), or at least the majority of them, seem to feel that we are in a post-racial, post-ethnic, ahistorical period. Whether it is deciding to gut parts of the hard-won voting rights act, or whether it is gutting the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the majority of the court does not understand that racism is not dead and that they are reinstitutionalizing significant components of that racism.

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder … and the Voting Rights Act

Supporting: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito / Dissenting: Ginsburg, Breyer, Stotmayor, Kagan.

In the case of the Voting Rights Act (Section 5 to be specific) related case (Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.), Chief Justice Roberts (writing for the majority) argued that the Voting Rights Act had been successful and that the country had changed. He then utilized registration statistics to “demonstrate” that the key tenets of the Act were no longer necessary. Leonard Pitts, Jr. writing for the Baltimore Sun (The Supreme Court’s Assault on Civil Rights, 7/6/13) summarized Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting statement:

Using that success as an excuse to cripple it, noted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent, is like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” Indeed, had the nation not changed dramatically since 1965, would that not have been cited as evidence of the act’s failure? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, then: the Voting Rights Act never had a chance.

In a well crafted analysis of the problem of utilizing statistical data in the way that Roberts did, Nate Silver (In Supreme Court Debate on Voting Rights Act, a Dubious Use of Statistics) argues:

The bigger potential flaw with Chief Justice Roberts’s argument is not with the statistics he cites but with the conclusion he draws from them.

Most of you will spot the logical fallacy in the following claim:

No aircraft departing from a United States airport has been hijacked since the Sept. 11 attacks, when stricter security standards were implemented. Therefore, the stricter security is unnecessary.

As much as I might want to be sympathetic to this claim (I fly a lot and am wary of the “security theater” at American airports), it ought not to be very convincing as a logical proposition. The lack of hijackings were in part a product of an environment in which airport security was quite strict, and says little about what would happen if these countermeasures were removed.

Silver concludes with:

Statistical analysis can inform the answers if applied thoughtfully. But statistics can obscure the truth when they become divorced from the historical, legal and logical context of a case.

Indeed, there is a problem with divorcing statistics from context. An important part of the current context is the Republican effort across the country to enact voting restriction laws aimed at intentionally denying racial and ethnic minorities equal access to the vote. These voting restrictions also negatively impact those who are poor, elderly, and disabled, and rural.

This effort to restrict voter participation is part of a long term Republican game plan (see note 1 below regarding Paul Weyrich). It is sadly being an effective campaign, and decimating the Voting Rights Act is only another advance in that plan.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and ICWA (SCOTUS opinion)

Supporting Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy. Breyer / Dissenting: Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Kagan, with Scalia joining in part.

ICWA is federal legislation that is aimed at keeping Indian children with their families and tribes. The historical context for the Act is the mass removal of Native children from their families and tribes – first with the boarding school movement, and then through the intervention of Children’s Services agencies. Those agencies refused to acknowledge the cultural differences of family and child rearing among the tribes and forcibly removed Native children from their homes. Originally (with the boarding school movement) the intention was clearly cultural genocide. That genocide continued via fosterage – whether intended or not. ICWA was aimed at giving the tribes, and Native families, protection from involuntary termination of parental rights. It also provides rights and protections for Indian children who have been separated from family and tribe. (see Note 2)

The case and decision is summarized nicely by Marcia Zug: (with the exception that Veronica is not adopted, and hence not legally “Capobianco”

The Court’s decision actually argued that provisions of ICWA would “dissuade” non-Native adoptive parents from adopting Native children. Stunningly, this is part of the reasoning behind ICWA. Much like the decision regarding the “success” of the Voting Rights Act, the majority of the Court seems to believe that there is no longer any need to worry about the issue of Native children being removed from their cultural environment, nor the continued existence of the tribes existence resting on the young – just like in every culture.

Adding to the misrepresentation of this case was the media who portrayed many aspects of the case incorrectly. For example, stating that Baby Veronica had been adopted by the Capobianoco’s. Actually the adoption was never completed and the South Carolina Family Court denied the petition to adopt (NICWA Fact Check). Further, it was determined that there was a clear knowledge on the part of both the biological mother and the Capobianco’s that the Brown was a tribal member; that this was important; and that it could impact the adoption. There seems to be several efforts to subvert this and therefore allow the adoption to go forward. First was the misspelling of Dusten Brown’s first name and providing an incorrect birth date which led to the tribe not acknowledging that Mr. Brown was indeed a tribal member. Further, the race of the child was indicated as “Hispanic.” (side note: Hispanic not a race, but an ethnic identification) instead of Native American and White.

None of this made a difference to the conservatives on the Court, as they seemingly don’t care for a federal law on Indian welfare. Krehbiel-Burton for Native American Times summarizes some of Justice Alito’s comments thusly”

Calling the Indian Child Welfare Act an 11th hour trump card for Brown, Justice Samuel Alito made multiple references to the child’s blood quantum and claimed that the act could potentially put vulnerable children at risk because of a “remote Indian ancestor.”

Wrong and Wrong and “Right” on Track

So the majority of the court (who are conservative) are taking up these critical racial issues and operating from both a conservative and White privileged perception of racial understanding. From the conservative justices we see both ideological biases and political influences. On the ideological side there is a perception that somehow basic civil rights and protections for real injurious processes are either no longer needed, or (as with Scalia) should never have been there in the first place. In the present “white” world (and it has been this way for some time), racial issues, and particularly institutionalized racist processes, are history and no longer part of today’s social-political milieu. Somewhere we tipped over a line into racial “entitlement” for those deemed not white. Interestingly we did that without ever having once discussed (much less addressed) the issue of white privilege.

At least one justice is quite vocal in his personal opinions on racial issues coming before the court. We have multiple examples of Scalia referring to the The Voting Rights Act as a “perpetuation of racial entitlements.” Now one would think that voting was a right and not an “entitlement,” but Scalia felt that it was the duty of the Court to “fix” this “entitlement” problem since Congress lacked the political will to do so. Further, Alito’s comments seem to assume that keeping children with Native ancestry with their families is somehow putting them “at risk.” Really!? Does this mean that white adoptive families are inherently less “risky?” (Activist judges anyone? I am not hearing the right scream about these decisions.)

The Shelby County decision clearly furthers the political agenda of shrinking the electorate. The Baby Veronica decision indicates a clear disdain for legal protections for tribal families, and a willingness to overrule established law for political expedience – not Constitutional purity.

Notes:

YouTube recording)

Baby Veronica and the fight to preserve Native American rights.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rowan Wolf, academic and sociopolitical activist, helms Cyrano’s Journal Today, born in 1982 as America’s first radical media review. 

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“The government would have to prove that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animus.”

When Trayvon Martin was murdered by a “creepy cracker” in February, 2012, an outraged Black America mobilized to force the State of Florida to put the perpetrator on trial. Seventeen months later, in the words of President Obama, “a jury has spoken,” affirming Florida’s original contention that Trayvon’s death was not a criminal act.

The White House also wanted Trayvon to be forgotten. Three weeks after the shooting, speaking through his press secretary, the president declared, “obviously we’re not going to wade into a local law-enforcement matter.” A few days later, Obama sought to placate Black public opinion with a statement of physical fact: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

In the wake of the acquittal, Obama’s press people have announced he’ll stay out of the case while Attorney General Eric Holder pretends to explore the possibility of pursuing civil rights charges against George Zimmerman. Holder told the sorority sisters [11] of Delta Sigma Theta that Martin’s death was “tragic” and “unnecessary,” but a federal prosecution of Zimmerman is highly unlikely. The government would have to prove that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animus – a fact that is as obvious to Black America as a mob lynching at high noon at Times Square. However, except for the fact that he murdered a teenager, George Zimmerman is no more provably racist in a U.S. court than most white Americans – which is why the Florida cops and prosecutors initially refused to arrest him, why the jury acquitted him, and why the bulk of the corporate media empathized with the defense.

“Zimmerman was acting on the same racist assumption that motivates police across the country.”

The white public at-large shares with Zimmerman the belief – a received wisdom, embedded in their worldview – that young Black males are inherently dangerous. From this “fact” flows a reflex of behaviors that, to most whites, are simply commonsensical. If young Black males are inherently dangerous, they must be watched, relentlessly. Black hyper-surveillance is the great intake mechanism for mass Black Incarceration. Zimmerman, the self-appointed neighborhood watchman, was acting on the same racist assumption that motivates police across the country, which is why the cops in Zimmerman’s trial were more valuable to the defense than to the prosecution. The same goes for the prosecutors and judge, much of whose daily lives are organized around the inherent dangerousness of young Black men.

Naturally, the cops testified that they saw no racial animus in Zimmerman’s actions – just as they would deny that their own hyper-surveillance of Black communities is motivated by animus. The jury, like the vast majority of white Americans, approves of the Black surveillance regime, and of those civilians that also keep an eye out for “crime” – which is synonymous with “Black males.” As juror B37 [12] put it, Zimmerman’s “heart was in the right place” – meaning, she saw Zimmerman’s profiling and pursuit of Trayvon as well-intentioned and civic-minded; clearly, not malicious. Something “just went terribly wrong” – an unfortunate turn of events, but not a crime. The unanimous verdict shows the other jurors also perceived no malice – no racial motivation – by Zimmerman.

In fact, white folks in general do not think it is racist or evidence of malice to believe that Black males are a prima facie threat; it’s just a fact. Therefore, it is “reasonable” that civilians, as well as cops, be prepared to use deadly force in confrontations with Black males.

“The white public at-large shares with Zimmerman the belief that young Black males are inherently dangerous.”

The answer to the question: What would a reasonable person do? is essential to American law. Police, prosecutors, judges and jurors base their decisions on their own subjective perception of the state of mind of people who harm or kill, and the reasonableness of their actions. To most white people, it is reasonable to reflexively suspect young Black males of having criminal intent, and reasonable to fear for one’s life in a confrontation with such a person. “Not guilty” is reasonable, when everyone that counts shares the same assumptions as the perpetrator.

Black people cannot fix that. We cannot change white people’s warped perceptions of the world, although, Lord knows, we’ve tried. It has been 45 years since passage of the last major civil rights bill, the Fair Housing Act, yet housing segregation remains general, overwhelmingly due to white people’s decisions in the housing market, based on their racial assumptions. So powerful is the general white racist belief in Black criminality and inferiority, the mere presence of African Americans on or near property devalues the land. This is racism with the practical force of economic law. The same “law” has locked Black unemployment at roughly twice that of whites for more than two generations – an outcome so consistent over time it must be a product of the political culture (racism) rather than the vicissitudes of the marketplace.

The Brown Supreme Court decision is nearly 60 years old, yet school segregation is, in some ways, more entrenched than ever – again, because of white peoples decisions. Not only is school segregation on the rise, but charterization is creating an alternative public-financed system designed primarily for Black and brown kids. In many cities, whites can only be retained in the public schools by offering them the best facilities and programs. School desegregation has largely been abandoned as a lost cause, because of the whites’ “intransigence” – a euphemism for enduring racism: a refusal to share space with Black people.

But, the criminal justice system is white supremacy’s playground, where racial hatreds, fears and suspicions are given free rein. One out of eight prison inmates on the planet are African American, proof of the general white urge to purge Blacks from the national landscape. Trayvon Martin fell victim to the extrajudicial component of the Black-erasure machine.

“Racism is a form of mental illness, in which the afflicted perceive things that are not there, and are blind to that which is right in front of their eyes.”

White people don’t think they are malicious and racist; rather, they are simply defending themselves (quite reasonably, they believe) from Black evildoing. That whites perceive themselves as under collective attack is evident in the results of a Harvard and Tufts University study [13], which shows majorities of whites are convinced they are the primary victims of racial discrimination in America. Such mass madness is incomprehensible to sane people, but racism is a form of mental illness, in which the afflicted perceive things that are not there, and are blind to that which is right in front of their eyes.

To live under the sway of such people is a nightmare. Most of African American history has been a struggle to mollify or tame the racist beast, to find a way to coexist with white insanity, possibly to cure it, or to make ourselves powerful and independent enough that the madness cannot harm us too badly. George Zimmerman’s acquittal is so painful to Black America because it signals that our ancient enemy – white supremacy – is alive and raging, virtually impervious to any legal levers we can pull. The feeling of impotence is heightened by the growing realization that the Black president – a man who, in his noxious “Philadelphia [14]” speech, denied that racism had ever been endemic to America – cannot and will not make anyone atone for Trayvon.

We have been in this spot before – or, rather, we have always been in this spot, but have for the last 40 years been urged to imagine that something fundamental had changed among white Americans. Trayvon smacks us awake.

We must organize for self-defense, in every meaning of the term, and create a Black political dynamic – a Movement – that will make our enemies fear the consequences of their actions.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.