Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

vrijdag 9 augustus 2013

John Pilger 57


The Courage of Bradley Manning Will Inspire Others to Seize Their Moment of Truth

Thursday, 08 August 2013 09:26By John PilgerTruthout | Op-Ed
Bradley Manning.(Photo: Eric Wagner / Flickr)The critical moment in the political trial of the century was on February 28, 2013, when Bradley Manning stood and explained why he had risked his life to leak tens of thousands of official files. It was a statement of morality, conscience and truth: the very qualities that distinguish human beings. This was not deemed mainstream news in America, and were it not for Alexa O'Brien, an independent freelance journalist, Manning's voice would have been silenced. Working through the night, she transcribed and released his every word. It is a rare, revealing document.
Describing the attack by an Apache helicopter crew who filmed civilians as they murdered and wounded them in Baghdad in 2007, Manning said: "The most alarming aspect of the video to me was the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have. They seemed not to value human life by referring to them as 'dead bastards' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety [who] is seriously wounded … For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass."  He hoped "the public would be as alarmed as me" about a crime which, as his subsequent leaks revealed, was not an aberration.
Bradley Manning is a principled whistleblower and truth-teller who has been vilified and tortured - and Amnesty International needs to explain to the world why it has not adopted him as a prisoner of conscience; or is Amnesty, unlike Manning, intimidated by criminal power?
"It is a funeral here at Fort Meade," Alexa O'Brien told me. "The US government wants to bury Manning alive.  He is a genuinely earnest young man with not an ounce of mendacity. The mainstream media finally came on the day of the verdict. They showed up for a gladiator match - to watch the gauntlet go down, thumbs pointed down."
The criminal nature of the American military is beyond dispute.  The decades of lawless bombing, the use of poisonous weapons on civilian populations, the renditions and the torture at Abu Graib, Guantanamo and elsewhere, are all documented. As a young war reporter in Indochina, it dawned on me that America exported its homicidal neuroses and called it war, even a noble cause. Like the Apache attack, the infamous 1968 massacre at My Lai was not untypical. In the same province, Quang Ngai, I gathered evidence of widespread slaughter: thousands of men, women and children murdered arbitrarily and anonymously in "free fire zones."
In Iraq, I filmed a shepherd whose brother and his entire family had been cut down by an American plane, in the open. This was sport. In Afghanistan, I filmed to a woman whose dirt-walled home, and family, had been obliterated by a 500-pound bomb. There was no "enemy." My film cans burst with such evidence.
In 2010, Private Manning did his duty to the rest of humanity and supplied proof from within the murder machine. This is his triumph, and his show trial merely expresses corrupt power's abiding fear of people learning the truth. It also illuminates the parasitic industry around truth-tellers. Manning's character has been dissected and abused by those who never knew him yet claim to support him.
The hyped film, We Steal Secrets: the Story of WikiLeaks, mutates a heroic young soldier into an "alienated … lonely … very needy" psychiatric case with an "identity crisis" because "he was in the wrong body and wanted to become a woman." So spoke Alex Gibney, the director, whose prurient psycho-babble found willing ears across a media too compliant or lazy or stupid to challenge the hype and comprehend that the shadows falling across whistleblowers may reach even them. From its dishonest title, Gibney's film performed a dutiful hatchet job on Manning, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The message was familiar - serious dissenters are freaks. Alexa O'Brien's meticulous record of Manning's moral and political courage demolishes this smear.
In the Gibney film, US politicians and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are lined up to repeat, unchallenged, that, in publishing Manning's leaks, WikiLeaks and Assange placed the lives of informants at risk and had "blood on his hands." On August 1, the Guardian reported: "No record of deaths caused by WikiLeaks revelations, court told." The Pentagon general who led a 10-month investigation into the worldwide impact of the leaks reported that not a single death could be attributed to the disclosures.
Yet in the film, the journalist Nick Davies describes a heartless Assange who had no "harm minimization plan." I asked the filmmaker Mark Davis about this. A respected broadcaster for SBS Australia, Davis was an eyewitness, accompanying Assange during much of the preparation of the leaked files for publication in the Guardianand the New York Times. His footage appears in the Gibney film. He told me, "Assange was the only one who worked day and night extracting 10,000 names of people who could be targeted by the revelations in the logs."
While Manning faces life in prison, Gibney is said to be planning a Hollywood movie. A "biopic" of Assange is on the way, along with a Hollywood version of David Leigh's and Luke Harding's book of scuttlebutt on the "fall" of WikiLeaks. Profiting from the boldness, cleverness and suffering of those who refuse to be co-opted and tamed, they all will end up in history's waste bin. For the inspiration of future truth-tellers belongs to Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and the remarkable young people of WikiLeaks, whose achievements are unparalleled. Snowden's rescue is largely a WikiLeaks triumph: a thriller too good for Hollywood because its heroes are real.    
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

JOHN PILGER

John Pilger, Australian-born, London-based journalist, filmmaker and author. For his foreign and war reporting, ranging from Vietnam and Cambodia to the Middle East, he has twice won Britain's highest award for journalism. For his documentary films, he won a British Academy Award and an American Emmy. In 2009, he was awarded Australia's human rights prize, the Sydney Peace Prize. His most recent film is The War on Democracy. His new film, Utopia, will be previewed at the National Film Theatre, London, in the autumn.

    donderdag 8 augustus 2013

    Heleen Mees en Geert Mak 3



    Een halve eeuw voordat opiniemaker Geert Mak op de EO-radio beweerde dat

    het beter voor Nederland en de internationale gemeenschap [is] dat Obama de verkiezingen wint

    verklaarde de beroemde Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist I.F. Stone:

    As long as the American president is commander and chief of the biggest war machine in human history with bases on every continent we are going to get into trouble. Our enemy is the growing militarization of American life. Our enemy is American imperialism. But, there is an awakening.

    Maar niet bij Nederlandse opiniemakers als Geert Mak die in 2012 zichzelf een brevet van onvermogen gaf door te beweren dat

    de Amerikaanse diplomaten tot de beste ter wereld [horen], het land beschikt over voortreffelijke informatiesystemen, het leger geen grenzen [kent], de universiteiten en het State Department beschikken over briljante strategen en politieke analisten, het Amerikaanse bedrijfsleven over de hele wereld opereert,

    Geert Mak’s beweringen tonen haarscherp aan dat hij, in tegenstelling tot I.F. Stone, werkelijk niets van de macht in de wereld begrijpt, helemaal niets, maar juist omdat zijn onzin gedragen wordt door de mainstream ligt zijn boodschap van‘hoop’ goed in de markt.

    Nu de werkelijkheid:

    The United States still has military spending that is higher in real, inflation-adjusted terms than it was during the peak of the Reagan Cold War build-up, the Vietnam War, and the Korean War.  We seem to be in a state of permanent warfare, and – we have recently learned --  massive government spying and surveillance of our own citizens.  This is despite an ever-receding threat to the actual physical security of Americans.  Only 19 people have been killed acts of terrorism in the United States since September 11, 2001; and none or almost none of these were connected to foreign terrorists.  And there are no “enemy states” that pose a significant military threat to the United States – if any governments can be called “enemy states” at all.

    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18010-mass-media-helps-keep-americans-in-the-dark-about-us-foreign-policy








    woensdag 7 augustus 2013

    Western Mass Media


    Mass Media Helps Keep Americans in the Dark About US Foreign Policy

    Tuesday, 06 August 2013 13:24By Mark WeisbrotThe Guardian | Op-Ed
    Juana Brito prays over the bodies of her father and an unidentified youth, both killed by Guatemalan soldiers in the civil war 30 years ago, as a team from the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation exhumes their remains in the El Quiche Department of Guatemala, Feb. 13, 2013. (Photo: Victor J. Blue / The New York Times)Juana Brito prays over the bodies of her father and an unidentified youth, both killed by Guatemalan soldiers in the civil war 30 years ago, as a team from the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation exhumes their remains in the El Quiche Department of Guatemala, Feb. 13, 2013. (Photo: Victor J. Blue / The New York Times)
    The United States still has military spending that is higher in real, inflation-adjusted terms than it was during the peak of the Reagan Cold War build-up, the Vietnam War, and the Korean War.  We seem to be in a state of permanent warfare, and – we have recently learned --  massive government spying and surveillance of our own citizens.  This is despite an ever-receding threat to the actual physical security of Americans.  Only 19 people have been killed acts of terrorism in the United States since September 11, 2001; and none or almost none of these were connected to foreign terrorists.  And there are no “enemy states” that pose a significant military threat to the United States – if any governments can be called “enemy states” at all.
    One of the reasons for this disconnect is that most of the mass media provide a grossly distorted view of U.S. foreign policy. It presents an American foreign policy that is far more benign and justifiable than the reality of empire that most of the world knows.  In a well-researched and thoroughly documented article published by the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), Keane Bhatt provides an excellent case study of how this happens.
    Bhatt focuses on a very popular and interesting National Public Radio (NPR) show, “This American Life,” and most importantly an episode that won the Peabody Award.  The Peabody Award , for distinguished achievement in electronic journalism, is a prestigious prize; so this makes the example even more relevant.
    The episode was about the 1982 massacre in Guatemala. The story gives compelling eyewitness accounts of a horrendous slaughter of almost the entire village of Dos Erres, more than 200 people. The women and girls are raped and then killed, the men are shot or bludgeoned with sledgehammers, and many, including children, are dumped into a dry well – some while still alive – that would become their mass grave.  The broadcast walks the listener through a heroic investigation of the crime – the first ever to win punishment for such murders.  And finally, it provides a moving account of one survivor who was three years old at the time.  Three decades later, while living in Massachusetts, he discovers his roots and his biological father as a result of the investigation. The father lost his wife and his eight other children but survived because he happened to be out of town on the day of the massacre.
    The story makes it clear that this bloodbath was one of many: 
    “This happened in over 600 villages, tens of thousands of people. A truth commission found that the number of Guatemalans killed or disappeared by their own government was over 180,000.”
    But there is one striking omission – the U.S. role in what the UN Truth commission in 1999 later determined to be genocide.  The UN specifically noted Washington’s role and President Clinton publicly apologized for it – the first and to my knowledge the only apology from an American president for U.S. involvement in genocide.  The U.S. role in providing arms, training, ammunition, diplomatic cover, political and other support to the mass murderers is well-documented and has gotten some more documentation and attention as a result of the recent trial of former military dictator General Efraín Ríos Montt, who ruled from 1982-83.  (As Bhatt notes, the program states that the U.S. embassy had heard reports of massacres during this time but “dismissed” them; but this is very misleading at best -- there are cables showing that the embassy clearly knew what was going on).
    In fact, one of the soldiers who participated in the Dos Erres massacre, Pedro Pimentel, who later was sentenced to 6,060 years in prison, was airlifted the day after the mass murder to the School of the Americas, the U.S. military facility known for training some of the region’s worst dictators and human rights violators.
    It is astonishing that one of the worst genocides of the post-World War II era was allowed to reach its peak, just a couple of hours of flying time from the U.S. mainland, with almost no media reporting on it. Here you can find investigative journalist Allan Nairn interviewing a Guatemalan soldier in 1982, who describes how he and his comrades murdered whole villages, as in Dos Erres. And yet the major media ignored it, allowing Ronald Reagan to promote Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity and commitment."  So the omissions of This American Life are ironic in this historical context as well.
    It is clear from the piece that Ira Glass, the show’s host, was well aware of the U.S. role in the Guatemalan genocide.  In the 1980s, it appears, he travelled to Central America and was active against the U.S. –funded wars and war crimes in the region.  In an email correspondence with Bhatt, he acknowledges that “maybe we made the wrong call” in leaving out the U.S. role.
    That is an understatement, but a vitally important one.  For a program broadcast in English throughout the United States, this is arguably the most important thing that Americans need to know about the genocide.
    I’m not faulting Glass. He may well have guessed that if he had made a point out of the U.S. role, and maybe questioned some of the U.S. officials who were responsible for it, the story would have run into trouble at NPR. It certainly wouldn’t have gotten a Peabody award.
    That’s what makes this such a compelling illustration of how censorship and self-censorship operate in the U.S. media.  It demonstrates, at the micro level, something that I have seen countless times in the past 15 years of talking with journalists about these issues.  They have a good idea what the boundaries are and how much truth they can get away with.  I have met many good journalists who try to cross these boundaries, and some succeed -- but they often don’t last very long.
    Scott Wilson, who was a foreign editor at the Washington Post and covered Venezuela during the short-lived coup against the democratically elected government of Venezuela in 2002, stated in an interview that “there was U.S. involvement” in the coup.  Yet this important fact never appeared anywhere in the Post, nor was it reported by any of the major U.S. media, despite considerable evidence from U.S. government documents that it was true.  Again, this is arguably the most important part of the story for a U.S. audience – especially since it played a major role in poisoning relations between Washington and Caracas over the past decade, and probably had a significant impact on relations with the whole continent of South America.  But, as in the Dos Erres story, the U.S. role in the crime is considered unmentionable.
    The same is true for the U.S. role in the coup that destroyed Honduran democracy in 2009. The Obama administration’s considerable efforts to support and legitimize the coup government were not considered to be newsworthy by U.S. journalists.  (A program on Honduras was Bhatt’s other shot at “This American Life,” where they left the U.S.-supported coup out of a picture in which it should have had a prominent place). But this too, is off limits for the U.S. media.
    What would U.S. foreign, military, and so-called “national security” policy look like if the media reported the most important facts about it?  There would be a lot fewer corpses abroad and returning home.  And we wouldn’t be cutting “meals on wheels” or other nutrition programs for the poor or elderly in order to sustain the world’s most fantastically bloated military budget.
    This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

    MARK WEISBROT

    Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy

      Western Racism


      The Continuing US War on the Darker Skinned

      Tuesday, 06 August 2013 09:19By Adam HudsonTruthout | News Analysis
      Detainees in Camp 4, one of the camps inside Camp Delta, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on June 9, 2010. (Photo: Richard Perry / The New York Times)Detainees in Camp 4, one of the camps inside Camp Delta, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on June 9, 2010. (Photo: Richard Perry / The New York Times)The notorious US military base and penal colony in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, serves as a stark example of militarized institutional racism. There, 166 people are indefinitely detained, but 2 might be returned to Algeria. Of those, 86 are cleared for release, but remain detained. While a few are being tried in military commissions (which are ineffective at upholding rights of the accused), the vast majority are held without charge or trial. According to Guantanamo chief prosecutor US Army Brigadier General Mark Martins, they are "detained until the end of hostilities" against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and "associated forces," which could be decades from now. The majority of Guantanamo detainees are, thus, prisoners of war in an endless war. 
      Indefinite detention violates international human rights law. Yet, along with military commissions, it's been supported by President Barack Obama. This indefinite detention, along with the squalid conditions of their confinement, has led around 70 detainees to engage in a hunger strike that has lasted nearly half a year, so far. Of those, around four dozen are being force-fed, a brutal procedure in which a tube is shoved up a person's nose and down into their stomachs to feed them a supplement. Force-feeding, according to many doctors and human rights advocates, violates medical ethics and amounts to torture. The vast majority of the detainees are Muslim, mostly from Yemen with others from places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The detention center at Guantanamo is one chapter in the long saga of US militarism against the world's majority - non-white, non-European peoples. 
      Racism is power and justifies war
      Racism is a system of power, hierarchy, inequality and oppression reinforced by racist ideology to keep it going. Its roots lie in slavery and the genocide of the native Americans. Its continuation is exemplified by current inequalities between blacks and whites in wealth, employment, and other areas of life - with blacks positioned far below whites in the socioeconomic ladder. Racist ideology is manifested by negative perceptions of nonwhite people. A 2008 study done by psychologists at Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University and University of California at Berkeley showed that many white Americans associate black people with apes. Coauthor Jennifer Eberhardt, a Stanford psychology professor, remarked, "African-Americans are still dehumanized; we're still associated with apes in this country. That association can lead people to endorse the beating of black suspects by police officers, and I think it has a lot of other consequences that we have yet to uncover." A related consequence lies in war, which racism ideologically justifies. To kill people in wars, the designated enemy must be dehumanized. Using racialized differences (culture, skin color, ancestry, etc.) is a very common way to dehumanize and subjugate a population. They are seen as "others" who are "not like us," thus, apt for killing. The War on Terror is a continuation of US wars against darker-skinned peoples. Today's "enemy" are Muslims, usually (though not always) darker-skinned people from the Middle East, Africa,\ and South Asia. Depicted as "terrorists" in popular discourse, these communities face continuing Islamophobia, marginalization and dehumanization. 
      Since Guantanamo houses detainees who are mostly, if not all, Muslim and nonwhite, it is an example of institutional racism within the global war on terror. But it goes deeper than that. While Guantanamo is notorious for indefinite detention, military commissions, torture, and the hunger strike, what's commonly forgotten is that it is a US naval base that's been on Cuban soil for more than a hundred years. In addition to detaining people in dismal conditions, it also used as a refueling station for US ships and a base for counter-narcotics operations throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. Many of these operations are carried out by the Coast Guard stationed at Guantanamo. 
      Foreign workers exploited in Guantanamo, other US bases
      On the 45-square-mile base, there are suburban-style homes for troops and military families, restaurants, bars, a supermarket, Subway, McDonald's, a movie theater, occasional balls for soldiers on the base and other amenities of a typical city or military base. If you're there long enough, you wouldn't think there's a prison housing hundreds of "suspected terrorists" a few miles from where you're at. During my two weeks of reporting in Guantanamo, I noticed many of the workers on the base were Filipino and Afro-Caribbean. They worked as baggers, cashiers, restaurant servers, repair people (I remember seeing a few Filipino workers repair the air conditioning in the media operations center where journalists work), construction workers, grass mowers, sanitation workers and other service providers. 
      In military jargon, these workers are known as "third-country nationals" or TCNs. In her book Guantánamo: A Working-Class History Between Empire and Revolution, Professor Jana K. Lipman explains that in the beginning, many of the workers at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station were local Cubans, some British West Indians, Puerto Ricans and Asians. But the 1959 Cuban revolution ended contact between the American naval base and the rest of Cuba. To replace those workers, the United States imported laborers from Jamaica and the Philippines. Columbia University researcher Darryl Li noted that "In the past decade, the Pentagon's privatization drives have dramatically increased its global reliance on TCN [third-country national] labor." At Guantanamo, many of these workers work for contractors like Bremcor and BDRC. 
      In March of 2002, the recruitment firm Anglo-European Services, which is tied to Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), formerly a subsidiary of the American oil corporation Halliburton Company (of which Dick Cheney was former chairman and CEO), "sent 250 Filipino construction workers to build additional detention cells for US-held terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba," reported the Asia Times in July 2006. The workers "were allegedly slipped out of the Ninoy Quino International Airport without passing through standard immigration procedures" and left "on a chartered flight to Cuba." Both the United States and Philippine governments kept the recruitment "under wraps."
      But Guantanamo is not the only US military base to employ foreign workers. They're employed by several US government contractors like KBR and DynCorp International, through tertiary subcontractors (mainly from the Middle East), to do logistical work at many military bases, such as in Afghanistan. These workers hail from countries like the Philippines, Fiji, Nepal and Bangladesh.
      In a detailed June 2011 exposé, The New Yorker reported that they are "the Pentagon's invisible army: more than seventy thousand cooks, cleaners, construction workers, fast-food clerks, electricians, and beauticians from the world's poorest countries who service US military logistic contracts." While the "expansion of private-security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan is well known," says journalist Sarah Stillman, who traveled to US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan to write the story, "armed security personnel account for only about 16 percent of the over-all contracting force. The vast majority - more than 60 percent of the total in Iraq - aren't hired guns but hired hands." According to Stillman, "These workers, primarily from South Asia and Africa, often live in barbed-wire compounds on US bases, eat at meager chow halls, and host dance parties featuring Nepalese romance ballads and Ugandan church songs. A large number are employed by fly-by-night subcontractors who are financed by the American taxpayer but who often operate outside the law." 
      Labor protections in these environments are virtually nonexistent. Many workers interviewed for the report "recount having been robbed of wages, injured without compensation, subjected to sexual assault and held in conditions resembling indentured servitude by their subcontractor bosses." Most of the workers make a couple hundred dollars a month. Their abysmal treatment has led to many "food riots in Pentagon subcontractor camps, some involving more than a thousand workers." 
      At bases in countries like Afghanistan, foreign workers face war-zone dangers, namely being killed or injured from explosions and attacks. Thousands of contractors have been killed and injured. According to the New Yorker report, "private contractor losses are now on a par with those of US troops in [Iraq and Afghanistan] war zones." However, since deaths and injuries of foreign workers are rarely counted, the actual toll could be higher. 
      An ACLU report, released last year, highlighted that the system by which US contractors employ foreign workers amounts to trafficking and forced labor. The US government gives a contract to a primary contractor. Rather than hire directly, that contractor contracts subcontractors to do the job. Those subcontractors pay recruiters who recruit foreign workers in their home countries and make them pay exorbitant recruitment fees to get a job. Those workers are normally tricked into thinking they'll work at one (usually nicer) place with promises of a higher salary, only to wind up somewhere like Iraq or Afghanistan making low wages. According to the report, "the vast majority of TCNs ultimately earn between $150-$500 per month," close to $1,800-$6,000 annually. Such coercion, abuses, "deceptive hiring practices, exploitation, and abuse of power" amount to trafficking, thereby violating international and US antitrafficking laws, according to the ACLU. Moreover, it is an affront to basic human rights. 
      This is where the forces of corporate globalization, institutional racism and militarism conjoin. Foreign workers are exploited by private companies to work on US military bases. The exploitation of foreign workers may not be racist by intent. However, it is institutionally racist in effect because of whom it impacts and exploits - black and brown people from poorer countries. 
      Intersections between racism and war - at home and abroad
      Militarism is a system of projecting aggressive military power to promote state interests, such as national defense, countering adversaries, or control of vital resources and markets. It largely subjugates people of color around the world. Today's imperial landscape is marked by conventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - which are winding down - and the expansion of asymmetric wars through assassinationraids by special operations forces, air wars, proxy wars, private military contractors, and drone strikes. These asymmetric wars are occurring in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, but expanding to other areas, particularly in Africa. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people, along with displacing over four million, destroying infrastructure and leaving many Iraqis with birth defects and cancer thanks to depleted uranium used by US armed forces. US covert wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have killed thousands with deaths continuing to rise. Many of them are civilians or unknown persons. Only 2 percent of those killed by drone strikes in Pakistan are high-level terrorist leaders. The rest are civilians and unidentified or low-level Afghan and Pakistani militants, according to McClatchy. As they inflict death and injury, US drone strikes have also terrorized and radicalized civilian populations in Pakistan.
      The victims of wars, occupations, bombings, proxy wars and militarized neoliberal exploitation are predominantly people from darker-skinned, non-European countries, who constitute the world's majority, but neither possess much of the world's wealth nor control the global economy (that power lies in Europe and North America). A list of US military interventions from 1890 to 2011 by Professor Zoltan Grossman of Evergreen State College shows that most US wars occurred in Latin America, the Arab World and many parts of Asia. They include the massacre at Wounded Knee, Spanish-American War, the Vietnam War, coups in Iran, Iraq, and Chile, backing the Contras in Nicaragua during the 1980s, and the 1976-92 proxy war in Angola. Because of whom it oppresses, militarism is systematically racist. 
      Militarism also impacts people of color, especially black people, at home. According to a thorough report done by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, one black person is killed every 28 hours by law enforcement or armed vigilantes. Most of the time, the victims are unarmed and use of force was excessive. Police dehumanize black people by suspecting they are potential threats in the same way soldiers dehumanize "the enemy" overseas. Hence police typically say they "felt threatened" before they shot a black person. State and vigilante violence against African-Americans is not new. It dates back to slave catchers and lynchings of black people in the South. But this system has grown to new heights with the militarization of domestic police forces. Police are given military weapons, equipment, tactics, and training through grants, Pentagon giveaways, and, after 9/11, Department of Homeland Security grants. This started under the Reagan administration and has continued under Obama. 
      Little mention in liberal media
      Many purportedly anti-racist liberal talking heads and media outlets tend to under-appreciate the connections between racism and militarism. One would expect them as people with knowledge about race relations to highlight this connection when national security stories come up. However, they tend to drop the ball. 
      Melissa Harris-Perry, a political science professor at Tulane University and MSNBC show host, specializes in African-American politics and provides a liberal perspective on American race relations. She spoke out against the Zimmerman verdict and provides insightful coverage on issues like the infringement of voting rights in communities of color. But her views on Obama's militarism range from blasé to apologetic. Last November, when discussing drone strikes on her show, Harris-Perry asked journalist Allison Kilkenny and MSNBC host Chris Hayes, "Make a case to me about why they're problematic because I'm not sure that I agree." Harris-Perry brought up police shootings of black youth in the United States in response to Hayes criticizing the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in 2011. Rather than seize the opportunity to make the connection between domestic institutionalized racist violence and American militarism, she used it to buttress her nonchalance on the issue of drone strikes.  
      Touré, another MSNBC commentator, is also liberal on race issues. But he's hawkish when it comes to drone strikes and assassination. Touré regularly comes to the Obama administration's defense on their belligerent counterterrorism policies. Last February, on Twitter, Touré said "Obama as Commander in Chief is tasked with leading our war against Al Qaeda. He can and [sic] should kill [al-Qaeda] leaders whenever possible." On The Cycle, he expanded his argument, "But we are at war with al-Qaeda right now. And if you join al-Qaeda, you lose the right to be an American; you lose the right to due process; you declare yourself an enemy of this nation. And you are committing treason" - even though the Constitution grants due process for those who commit treason. Then again, this is pretty much normal for a network that functions as the Obama administration's Pravda.
      The Root and The Grio are two large black media outlets; The Root, is owned by The Washington Post; and The Grio is owned by NBC News. They provide neither substantial coverage of foreign policy issues nor deeper analysis of the intersections between racism and empire. What one does get, however, is a lot of support for Obama. Contrast this with Black Agenda Report - a black leftist news and analysis website - or Pambazuka News - a Pan-Africanist online weekly newsletter - and the coverage is far different. Along with substantive critiques of the Obama administration's transgressions, there's regular critical analysis of domestic politics, foreign affairs, and the connections between institutional racism and Western imperialism. However, sites like Black Agenda Report and Pambazuka News are independent and have less exposure than The Root, The Grio, or MSNBC, due to the latter's corporate ownership. This raises the issue of how corporate media dilute the wider discourse on race relations. 
      That is a problem because it reveals a blind spot in understanding about issues of race and national security. It leaves certain realities in the dark, such as the plight of foreign workers on American military bases. Highlighting the connections can add deeper context to problems, such as the killing of Trayvon Martin. His death was the byproduct of a militarized system of racism that allows a neighborhood watchman to carry a gun and shoot anyone (especially black teenagers) he deems threatening, with impunity. Examining the real connections between racism and militarism provides better understanding of the issues at stake. Such analysis is more likely to be found in independent black journalistic outlets than corporate media.
      Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

      ADAM HUDSON

      Adam Hudson is a journalist, writer, and photographer based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is a graduate of Stanford University and a former intern at The Nation magazine.


        Het Joodse Raadslid Naomi Italiaander en de Zionistische Terreur

        Ik las in  het  Joodse propaganda-orgaan NIW dat " Het kersverse Amsterdamse gemeenteraadslid Naomi Italiaander," zowaar " J...