Another Week of Insanity -- Make America Sane Again

The Absurd Times

I do not remember the source, but this is an advance copy of the new cover of Mad Magazine, apparently still in print.  If there is a problem with copyright, I'll be happy to delete it.  I've seen enough, anyway.

A week or so of Insanity

by

Eman Nep

The question asked on media today is "Is America Safe?"  The real question should be "Is America Sane?"  It is at least befuddled.

Another bombing in England dismissed by Trump by misquoting the Mayor of London (a Moslem, so it fits right in with practice).  He actually said that citizens should not be concerned by the increased police visibility.  Some reports are that he got the quote from Drudge (or Sludge).  Sending prayers?  Trump's prayers?  I'll leave it at that.  Trump's tweet is both gauche and incorrect and also self-serving as he seems intent on forbidding any Moslem from entering the country.

The Mayor was asked for a response, and his office issued a statement to the effect that "The Mayor is far too occupied with other, more important matters, to be bothered with responding to Donald Trumps tweets," or words to that effect.

In Oregon, an advanced state, there was a demonstration against Trump.  His supporters are demonstrating as well. In addition, a group of people dressed in black assembled to "meet violence with violence," as I understand it.  I have heard no statement from this crowd, but the underlying idea is not that much out of line.  In practice, I am also ignorant.  They call themselves "anti-fascists".

I can tell you my impression of the typical Trump supporter.  I am reminded of a statement made by Gene Wilder in a Mel Brook's film called "Blazing Saddles."  The new sheriff, a black man, in a western town is not well received by the populace and is somewhat depressed.  He is consoled by Gene Wilder who says "These folks are the slat of the earth, the common clay, you know, morons."

Bill Maher is now being attacked for using the "N" word.  Well, white people should not use the "N" word.  Furthermore, they should not wear baseball caps backwards.  It is nuts, unless they have been catchers and even they prefer to wear them properly.  Come on guys, have a little respect for baseball, if nothing else.  You are not "cool", and that is it.

Trump's visit to Europe brought back the stereotype of the "Ugly American."  Merkel and Macron know better, but even they see Trump as an Ugly American.  So do I.

The whole Kathy Griffith episode is ridiculous.  I have never considered her a good comic and still don't.  Baron Trump is in Trauma, we are told.  Has he not been in such a state for years now?  I would have been.

Is the Comey testimony such a big deal?  I have no idea.  Still, it will be interesting for awhile.

Trump said he represents Pittsburgh, not Paris.  The Mayor of Pittsburgh said "Hold on, there.  We are with the rest of the world."  At one time, Pittsburgh shared the bottom of the National League in Baseball with Chicago and so I enjoy them, anyway. 

One of Trump's supporters said in his defense that he was avoiding the example of Chamberlain.  It is about time to end references to Hitler and Chamberlain with a few facts.  England was not ready for war with Germany at the time, while Germany, with its citizens suffering from what out leaders now like to call "austerity" (only in far greater degree) was preparing for years – with the help of Henry Ford and other Capitalists.  More to the point: Hitler always maintained that Chamberlain "double-crossed" him simply to give England time to prepare for its defense, time it desperately needed.  Whether this was Chamberlain's intention or not, that was the effect it had.  Our own preparation, increasing our war production (it is time to stop the façade of the term "Defense") and budget at the expense of programs at home is hardly benign.

The following interview concerns the recent attack and it is reasonably short:

Twelve people have been arrested in London after three attackers killed seven people and injured 48 more on Saturday night. The three attackers were shot dead by police. It's the third terror attack in the U.K. in three months. British Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed a sweeping review of the nation's counterterrorism strategy. All of this comes as the country gears up for national parliamentary elections scheduled for this Thursday. Prime Minister May has also called for increased web surveillance so the internet is no longer a "safe space" for terrorists. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump used the London attacks to call for the United States to impose his proposed Muslim travel ban. Here to discuss all of this with Democracy Now! is Guardian columnist Paul Mason.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: British Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed a sweeping review of the nation's counterterrorism strategy, declaring "enough is enough," following a terror attack in London Saturday that left seven dead and dozens injured. British police are holding 11 people. Attackers rammed a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then stabbed people in nearby Borough Market. The three attackers were shot dead by the police. This is a witness to the attack.

WITNESS: It was fear on the streets of London, basically. I've not experienced that before. Been there for 12-odd years, basically. I've never seen that kind of fear, especially on a night out. And it was horrific to be involved in that kind of situation.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: This is the third terror attack in the U.K. in three months, following the car and knife attack on Westminster Bridge in March, in which five people were killed, and the Manchester bombing less than two weeks ago, in which 22 people were killed. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for all three of the attacks.

Britain's national elections are scheduled this Thursday. The Conservative Party and the opposition Labour Party temporarily suspended campaigning for the parliamentary elections out of respect for the victims, while the right-wing U.K. Independence Party said it would continue holding campaign events.

During an interview this morning, Prime Minister May chaired a meeting of the government's emergency committee Cobra with intelligence and security chiefs and said response to the attacks is ongoing.

PRIME MINISTER THERESA MAY: JTAC—that's the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre—have confirmed that the national threat level remains at severe. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. The police have reported that they have put additional security measures in place to protect the public and provide reassurance, and this includes additional security measures at a number of bridges in London. The police are working hard to establish the identity of all of those who were tragically killed or injured in the event on Saturday night, but it is now clear that, sadly, victims came from a number of nationalities. This was an attack on London and the United Kingdom, but it was also an attack on the free world.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Prime Minister Theresa May vowed Sunday to conduct a sweeping review of Britain's counterterrorism strategy, saying "enough is enough." London's Mayor Sadiq Khan also spoke out after the attack.

MAYOR SADIQ KHAN: There aren't words to describe the grief and anger that our city will be feeling today. I'm appalled and furious that these cowardly terrorists would deliberately target innocent Londoners and bystanders enjoying their Saturday night. There can be no justification for the acts of these terrorists. And I'm quite clear: We will never let them win, nor will we allow them to cower our city or Londoners. ...

Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed. One of the things the police and all of us need to do is make sure we're as safe as we possibly can be. I'm reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world. But we always evolve and review ways to make sure that we remain as safe as we possibly can.

AMY GOODMAN: Sadiq Khan is London's first Muslim mayor. Following his remarks, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to imply the mayor had played down the severity of the attack, tweeting, quote, "At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is 'no reason to be alarmed!'" Well, in fact, Khan had been speaking about the increased police presence in the city when he said there was no reason to be alarmed. A spokesman for Khan later dismissed Trump's comments, responding the mayor, quote, "has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump's ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more police—including armed officers—on the streets." In contrast to the president, other parts of the U.S. government tweeted more supportive comments. The acting U.S. ambassador to London, Lew Lukens, tweeted, "I commend the strong leadership of the @MayorofLondon as he leads the city forward after this heinous attack." All of this comes as British Prime Minister May has also called for increased web surveillance so the internet is no longer a, quote, "safe space for terrorists," unquote.

For more, we go to London, where we're joined by Paul Mason, columnist for The Guardian. His most recent book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future.

Paul, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you first respond to the attacks and then talk about Donald Trump's attack on Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London, as he tries to calm and reassure Londoners?

PAUL MASON: Well, good morning, Amy.

Here in London, I think it's worth saying we are implacable. We are—we're standing firm. You know, ordinary British people fought those attackers back with chairs and bottles and whatever they could lay their hands on. Two unarmed British policemen fought them with their bare hands until, only eight minutes after the first emergency call, a squad of armed police went in and shot them dead, eight minutes after the incident started. So we're pretty clear that we have an immediate response facility to this kind of terror attack, but the worrying thing is that they are increasing—three in the last 70 days, successful ones; five, it's been revealed today, thwarted. So we've got an increased tempo of jihadi attacks on civilians here, ordinary people on the streets of Britain.

And just to situate things, Borough Market is a Saturday night venue for people to go and have fun. It's a bit like Venice Beach in L.A. It's like the district below Manhattan Bridge in New York in Brooklyn. It's that kind of place. It's full. It's teeming with people, doing what? Drinking alcohol, wearing as little as possible as spring turns into summer here, men and women having fun together, men and men, women and women. It's a very liberal place. That's what those attackers were attacking. And the majority of British people, including the majority of Britain's 3 million Muslim population, say no to this.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Paul Mason, you've pointed out that the number of attacks in the U.K., this was the third that occurred in as many months. What do you think accounts for the fact that ISIS is stepping up its campaign there?

PAUL MASON: Well, we don't know. We don't see all the intelligence. But my hunch is this. My hunch is that the—that many Islamist militants and radicals across the world have been inspired by the caliphate of ISIS—that is, the semi-state they set up between Mosul and Raqqa in Syria. Now, the end of that state is soon to come. That's becoming pretty clear. Now, I think, in other words, the United States, Europe, Britain, most Western democracies have to worry about what happens when the Islamic caliphate, that ISIS wanted to set up and did indeed set up, is finished off and wiped out. What happens? I think—that's my hunch.

Now, the other problem we have here in Britain, and it's a real issue—I don't think it's going to be solved by any—by blanket travel bans. The real issue is that we have 23,000 people on a list held by our security services who are at risk of becoming dangerous terrorists. That's a very sobering number. Three thousand are on a watchlist that are being more or less continually under surveillance. And what's worrying is that the last three successful attacks involved people who were known to our intelligence services but considered not at risk of becoming violent. And we have to ask serious questions about how to deal with that, blame-free questions, because you have to learn from the experience.

But the political blame, especially this morning in Britain, is being laid at the door of the government, because the government cut 20,000 people from the police. That's about a sixth of the number. They cut 1,300 armed officers—again, a large—it's a big chunk of the armed contingent of the U.K. police. They cut them while doing what? Going to Libya, destabilizing Libya, pulling out of Libya, bombing Syria, taking part in numerous wars in the Middle East. The question is not the simply "Well, you know, if you attack a Middle Eastern country, expect terror." That's facile and simplistic. The question is: If you're going to take part in global—in a global intervention into countries like Libya, where you create chaos, what happens then? Do you—do you need a better and more well-resourced police force to deal with the potential threat that then comes to you?

We don't know yet who did the one—the attack on London Bridge. It is known who they are, but the names are not released. So we don't know what their national background is. But the guy who did the bombing of the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester was a British Libyan, and it turns out his father was one of the fighters that the British had been allowing to travel freely between Britain and Libya because they were anti-Gaddafi.

So you have to join up the anti-terror aspect of policing and intelligence with the foreign policy. And this is what, many people are now concluding, our government just didn't do. They cut the police force. They dabbled in Middle Eastern politics. And it's—unfortunately, we're now paying the price of having a very much reduced capability in terms of what? Community policing. We want our cops to be out there walking around the streets where people live, picking up intelligence. It's come out this morning, for example, that one of the guys we think did Saturday night's knife attack had been kicked out of a mosque by that mosque, so the community had done its job. People had reported him to the anti-terror hotline. And then nothing's happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you know, this is all coming just before the national elections in Britain on Thursday. Prime Minister May's opponent in the election, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, raised just this issue you're talking about, criticizing her role in the ensuring that police maintain public safety. He had previously questioned the wisdom of a shoot-to-kill policy but said on Sunday the police should use whatever force is necessary to save lives.

JEREMY CORBYN: We are ready to consider whatever proposals may be brought forward by the police and security services more effectively to deal with the terrorist threat. If Labour is elected, I will commission a report from the security services on Friday on the changing nature of the terrorist threat. Our priority must be public safety. And I will take whatever action is necessary and effective to protect the security of our people and our country. That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life, as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March.

AMY GOODMAN: During his speech on Sunday, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn also made a scathing reference to President Trump.

JEREMY CORBYN: As London Mayor Sadiq Khan recognized, but which the current occupant of the White House has neither the grace nor the sense to grasp today, whether we are Muslim or Christian, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, we are united by our values, by a determination for a better world and that we can build a better society.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, that brings us back to, Paul Mason, Donald Trump's tweet against the first Muslim mayor of London and if you think even that weights in for the reason why he attacked Sadiq Khan.

PAUL MASON: There's not a single person on the right or left of politics who sympathizes with what Trump is doing. The British prime minister, Theresa May, has eventually been forced, this morning, to distance herself and criticize Trump, but she did it very reluctantly. Others are just furious with it, because it seems like Trump has a thing about Sadiq Khan. It seems like the fact that one of the biggest, you know, liberal global cities on Earth has a Muslim mayor seems to annoy Trump every time he thinks about it. But this is beyond a joke, because, you know, we are allies in the war on—in what is sensible about the war on terror, in finding out the terrorists, sharing intelligence and trying to target them and prevent their activities. We're supposed to be allies. And for Trump to carry on this knee-jerk political attack on a guy he clearly just doesn't like because the guy is a Muslim, let's be honest, is just—it's not helping. It's not helping.

Now, what else is not helping? Today, you reported earlier in your bulletin, we've got this huge diplomatic war breaking out in the Gulf, the very place both our countries have been obsessing about for 20 years. We've got Saudi Arabia attacking Qatar, closing its airspace, disrupting the economy of the region. Why? Because Saudi accuses Qatar, this Gulf monarchy, of being—supporting ISIS. The truth is, Saudi Arabia has been pumping out money and resources for extreme Islamism for decades. And so has—to be honest, Qatar has done its bit, as well, supporting the al-Qaeda groups in Syria, and so has Saudi Arabia. But why has this happened now? Because Trump visited Saudi Arabia. Trump gave Saudi Arabia some kind of green light to be much tougher rhetorically on Iran. And what is Saudi saying about Qatar this morning? Well, that Qatar is too soft on Iran. This, again, is Donald Trump meddling in issues and matters he just does not understand.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to go back to Corbyn's speech on Sunday, because he also referred to Saudi Arabia, calling for, quote, "some difficult conversations" on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states who he said were fueling extremist ideologies. He also accused the U.K. government, the May government, of, quote, "suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups."

JEREMY CORBYN: We do need to have some difficult conversations, starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states who have funded and fueled extremist ideology. It's no good, Theresa May suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups. We have to get serious about cutting off their funding to these terror networks, including ISIS here and in the Middle East.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So that's Jeremy Corbyn speaking, Labour leader, speaking Sunday night. Now, the elections are just in a matter of days, on Thursday. So, can you talk about what impact you think this attack will have, if any, on the election? And also, explain what this report is that Corbyn says the May government is suppressing.

PAUL MASON: Yeah. Well, we're all trying not to politicize it. There are lessons to be learned from this attack that are just the technological and operational lessons of how you prevent and deter terrorism. But the fact is that Theresa May has visited Saudi Arabia, has sold arms to Saudi Arabia. And the report that's been suppressed is a report commissioned by her predecessor, David Cameron, the Conservative prime minister. We are told that it implicates Saudi Arabia in the funding of terrorism. And it is being buried and suppressed, which we think is a bad idea.

Now, your viewers must know that, by Friday, Corbyn could be prime minister. It's unlikely, because the Conservatives started this election with massive advantage. We have an even more biased press than you in the United States against the left and the Labour Party. But things are changing quite rapidly. And what I can tell your viewers is that if Corbyn is able to form a government on Friday, then the whole game is up for Western backing of these Wahhabi extreme dictators and head removers in Saudi Arabia, because Britain—yeah, sure, we are a country that's equally implicated, in the long term, in backing that regime and other unjust regimes in the Middle East. And if Corbyn gets into 10 Downing Street, he will stop that as a—you know, day one, hour one, second one. And, of course, that will cause a big problem for Trump. But I think it is time we, in the West, had a long look at what is happening. Sure, Iran, Saudi Arabia's traditional enemy, is equally a sponsor of terror. It is equally repressive. But we need to be trying to export, as it were, values and restraint and multilateralism into that Gulf region, not, as we in the United Kingdom are doing currently, arming the Saudis so they can bomb Yemen, bomb hospitals, bomb people into starvation.

So Corbyn represents a real change. And if any of your viewers feel like it, have British friends, please encourage them to have no hesitation in changing this government, because we want to do what you need to do. We need to get rid of the kind of dinosaurs of kind of the 20th century view of how one intervenes in the Middle East and, of course, the 20th century view of Islamophobia, which I'm afraid Trump's—Trump's comment in that tweet about Sadiq Khan speak volumes subtextually about the Islamophobic nature of Trump's administration.

AMY GOODMAN: May said, in her speech about cracking down, that the internet has provided a safe haven for terrorists and that big companies that provide internet-based services have been complicit. What do you see coming out of this, Paul?

PAUL MASON: I think, before we say anything else, we have to say that the analysis is correct. You know, we've got big companies claiming that they don't have any interest in the content that they create. If a newspaper carried an advertisement for al-Qaeda or ISIS, that newspaper should be shut down. So, now, the internet, it is said, is ungovernable. That is also not true. It is governable in America, where most of those internet companies are based. I don't want to see the balkanization of the internet. I don't want to see increased surveillance. I don't want to see censorship. And, of course, in America, unlike here, you have your First Amendment rights. But what I think is likely, and May's comments—I think May will be one of the last people to do this. People I've been speaking to in the past couple of weeks are more and more confident that sooner or later in the United States those companies will be faced with a class-action lawsuit which accuses them of facilitating the distribution of terrorist propaganda. Now, they need to wake up and think about how to regulate what is done there more clearly.

And I would also say, in the United States, look, your First Amendment rights are very, very important, precious to you. So is your right to carry arms. Here in the United Kingdom, the only reason we're not talking about maybe tens or hundreds dead is because those three guys could not put their finger on a 9mm pistol, let alone an assault rifle. They had to use knives, because they can't get guns. And just bear that lesson in mind, when we think about what both—you know, the constitutional freedoms we all hold dear come at a price.

And how this relates to the internet, of course, is that if—I don't want to see a big crackdown on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but we have to work out how we stop people being radicalized online. See, the community those guys came from, it is known, is a place in east London about two or three miles from here called Barking. And that community knew them. That community reported them to the police. But the other community they must have been part of was an online network where people are being recruited. Now, I think we do, as a civil society, need to ask ourselves what powers we give to the state in order to find those networks. I don't think breaking encryption or banning encryption works, but we need targeted surveillance. And I think, at that level, we do need web companies to start collaborating and cooperating with democratic states, because, otherwise, you just—you create a safe space online where these guys are getting radicalized and getting their orders.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Mason, we want to thank you very much for being with us. Of course, we'll continue to cover this issue and many others.

PAUL MASON: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Mason, columnist for The Guardian, filmmaker, based in London. His most recent book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. When we come back, President Trump has raised the Muslim ban as a response to what happened in London, so we'll discuss it. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "Liar Liar" by Captain SKA. The song is a protest against British Prime Minister Theresa May. It rose to number four on the U.K. Singles Chart last week, even as the BBC refused to broadcast the song and made it unavailable for streaming on the BBC website. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

INNOCENT VICTIMS OF WAR -- YEMEN TOO

ABSURD TIMES

A chart of Wahabbi exports from Saudi Arabia, a place where Trump feels much at home and the area where his daughter owns clearly marked buildings.  So many you may need to enlarge.

This talks about the Manchester bombings, but it is true for every such incident in the past 3 decades, at least.

While there is absolutely no guilt associated with any of the victims of the bombing in Manchester, all complete innocents, not one seemed to know there was such as thing as "Colonialism," or whatever, each and every one of them was profiled, discussed, lamented, and, frankly, exploited by our western media.  Sympathy pours out, and rightly so, for all of them.

All we know about others are some facts about the perpetrators.  The father, arrested as a result in Syria, was an Al-Quaeda supporter along with his children.  He was one of those who kept opposing Gaddafi in Libya.  At the time, we labeled such people as innocent civilians and used the defense of such people as a pretext for a UN Resolution to attack Libya.  The result is well-know, along with the immigration problem Europe faces, radical terror, etc.

We do not hear about the civilians we bomb or kill in Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen.  Wedding parties are a prime example.  How many names have you heard from bombings of wedding parties in Yemen recently?  Nothing.  "Collateral Damage," is about the best they come up with.

A recent attack in Syria killed "people who knew Isis fighters."  Well, let's think about that fact.  Growing up in Chicago, say during Elementary School or Middle School, I often visited the homes of table-tennis partners.  Often, the parents were Greek or Italian immigrants who owned Pizza parlors or small restaurants.  Several of us were well treated to massive dinners, great hospitality, friendship, and so on.  Sometimes the sessions, including looking a photographs, listening to records, etc., would go on until midnight, 12:00 precisely, when a group of guys wearing suits and ties, looking very grim and determined, even evil, came in and the father would say "Get outta here, hurry, no more, tomorrow maybe." And that was it for the evening.  In a sense, you could say I "knew" Mafia or whatever members, but I swear that I was not involved in their activities.  There would be no excuse to bomb me, however.  I was a "civilian".

Anyway, we simply do not humanize any of those innocent civilians we kill, whether or not they would invite us to dinner or want to have anything to do with us.  That's the point.  We see this going on in Yemen, for example.  We wonder why someone would join such a batty organization as ISIS, but we have to consider what the recruiting mechanisms are.  Imagine one of your own family, or perhaps a friend, killed during a wedding ceremony.  You know it has happened before.  You also are not well-off, many of your friends are starving.  You know where the bombs were made, who sent them, and so on.  Is it inconceivable that you would like to retaliate?  Perhaps a nut-job group like ISIS presents you with opportunity to get even.  Would you resist or object because their theological positions are out of tune with yours?  These are simply things to consider. 

Now here is an interview that clarifies some of that.  I've managed to reformat the text so that it is more readable:

"In Britain, police are expanding their investigation into Monday's suicide bombing in Manchester that killed 22 and left dozens injured. Many of those killed were young girls. While the Manchester story has dominated international headlines, far less attention has been paid to other stories this week involving the deaths of civilians. In Syria and Iraq, U.S.-led or backed airstrikes have killed dozens of civilians in the last week alone. Meanwhile, in Yemen, the human rights group Reprieve says U.S. Navy SEALs killed five civilians during a raid Tuesday night on a village in Ma'rib governorate. To talk more about how the media covers civilian casualties, we speak with two of the founders of The Intercept: Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We're broadcasting from the SkyDome, where the Toronto Blue Jays play, in Toronto, Canada. We were here for a journalism conference, along with our guests, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald. Juan?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, in Britain, police are expanding their investigation into Monday's suicide bombing in Manchester that killed 22 and left dozens injured. Many of those killed were young girls. While the Manchester story has dominated international headlines, far less attention has been paid to other stories this week involving the deaths of civilians. In Syria and Iraq, U.S.-led or U.S.-backed airstrikes have killed dozens of civilians in the last week alone. The journalistic monitoring group [Airwars] says airstrikes on Sunday and Monday reportedly killed up to 44 civilians in Mosul. One local journalist said, quote, "the bombing caused the deaths of more than 20 civilians who were burned in their homes, mostly women and children," unquote. In Syria, Airwars says the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes near Raqqa reportedly killed up to 15 civilians, including two children, on Sunday. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says U.S.-led airstrikes have killed 225 civilians over the past month, including 44 children.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, in Yemen, the human rights group Reprieve says U.S. Navy SEALs killed five civilians during a raid Tuesday night on a village in Ma'rib governorate. The killings reportedly began after a 70-year-old civilian named Nasser al-Adhal came out of his home to find out what was going on and was gunned down by the SEALs. The Pentagon says the raid targeted al-Qaeda and that seven militants were killed.

To talk more about how the media covers civilian casualties, we're joined by the co-founders of The Intercept, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald.

Glenn, should the Manchester model be used for other victims of war? The model of—well, I mean, we know about the 22 victims, the horrific attack, the suicide attack in Manchester, as these tweens, these mainly little girls, 10, 12, 11, 13, attended the Ariana Grande concert. We've learned the kids' names, a number of them, their parents. Parents had come to pick up their children. And our hearts grieve because we know who they are. They could be our families. We don't know the names of the children in Yemen who died in a Navy SEAL attack a few days after President Trump became president. A Navy SEAL died, but also at least 30 civilians died, among them, women and children.

GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, we all do media criticism of various types, and I know, over the years, I've voiced all kinds of critiques of U.S. media coverage. But if I had the power to just, overnight, remedy one of them, this discrepancy is the one that I would choose, because think about how powerful it is, just the effect that it has on us as human beings. Even just randomly when it pops into our Twitter timeline or onto our Facebook page, you see the name and the story and the grieving relatives of someone who was killed at this concert in Manchester. No matter how rational you are, you feel anger, you feel empathy, you feel so emotionally moved by the horror of the violence that was perpetrated.

So, imagine if there was any kind of balance whatsoever, where we knew the names of any of the victims of the indiscriminate violence of our own government, let alone the comprehensive coverage of the victims that is devoted when we are the victims of violence, how much that would affect the perception that we have of the violence that our own government perpetrates. We keep it so abstract. We usually just hear 14 people died. The Pentagon claims that it's militants and terrorists. It's left at that. At best, we hear they finally acknowledge four civilians are killed, but it's kept very ethereal, very distant and abstract. We never learn their names, as you said. We never hear from their families. We never hear their life aspirations extinguished. And if there was just some attention paid to telling the stories of the victims of our own government's violence, I think there would be a radical shift in how we perceive of ourselves, the role we play in the world and who bears blame in this conflict.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I mean, look at how many times we read or hear reports that the United States has bombed a wedding party or a funeral. And there is never a description of, well, who was the bride, who was the groom, you know, who were the people that were killed, and what were their dreams. It's unfathomable to me that if we had a wedding party in the United States that was somehow bombed in a terrorist incident, that we wouldn't know the names of every single person who was killed. We would have heard about where the people were going to go on their honeymoon and, you know, the—what the bride looked like when she was preparing for it. We hear nothing about any of these people that are killed, with our tax dollars, in our name.

Trump just inked this deal with the Saudis for well over $100 billion. It could be as much as $400 billion when it's all said and done. Defense stocks go to record highs. What does that—what are those weapons going to be used for? Well, in the immediate future, they're going to be used for what they're being used for now, which is to utterly destroy Yemen, where the United States and Saudi Arabia are absolutely razing to the ground the poorest country in the Arab world and have caused a catastrophic health crisis in that country, which already was facing a total completion of their water supply. We don't think about victims of war in the same way that we talk about victims of school shootings in this country or victims of terrorism when it's—when ISIS claims responsibility for it. It's a problem.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I wanted to ask you, in the broader context, the refugee crisis now that is engulfing Europe—in the headlines, 6 million people waiting to be able to emigrate into Europe. We don't, in the press, cover what is the basis of this refugee crisis, what the reality is that, when it comes to Iraq, it's been 20 years of warfare in Iraq. In Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, you have this—in Democratic and Republican administrations. So, basically, it's been the interventions and the military actions of the West that have created the refugee crisis, destabilized these countries, made it impossible for the people to stay. I'm surprised that more people haven't left Afghanistan than have already tried to flee to Europe.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, it's much more difficult to get out of Afghanistan. But you're totally right: The U.S. wars did this.

GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, you know, what's so strange about it is, in our own personal lives, if we have friends or family members who compulsively blame other people and look for fault on other people and never accept responsibility for their own actions and the way that it contributes to problems, we say, "This is a real pathology. You need to start thinking about how it is that your own actions contribute to problems." And yet, the number one rule of U.S. media discourse is that whenever there's violence or attacks, the one thing we don't want to do is think about the role we played in provoking it.

And what's particularly ironic about it is that when it comes to other countries, we're really good at doing that. For example, if ISIS shoots down a Russian plane or someone inspired by ISIS kills a Russian ambassador in Turkey, instantly, overnight, every pundit, every media outlet blames Russian foreign policy. They say, "The reason this happened is because the Russians are bombing in Syria or because the Russians have provoked ISIS around the world." We make that causal connection when it comes to our enemies.

But to make that causal connection when it comes to ourselves—you know, there were warnings that if Iraq—that if the U.K. invaded Iraq or if the U.K. began bombing in Syria, they would have exactly the kind of terrorist attacks that just happened in Manchester. But to talk about the causal connection there becomes instantly taboo. And what that means is that we just don't examine the policies that are invoked in the name of stopping terrorism that are actually doing more to fuel and provoke terrorism than any other single factor.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Can I just add one small part of this? You know, he's—I can't shake this guy from my existence, but Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, who has been serving as a shadow adviser to the Trump administration, he was on Fox News last week in prime time on Tucker Carlson's show. Tucker, of course, took over from Bill O'Reilly. And the two big points that Erik Prince was pushing, one was we need to put mercenaries in charge of the war in Afghanistan. And he likened it to the British campaign in India, which was a murderous campaign, where Churchill boasted about the use of chemical weapons. So it's an interesting analog that Prince is using for his proposal on private companies taking over the war in Afghanistan.

But the second point that he made is, the left is completely nuts in the United States because they loved the Soviet Union when it was a left-wing repressive government, and now they're demonizing Putin just because he's not part of the Soviet Union, but he's the same kind of an authoritarian. And isn't it great that Trump has brought these two countries together? What's interesting about that is that Prince himself is at the tip of the spear of a move to try to monetize the refugee crisis right now. His solution is to get countries and thugs in countries like Libya to get into business with the European Union to actually prevent people from leaving North Africa or parts of the Middle East to come into Europe. And he wants to do it with a privatized maritime force, accompanied by Western military advisers, working with local militias. This whole administration, in a way, is up for sale. And when you have people like Erik Prince who are masterful mercenaries running around the scene, and they're your biggest advocate in the U.S. media when it comes to the Russia issue, it raises a lot of questions.

I do think the Democrats have lost their minds with not seeing some value to having peaceful relations between Russia and the United States. The problem is, I'm not sure that that's what Trump is actually doing. But there's a lot up for sale right now. And I think Democrats are blowing a lot of opportunities by just focusing on a narrow aspect of Trump's buffoonery, because there's a lot of high-stakes stuff going on.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us."

Legal Justifications for Impeachment

THE ABSURD TIMES

"No, my son. I have it on the Highest authority that you'd best enjoy yourself here, for afterwards there is no chance for you."

So, we will finish with the impeachment now. 

• Emoluments: Anything he does enriches himself, including visitors at Trump tower near the White house.  Also, the only bank that would even consider loaning him money was Russian owned.  Not clear how much he owes.  Every act so far designed to enrich the upper 1% (he is one of them).
• Treason: Ample evidence of sharing top classified information with Russia – in the White house!
• Firing Comey, stating the whole reason was to hinder the investigation into him, his staff, and Russia:  All clearly obstruction of Justice and admittedly so.

The Constitution uses the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", not clear what the latter is in this case, but the crimes part is pretty clear.

Below are discussions of it in more detail, including one congressman, from Texas, who openly called for the impeachment.  Some phrases had been blanked out as [expletive deleted], but we used linguistic techniques to reconstruct them.[1]

Last week, Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green became the first congressmember to call for President Trump's impeachment from the floor of the House of Representatives. Since then, the African-American lawmaker has received a barrage of racist threats, including voicemails in which callers threaten to lynch him. For more, we speak with Congressmember Green.

---

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Al Green, is it true you've received death threats? I want to—I want to go to a town hall meeting Saturday, where you replayed recordings of threatening voicemail messages left for you. Let's go to these two particularly disturbing messages. I want to warn our viewers and listeners, the calls contain graphic racial slurs.

CALLER 1: Hey, Al Green. We've got an impeachment for ya. It's gonna be yours. It's actually going to give you a short trial before we hang your [nigger] ass.

AMY GOODMAN: This is another one of the phone calls left on Congressman Al Green's voicemail.

CALLER 2: You ain't gonna impeach nobody, you [nigger]. Try it, and we'll lynch all you [fuckin' niggras]. You'll be hanging from a tree. I didn't see anybody calling for the impeachment of your [nigger] Obama, when he was born in Kenya. He's not even an American. So [fuck] you, [niggra]!

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Green, these you got on your voice message machine?

REP. AL GREEN: We did. And they have been turned over to the Capitol Police. There will be an investigation. It is our hope that the persons who perpetrated this kind of ugliness will be caught and that they will be properly prosecuted.

But I also said at the town meeting, and I will share again now, that this type of effort to intimidate will not stop what we are trying to accomplish. It won't thwart our efforts one scintilla. We will move forward.

And I am concerned about my staff. We have a lot of young people that work in our office. We have an intern that's still in high school. And persons making these kinds of harmful threats, literally saying they will murder me, these things create a good deal of concern for my staff. So, we're going to do all that we can to protect ourselves, but we assure people that we will continue to move forward.

And finally, I really want to make this point. This had to be exposed because you cannot hide hate. If you hide hate, hate will grow and fester. Hate becomes emboldened. So you have to expose it. You also have to expose it so that the American people can know that people of color live with this kind of behavior that is not something that we have to assume won't be perpetrated upon us. These are ugly statements, but it doesn't matter whether you are the CEO of a major corporation or a member of Congress. People in this country—some, not all—believe that they can intimidate you by threatening to lynch you.

One more thing. The calls in support far outnumber the hateful calls. They far outnumber those who would perpetrate invidious discrimination. And I want to emphasize this, because I believe in America. I really do believe that my country, the country I was born in, the country I love, I salute the flag—I believe that this country is moving in the right direction. There are some bumps in the road, but we are moving in the right direction. I believe that we still believe in liberty and justice for all. I believe we still believe that this is a country where all persons are created equal. So, I think we've just got to deal with these issues. We cannot hide them. They have to be exposed. But I still am grateful to be in this great country.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Al Green, I want to thank you for being with us.

On Tuesday, former CIA Director John Brennan testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he had growing concerns last year that Trump's campaign may be colluding with Russian officials to influence the 2016 election—and that the Russians might lead Trump officials down a "treasonous path." Trump has now hired a lawyer to represent him in the ongoing investigation, which has sparked mounting calls for Trump's impeachment. For more, we speak with John Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, one of the organizations that launched the "Impeach Donald Trump Now" campaign just moments after Trump's inauguration.

---

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: John Bonifaz is also with us, Free Speech for People. John, you came on Democracy Now! like within a week of the inauguration, calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump. How have things changed? You focused on violations of the Emoluments Clause at the time. Explain what your concern was with that. And is that still what you feel is grounds for impeachment?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Amy, thank you for having me. I'm honored to be on with Congressman Green and with you this morning.

We have launched this campaign with RootsAction on the day of the inauguration at ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org. More than 1 million people all across the country have called for this impeachment investigation in light of the president's direct and ongoing violations of the anticorruption clauses of the Constitution. His refusal to divest fully from his business interests placed him on a collision course with the Constitution from the day he took the oath of office. But we have since expanded the grounds for our call for an impeachment investigation to include obstruction of justice, in light of the shocking revelations that the president fired the FBI director to try to stop a criminal investigation that may incriminate him as well as other associates in his campaign.

Congressman Green is an American hero. He's standing up for our Constitution and our democracy at this critical moment in our history. And we're urging people all across the country to join us at ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org, to stand with him and to make sure that this president be held accountable via the impeachment process.

AMY GOODMAN: So how does this move forward right now, John Bonifaz?

JOHN BONIFAZ: I think it's incumbent upon all of us all around the nation who believe in our Constitution and the rule of law and democracy, that no one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law, that we stand up, that we stand with Congressman Green, that we call on our members of Congress to join him in making this call to issue an impeachment resolution and start the process in the United States House of Representatives.

I know there are people who are saying, "Well, we need to get the facts out." And we do need to get the facts out. But as Congressman Green has eloquently stated, we need—we already have these facts. They're talking about getting other facts. The facts are out on obstruction of justice. The facts are out on the violations of the anticorruption clauses of the Constitution.

And we're dealing right now with a constitutional crisis, in which this president is openly defying the rule of law in our Constitution. So, people all across the country need to stand up. Nine communities, including the Los Angeles City Council, have already passed resolutions calling on Congress to take this action. Brookline Town Meeting in Brookline, Massachusetts, is going to vote this Thursday on this question. And many other communities in the weeks ahead will do that, as well. And people can go to our site at ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org. They can download a local resolution and have it passed in your community. Hold an impeachment town hall, as Congressman Green did this past Saturday, and get your community talking about this critical question of our time. This is about our Constitution. It's about our democracy. And we all need to stand up.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Al Green, have Republicans come to you in support, any of your—any of the Republican congressmembers?

REP. AL GREEN: Well, I've had Republicans to say to me that they oppose these ugly things that have been said. I have not had any Republicans to tell me about the resolution that I'm proposing or the impeachment effort. And that's because I have not asked. I have intentionally not approached colleagues on this issue. This is a question of conscience for me. And I hope that my colleagues will approach it as I have, but I will not ask anyone to do this. I'm not lobbying anyone. I have concluded that this has to be done, and my hope is that others will see things similarly. But if they do not, I will understand. I think the people of the United States of America, as John has indicated, have to get involved. It's a participatory democracy. If the people will advance their will, the will of Congress will be advanced.

AMY GOODMAN: The Hill has reported that Congressmember Justin Amash of Michigan, Republican, admitted Trump may have committed an impeachable offense if he asked FBI Director James Comey to drop the FBI's investigation into Flynn. Amash is at least the second Republican openly to say Trump may have committed an impeachable offense. Also Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo did, from Florida, said this on CNN last week. Your thoughts on this, Al Green?

REP. AL GREEN: Well, thank you, Amy. I think a good many people see the obstruction of justice, and a good many people understand that obstruction of justice is impeachment. I think it's beneficial that three members of the Republican Party have given these indications. But I also understand that there are a good many members who will be silent until given the opportunity to vote. And at that point, they will voice their opinions. My hope is that they will have heard from enough of their constituents, so that they better understand the will of the people. I think the will of the people will prevail. It's just a matter of making sure people understand what the issues are.

And finally, this, on this question of others, I believe that others who desire to speak up will have the opportunity to do so as more things come out, as there's more evidence presented. I think that we haven't seen the last of this evidence that is ultimately going to be presented. But I also know that we already have enough to impeach, because of the firing and because the president confessed on national television that he did it because of the investigation.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Texas Congressmember Al Green, John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. AL GREEN: Thank you.

JOHN BONIFAZ: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: We'll continue to follow your actions on the floor of the House, Congressman Green, and this whole impeachment movement around the country.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we'll go to London to speak with Tariq Ali about the suicide attack at the Manchester arena. Stay with us.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

---

[1] Devices such as phonemes, allophones, syntax, dialect, and so on.  It also shows a certain personality and level of education, all pointing to a typical Trump voter (although, of course, not all of them).