Bernie Seeks To Re-exert American World Leadership Where Trump Has Abandoned It Entirely-- And Dangerously

George Washington's Continental Army "manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports."

On July 4, Trump congratulated the Revolutionary Army for taking over the airports in 1781. A week earlier Foreign Affairs published a piece by Bernie Sanders, Ending America’s Endless War-- We Must Stop Giving Terrorists Exactly What They Want. He wrote that we've "been at war for too long. Even today, we seem to be preparing for a new war with Iran, which would be the worst yet." He expressed deep concern how Trump's moves against Iran, and Iran’s moves in response, could put us in direct conflict-- intentionally or not. "We should all understand that a war with Iran,"he continued, "would be many times worse than the Iraq war. U.S. military leaders and security experts have repeatedly told us that. If the United States were to attack Iran, Tehran could use its proxies to retaliate against U.S. troops and partners in Iraq, Syria, Israel, and the Persian Gulf area. The result would be the further, unimaginable destabilization of the Middle East, with wars that go on year after year and likely cost trillions of dollars." Bernie called for taking a step back and rethinking "what we are doing, both in Iran and in the broader Middle East. In the nearly two decades since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States has made a series of costly blunders that have not only weakened our democracy but also undermined our leadership. We need a foreign policy that focuses on core U.S. interests, clarifies our commitment to democratic values both at home and abroad, and privileges diplomacy and working collectively with allies to address shared security concerns."

The United States invaded Afghanistan in response to the worst terrorist attack in our country’s history, and with a specific purpose: to bring justice to those who planned the 9/11 attacks and those who supported them, and to make sure that such an attack would never happen again. Our military has now been in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years.

Instead of staying focused on those who attacked us, President George W. Bush’s administration chose to declare a global “war on terror” in order justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The war on terror has turned into an endless war. We will soon have troops fighting in Afghanistan who were not even born on September 11, 2001. We have fathers who completed tours of duty there, only to be followed by their sons and daughters. Withdrawing from Afghanistan is something we must do. My administration will not make critical foreign-policy decisions like this one via tweet, as our current president does. We will work closely with our partners and allies to design a serious diplomatic and political strategy to stabilize the region, promote more effective and accountable governance, and ensure that threats do not re-emerge after we leave.

But just to end our military interventions in these places is not enough. We need to rethink the militaristic approach that has undermined the United States’ moral authority, caused allies to question our ability to lead, drained our tax coffers, and corroded our own democracy. We must never again engage in torture or indefinite detention, and we must limit the use of drone strikes that too often result in high numbers of civilian casualties, boosting the very terrorist organizations that we aim to defeat. And we must seriously reinvest in diplomacy and development aid, both of which have been allowed to atrophy under the current administration. Addressing issues like civil and religious tension, corruption, and lack of opportunity before these conditions give rise to conflict can eliminate the need to address them militarily in the future.

Terrorism is a very real threat, which requires robust diplomatic efforts, intelligence cooperation with allies and partners, and yes, sometimes military action. But as an organizing framework, the global war on terror has been a disaster for our country. Orienting U.S. national-security strategy around terrorism essentially allowed a few thousand violent extremists to dictate the foreign policy of the most powerful nation on earth. We responded to terrorists by giving them exactly what they wanted.

The war on terror has also been staggeringly wasteful. According to the most recent study by the Costs of War Project at Brown University, it will have cost American taxpayers more than $4.9 trillion through the end of this fiscal year. Factoring in the future health-care costs of veterans injured in post-9/11 wars, the bill will be closer to $6 trillion. And even after this enormous expense, the world has more terrorists now, not fewer. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, there were nearly four times as many Sunni Islamic militants operating around the world in November 2018 as on September 11, 2001. That is no coincidence: the way the United States and its partners have prosecuted this war has caused widespread resentment and anger, which helps those terrorists recruit.

The war on terror has come with huge opportunity costs as well-- things we haven’t been able to do because we were mired in costly overseas conflicts. Competitors like China and Russia have exploited our forever wars to expand their economic and political influence around the world. In China, an inner circle led by President Xi Jinping has steadily consolidated power, clamping down on domestic political freedom while aggressively promoting its version of authoritarian capitalism abroad. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has a grandiose vision of restoring the power that Moscow commanded in the Soviet era, something he knows he cannot achieve. But what he can do, what he is trying to do, is to destroy the alliance of liberal democracies in Europe and North America that stand in the way of Russian resurgence.

Endless wars help the powerful to draw attention away from economic corruption. In today’s globalized economy, wealth and income inequality are vast and growing. The world’s top one percent possess more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, and a small number of huge financial institutions wield enormous power over the lives of billions of people. Multinational corporations and rich people have stashed more than $21 trillion in offshore bank accounts in order to avoid paying their fair share in taxes. Then they turn around and demand that their governments impose austerity agendas on working families. In industrialized countries, many have begun to question whether democracy can actually deliver for them. They work longer hours for lower wages than they used to. At the same time, they see big money buying elections, and the political and economic elite growing wealthier, even as the their own children’s future dims.

Too often, political leaders exploit these fears, stoking resentment and fanning ethnic and racial hatred among those who are struggling. We see this very clearly in our own country, coming from the highest level of our government. When our elected leaders, pundits, and cable news personalities promote relentless fear-mongering about Muslim terrorists, they inevitably create a climate of fear and suspicion around Muslim American citizens-- a climate in which demagogues like Trump can thrive. By turning our immigration debate into a debate about Americans’ personal security, we have conflated one policy conundrum with another and subjected all those who seek a better life in the United States to xenophobia and defamation. There is a straight line from the decision to reorient U.S. national-security strategy around terrorism after 9/11 to placing migrant children in cages on our southern border.

All the while, truly severe looming threats like climate change have failed to capture much-needed attention and commitment. The scientific community is virtually unanimous in telling us that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity, and that it is already doing devastating harm throughout the world. If we don’t act boldly to address the climate crisis, we are all but certain to see more drought, more floods, more extreme weather disturbances, more acidification of oceans whose levels are rising, and, because of resultant mass migration, more threats to global stability and security. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we only have about 12 years to take action before a rise in the planet’s temperature will cause irreversible damage.

Climate change is a clear example of an issue on which American leadership can make a difference-- and from which our endless entanglements in the Middle East have diverted crucial resources and attention. Europe cannot address this problem alone. Nor can China. Nor can the United States. This crisis calls out for strong international cooperation if we are to leave our children and grandchildren a planet that is healthy and habitable. American leadership-- and the economic and scientific advantages that only America can offer-- can and must facilitate this effort.

Enough is enough. In March, we had a historic vote in both houses of Congress to end U.S. military involvement in Yemen’s civil war. This vote demonstrated strong bipartisan concern over unconstitutional and unauthorized wars, and it served as an important reminder that Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over the use of military force. I was one of those who opposed the Iraq war. Trump claims he opposed it too, but, in truth, he only did so after the fact. Trump campaigned on getting the United States out of “endless war,” but his administration is taking us down a path that makes another war more likely. We can and we must pursue a different option.

The American people don’t want endless war. Neither do we want a foreign policy that is based on the logic that led to those wars and corroded our democracy: a logic that privileges military tools over diplomatic ones, aggressive unilateralism over multilateral engagement, and acquiescence to our undemocratic partners over the pursuit of core interests alongside democratic allies who truly share our values. We have to view the terrorism threat through the proper scope, rather than allowing it to dominate our view of the world. The time has come to envision a new form of American engagement: one in which the United States leads not in war-making but in bringing people together to find shared solutions to our shared concerns. American power should be measured not by our ability to blow things up, but by our ability to build on our common humanity, harnessing our technology and enormous wealth to create a better life for all people.

Bonus-- and please note how a defensive and angry Joe Biden didn't even try to answer Maddow's question-- which was, after all, about why anyone should trust his always terrible judgment:

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

For today, Tuesday 2/26, a reminder of two Tuesday attacks on The United States Of America; one attack was the product of Saudi state-sponsored terrorism. The other attack was the product of Russian intelligence efforts. Now, both governments are enjoying an "extra special relationship" with the Trump Crime Family and its loyal supporters and accomplices in the Republican Party. You might even say ownership rather than relationship.

Retaliation for 9/11 but an embrace for 11/9. The Russians were more sophisticated. They knew they could buy inaction with money-laundered "campaign contributions" via the NRA. "Moral" of the story? The next time an adversary attacks America, all they have to do to avoid retaliation is OK some hotel construction and send a few checks.

Meanwhile, Americans snore.

Dateline: Istanbul-- What The Khashoggi Case Tells Us About Terrorism

Can you name these 3 guys?

-by Reese Erlich

Istanbul-

In 2013, an Iranian national living in Texas was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison for planning to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, D.C. The State Department alleged that Iran’s Al Quds force masterminded the terrorist plot. Although the bombing never took place and Iran denied any connection with the conspiracy, 92 US senators signed a letter calling on President Barack Obama to “crush Iran's central bank” in retaliation.

On October 2 of this year, according to Turkish intelligence sources, Saudi authorities murdered dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside its consulate here in Istanbul, Turkey. Many Turks are convinced that the reported torture and murder of Jamal Khashoggi was an act of terror aimed at intimidating Saudis from organizing opposition to the regime. Yet on this occasion, no high level US official labelled it a terrorist plot. No Senator has called for crushing the Saudi central bank.

Hmmmm. Once again, US leaders label violence carried out by enemies as terrorism. The same violence carried out by allies is ignored or downplayed.

Death in Istanbul

Khashoggi, a permanent US resident writing a Washington Post: column, entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and never left. At first, Saudi leaders, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, denied any foul play. But they later floated a story about how Khashoggi may have been killed in an interrogation gone terribly awry, and Trump offered up unsubstantiated speculation that he was killed by a “rogue agent.”

But that version doesn’t hold up either. Before the murder, Saudi leaders sent a fifteen-man hit squad to Istanbul that included several of the crown prince’s top security officers and an autopsy expert carrying a bone saw. Turkish media reported that audio recordings show Khashoggi was horribly tortured, murdered, and then dismembered.

It’s likely the assassination was ordered by the highest level Saudi leaders, including the crown prince. Saudi royals have regularly used terror to intimidate enemies. In 2013, I reported on their repression of mostly Shia Saudis in the eastern region of Qatif.

But both Democratic and Republican Presidents largely ignore such brutal repression. They built a close alliance based on what are deemed to be US national interests-- in reality, vast profits for US oil companies and weapons manufacturers, and support for US geopolitical policy in the region.

Saudis back terrorism

The Saudi leadership supported terrorist groups fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, for example, and funded Chechen terrorist attacks in Russia in the 2000s. I’ve reported on how Saudi Arabia provided money and arms to the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, something Hillary Clinton also admitted, as revealed in a leaked memo.

While ignoring Saudi support for terrorism, the Trump Administration is happy to peg Iran as the world’s “most prominent state sponsor of terrorism.”

“We will defeat radical Islamist terrorists such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, expand our agile counterterrorism toolkit to prevent future terrorist threats, deter emerging threats, roll back Iran’s global terrorist network, and ensure our country’s continued safety,” Trump has said.

The Trump Administration falsely links Shiite Iran with Sunni-based terrorist groups. In fact, Iran fought ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, and is no more linked to ISIS than Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Iran has been just as much a victim of terrorism as a perpetrator.

Iran as victim of terrorism

Last month, twenty-nine Iranian soldiers and civilians were killed in the southwestern city of Ahvaz when men dressed in Revolutionary Guard uniforms opened fire on crowded parade ground bleachers. The Iranian government blamed ISIS for the attack and fired missiles into an ISIS controlled area of Iraq.

In 2017 ISIS attacked the Iranian parliament and the Imam Khomeini shrine in Tehran, killing twelve and wounding forty. Once again, ISIS was held responsible.

Undoubtedly, Iran has used terrorist tactics to advance its religious and geopolitical goals. Just this month, Belgian and French police arrested an Iranian diplomat and civilian couple for plotting to bomb a Mujahideen-e-Khalq event in Paris. The Mujahideen-e-Khalq is a right-wing cult opposed to Tehran. The invited guests at the event included Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Iranian authorities strongly deny any Iranian involvement in the bomb plot. A trial has not yet been scheduled.

Iran does support groups that have used terrorist tactics, including the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many in the Middle East, however, view these groups as national liberation organizations fighting Israel. They see them as distinct from Al Qaeda and ISIS, which intentionally kill civilians as part of their strategy to ethnically cleanse the region and establish a dictatorial Islamic caliphate.

I don’t think anyone’s hands are clean when it comes to supporting terrorism. But on balance, Saudi Arabia has done more to promote terrorism than Iran. And don't even get me started on US support for mujahideen in Afghanistan, contras in Nicaragua or terrorist groups in today's Syria. But for that, you'll have to await a future column.

Photo: (C) Reese Erlich

Why Congress Might "Fix" the 9/11 Justice Bill It Just Passed

The Daily Show's nuanced take on the 9/11 Justice bill that Obama vetoed and Congress passed anyway, overriding his veto. Why might Congress reverse that veto-override? Give it a listen.

by Gaius Publius

"Why would [28 senators] vote to override the thing and then go back against it? Because it's not about what they feel. It's about what they want people to think they feel."

We wrote here about the 9//11 Justice Bill (officially, JASTA, or the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) and Obama's veto of it, which Congress overrode. We also offered some reasons Obama and some Democrats may have been against it, among them the army of well-funded, Saudi-paid lobbyists operating in the U.S. to "discourage" its support. (Obama himself is a man with legacy needs, and down the road, his kind of legacy will also need financing.)

But a second reason for Obama's opposition is this — in essence, one person's "drone strike on an Afghan 'rebel' village" is another person's "state-sponsored terrorism." Put more simply, it's the tit-for-tat problem: "If you can sue me for terrorism, then I can sue you."

Or, put even more simply, revenge. And as Trevor Noah indicated in the video above, the U.S. has much to regret, or at least to protect against, when it comes to stimulating revenge.

Lawmakers' Regrets

So lawmakers are starting to walk back their two votes — one to pass the bill, one to override the veto — and starting to say words like "national security" and "protect the troops" ("troops" being code for anyone in any position who orders or helps implement what foreign victims may see as our own "state-sponsored terrorism"). 

Joseph K. Grieboski, writing in The Hill, discusses this. The headline:

9/11 bill is a global blunder that will weaken US efforts abroad

Before I continue with the article, notice the phrasing above, then ask yourself: "US efforts" to do what? More drone strikes perhaps? A bombing or two? Needless to say, you should be immediately alert that this piece is sympathetic to Obama's position.

The writer continues:

On Thursday [September 29], the U.S. Congress went over the head of President Obama for the first time, passing the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a piece of legislation effectively removing the principle of sovereign immunity to allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to directly and privately sue the Saudi government for complicity with terrorists.

While most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, it is critically important that the across-the-aisle 9/11 commission found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior officials funded the attacks, or had any prior knowledge of it. Instead, the commission report lays much of the blame on a failure of U.S. intelligence and border security, citing the fact that al Qaeda gave plenty of notice of their intent to slaughter American civilians, but domestic defense forces devoted little attention or resources toward addressing the threat.

With the passage of the bill, the United States has provided the opportunity for grieving citizens to launch a legal battle against a false enemy, justifiably angering a nation that is not only a huge supplier of oil for the U.S, but has also served as a key ally in the war on terror.

That middle paragraph is pure pro-Saudi argumentum. I left it in specifically you let you see it for what it is. If this bill gets "fixed" — i.e., neutered — that reasoning ("We can't sue the Saudis anyway; there's no proof") will be a constant part of the justification.

Now the next justification for walking back the bill, and the one I mentioned above (revenge):

Following the 15th anniversary of the attacks, JASTA was clearly directed at [sic] families of 9/11 victims. However, this bill has far-reaching consequences, opening the United States up to retaliatory legislation by foreign nations.

The principle of sovereign immunity, protecting a government from civil or criminal suit, has been maintained for so long by a notion of reciprocity — the United States protects itself from suit by in turn protecting other nations. The bill has taken a significant step towards erosion of this global status quo. If the U.S. will not protect the immunity of other nations, especially an ally such as Saudi Arabia, than there is no mechanism in place to prevent retaliatory measures.

"Directed at" 9/11 families exposes the posturing nature of support (as in, they're striking a pose) for this bill by legislators. The writer could have used the phrase "written to support" the 9/11 families, but I appreciate the his honesty in this case. Notice also that this "principle of sovereign immunity" isn't international law, but a kind of gentlemen's agreement, a "notion of reciprocity." There's nothing holding this international principle in place, nothing upgirding it, but fear of consequences. Good to know.

About those objections more specifically. First, the writer notes Obama, speaking in a town hall shortly after the veto override, saying this: "Obama cited a number of concerns with the overriding of his veto. His primary fear seems to be an infringement on the ability of the United States to continue to carry out global disaster relief. ... The president fears that, should other nations pass similar legislation, the U.S. could be forced to curb its humanitarian aid work out of legal necessity."

Of course we'll be sued for disaster relief. That's what everyone does to governments that help them pick themselves from the rubble of earthquake. Yes, that's sarcasm, and yes, that reasoning is the most phony of phony logic. Likely, though, you'll hear it much repeated when this bill is reconsidered.

Paul Ryan, whose Republican House overwhelmingly supported the bill (only 18 Republicans voted No), is having second thoughts as well:

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the House would take up a bill to fix problems with JASTA after it comes back from its election recess, admitting Obama's concerns that the bill could subject U.S. service members to lawsuits in foreign courts was legitimate.

There's the "support the troops" argument. Another you'll hear much repeated.

And as Trevor Noah noted in the video above, Mitch McConnell is also have voter's remorse.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to blaming Obama for Senate Republicans' misunderstanding or misreading of the law. "Nobody really had focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I think it was just a ball dropped," he stated.

When it comes to protecting the national security state, it seems almost no one wants to get in the way. That includes our major media.

Big Media Wants the Bill "Fixed" (Neutered) as Well

Major press outlets are also overwhelmingly for a "fix." From an overview of press coverage by Fair.org:

...Notice that the possibility of other countries suing the US for war crimes its government commits is automatically assumed to be undesirable. The Washington Post puts “terrorism” in irony quotes because, of course, the US could never actually commit terrorism; claims to this effect could only be invoked “when convenient” by greedy non-Americans.

The New York Times uses its trademark euphemisms to describe how the US is “engaged in the world” with “drone operations.” A nice way of saying the US uses drones to bomb people in a half-dozen countries with—so far—legal impunity. Changing this state of affairs is simply glossed over as a nonstarter.

USA Today frames any attempt at legal recourse over American terrorism overseas as “retaliation”—presumably for some righteous kill executed by the United States in the service of freedom.

The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today are saying that exposing American military and intelligence personnel to foreign liability is per se bad—a nativism so casual and matter-of-fact one might hardly notice it until circumstances force them to explicitly state it. No account is taken of the 7 billion non-Americans or their rights. No explanation is given as to why victims of US terror–of which there are many–shouldn’t register in our moral calculus. They just don’t.

The many euphemisms used by the press simply say what I wrote more plainly above — "drone operations," for example, from the Times, means "drone strikes" and "drone kills," but without the hint of blood and death.

Yet Obama and Congress Would Let Foreign Companies Sue the U.S. Under NAFTA and TPP

Adam Johnson, the author of the Fair.org piece, notes the irony of U.S. political elites eagerness to (a) protect our government's right to kill with no exposure to lawsuit, while (b), via instruments like NAFTA and TPP, give foreign companies the right to sue the U.S. over any number of "lost profit" claims. He writes:

The irony is that none of these publications were overly concerned with exposing the US to foreign lawsuits when they offered support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a corporate trade deal that includes a provision for  Investor-State Dispute Settlement—meaning it permits corporations to sue governments, including the US, in the event that a regulation undermines corporate profits. So increased exposure to liability to the US government when it gives more power to corporations is permissible, even desirable, but when it might provide recourse for victims of US war crimes? Not so much.

Let's put that even more succinctly. According to U.S. rulers and their agents: Prevent foreign victims from suing the U.S. for lost life, but allow foreign companies to sue the U.S. for lost money. Shows where their hearts are at, I think. It's clearly with the money, which keeps their system running, and not the victims of it.

Bottom line: After the election, most likely in the lame duck session, the 9/11 families will be sold out by Congress men and women who won't have to face another election for at least two years. Unless those families continue the fight, which I expect. It will be a long slog though. The nearness of this election, I suspect, was part of why the bill got to the floor this time.

Some battles, especially against holder of great wealthy and their enablers, seem never to end. I think, no matter who wins the presidency, that war will further ignite, but that's a thought for another day.

Aruba... Jamaica...

Let's end on a cheerier note. Did I hear Roy Wood Jr. mention "Aruba... Jamaica..." in the clip above? Here you go:

The Beach Boys, set to shots of Barbara Eden in Eden

No victim lawsuits in those smiles.

GP
 

Congress Overrides Obama Veto; 9/11 Families Can Sue Saudi Officials — and Associated U.S. Companies?

President Barack Obama and Saudi Arabia's King Salman walk together to a meeting at Erga Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 20, 2016. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster (source)

by Gaius Publius

This story is straight-forward but has two interesting wrinkles. The House and Senate recently (and unanimously) passed a bill that drills a loophole into the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and allows victims of terrorism to sue foreign sponsors of attacks on U.S. soil.

The families of 9/11 victims had pushed hard for it. Most congressional Democrats and Republicans were united in supporting it. Only the executive branch, meaning President Obama, was opposed (more on that in a moment). So the bill passed ... and Obama vetoed it.

The Senate has now overridden his veto, 97–1 (only Harry Reid opposed; two not voting), quickly followed by the House override (348–77).

Here's the write-up via The Hill:

Senate overrides Obama 9/11 veto in overwhelming vote

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of a bill that would allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

The 97-1 vote marks the first time the Senate has mustered enough support to overrule Obama’s veto pen.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was the sole vote to sustain Obama’s veto. Not a single Democrat came to the Senate floor before the vote to argue in favor of Obama’s position. ...

The White House lashed out at the Senate vote, calling it "embarrassing."

“I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983,” Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One.

 Here's what the legislation (acronym: JASTA) would do:

The legislation ... was crafted primarily at the urging of the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks who want to sue Saudi Arabian officials if they are found to have links to the hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Which means the Saudis, naturally, were opposed:

The Saudi Embassy and a high-priced team of lobbyists it hired waged an intense campaign to persuade lawmakers to sustain the override, but it came too late.

So there's money involved, and given the wealth of the Saudis, a lot of it. Still, not enough to "persuade" either house of Congress to support the president's veto.

The Saudi government's opposition is easy to understand — they don't want to be sued for ginning up anti-U.S. terrorism while selling us oil. But what about Obama's opposition?

Obama's Opposition

I'll give you two data points, in the form of administration quotes, that offer an explanation for Obama's veto. First, Obama says he doesn't want to put what's been characterized as "U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel [and] U.S. government assets" at risk. The Hill again:

Obama warned in a veto message to the Senate last week that the bill would improperly give legal plaintiffs and the courts authority over complex and sensitive questions of state-sponsored terrorism.

He also cautioned that it would undermine protections for U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel serving overseas, as well as possibly subject U.S. government assets to seizure. ...

“The consequences of JASTA [the bill] could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members — and there is no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities,” [Obama] wrote in the letter, which was later circulated by a public affairs company working for the embassy of Saudi Arabia.

From the last sentence, you can see that the Saudis and Obama are working together on this. No surprise. A little more on what Obama says he fears, via USA Today:

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, would provide an exception to the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," which holds that one country can't be sued in another country's courts. ...

The White House has argued that the bill would prompt other nations to retaliate, stripping the immunity the United States enjoys in other parts of the world. "And no country has more to lose, in the context of those exceptions, than the United States of America..." Earnest said.

Stripping the U.S. of immunity may not be bad. After all, fear of punishment has deterred many destructive deeds, and internationally, we're no angels. But John Cornyn, a sponsor of the bill, argues that this mischaracterizes it, saying the bill "only targets foreign governments who sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil, plain and simple."

If so, is President Obama protecting the U.S., or protecting the Saudis? And if just the latter, why? (I can think of several reasons — for example, America's determined dependence on oil, which ties us to that murderous regime; also, a certain future library and foundation that need funding, plus a regime that likes to contribute to foundations. Among others.)

Second, there's this intriguing bit from an earlier, pre-veto write-up by Reuters:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters the president will veto Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act within the constitutionally mandated 10-day window, which ends Friday evening.

The Obama administration opposed the bill on grounds that other countries could use the law as an excuse to sue U.S. diplomats, service members or companies.

Notice that Josh Earnest was implicitly quoted in the second paragraph above. "Or companies"? Presumably U.S. companies, based on the construction of the sentence. So how could U.S. companies be sued if the "9/11 families" sued the Saudi government? And which ones?

Did U.S. Companies Help the 9/11 Hijackers?

In the hunt for that information, I found this, from Zero Hedge (emphasis in original):

Unleash the revisionist history. Congress released on Friday a long-classified report exploring the alleged ties of the Saudi Arabian government to the 9/11 hijackers.

The missing 28 pages from the 9/11 report begins as follows:

"While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government..."

The "28 pages," the secret document was part of a 2002 congressional investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks and has been classified since the report's completion. As CNN reports, former Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the committee that carried out the investigation and has been pushing the White House to release the pages, said Thursday he was "very pleased" that the documents would be released.

The pages, sent to Congress by the Obama administration, have been the subject of much speculation over what they might reveal about the Saudi government's involvement in the attacks masterminded by terrorist Osama bin Laden when he led al-Qaeda.The pages were used by the 9/11 Commission as part of its investigation into the intelligence failures leading up to the attacks.

A telephone number found in the phone book of al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida, who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002, was for an Aspen, Colo., corporation that managed the "affairs of the Colorado residence of the Saudi Ambassador Bandar," the documents show.

Fascinating. Almost ascends to the level of John LeCarré, but with even larger implications. This much very high level protection of the Saudi government and its ruling family (after all, it's Obama doing the protecting) must mean there's something big, something very high level, to protect.

The 9/11 story is certainly not dead. Thanks to the 9/11 families, we're getting a little bit closer to knowing what actually happened.

GP
 

It's lucky the WTC 9/11 Memorial is perfect, 'cause its overseers insist nothing can be changed

"9/11 Memorial President Joe Daniels . . . said the sculpture couldn't be placed inside the hallowed grounds.

" 'It's just not a part of the design of the memorial plaza itself,' said Daniels, who added that they are unable to add objects not part of the original plans."

-- from Ben Fractenberg's May 15 DNAinfo report (see below)

From the PWP Landscape Architecture website: "The National September 11th Memorial commemorates the victims of the attacks at the Pentagon, at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and at the World Trade Center site, both on September 11, 2001, and February 26, 1993. Two gigantic voids – in the footprints of the Twin Towers – and a surrounding forest of oak trees form the core of the rebuilt World Trade Center in New York City and provide a place for contemplation and remembrance within this revitalized urban center."

by Ken

I like the 9/11 Memorial on the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers, especially now that the plaza is more or less open to pedestrian traffic, no longer requiring the visitor to go through the insane, blocks-long security rigamarole that used to be required to access the site. (The "more or less open" refers to the considerable areas around the plaza which are still cordoned off for ongoing construction.)

I also like the adjacent 9/11 Museum, though entry still requires security rigamarole that seems to me excessive. There's even interesting programming there. Why, I myself have attended a program there, a free one in May featuring NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller, an established security and terrorism expert, talking about, you know, present-day security and terrorism issues, with specific reference to the interview he did with Osama bin Laden in May 1998 for ABC News. In my mind I still see John Miller as a hustling young local TV news reporter. He's built quite a career since then, though, in both journalism and government, and it was interesting as well as informative to see and hear him talk about the subject.

And now I realize it's a lucky thing that the overall project turned out pretty much okay, because we've discovered -- who knew? -- that the plan from which it was built was perfect and unchangeable, apparently in perpetuity.

The discovery came, for most of us, in the ongoing brouhaha over the ultimate destination of the sphere sculpture designed by Fritz Koenig which somehow survived the WTC devastation, and has been housed "temporarily" -- since 2002 -- in the northeast corner of Lower-most Manhattan's Battery Park, as noted in Irene Plagianos's DNAinfo report late yesterday afternoon (lots of links onsite):

Koenig Sphere Moving to WTC Liberty Park, Port Authority Says

By Irene Plagianos | July 21, 2016 4:32pm


The Fritz Koenig sphere sculpture moved to Battery Park in 2002 after being pulled from the rubble at Ground Zero. [Click to enlarge.] It will now be moved to Liberty Park at the WTC site.

FINANCIAL DISTRICT — A 25-ton bronze sculpture that became a symbol of resilience after Sept. 11 is returning to the World Trade Center site — but not to its original home.

Artist Fritz Koenig's Sphere which was pulled from the wreckage of the World Trade Center nearly 15 years ago damaged, but not destroyed after 9/11 will be placed at the WTC's newly opened Liberty Park, an elevated, leafy oasis that overlooks the 9/11 Memorial Plaza.

Port Authority officials voted unanimously Thursday afternoon to move The Sphere, a globe originally designed to symbolize world peace, from its home in Battery Park into Liberty Park before the end of the year, officials said. The sphere had been at Battery Park since 2002 when it was rededicated as a memorial to those who died and an icon of hope.

The decision comes after years of debate about where the giant sphere would ultimately rest. Its placement in Battery Park had been deemed temporary by the Port Authority, which owns the sculpture, while scores of people — residents, families of 9/11 victims, survivors and first responders — have long demanded that 27-foot-high sphere return to its original location, where the 9/11 Memorial Plaza now sits.

While many, including the Battery Park Conservancy, the nonprofit that manages the Battery, wanted to see the Sphere moved, not all in the community were happy with the decision to bring the sculpture to the park, instead of the 9/11 Memorial.

At Thursday's Port Authority meeting, several people voiced concerns about the sphere being placed at the park, some saying it would create too much of a tourist attraction in an area meant to be a peaceful place. Others held that the sphere should simply return to its actual home, join a plaza that's meant to memorialize those who died, or be given a permanent home inside the 9/11 Museum.

“The sphere belongs on the memorial plaza — it can restore some dignity, some gravitas to the site,” said Richard Hughes, a co-founder of the Twin Towers Alliance, a citizens watchdog group for the WTC site. “Now it’s a place where people are playing Pokemon GO, rather than paying their respect.”

The 9/11 Memorial has long said that the Sphere was not part of its original plans, so it can’t be placed there.

Pat Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority said Thursday that the 9/11 Memorial and Museum is “unalterably opposed" to siting the sphere on its property, and there's nothing the Port Authority can do about it — however, he enthusiastically endorsed the Sphere's new Liberty Park location.

"I wholeheartedly recommend that you vote to bring the Sphere back home," he told the panel of Port Authority commissioners.

Foye also said that the relocation of the Sphere is being embraced by the St. Nicholas National Shrine, a reincarnation of St. Nicholas Church, the longtime Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on Sept. 11 that is still being built atop Liberty Park.

Michael Burke, whose firefighter brother was killed on 9/11 and has long led the charge to bring the Sphere back to the WTC site, said that he's now onboard with the Liberty Park location.

"I toured this site the other day, and I think it provides a quiet place [for The Sphere], someplace unobtrusive and peaceful," he told the board.

The 92-year-old German artist behind the globe, Fritz Koening, has also said he is pleased with its new location.

I might add that every time I've passed the Sphere in its "temporary" location, it has been a center of attention, exerting an almost magnetic attraction for Battery Park passersby, of both the out-of-town and the local variety. I might also add that I'm not  offended beyond reason by the now-adopted plan to relocate the Sphere, now that it must give up its lovely spot in Battery Park, to the new Liberty Park adjacent to the WTC site.

What caught my attention, though, was this:

The 9/11 Memorial has long said that the Sphere was not part of its original plans, so it can’t be placed there.

Pat Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority said Thursday that the 9/11 Memorial and Museum is “unalterably opposed" to siting the sphere on its property, and there's nothing the Port Authority can do about it — however, he enthusiastically endorsed the Sphere's new Liberty Park location.

Huh? No consideration is possible of whether the Sphere belongs on the 9/11 Memorial site (can there be any question that it does?), or of whether it could be incorporated into the design of the plaza (which I'll bet it can). No changes are allowed to the original design.

There's a link here, which turns out to be to this earlier DNAinfo report by Ben Fractenberg, so I followed it. (Again, there are lots of links onsite.)

World Trade Sphere Must be Moved to 9/11 Memorial, Downtown Residents Say

By Ben Fractenberg | May 15, 2012 8:03am


The sphere in Battery Park in the spring of 2010. It has to move by this fall for construction.

DOWNTOWN — Downtown residents demanded that one of the last remaining objects from Ground Zero become part of the National 9/11 Memorial at a heated Community Board meeting Monday night.

A petition signed by more than 7,000 people asked that The Sphere — a 25-foot-tall sculpture originally at the World Trade Center and now in Battery Park City — become part of the memorial.

"[The Sphere] offers just how much horror, tragedy, violence went on that day," Battery Park resident Jeffery Mihok said.

Mihok called the current memorial "very crisp and antiseptic," and said the sculpture would provide a "great counterpoint to the thought-out nature for the rest of the memorial."

9/11 Memorial President Joe Daniels, who was at the meeting to update the board about projects and construction, said the sculpture couldn't be placed inside the hallowed grounds.

"It's just not a part of the design of the memorial plaza itself," said Daniels, who added that they are unable to add objects not part of the original plans.

The Sphere is currently slated to be moved from Battery Park to a new location, which the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is expected to announce this week.

It was supposed to have been moved to a hangar at John F. Kennedy International Airport until a new home was found, but officials decried the plan.

"It simply cannot be mothballed in some musty hangar at JFK," Sen. Charles Schumer told reporters Saturday.

"It must remain, like now, accessible as a public touchstone for New Yorkers and the visitors from the four corners of the globe."

But community members feel there is only one acceptable place for it to move.

"Putting The Sphere anywhere else denies its meaning," said Michael Burke, whose brother was a first responder killed during the attacks.

Burke started the petition and said he has gotten signatures from people from all over the world.

"'Do the right thing,' is the most common thing expressed on the petition," he said.

Daniels said that while The Sphere can't be placed inside the memorial, he wants to help make sure it is placed somewhere appropriate.

"The most important thing is that this artifact is preserved in a way the public can visit it, learn about it any way they want to," Daniels said.

Sandwiched in here, you'll note, we have the position on the Sphere of 9/ll Memorial President Daniels which I've put atop this post:

"It's just not a part of the design of the memorial plaza itself," said Daniels, who added that they are unable to add objects not part of the original plans.

Wow -- "they are unable to add objects not part of the original plans"! My first thought on reading this was: In the entire history of the human race, has anything ever been built to which nothing could ever be added, at any time, for any reason? My second thought was: Is it really God's-honest-truth, President Daniels, that absolutely nothing has been added -- or, presumably, subtracted? -- to the project since the original plan was designed? Cross your heart and hope to die?

As you may have guessed, I'm dubious. I'd like to know more about this absolute prohibition, this undeviating, unalterable fidelity to the original plan. I can understand as a general principle that the original plan be followed as closely as possible. That closes the way to all sorts of proposals, most of which would likely be highly objectionable. If the idea was that succeeding generations of site custodians might be dangerously susceptible to dubious proposals, the idea isn't without merit. Still and all, is the original plan so sacred that additions can't even be considered? Not even one as clearly deserving of at least consideration as the Sphere? (And is it just additions that can't be allowed? As opposed to subtractions and/or alterations?)

Apparently so. Because the only other explanation is that we've got some self-important bureaucrats digging in their heels on account of they don't wanna, you can't make me.

#

Is Jeremy Corbyn the only British pol who "gets" the significance of the apparent war crimes of Tony Blair & Co.?

One of these war criminals-in-chief is the Brits' problem; the other's ours.

"[A]s I’m sure you’ve noticed, the people who fear actual left-wingers or people of principle the most aren’t Tories, they are Blairites."

-- Ian Welsh, in "Blair et al. Committed War Crimes"

by Ken

Of course we shouldn't be talking just about British pols. A more urgent question for those of us on this side of the pond is how many American pols "get it"? The Chilcot Report, I gather, deals only with possible British war crimes in the grand Iraq adventure. (See Nick Hopkins's Guardian report, "Chilcot exposes how Blair kept ministers and generals in the dark.") However, is there any question that the ringleaders, the master-"minds," the orchestrators of both the war crimes and the lies formulated to both promote and conceal them, are our fellow Americans?

In some quick online chatter that Howie and Noah I did, Noah underscored the point:

If I had the big badge, I would hold a big package deal Nuremberg-style trial of ALL of the political and media scum who voted and propagandized to go to Iraq. I would do it on a reality TV channel and I would have a sliding scale of various punishments for the perps that would match their degree of blame (which the trial process would determine). My TV show would start with the minor punishments such as removal of finger and toe nails to removal of limbs and blinding such as our soldiers and the civilians had to suffer. Then, for the last week of my reality mini-series, I would have Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Kindasleaza, and Blair's seconds face real life Gladiators at Wimbledon. Dump their miserable remains at sea in the same place bin Laden was dumped; mass murderers all. That just seems fair and just to me.

I regret that criminals such as Blair, and Bush et al, who created the all too predictble fiasco in Iraq, and thus enabled and gave the world the cancer that is ISIS, which now has the dream of killing whole cites at a time, if not, yet, the means, have but one life to present for punishment up to and including exection for their crimes against all humanity. If we are to be a civilized world, trials are demanded and justice for the dead, justice for the terror and havoc being visited on the living, and justice for the future victims is a moral imperative. Oh, and let's not forget the oil companies.

Before venting, Noah had seconded my deferral to Ian Welsh's post yesterday, "Blair et al. Committed War Crimes." "So, the Chilcot report is out," he began, "and it’s not pretty." Then he cued Anushka Asthana, Rowena Mason, and Jessica Elgot's Guardian report ("Corbyn apologises after Labour's role in Iraq war 'laid bare' by Chilcot report"):

Jeremy Corbyn has apologised on behalf of the Labour party for its role in the 2003 Iraq war, and warned that the people who took the decisions “laid bare in the Chilcot report” must now face up to the consequences.
…

The Labour leader’s apology went further than he had earlier in parliament, when he responded to the Chilcot report after David Cameron. At that point, Corbyn called the war an “act of military aggression”, arguing that it was thought of as illegal “by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion”. (emphasis added)

Corbyn said in his House of Commons speech that he had apologized to families of military servicemen and women who lost loved ones, Iraqi citizens and war veterans "for the decisions taken by our then government that led this country into a disastrous war," explaining --

It’s a disaster that occurred when my party was in government; 140 of my then colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party opposed it at the time, as did many many party members and trade unionists.

The Guardian team writes:

Corbyn said that many more Britons had said they regretted their votes, which they had cast in loyalty to the Labour government because of the intelligence that today’s report has “confirmed to be false”.

The Labour leader did not name Tony Blair, but said parliament had been misled by a “small number of leading figures in the government" who he said were “none too scrupulous” about how they made their case for war.

“Politicians and political parties can only grow stronger by acknowledging when they get it wrong and by facing up to their mistakes,” he said. “So I now apologise sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003.

“That apology is owed first of all to the people of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and the country is still living with the devastating consequences of the war and the forces it unleashed.” He said it was those people who had paid the greatest price.

Ian plucks out this bit from the Guardian report on Corbyn's apology:

As Corbyn issued his excoriating statement to the House of Commons, he was heckled by his own backbencher Ian Austin, who shouted: “Sit down and shut up, you’re a disgrace.”

Which he introduces thusly: "I very much hope this next man, who has far less worth than the toilet paper I clean myself with, is not a Labour candidate in the next election," explaining: "When you’re screaming at someone for apologizing for a war crime that is identical to that which many Nazi leaders were hung for, you’re officially a waste of human skin." He goes on:

Corbyn hasn’t actually called for “war crimes trial for Blair,” but he’s made the case. The European Criminal Court, being also basically worthless, had already said that they would not try Tony Blair, but might charge ordinary soldiers.

I have never had any respect for the ECC, whose mandate appears to involve prosecuting the politically powerless, especially Africans, and avoiding anyone with any influence. Justice as unevenly applied as the ECC applies it is not a step in the right direction, it is actually injustice. Saying that they would not charge Blair even before the Chilcot report was out simply confirmed the primacy of political over legal considerations for them.

Yet again, Corbyn has proved he is one of very few honorable people in a den of scum. May he become Prime Minister and, once Prime Minister, may he ensure Tony Blair and those who aided and abetted him in selling the Iraq war with lies, have the fair trial they so richly deserve.

Oh, and as usual, doing so is not just the right thing to do ethically, it would be the right thing to do politically, keeping Corbyn’s primary enemies completely occupied. Because, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, the people who fear actual left-wingers or people of principle the most aren’t Tories, they are Blairites.

Now, as to our team of war criminals, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the whole miserable crew . . . well, we don't even have a report to chew over, do we?


GLENN GREENWALD MUSES ON THE CHILCOT
REPORT AND THE CAUSES OF TERRORISM

Howie notes: "New Labour, like the New Dems, is confused about which side it's on -- other than whatever works to advance individual careers (their own)-- and has been relentlessly attacking Jeremy Corbyn since his loud and unswerving opposition to Blar's war. He also commends our attention to Glenn Greenwald's Intercept post today, "Chilcot Report and 7/7 London Bombing Anniversary Converge to Highlight Terrorism’s Causes," which begins (lots o' links onsite):

ELEVEN YEARS AGO today, three suicide bombers attacked the London subway and a bus and killed 51 people. Almost immediately, it was obvious that retaliation for Britain’s invasion and destruction of Iraq was a major motive for the attackers.

Two of them said exactly that in videotapes they left behind: The attacks “will continue and pick up strengths till you pull your soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq. … Until we feel security, you will be targets.” Then, less than a year later, a secret report from British military and intelligence chiefs concluded that “the war in Iraq contributed to the radicalization of the July 7 London bombers and is likely to continue to provoke extremism among British Muslims.” The secret report, leaked to The Observer, added: “Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalization of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the U.K. as legitimate.”

The release on Tuesday of the massive Chilcot report — which the New York Times called a “devastating critique of Tony Blair” — not only offers more proof of this causal link, but also reveals that Blair was expressly warned before the invasion that his actions would provoke al Qaeda attacks on the U.K. As my colleague Jon Schwarz reported yesterday, the report’s executive summary quotes Blair confirming he was “aware” of a warning by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-U.S./anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the West.”

None of this is the slightest bit surprising. . . .

#

Don't Assume Terrorism Will Win The Election For The Lying Demagogue

Convention wisdom predicted the Orlando terrorist attack would be "good" for Trump, who quickly moved into full demagogue mode-- not much of a change from his default button-- to exploit it. A tracking poll by Reuters showed Clinton's national lead over Trump down ever so slightly after he worked so hard to exploit the Orlando gun massacre and blame it on "immigrants" and "Muslims"-- she went from a 13 point lead to an 11.6% lead.

Our friend Sam Husseini asked me to consider how NPR botched their reporting by twisting conventional wisdom into reality when they talked about how a massive terrorist attack in Madrid impacted Spain's national elections. NPR got it all wrong.

Commenting on Orlando, NPR Terrorism Reporter Reverses Political Lesson of Madrid Blast
-By Sam Husseini

Shortly before noon on Sunday (6/12/16), during NPR’s national coverage of the horrific shooting in Orlando, NPR “counter-terrorism correspondent” Dina Temple-Raston made a critical false claim that deserves an on-air correction.

NPR’s hosts were talking about the Orlando shooting, terrorism and the US election. They asked Temple-Raston to chime in on the issue, and she drew a parallel with Spain, claiming that when the 2004 Madrid train attacks happened just before the Spanish election, “the more conservative candidate ended up winning.”

This is exactly backwards.

In fact, the incumbent government, led by the conservative People’s Party, had brought the country into the Iraq War a year before against public opposition, and feared that if the attack were shown to be Mideast-related, voters would be furious. The day of the attack, March 11, 2004, the Spanish government had the United Nations Security Council pass resolution 1530, which condemned in “the strongest terms the bomb attacks in Madrid, Spain, perpetrated by the terrorist group ETA.” Three days later, the day of the election, Al Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Before the Madrid bombing, the People’s Party generally lead in the polls by 4 or 5 percentage points, but the Socialist Party ended up winning by 5 points. The victorious Socialists had called for the removal of Spanish troops from Iraq during the campaign.

Crucially, there were substantial protests in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, which included messages like “No to Terrorism-- No to War.”

After winning the election, the Socialist Party  withdrew troops a month earlier than promised. I can’t find a record of any Mideast-related attacks in Spain since.

It’s remarkable that NPR’s self-described “counterterrorism correspondent” would make such a false statement. This case seems to show an example of a country that may have reduced the danger of  terrorism by ending participation in an aggressive war. That’s something that should be regularly highlighted: Can we learn something from this?

Instead, the reporter who should be highlighting this story reversed the historical lesson.

Note: Dina Temple-Raston’s statement does not appear to be on NPR’s website or its transcripts on Nexis. (I tweeted about it twice at the time, using Temple-Raston’s Twitter handle.) The failure to put all of NPR’s broadcasts online lessens accountability for the powerful, publicly funded network.

Conventional wisdom are actual reality aren't identical. Don't assume Trump is going to win because of Orlando. He isn't.

One of the congressmen representing the Orlando area, Alan Grayson, had a very different kind of message than Trump's, a message that more than a few people are gravitating to-- and which is not going to push voters towards fascism.

Early Sunday, one person, firing one weapon, killed almost fifty people, in just a few minutes.

These people were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. The parents of two of them, living outside the United States, contacted my office yesterday and asked if they could have visas to attend the funerals of their own children. How wrong is that-- parents attending the funerals of their slain children. So many; a slaughter of the innocents.

It’s much too easy to kill a lot of people very quickly.

The weapon that the killer used was an AR-15 assault weapon, derived from an M-16 military model. The main difference between the two is that you can pull and hold the M-16 trigger, making it spit out hundreds of rounds each minute, while the AR-15 trigger is one-pull-one-round, or “only” 100+ rounds per minute (subject to reloading). That’s automatic versus semi-automatic. But a legal modification to the AR-15 (a “replacement rifle stock”), costing around $300, essentially takes each recoil and make it a trigger pull. And that makes the AR-15 a machine gun.

Either way, it’s hard to imagine any legitimate use for a weapon like that. Does anyone really want to drill a deer with a few hundred rounds in a minute or two? That doesn’t seem very sporting.

For a decade, you couldn’t buy an assault weapon. The original legislation had a “sunset” provision that ended the ban after ten years. Thanks to the NRA and its GOP puppets, that ban was never extended.

We need to end this lunacy.

Seven states enacted bans (or heavy restrictions) on their own. Three of those seven states enacted their restrictions after 20 children were shot dead at Sandy Hook.

That’s where we are now.

Convicted felons can’t buy these weapons, in Florida and elsewhere. But pretty much anyone else can. In fact, until last August, anyone could buy them in WalMart. (Then WalMart imposed its own ban.)

Let me just ask you, straight up: Do you want virtually anyone to be able to buy weapons whose only practical purpose is to be able to kill hundreds of people in a matter of minutes?

No?

I’ll introduce the bill this week.

Let's elect more people to government like Alan Grayson... and fewer like Donald Trump. You can help by tapping on the thermometer below. All the candidates on the page it leads to are anti-fascist/anti-Trump progressives... yes, every single one of them.

Christie, Who Unsuccessfully Prosecuted Middle-East Students Cheating On An Exam, Tries Re-Writing History To Make Himself Sound Like An Anti-Terrorist Warrior

Although Christie's term as a Bush-era prosecutor was primarily about prosecuting corrupt Democrats-- except for his uber-corrupt pals from the Norcross Machine-- suddenly he's trying to lay claim to the mantle of hero in the war against terrorism. Ted Cruz's campaign laughed in the Jersey slob's jowly face. During the last GOP debate in Vegas he boasted "I’m a former federal prosecutor. I’ve fought terrorists... for 7 years, I spent my life protecting our country against another one of those attacks." Christie's claim to terrorism-fighter fame is, at best, hugely inflated for obvious reasons. His endlessly repeated bragging about how he cracked "two of the biggest terrorism cases in the world" is just silly, as you can see from the This American Life episode on one of them below.

Yesterday, Alexander Burns and Charlie Savage. writing for the NY Times reminisced about Christie's days as a federal prosecutor in a a piece whose very headline laughs at it as a mere sales pitch. Christie's actual record, they wrote, "shows that he has, at times, overstated the significance of the terrorism prosecutions he oversaw-- he has called them 'two of the biggest terrorism cases in the world'-- and appears to have exaggerated his personal role in obtaining court permission for surveillance of terrorism suspects." He was clearly trying to mislead the audience when he bragged that "I'm the only person on this stage who’s actually filed applications under the Patriot Act, who has gone before the Foreign Intelligence Service Court. Neither pig-man nor anyone from his office went before the FISA court, something "[o]nly the Office of Intelligence at the Justice Department’s headquarters drafts and submits applications for surveillance and then litigates them before the court," despite the load of horseshit on Christie's campaign website that assigns the credit to him.

Christie’s campaign website credits his office with obtaining an indictment against the kidnapper of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was abducted and killed in Pakistan, and notes that the defendant, Ahmed Omar Sheikh, was “sentenced to death.” It does not mention a key fact: The trial took place in Pakistan. Mr. Christie’s office had no role in it.

...Christie has described his experience handling terrorism in vivid terms, returning to the theme during debates, and mocking his rivals for what he has said was their comparatively frivolous national security experience.

The most recent debate, in Las Vegas, gave Mr. Christie even more maneuvering room; the theme of the evening, after the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., focused on national security. Mr. Christie seized every opportunity, saying that “New Jersey was threatened like no other region in this country” and branding several candidates who serve in the Senate as “people who’ve never had to make a consequential decision in an executive position.”

Mr. Christie has also repeatedly described himself as having been “named”-- and at least once as having been “appointed”-- United States attorney on the portentous date of Sept. 10, 2001. In fact, that was the date the Bush administration informed him he would be nominated for the job if he passed a background check; President Bush nominated him three months later, and he took office in January 2002.

...In 2005, [Christie's office] convicted an Indian-born British businessman, Hemant Lakhani, of trying to broker the sale of an anti-plane missile from a purported Russian military officer to a purported terrorist. And in 2008, it won the convictions of several Muslim-American men charged with plotting a mass shooting of people at Fort Dix, N.J.

Both cases were so-called stings by the F.B.I., which used confidential informants to create the situations in which the defendants implicated themselves. In the Lakhani case, both the purported seller and buyer of the missile were government agents. In the Fort Dix case, the suspects were under surveillance for over a year after an informant alerted law enforcement authorities to a possible threat.

Critics of such tactics portray them as entrapment, while proponents say they remove potential terrorists from the street before they can kill.

Either way, neither of the two New Jersey prosecutions involved actual attacks, such as the 1998 United States Embassy bombings in East Africa, the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon. They also did not involve plots that almost reached fruition without law enforcement knowledge, like the attempted bombing of planes with bombs concealed in an attacker’s shoes in 2002, and in underwear in 2009; a barely thwarted 2009 attack on New York City subways; and a 2010 bombing attempt in Times Square.

Mr. Christie defended his portrayal of the importance of the missile and Fort Dix cases, saying they exemplified the philosophy of averting threats before any attack.

“It is no longer enough to wait until the crime occurs,” Mr. Christie said. He argued: “The Boston bombing is a failure. It’s a failure of intelligence and a failure of law enforcement.”

Mr. Christie’s campaign website also gives the governor credit for what became known as Operation Arabian Knight, a prosecution of two men who wanted to travel to Somalia and join the Shabab, an Islamist group. They were arrested in 2010, after Mr. Christie was no longer the United States attorney, but had been under investigation since 2006.

The website does not mention one other case that brought Mr. Christie national media attention under a counterterrorism banner: In May 2002, he announced the arrest of 56 foreign college students, mostly from the Middle East, who were accused of cheating on English proficiency exams.

At the time, he told reporters the sweep was part of a strategy meant to arrest potential terrorists before they could strike, saying: “In light of what we saw on September 11, we all have an obligation to prevent domestic terrorism.”

None were convicted of anything related to terrorism.

Mr. Christie said he did not know why that case was not mentioned on his website, and that he did not review all of its content.

A proven serial liar, Christie gets very aggressive with anyone who points out he had virtually nothing to do with the war on terror. But it didn't work when Wisconsin asshat Scott Walker tried it and it's not likely to work for Christie, who is best known for physically confronting women school teachers and screaming at them. Ed Kilgore: "In the end, Christie, just like Walker, is relying on his image as a tough guy to buttress this new idea that he's a brilliant terrorist-hunter who can make Americans feel all warm and secure. Unfortunately, beating up on public employees may serve as soft porn for conservative voters in the heartland who view coastal blue states like New Jersey as enemy territory, but it doesn't make you a national-security asset."