truthout--2020-06-03--Trump’s Military Response to Protests Highlights His Authoritarianism

The words “ authoritarian regime ” or “ dictatorship ” perhaps call to mind Adolf Hitler ’ s “ Final Solution ” or George Orwell ’ s fictional 1984 .
Yet some Americans may still have trouble seeing the authoritarian tactics on display today from President Donald Trump .
As the country erupts in anti-police-brutality protests , Trump ’ s response has been to double down on the use of state-sanctioned violence .
On May 29 , Twitter — concerned that one of the president ’ s tweets about shooting looters could incite violence — took the unprecedented step of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House account .
By Saturday , Trump was threatening to use “ the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests ” to control protesters .
The president followed up on this threat of force on June 1 : In a chilling Rose Garden address , Trump told state governors that they “ must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled.
” He then threatened to send in military troops — without governors ’ consent — if they did not .
While the president was addressing the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firing rubber bullets and tear gas on a crowd of peaceful protesters outside the White House .
The officers had been ordered to clear Lafayette Square in preparation for Trump ’ s post-speech photo op .
Additionally , the president and his staff have — without evidence — complained that the protests surrounding George Floyd ’ s death are led by outside leftist agitators .
In response , Trump and Attorney General William Barr have declared that they will treat antifa ( short for anti-fascist ) as a terrorist organization .
This move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given that antifa is not a well-defined organization , but rather a nebulous political movement of anti-fascists .
Declaring antifa members “ terrorists ” opens the door for Barr or Trump to trample on the civil liberties of an ill-defined group of political opponents .
Moreover , as the COVID-19 death toll exceeds 100,000 in the U.S. and the infection rate is more than 1.8 million , the president ’ s response has only become more autocratic .
Earlier , when the death toll topped 22,000 , Trump threatened to override governors ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government “ has absolute power ” over the states .
As the death toll reached 45,000 , the president threatened to suspend immigration into the United States .
As the death toll climbed above 47,000 , Trump fired Rick Bright , the scientist in charge of the federal government ’ s effort to develop a COVID-19 vaccine .
Bright refused to support the use of hydroxychloroquine — the president ’ s preferred COVID-19 treatment .
As the death toll surpassed 67,000 Trump barred members of the coronavirus task force , including Anthony Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allergy and Infectious Diseases , from testifying before the house on its activities .
As the United States reached the grim milestone of 100,000 deaths , Trump threatened to “ close down ” social media companies after Twitter fact-checked the president ’ s claims about mail-in voting .
Despite Trump ’ s well-documented failures to take early or sufficient action against COVID-19 , a recent polling analysis from FiveThirtyEight demonstrates that the president ’ s May approval rating — currently sitting at 43 percent — is roughly equivalent to what it was before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ style of governance perhaps appears merely embarrassing when compared to that of Germany ’ s Adolf Hitler or Italy ’ s Benito Mussolini .
However , in this time of crisis , it is more imperative than ever that Americans recognize the threat Trump and his Republican colleagues pose to democracy .
Americans can not allow them to use the twin crises of COVID-19 and recent anti-police brutality protests to further consolidate power .
As a political scientist , I study how constitutional democracies can backslide into authoritarianism .
Around the fall of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980s and early 1990s , the type of brutal authoritarianism associated with leaders like Joseph Stalin became much less common .
Post-Cold War governments in places as diverse as Cambodia , Kenya , Peru and Ukraine understood that they would need to pretend to be democracies if they wanted to have a favorable relationship with the world ’ s only remaining superpower , the United States .
As a result , a new type of hybrid government was born : competitive authoritarianism .
Today , countries like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ’ s Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vladimir Putin ’ s Russia are considered by political scientists to be “ competitive ” because their leaders are still chosen by an election .
All three countries also have constitutions .
However , these regimes also exhibit some hallmarks of traditional “ authoritarian ” governments .
For example , Erdoğan has been criticized for jailing journalists and violating the human rights of Kurds .
Likewise , Maduro ensured that his most popular political opponent was disqualified from Venezuela ’ s 2018 presidential race .
Rulers of competitive authoritarian regimes also frequently rig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit .
Putin is estimated to have amassed between $ 60 and $ 200 billion in wealth since rising to power in Russia .
COVID-19 now provides authoritarian leaders around the world the opportunity to consolidate more power .
Hungary ’ s parliament recently passed a bill that gives its autocratic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán the power to rule by decree and arrest anyone spreading “ fake news ” for the duration of the crisis .
Certainly , Trump and his Republican supporters are not Hitler or Mussolini , but they share some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Erdoğan or Orbán .
Like other autocrats , the U.S. president has used the power of the state to harass political opponents .
On Mother ’ s Day , Trump unleashed a tweet storm about “ Obamagate ” — a right-wing conspiracy theory alleging that President Barack Obama orchestrated the Russia investigation with the sole purpose of discrediting the Trump administration .
Trump further implied that investigations into the Obama administration — and presumably Joe Biden — would be forthcoming .
Trump has also habitually attacked blue state governors like Michigan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Cuomo and Washington ’ s Jay Inslee , claiming that they are weaponizing coronavirus against him .
An unwillingness for the American president to listen to blue state governors represents a real danger for citizens living in those states .
Trump continues to support anti-lockdown protesters in blue states , and demands a general reopening of the economy .
Hypocritically , he expects states to reopen without sufficient personal protective equipment and testing at the same time that the White House is using an extensive test-and-trace program on West Wing employees .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis as another opportunity to discredit the free press .
A Washington Post analysis of Trump ’ s first six weeks of COVID-19 briefings revealed that he spent over two hours attacking political opponents and the media , and attacked someone personally in 113 out of 346 questions he was asked .
By comparison , he only spent a total of four and a half minutes expressing condolences for the victims of COVID-19 .
Trump further suggested that The New York Times should be sued for libel for its coverage of his coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political dissent is a common practice in countries like Morocco , Thailand and Burma .
The president ’ s constant refrain that the press is the “ enemy of the people ” is even more disturbing in light of reports that at least a dozen journalists were injured while covering protests last weekend .
In several instances , journalists reported being harassed by police even after they had displayed their press credentials .
In one chilling instance , a police officer in Louisville , Kentucky , pointed a gun filled with pepper bullets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A CNN crew was also arrested on air .
The harassment of journalists trying to cover protests is common in authoritarian regimes and represents a serious threat to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press .
Further , like a Russian oligarch , Trump has attempted to use his office to enrich himself and his cronies .
He used the power of his office to expand Trump properties overseas and benefit his son-in-law ’ s real estate business .
Democrats agreed to pass a $ 2 trillion stimulus package only after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 500 billion the bill allocates for corporate bailouts .
Senate Republicans were also forced to add a provision that businesses owned by current government employees ( including Trump ) could not benefit from the bailout money .
Trump then issued a signing statement to the bill essentially arguing that oversight mechanisms provided in the bill are an illegitimate encroachment on executive power and do not need to be respected by his administration .
At the end of April , Congress passed an additional $ 484 billion in stimulus to boost the Paycheck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting small business .
Recently , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer raised oversight concerns when it was revealed that Trump donor and luxury hotel owner Monty Bennett received $ 70 million from the fund .
Bennett agreed to return the money , but serious concerns remain regarding how the money from the PPP program has been allocated .
Modern authoritarianism doesn ’ t announce itself with death camps and killing fields .
It creeps up suddenly , with constraints on the freedom of the press , attacks on opposition leaders and a slow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step to remaining vigilant in this time of crisis is to recognize the Trump administration ’ s and Republicans ’ actions for what they are .

This is a wake-up call for those who think Trump is merely embarrassing when compared to a Hitler or a Mussolini.
The words “authoritarian regime” or “dictatorship” perhaps call to mind Adolf Hitler’s “Final Solution” or George Orwell’s fictional 1984. Yet some Americans may still have trouble seeing the authoritarian tactics on display today from President Donald Trump.
As the country erupts in anti-police-brutality protests, Trump’s response has been to double down on the use of state-sanctioned violence. On May 29, Twitter — concerned that one of the president’s tweets about shooting looters could incite violence — took the unprecedented step of hiding a tweet from the official White House account. By Saturday, Trump was threatening to use “the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests” to control protesters. The president followed up on this threat of force on June 1: In a chilling Rose Garden address, Trump told state governors that they “must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled.” He then threatened to send in military troops — without governors’ consent — if they did not.
While the president was addressing the nation in the Rose Garden, officers were firing rubber bullets and tear gas on a crowd of peaceful protesters outside the White House. The officers had been ordered to clear Lafayette Square in preparation for Trump’s post-speech photo op.
Additionally, the president and his staff have — without evidence — complained that the protests surrounding George Floyd’s death are led by outside leftist agitators. In response, Trump and Attorney General William Barr have declared that they will treat antifa (short for anti-fascist) as a terrorist organization. This move by Barr and Trump is particularly dangerous given that antifa is not a well-defined organization, but rather a nebulous political movement of anti-fascists. Declaring antifa members “terrorists” opens the door for Barr or Trump to trample on the civil liberties of an ill-defined group of political opponents.
Moreover, as the COVID-19 death toll exceeds 100,000 in the U.S. and the infection rate is more than 1.8 million, the president’s response has only become more autocratic.
Earlier, when the death toll topped 22,000, Trump threatened to override governors’ stay-at-home orders, claiming that the federal government “has absolute power” over the states. As the death toll reached 45,000, the president threatened to suspend immigration into the United States.
As the death toll climbed above 47,000, Trump fired Rick Bright, the scientist in charge of the federal government’s effort to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Bright refused to support the use of hydroxychloroquine — the president’s preferred COVID-19 treatment.
As the country erupts in anti-police-brutality protests, Trump’s response has been to double down on the use of state-sanctioned violence.
As the death toll surpassed 67,000 Trump barred members of the coronavirus task force, including Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, from testifying before the house on its activities.
As the United States reached the grim milestone of 100,000 deaths, Trump threatened to “close down” social media companies after Twitter fact-checked the president’s claims about mail-in voting.
Despite Trump’s well-documented failures to take early or sufficient action against COVID-19, a recent polling analysis from FiveThirtyEight demonstrates that the president’s May approval rating — currently sitting at 43 percent — is roughly equivalent to what it was before the pandemic.
For some, this style of governance perhaps appears merely embarrassing when compared to that of Germany’s Adolf Hitler or Italy’s Benito Mussolini.
However, in this time of crisis, it is more imperative than ever that Americans recognize the threat Trump and his Republican colleagues pose to democracy. Americans cannot allow them to use the twin crises of COVID-19 and recent anti-police brutality protests to further consolidate power.
As a political scientist, I study how constitutional democracies can backslide into authoritarianism.
Around the fall of the Soviet Union, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the type of brutal authoritarianism associated with leaders like Joseph Stalin became much less common.
Post-Cold War governments in places as diverse as Cambodia, Kenya, Peru and Ukraine understood that they would need to pretend to be democracies if they wanted to have a favorable relationship with the world’s only remaining superpower, the United States. As a result, a new type of hybrid government was born: competitive authoritarianism.
In this time of crisis, it is more imperative than ever that Americans recognize the threat Trump and his Republican colleagues pose to democracy.
Today, countries like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey, Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela and Vladimir Putin’s Russia are considered by political scientists to be “competitive” because their leaders are still chosen by an election. All three countries also have constitutions.
However, these regimes also exhibit some hallmarks of traditional “authoritarian” governments. For example, Erdoğan has been criticized for jailing journalists and violating the human rights of Kurds. Likewise, Maduro ensured that his most popular political opponent was disqualified from Venezuela’s 2018 presidential race.
Rulers of competitive authoritarian regimes also frequently rig economic and political systems for their own benefit. Putin is estimated to have amassed between $60 and $200 billion in wealth since rising to power in Russia.
COVID-19 now provides authoritarian leaders around the world the opportunity to consolidate more power. Hungary’s parliament recently passed a bill that gives its autocratic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán the power to rule by decree and arrest anyone spreading “fake news” for the duration of the crisis.
Certainly, Trump and his Republican supporters are not Hitler or Mussolini, but they share some striking similarities with more modern autocrats like Erdoğan or Orbán.
Like other autocrats, the U.S. president has used the power of the state to harass political opponents.
On Mother’s Day, Trump unleashed a tweet storm about “Obamagate” — a right-wing conspiracy theory alleging that President Barack Obama orchestrated the Russia investigation with the sole purpose of discrediting the Trump administration. Trump further implied that investigations into the Obama administration — and presumably Joe Biden — would be forthcoming.
Trump has also habitually attacked blue state governors like Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, New York’s Andrew Cuomo and Washington’s Jay Inslee, claiming that they are weaponizing coronavirus against him.
Modern authoritarianism creeps up suddenly, with constraints on the freedom of the press, attacks on opposition leaders and a slow corruption of the laws.
An unwillingness for the American president to listen to blue state governors represents a real danger for citizens living in those states. Trump continues to support anti-lockdown protesters in blue states, and demands a general reopening of the economy. Hypocritically, he expects states to reopen without sufficient personal protective equipment and testing at the same time that the White House is using an extensive test-and-trace program on West Wing employees.
The president has also used the COVID-19 crisis as another opportunity to discredit the free press.
A Washington Post analysis of Trump’s first six weeks of COVID-19 briefings revealed that he spent over two hours attacking political opponents and the media, and attacked someone personally in 113 out of 346 questions he was asked. By comparison, he only spent a total of four and a half minutes expressing condolences for the victims of COVID-19.
Trump further suggested that The New York Times should be sued for libel for its coverage of his coronavirus response. Using defamation laws to silence political dissent is a common practice in countries like Morocco, Thailand and Burma.
The president’s constant refrain that the press is the “enemy of the people” is even more disturbing in light of reports that at least a dozen journalists were injured while covering protests last weekend. In several instances, journalists reported being harassed by police even after they had displayed their press credentials. In one chilling instance, a police officer in Louisville, Kentucky, pointed a gun filled with pepper bullets directly at a local TV reporter. A CNN crew was also arrested on air. The harassment of journalists trying to cover protests is common in authoritarian regimes and represents a serious threat to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press.
Further, like a Russian oligarch, Trump has attempted to use his office to enrich himself and his cronies. He used the power of his office to expand Trump properties overseas and benefit his son-in-law’s real estate business.
Democrats agreed to pass a $2 trillion stimulus package only after Republicans agreed to add oversight to the $500 billion the bill allocates for corporate bailouts. Senate Republicans were also forced to add a provision that businesses owned by current government employees (including Trump) could not benefit from the bailout money.
Trump then issued a signing statement to the bill essentially arguing that oversight mechanisms provided in the bill are an illegitimate encroachment on executive power and do not need to be respected by his administration.
At the end of April, Congress passed an additional $484 billion in stimulus to boost the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) aimed at protecting small business.
Recently, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer raised oversight concerns when it was revealed that Trump donor and luxury hotel owner Monty Bennett received $70 million from the fund. Bennett agreed to return the money, but serious concerns remain regarding how the money from the PPP program has been allocated.
Modern authoritarianism doesn’t announce itself with death camps and killing fields. It creeps up suddenly, with constraints on the freedom of the press, attacks on opposition leaders and a slow corruption of the laws. The first step to remaining vigilant in this time of crisis is to recognize the Trump administration’s and Republicans’ actions for what they are.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-03--“Mrs. America” Television Series Sidelines Black Feminists

Race has been at the center of the long and circuitous struggle for gender justice since Sojourner Truth made the intersectional declaration “ Ain ’ t I A Woman ” at a Women ’ s Rights conference in Akron , Ohio , in 1851 .
The recent FX/ Hulu mini-series , “ Mrs .
America , ” that concluded this week , chronicles one chapter in that long history : the decade long fight for the Equal Rights Amendment ( ERA ) in the 1970s , and the issue of Black women ’ s representation warrants both recognition and criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tepid nod to inclusivity by incorporating the stories of women like Black Brooklyn Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and radical lawyer-activist , Flo Kennedy , but it ultimately errs more to the right than the left and marginalizes Black feminism yet again .
The nine-part mini-series , which ended on May 27 , focuses on six prominent women from the era , notably Feminine Mystique author , Betty Friedan and Ms. Magazine founder , Gloria Steinem , along with the right-wing anti-feminist crusader Phyllis Schlafly .
Portrayed by Cate Blanchett , Schlafly gets far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breadth of Black and Latinx women ’ s activism in this period and shortchanging viewers in the process .
Series creator Dahvi Waller , admitted in an Esquire interview that she herself had not even heard of Chisholm until the 2008 election .
However , to Waller ’ s credit , she devotes one of “ Mrs .
America ’ s ” episodes to Chisholm ’ s unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 1972 .
It is a lesser-known chapter in U.S. political history but one that resonates today in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s historic presidential victory , there was Rev .
Jesse Jackson ’ s primary campaigns in 1984 and 1988 .
But before both of them there was Shirley Chisholm , who also paved the way for recent women presidential aspirants , but with radical , as opposed to liberal , politics .
Chisholm , whose campaign slogan was “ unbought and unbossed , ” confronted the smug racism of the Democratic party elites that sought to marginalize her by calling for a “ bloodless revolution ” at the party ’ s Miami convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winslow writes , “ Her feminism was connected to all contemporary social issues : ending the war in Vietnam , abolishing poverty , opposing racialized police and state violence , expansion of social welfare programs including education , day care and healthcare , ” and women ’ s reproductive freedom .
Chisholm also welcomed the endorsement of the Black Panther Party , even though some of her more mainstream advisors warned against it .
Three other Black feminists who were involved in this period are portrayed but identified by first names only , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ add a little color to the story .
Influential groups like the National Black Feminist Organization ( NBFO ) and its more notable offshoot , the Combahee River Collective ; and women of color groups like The Third World Women ’ s Alliance were left out of the series entirely .
We do , however , get a glimpse of a few important characters to the left of the ERA crusaders .
For example , the inclusion of the edgy , colorful and formidable Black feminist lawyer , Florynce ( Flo ) Kennedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for so many Black women activists in New York at that time , is significant .
With a sharp tongue and sartorial flair , Kennedy was irreverent in her manner and unapologetic in her radical political stances .
Ms. magazine editor and Black lesbian activist and writer , Margaret Sloan , also appears in the series .
We see very little , however , of the sprawling Black liberation , anti ( Vietnam ) war , and gay liberation ( not yet named LGBTQ ) movements with which many of these women were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them were impacted .
Black lesbian poet Audre Lorde and welfare rights organizer and feminist powerhouse Johnnie Tillmon are not even mentioned .
Most interesting about the Chisholm episode is the behind-the-scenes wrangling at the Democratic National Convention in Miami .
Hard-nosed feminist politico Bella Abzug argued that Chisholm should drop out of the race to curry favor with the frontrunner , George McGovern .
Chisholm knew the symbolic power of her candidacy and she had a larger strategy in mind .
The Democratic Party , already in turmoil , wanted desperately to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Chisholm refused to quit even after she had no path to the nomination and as supporters defected to McGovern .
She was not as focused on her own career trajectory as she was on amassing enough delegates to influence the party ’ s platform and its vice-presidential nominee .
Chisholm and her supporters were concerned with free childcare , affordable housing , civil rights , health care and abortion .
Political expediency won out and Chisholm eventually and reluctantly got behind McGovern who lost miserably in the general election .
Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unbossed , ” inspired many young women activists like Congresswoman Barbara Lee to run for office .
For viewers who want to delve deeper into the truncated stories of Black Left feminists , or even Chisholm herself , there is a rich library to explore .
Beginning in the early 1980s , scholar activists like Angela Davis , Paula Giddings , bell hooks and Barbara Smith wrote books about a multi-issue Black and woman of color feminism long before critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw gave us the term “ intersectionality ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Kennedy and her influence in both the feminist and the Black liberation movements are laid out by historian Sherie M. Randolph in her 2015 biography .
And Barbara Winslow ’ s biography of Chisholm , and Shola Lynch ’ s award-winning documentary about her , all chronicle these women ’ s lives and political careers in detail .
The 1995 collection , “ Words of Fire : An Anthology of African-American Feminist Thought ” is a priceless contribution to our archive of Black feminism .
With a resurgence of white nationalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to abortion , and an open sexist occupant in the White House , the 1970s don ’ t feel so far away .
Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy as decisions by Trump-appointed judges chip away at it , and the blatant racism that Chisholm confronted so boldly may not be as widespread , but is still with us and just as viscous .
But similarities notwithstanding , we are in a different place , a scary and uncertain place .
Feminists of the 1970s were an eclectic and often fractious group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us that there was no idyllic sisterhood among them .
They argued .
They disagreed .
They undermined each other at times , and conversely , stepped up in one another ’ s defense .
There were real political fights around Friedan ’ s homophobia , Abzug ’ s crude pragmatism , Steinem ’ s celebrity , and an undercurrent of liberal racism .
The women also came together repeatedly to celebrate their victories and mourn their losses .
But along with other social movements of the era , they won some important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets : victories on issues like gender discrimination in the workplace , sexual violence , reproductive choice and sexual harassment .
Those were partial victories and fragile ones .
They still need to be defended .
But as left and intersectional feminists , myself included , would add , the struggle for “ women ’ s rights , ” if it is to be truly inclusive , has to be bound up with the rights of all marginalized and oppressed people .
In the words of Black feminist scholar and author Beverly Guy-Sheftall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics that propel me always to think deeply about the human condition : global realities , especially as they affect people of color , women and children ; and the urgency of our need to eliminate racism , sexism , classism , ableism , homophobia , religious intolerance , xenophobia and all other oppressions that plague humans wherever they live .
”

Race has been at the center of the long and circuitous struggle for gender justice since Sojourner Truth made the intersectional declaration “Ain’t I A Woman” at a Women’s Rights conference in Akron, Ohio, in 1851. The recent FX/ Hulu mini-series, “Mrs. America,” that concluded this week, chronicles one chapter in that long history: the decade long fight for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s, and the issue of Black women’s representation warrants both recognition and criticism. “Mrs. America” gives a tepid nod to inclusivity by incorporating the stories of women like Black Brooklyn Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and radical lawyer-activist, Flo Kennedy, but it ultimately errs more to the right than the left and marginalizes Black feminism yet again.
The nine-part mini-series, which ended on May 27, focuses on six prominent women from the era, notably Feminine Mystique author, Betty Friedan and Ms. Magazine founder, Gloria Steinem, along with the right-wing anti-feminist crusader Phyllis Schlafly. Portrayed by Cate Blanchett, Schlafly gets far too much screen time, minimizing the breadth of Black and Latinx women’s activism in this period and shortchanging viewers in the process.
Series creator Dahvi Waller, admitted in an Esquire interview that she herself had not even heard of Chisholm until the 2008 election. However, to Waller’s credit, she devotes one of “Mrs. America’s” episodes to Chisholm’s unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 1972. It is a lesser-known chapter in U.S. political history but one that resonates today in many ways. Before Barack Obama’s historic presidential victory, there was Rev. Jesse Jackson’s primary campaigns in 1984 and 1988. But before both of them there was Shirley Chisholm, who also paved the way for recent women presidential aspirants, but with radical, as opposed to liberal, politics. Chisholm, whose campaign slogan was “unbought and unbossed,” confronted the smug racism of the Democratic party elites that sought to marginalize her by calling for a “bloodless revolution” at the party’s Miami convention. As Chisholm’s biographer Barbara Winslow writes, “Her feminism was connected to all contemporary social issues: ending the war in Vietnam, abolishing poverty, opposing racialized police and state violence, expansion of social welfare programs including education, day care and healthcare,” and women’s reproductive freedom. Chisholm also welcomed the endorsement of the Black Panther Party, even though some of her more mainstream advisors warned against it.
Three other Black feminists who were involved in this period are portrayed but identified by first names only, as if they were simply there to add a little color to the story.
Influential groups like the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO) and its more notable offshoot, the Combahee River Collective; and women of color groups like The Third World Women’s Alliance were left out of the series entirely. We do, however, get a glimpse of a few important characters to the left of the ERA crusaders. For example, the inclusion of the edgy, colorful and formidable Black feminist lawyer, Florynce (Flo) Kennedy, whose apartment was a gathering place for so many Black women activists in New York at that time, is significant. With a sharp tongue and sartorial flair, Kennedy was irreverent in her manner and unapologetic in her radical political stances. Ms. magazine editor and Black lesbian activist and writer, Margaret Sloan, also appears in the series. We see very little, however, of the sprawling Black liberation, anti (Vietnam) war, and gay liberation (not yet named LGBTQ) movements with which many of these women were affiliated, and by which all of them were impacted. Black lesbian poet Audre Lorde and welfare rights organizer and feminist powerhouse Johnnie Tillmon are not even mentioned.
Most interesting about the Chisholm episode is the behind-the-scenes wrangling at the Democratic National Convention in Miami. Hard-nosed feminist politico Bella Abzug argued that Chisholm should drop out of the race to curry favor with the frontrunner, George McGovern. Chisholm knew the symbolic power of her candidacy and she had a larger strategy in mind. The Democratic Party, already in turmoil, wanted desperately to project an image of unity in 1972. But Chisholm refused to quit even after she had no path to the nomination and as supporters defected to McGovern. She was not as focused on her own career trajectory as she was on amassing enough delegates to influence the party’s platform and its vice-presidential nominee. Chisholm and her supporters were concerned with free childcare, affordable housing, civil rights, health care and abortion. Political expediency won out and Chisholm eventually and reluctantly got behind McGovern who lost miserably in the general election. Her example and her motto, “unbought and unbossed,” inspired many young women activists like Congresswoman Barbara Lee to run for office.
For viewers who want to delve deeper into the truncated stories of Black Left feminists, or even Chisholm herself, there is a rich library to explore.
Beginning in the early 1980s, scholar activists like Angela Davis, Paula Giddings, bell hooks and Barbara Smith wrote books about a multi-issue Black and woman of color feminism long before critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw gave us the term “intersectionality” in the late 1980s. A fuller portrait of Kennedy and her influence in both the feminist and the Black liberation movements are laid out by historian Sherie M. Randolph in her 2015 biography. And Barbara Winslow’s biography of Chisholm, and Shola Lynch’s award-winning documentary about her, all chronicle these women’s lives and political careers in detail. The 1995 collection, “Words of Fire: An Anthology of African-American Feminist Thought” is a priceless contribution to our archive of Black feminism.
With a resurgence of white nationalism, renewed attacks on a woman’s right to abortion, and an open sexist occupant in the White House, the 1970s don’t feel so far away. Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy as decisions by Trump-appointed judges chip away at it, and the blatant racism that Chisholm confronted so boldly may not be as widespread, but is still with us and just as viscous. But similarities notwithstanding, we are in a different place, a scary and uncertain place.
Feminists of the 1970s were an eclectic and often fractious group. “Mrs. America” reminds us that there was no idyllic sisterhood among them. They argued. They disagreed. They undermined each other at times, and conversely, stepped up in one another’s defense. There were real political fights around Friedan’s homophobia, Abzug’s crude pragmatism, Steinem’s celebrity, and an undercurrent of liberal racism. The women also came together repeatedly to celebrate their victories and mourn their losses. But along with other social movements of the era, they won some important victories in the courts and in the streets: victories on issues like gender discrimination in the workplace, sexual violence, reproductive choice and sexual harassment. Those were partial victories and fragile ones. They still need to be defended. But as left and intersectional feminists, myself included, would add, the struggle for “women’s rights,” if it is to be truly inclusive, has to be bound up with the rights of all marginalized and oppressed people. In the words of Black feminist scholar and author Beverly Guy-Sheftall, “It is my black feminist politics that propel me always to think deeply about the human condition: global realities, especially as they affect people of color, women and children; and the urgency of our need to eliminate racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, religious intolerance, xenophobia and all other oppressions that plague humans wherever they live.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-03--Ella Jones Elected to Serve as Ferguson’s First Black Mayor

Ella Jones , who has served on the Ferguson City Council since 2015 , was elected to become mayor of the city on Tuesday night , becoming its first Black mayor as well as the first woman to ever serve in the role .
Jones , 65 , defeated her opponent Heather Robinett , winning 54 percent of the vote to Robinett ’ s 46 percent .
Ferguson is a city where nearly 7 in 10 residents are Black .
When asked what her win represented , Jones responded , “ One word : inclusion.
” She also recognized she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ ve got work to do — because when you ’ re an African-American woman , they require more of you than they require of my counterpart , ” Jones said .
“ I know the people in Ferguson are ready to stabilize their community , and we ’ re going to work together to get it done.
” Jones , who is also a pastor in the African Methodist Episcopal Church , first became a member of the city council in 2015 .
She previously ran for mayor in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was unable to run this year due to term limits .
Jones became involved in local politics after the 2014 killing of Michael Brown , who was shot by former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson .
The city ’ s residents rose up in protest over Brown ’ s death — which spread across the country — condemning it as yet another example of racism in local policing practices .
Ferguson gained worldwide notice for the uprising , which continued for months after a grand jury refused to prosecute Wilson for shooting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice ( DOJ ) also refused to intervene in the case .
As a result of the protests , former President Barack Obama established a task force charged with producing recommendations for policing in the 21st century .
That task force recommended , among other items , that independent prosecutors investigate civilian deaths relating to officer-involved shootings , and that cities remove policies that promote or reward police actions that arrest or convict citizens .
A DOJ report in 2015 found that police targeted Black residents in Ferguson more than they did white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to raise revenue .
Jones said that initially she received only timid support from protesters in her city , as many did not view her short tenure on the council at the time as indicative that she could deliver change .
“ If you ’ ve been oppressed so long , it ’ s hard for you to break out to a new idea , ” Jones explained after she lost her first mayoral bid .
“ And when you ’ ve been governed by fear and people telling you that the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person is going to be in charge , then you tend to listen to the rhetoric and don ’ t open your mind to new possibilities.
” Jones has pledged to continue pushing for reforms in her city that began in the wake of Brown ’ s killing .
Like many other cities across the country , Ferguson has also seen protests over the May 25 killing of George Floyd , after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes .

Jones described her victory on Tuesday night as symbolizing “inclusion” for the city’s residents.
Ella M. Jones, pictured in May 2020, loads a box into a truck at a volunteer food distribution site. Friends of Ella M. Jones via Facebook
Ella Jones, who has served on the Ferguson City Council since 2015, was elected to become mayor of the city on Tuesday night, becoming its first Black mayor as well as the first woman to ever serve in the role.
Jones, 65, defeated her opponent Heather Robinett, winning 54 percent of the vote to Robinett’s 46 percent.
Ferguson is a city where nearly 7 in 10 residents are Black. When asked what her win represented, Jones responded, “One word: inclusion.”
She also recognized she had her work cut out for her.
“I’ve got work to do — because when you’re an African-American woman, they require more of you than they require of my counterpart,” Jones said. “I know the people in Ferguson are ready to stabilize their community, and we’re going to work together to get it done.”
Jones, who is also a pastor in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, first became a member of the city council in 2015. She previously ran for mayor in 2017 against James Knowles III, who was unable to run this year due to term limits.
Jones became involved in local politics after the 2014 killing of Michael Brown, who was shot by former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. The city’s residents rose up in protest over Brown’s death — which spread across the country — condemning it as yet another example of racism in local policing practices.
Ferguson gained worldwide notice for the uprising, which continued for months after a grand jury refused to prosecute Wilson for shooting and killing Brown and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also refused to intervene in the case.
As a result of the protests, former President Barack Obama established a task force charged with producing recommendations for policing in the 21st century. That task force recommended, among other items, that independent prosecutors investigate civilian deaths relating to officer-involved shootings, and that cities remove policies that promote or reward police actions that arrest or convict citizens.
A DOJ report in 2015 found that police targeted Black residents in Ferguson more than they did white residents, doing so as a means to raise revenue.
Jones said that initially she received only timid support from protesters in her city, as many did not view her short tenure on the council at the time as indicative that she could deliver change.
“If you’ve been oppressed so long, it’s hard for you to break out to a new idea,” Jones explained after she lost her first mayoral bid. “And when you’ve been governed by fear and people telling you that the city is going to decline because an African-American person is going to be in charge, then you tend to listen to the rhetoric and don’t open your mind to new possibilities.”
Jones has pledged to continue pushing for reforms in her city that began in the wake of Brown’s killing. Like many other cities across the country, Ferguson has also seen protests over the May 25 killing of George Floyd, after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-03--As Trump Threatens to Send Military Into Cities, Some GIs Refuse to Comply

Some National Guard and active-duty GIs are refusing to deploy to U.S. cities rising up against police-perpetrated killings , saying no to complicity in the repression of the American populace and that they have not been properly trained in riot response or de-escalation tactics on domestic soil .
Veterans and GI rights organizations told Truthout that dozens of GIs are reaching out to assess their options as President Trump orders military and federal police onto the streets of Washington , D.C. , and threatens to use the 1807 Insurrection Act to send active-duty military into cities across the U.S. if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
The National Guard has already mobilized 20,000 members in at least 29 states , and some governors , including Minnesota ’ s Tim Walz , have already declined Trump ’ s offer to send in military police .
Trump has the authority , however , to deploy the military to states under the Insurrection Act , which would represent a dramatic escalation of Trump ’ s executive authority and likely spark pushback from state and local officials .
While the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the domestic use of military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorization , the Insurrection Act gives the president authorization to do so under certain circumstances , according to legal experts .
The Insurrection Act has been invoked dozens of times in the country ’ s history , most recently during the 1992 uprising over the Los Angeles police officers ’ beating of Rodney King .
But it ’ s not the legality of the president ’ s and governors ’ deployment orders that is weighing on Guardspersons and active-duty soldiers ; it ’ s the potential moral injury of brutalizing their own communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently in the process of refusing orders told Truthout that the events of the last few days have shattered his belief that there can be such a thing as a justified use of force .
“ Most of all , I feel that I can not be complicit in any way when I ’ ve seen so many examples of soldiers and police acting in bad faith , ” he said via an encrypted text message .
The Guardsman , who is consulting a lawyer , spoke to Truthout on the condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his defection and for speaking to the press .
He is relatively new to his unit , having recently graduated training , and says he enlisted in part due to his financial situation .
His unit , he says , has not received any relevant riot response or de-escalation training amid the rapid pace of the unit ’ s deployment operations .
“ I learned basic soldiering and rifle skills in Basic Combat Training , and my trainee Military Occupational Specialty is not related to policing or riot response in any way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of my training has touched on this subject .
I am told that my unit has conducted riot response periodically in the past .
We have not had any training or conversation relating to de-escalation tactics.
” Another Guardsman , a medic in an infantry line company in Pennsylvania who has not yet received orders to deploy , says he plans on refusing if it comes to that and is also currently consulting a lawyer regarding his options .
“ I can ’ t do it .
Even looking at my uniform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m associated with this , especially after [ the National Guard unit ] shot that man who owned that barbecue shop [ in Louisville , Kentucky ] , ” he said .
“ I live in Pennsylvania .
I live with the history of Kent State .
I ’ m not being a part of that.
” The Pennsylvania Guardsman is also relatively new , he says ; he began basic training in late 2016 and has never deployed .
He enlisted because he felt he needed “ a sense of purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life and because he comes from a military family .
He originally hoped to join medical missions assisting in natural disasters .
He also hasn ’ t been trained for a domestic riot response scenario but says his unit would likely receive “ some kind of slap-dash training ” if it were called to deploy because of the situation ’ s time sensitivity .
Should they refuse orders to deploy , what consequences might soldiers face ?
Siri Margerin , a counselor with the GI Rights Hotline , heavily emphasized that there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to how command structures may punish troops who resist , including those who publicly refuse to obey orders , don ’ t show up to their armories , or deploy but quietly hold their fire .
“ We don ’ t know , because this hasn ’ t happened in a very long time , and it has never happened with a president like we have right now , ” Margerin said .
The GI Rights Network is organizing emergency conscientious objector packets for troops who may have only a matter of hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after orders are given .
“ Once they have [ the conscientious objector packet ] in , they should have the right to say that they can turn up at their mobilization point , but they can not carry a weapon , ” Margerin says .
Depending on commanding officers ’ tolerance levels , Margerin says troops could face more serious charges ranging from desertion , absent without leave ( AWOL ) and misconduct charges to less serious consequences , such as separation from the Army with an other-than-honorable discharge .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that troops may not be charged at all .
In any case , they most certainly risk hostile reactions from their commanders and fellow soldiers .
“ People have not been charged with desertion routinely , but that could happen .
They could certainly be charged with AWOL .
If they ’ re charged with desertion , that is likely a court martial , and that could certainly mean some severe punishment , ” like a dishonorable discharge , Margerin says .
“ Typically , when people don ’ t show up where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they get an other-than-honorable discharge , ” she says , again underlining that “ that was before now , and now is very different , so we really don ’ t know.
” Margerin has already fielded a number of emotional calls this week from troops in tears , and says the hotline has received roughly 30 calls in the last five days , mostly consisting of Guard members with questions regarding the consequences for not showing up to their armories .
The hotline has received a couple of calls from active-duty soldiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been mobilized .
Margerin says she ’ s also receiving inquiries from friends and associates outside the hotline whose relatives are facing the question of whether to deploy to American streets .
“ The individual soldier has to really decide what their tolerance level is and what their purpose is in [ resisting orders ] , ” she says .
“ There ’ s a lot of capacity for moral trauma in this and for people to end up doing things that they couldn ’ t live with if they did do.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ different questions and challenges in terms of resisting orders .
The Pennsylvania Guardsman , for instance , doesn ’ t fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice unless he comes under federal orders .
Until then , he remains under the purview of the state of Pennsylvania .
Still , Margerin says , it ’ s complicated , because if the president orders the state ’ s governor to mobilize troops , he will become federally activated while still under the purview of state law .
“ Those are different things , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be punishing them , who would be making those judgments and who would be paying for it , ” Margerin says .
“ So that ’ s where they ’ re going to be drawing lines about exactly who ’ s responsible for whom.
” Other left-leaning , antiwar veteran ’ s organizations are receiving an influx of inquiries .
About Face : Veterans Against the War recently penned an open letter asking activated troops to stand down for Black lives .
Since the letter was published , About Face Organizing Director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have signed on , and that the organization has received several responses from National Guard members and active-duty troops .
Veterans for Peace Executive Director Garett Reppenhagen , a former Army Cavalry scout , says the organization is likewise receiving an influx of inquiries right now .
He personally spoke with an activated National Guard member who didn ’ t show up to his armory Tuesday morning and to another active-duty Army soldier who doesn ’ t have current orders but is fielding options .
“ It ’ s a very emergent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s DeBarros , a former Army Reserve captain who was investigated by the Army for her criticisms of the military on social media , including her support for Colin Kaepernick ’ s stand against police-perpetrated violence .
She says units ’ last-minute riot response training “ has a lot of people who maybe even aren ’ t politicized , or haven ’ t thought a lot about their service , just saying the kind of obvious , which is , ‘ This is really dangerous.
’ ” DeBarros told Truthout she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of engagement and somewhat less-than-lethal weapons that they ’ ve never been trained to use .
“ Those of us who have experience and training with less-than-lethal weapons know that all of those different weapons systems have distances that can make them lethal , and [ troops ] need to know those things and be trained on those things.
” Other units are moving so fast that some troops are reporting confusion regarding command structures and being deployed onto American streets without any kind of briefing regarding rules of engagement .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow soldiers are enthusiastic about deploying domestically , with some newer soldiers eager to get their first “ stripes.
” DeBarros has seen it before , saying that officers are not thinking soberly and thoughtfully “ about the potential moral injury this could create , especially when you ’ re being asked to look your neighbors in the eye and point a weapon at them.
” Still , others are also expressing hesitation and reticence against turning on their own communities , even if they aren ’ t quite planning to refuse orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be wrestling with their conscience , but they are quiet about it because there is some risk involved with voicing that , ” says the activated Guardsman about some officers in his unit .
Reppenhagen and DeBarros say that what is happening domestically is directly linked to the systemic oppression that has fueled the nation ’ s founding , as well as its expansionary imperialist hegemony abroad .
DeBarros says it ’ s not exactly that the war on terror is coming home , but that “ it ’ s really more of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know it has come home again , we might say .
Not only do we have these same institutions that have been used to oppress poor folks , Black folks , Brown folks , Indigenous folks since the founding of the country , but now we have them becoming more and more militarized.
” Reppenhagen adds that when an “ armed occupation comes to any place in the world , it invites violent resistance against it because people don ’ t like to see an oppressive force in their community and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it because of the humiliation and the threat that it presents.
” Troops are now occupying American communities , and are faced with a choice about whether they want to stoke more violence and take actions that could haunt them for the rest of their lives .
“ I can say from experience that the moral cost , the cost to your soul of following an order that you wish that you hadn ’ t , is far greater and far more sustained than whatever the military can do to you in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Guardsman in Pennsylvania also cautioned his fellow soldiers to think twice before deploying .
“ In this moment , the people who stay in need to very much think about what side of history they want to be on , ” he said .
“ They really need to sit down and think about what they ’ re willing to do for an oath that means trampling on their neighbors .
”

Some National Guard and active-duty GIs are refusing to deploy to U.S. cities rising up against police-perpetrated killings, saying no to complicity in the repression of the American populace and that they have not been properly trained in riot response or de-escalation tactics on domestic soil.
Veterans and GI rights organizations told Truthout that dozens of GIs are reaching out to assess their options as President Trump orders military and federal police onto the streets of Washington, D.C., and threatens to use the 1807 Insurrection Act to send active-duty military into cities across the U.S. if governors cannot repress dissent in their states.
The National Guard has already mobilized 20,000 members in at least 29 states, and some governors, including Minnesota’s Tim Walz, have already declined Trump’s offer to send in military police. Trump has the authority, however, to deploy the military to states under the Insurrection Act, which would represent a dramatic escalation of Trump’s executive authority and likely spark pushback from state and local officials.
While the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the domestic use of military for law enforcement purposes without specific congressional authorization, the Insurrection Act gives the president authorization to do so under certain circumstances, according to legal experts. The Insurrection Act has been invoked dozens of times in the country’s history, most recently during the 1992 uprising over the Los Angeles police officers’ beating of Rodney King.
But it’s not just the legality of the president’s and governors’ deployment orders that is weighing on Guardspersons and active-duty soldiers; it’s the potential moral injury of brutalizing their own communities.
One activated National Guard member who is currently in the process of refusing orders told Truthout that the events of the last few days have shattered his belief that there can be such a thing as a justified use of force. “Most of all, I feel that I cannot be complicit in any way when I’ve seen so many examples of soldiers and police acting in bad faith,” he said via an encrypted text message.
The Guardsman, who is consulting a lawyer, spoke to Truthout on the condition of anonymity to protect against further retaliation for his defection and for speaking to the press. He is relatively new to his unit, having recently graduated training, and says he enlisted in part due to his financial situation.
“I cannot be complicit in any way when I’ve seen so many examples of soldiers and police acting in bad faith.”
His unit, he says, has not received any relevant riot response or de-escalation training amid the rapid pace of the unit’s deployment operations. “I learned basic soldiering and rifle skills in Basic Combat Training, and my trainee Military Occupational Specialty is not related to policing or riot response in any way,” he said. “No aspect of my training has touched on this subject. I am told that my unit has conducted riot response periodically in the past. We have not had any training or conversation relating to de-escalation tactics.”
Another Guardsman, a medic in an infantry line company in Pennsylvania who has not yet received orders to deploy, says he plans on refusing if it comes to that and is also currently consulting a lawyer regarding his options.
“I can’t do it. Even looking at my uniform is making me feel sick that I’m associated with this, especially after [the National Guard unit] shot that man who owned that barbecue shop [in Louisville, Kentucky],” he said. “I live in Pennsylvania. I live with the history of Kent State. I’m not being a part of that.”
“I can’t do it. Even looking at my uniform is making me feel sick that I’m associated with this.”
The Pennsylvania Guardsman is also relatively new, he says; he began basic training in late 2016 and has never deployed. He enlisted because he felt he needed “a sense of purpose, some kind of direction” in life and because he comes from a military family. He originally hoped to join medical missions assisting in natural disasters.
He also hasn’t been trained for a domestic riot response scenario but says his unit would likely receive “some kind of slap-dash training” if it were called to deploy because of the situation’s time sensitivity.
Should they refuse orders to deploy, what consequences might soldiers face? Siri Margerin, a counselor with the GI Rights Hotline, heavily emphasized that there are still a lot of unknowns in regard to how command structures may punish troops who resist, including those who publicly refuse to obey orders, don’t show up to their armories, or deploy but quietly hold their fire.
“We don’t know, because this hasn’t happened in a very long time, and it has never happened with a president like we have right now,” Margerin said.
The GI Rights Network is organizing emergency conscientious objector packets for troops who may have only a matter of hours before they are scheduled to ship out, after orders are given. “Once they have [the conscientious objector packet] in, they should have the right to say that they can turn up at their mobilization point, but they cannot carry a weapon,” Margerin says.
Depending on commanding officers’ tolerance levels, Margerin says troops could face more serious charges ranging from desertion, absent without leave (AWOL) and misconduct charges to less serious consequences, such as separation from the Army with an other-than-honorable discharge. It’s also possible, however, that troops may not be charged at all. In any case, they most certainly risk hostile reactions from their commanders and fellow soldiers.
“Once they have [the conscientious objector packet] in, they should have the right to say that they can turn up at their mobilization point, but they cannot carry a weapon.”
“People have not been charged with desertion routinely, but that could happen. They could certainly be charged with AWOL. If they’re charged with desertion, that is likely a court martial, and that could certainly mean some severe punishment,” like a dishonorable discharge, Margerin says. “Typically, when people don’t show up where they’re expected to be, they get an other-than-honorable discharge,” she says, again underlining that “that was before now, and now is very different, so we really don’t know.”
Margerin has already fielded a number of emotional calls this week from troops in tears, and says the hotline has received roughly 30 calls in the last five days, mostly consisting of Guard members with questions regarding the consequences for not showing up to their armories. The hotline has received a couple of calls from active-duty soldiers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina who have been mobilized.
Margerin says she’s also receiving inquiries from friends and associates outside the hotline whose relatives are facing the question of whether to deploy to American streets. “The individual soldier has to really decide what their tolerance level is and what their purpose is in [resisting orders],” she says. “There’s a lot of capacity for moral trauma in this and for people to end up doing things that they couldn’t live with if they did do.”
“There’s a lot of capacity for moral trauma in this and for people to end up doing things that they couldn’t live with if they did do.”
Guardspeople and active-duty soldiers face starkly different questions and challenges in terms of resisting orders. The Pennsylvania Guardsman, for instance, doesn’t fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice unless he comes under federal orders. Until then, he remains under the purview of the state of Pennsylvania. Still, Margerin says, it’s complicated, because if the president orders the state’s governor to mobilize troops, he will become federally activated while still under the purview of state law.
“Those are different things, and it really is all about who would be punishing them, who would be making those judgments and who would be paying for it,” Margerin says. “So that’s where they’re going to be drawing lines about exactly who’s responsible for whom.”
Other left-leaning, antiwar veteran’s organizations are receiving an influx of inquiries. About Face: Veterans Against the War recently penned an open letter asking activated troops to stand down for Black lives. Since the letter was published, About Face Organizing Director Brittany DeBarros says more than 300 veterans have signed on, and that the organization has received several responses from National Guard members and active-duty troops.
Troops are now occupying American communities, and are faced with a choice about whether to take actions that could haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Veterans for Peace Executive Director Garett Reppenhagen, a former Army Cavalry scout, says the organization is likewise receiving an influx of inquiries right now. He personally spoke with an activated National Guard member who didn’t show up to his armory Tuesday morning and to another active-duty Army soldier who doesn’t have current orders but is fielding options.
“It’s a very emergent, messy situation,” says About Face’s DeBarros, a former Army Reserve captain who was investigated by the Army for her criticisms of the military on social media, including her support for Colin Kaepernick’s stand against police-perpetrated violence. She says units’ last-minute riot response training “has a lot of people who maybe even aren’t politicized, or haven’t thought a lot about their service, just saying the kind of obvious, which is, ‘This is really dangerous.’”
DeBarros told Truthout she is receiving reports of troops being handed rules of engagement and somewhat less-than-lethal weapons that they’ve never been trained to use. “Those of us who have experience and training with less-than-lethal weapons know that all of those different weapons systems have distances that can make them lethal, and [troops] need to know those things and be trained on those things.”
Other units are moving so fast that some troops are reporting confusion regarding command structures and being deployed onto American streets without any kind of briefing regarding rules of engagement.
However, the Guardsmen say that many of their fellow soldiers are enthusiastic about deploying domestically, with some newer soldiers eager to get their first “stripes.” DeBarros has seen it before, saying that officers are not thinking soberly and thoughtfully “about the potential moral injury this could create, especially when you’re being asked to look your neighbors in the eye and point a weapon at them.”
“A few people seem to be wrestling with their conscience, but they are quiet about it because there is some risk.”
Still, others are also expressing hesitation and reticence against turning on their own communities, even if they aren’t quite planning to refuse orders. “A few people seem to be wrestling with their conscience, but they are quiet about it because there is some risk involved with voicing that,” says the activated Guardsman about some officers in his unit.
Reppenhagen and DeBarros say that what is happening domestically is directly linked to the systemic oppression that has fueled the nation’s founding, as well as its expansionary imperialist hegemony abroad.
DeBarros says it’s not exactly that the war on terror is coming home, but that “it’s really more of a circle in that the war as we know it has come home again, we might say. Not only do we have these same institutions that have been used to oppress poor folks, Black folks, Brown folks, Indigenous folks since the founding of the country, but now we have them becoming more and more militarized.”
“People who stay in need to very much think about what side of history they want to be on. They really need to sit down and think about what they’re willing to do for an oath that means trampling on their neighbors.”
Reppenhagen adds that when an “armed occupation comes to any place in the world, it invites violent resistance against it because people don’t like to see an oppressive force in their community and will do almost anything to get rid of it because of the humiliation and the threat that it presents.”
Troops are now occupying American communities, and are faced with a choice about whether they want to stoke more violence and take actions that could haunt them for the rest of their lives.
“I can say from experience that the moral cost, the cost to your soul of following an order that you wish that you hadn’t, is far greater and far more sustained than whatever the military can do to you in the short run,” DeBarros said.
The Guardsman in Pennsylvania also cautioned his fellow soldiers to think twice before deploying. “In this moment, the people who stay in need to very much think about what side of history they want to be on,” he said. “They really need to sit down and think about what they’re willing to do for an oath that means trampling on their neighbors.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-04--DC Residents Take to the Streets to Demand End of Police State

Protesters have continued to pour onto the streets of Washington , D.C. , night after night , despite the city ’ s attempt to suppress protest through the deployment of the National Guard and the imposition of nightly curfews .
The righteous rage and pain felt in response to the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is palpable throughout the streets of this city , as many Black , Indigenous and Latinx people are already dying at large numbers from the lack of resources to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and the everyday forms of systematic abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing protests , D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser activated the National Guard and set curfews beginning on Saturday which extended through Wednesday .
Police Chief Peter Newsham has said that those who break curfew will be arrested through the use of the city ’ s CCTV system , even going so far as to ask business owners to turn over their camera footage and offering rewards for information that leads to arrests .
These acts stifle the right to peaceful protest and could turn people against one another while the U.S. is in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Depression .
On Monday , Trump referred to those peacefully protesting as “ rioters ” and “ criminals ” and threatened to activate the military .
The D.C. and federal government ’ s violent overreaction to protests has included the use of multiple law enforcement agencies and the military .
On Monday night , at the U Street District in Northwest Washington , D.C. , I witnessed protesters repeatedly being greatly outnumbered by police and being tear gassed , shot at and terrorized throughout the night .
A small group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small neighborhood street in the U District and were quickly swarmed by at least 50 Metropolitan Police Department officers .
A bus full of military police were brought in , but then left .
The scene on Tuesday night was different , however : It appears that the curfews have only further enraged D.C. residents rather than persuading them .
On Tuesday night , as I moved through Lafayette Square and surrounding areas , I witnessed protesters greatly outnumbering law enforcement as they peacefully demonstrated and marched late into the night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been killing many since the creation of the U.S .
This photo essay offers a glimpse of both the protest energy and the police presence over the past few days .

Protesters have continued to pour onto the streets of Washington, D.C., night after night, despite the city’s attempt to suppress protest through the deployment of the National Guard and the imposition of nightly curfews.
The righteous rage and pain felt in response to the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is palpable throughout the streets of this city, as many Black, Indigenous and Latinx people are already dying at large numbers from the lack of resources to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and the everyday forms of systematic abuse and slaughter.
In response to the growing protests, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser activated the National Guard and set curfews beginning on Saturday which extended through Wednesday. Police Chief Peter Newsham has said that those who break curfew will be arrested through the use of the city’s CCTV system, even going so far as to ask business owners to turn over their camera footage and offering rewards for information that leads to arrests. These acts stifle the right to peaceful protest and could turn people against one another while the U.S. is in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
On Monday, Trump referred to those peacefully protesting as “rioters” and “criminals” and threatened to activate the military. The D.C. and federal government’s violent overreaction to protests has included the use of multiple law enforcement agencies and the military. On Monday night, at the U Street District in Northwest Washington, D.C., I witnessed protesters repeatedly being greatly outnumbered by police and being tear gassed, shot at and terrorized throughout the night. A small group of approximately 15-20 people kneeled and sat on a small neighborhood street in the U District and were quickly swarmed by at least 50 Metropolitan Police Department officers. A bus full of military police were brought in, but then left.
The scene on Tuesday night was different, however: It appears that the curfews have only further enraged D.C. residents rather than persuading them. On Tuesday night, as I moved through Lafayette Square and surrounding areas, I witnessed protesters greatly outnumbering law enforcement as they peacefully demonstrated and marched late into the night, demanding change to the racist system that has been killing many since the creation of the U.S. This photo essay offers a glimpse of both the protest energy and the police presence over the past few days.
Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater Jen Deerinwater
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-04--Obama Calls for Police Reform, But Others Note He Doesn’t Go Far Enough

During a virtual town hall event on Wednesday afternoon , former President Barack Obama discussed the need for police reform in the U.S. , and support for protests across the country in the wake of the death of George Floyd last week .
Floyd was killed by police officers , one of whom pressed his knee onto his neck for nearly nine minutes while Floyd repeatedly gasped “ I can ’ t breathe.
” An independent autopsy of his death , requested by his family members , found that Floyd was killed by “ asphyxiation from sustained pressure.
” Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to policing , and the protests that have risen up in dozens of cities across the country .
“ To bring about real change , we both have to highlight a problem and make people in power uncomfortable , ” Obama said during the town hall , which was organized by the Obama Foundation .
“ But we also have to translate that into practical solutions and laws that can be implemented.
” The former president focused part of his speech toward “ the young men and women of color in this country.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you matter .
I want you to know that your lives matter .
That your dreams matter , ” Obama said .
The former president also said that the possibility for social change was a “ direct result of the activities and organizing and mobilization and engagement of so many young people across the country who put themselves out on the line to make a difference.
” While serving as president , following the death of Michael Brown and the uprising that ensued in Ferguson , Missouri , the Obama administration produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments in cities across the U.S .
The report called for , among other changes , independent investigators to handle inquiries when a law enforcement officer kills a civilian , and for an end to policies that reward police when they arrest or convict citizens .
Many were critical of the report , however , for not doing enough to address the root problems of racial prejudice in policing , and for being too procedural without concern for different outcomes in the end .
Dana Vivian White , a program officer with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the former president ’ s words and calls for change were not as profound as the country needed them to be .
“ The police can not be improved or reformed in the United States .
They function as intended and need to be abolished , ” White wrote on his Twitter account .
“ We need a new vision of safety and justice , which is not what Obama believes .
Black people , all people , have the human right to resist a State that is murdering us .
”

During a virtual town hall event on Wednesday afternoon, former President Barack Obama discussed the need for police reform in the U.S., and support for protests across the country in the wake of the death of George Floyd last week.
Floyd was killed by police officers, one of whom pressed his knee onto his neck for nearly nine minutes while Floyd repeatedly gasped “I can’t breathe.” An independent autopsy of his death, requested by his family members, found that Floyd was killed by “asphyxiation from sustained pressure.”
Obama addressed in generalities his support for reforms to policing, and the protests that have risen up in dozens of cities across the country.
“To bring about real change, we both have to highlight a problem and make people in power uncomfortable,” Obama said during the town hall, which was organized by the Obama Foundation. “But we also have to translate that into practical solutions and laws that can be implemented.”
The former president focused part of his speech toward “the young men and women of color in this country.”
“I want you to know that you matter. I want you to know that your lives matter. That your dreams matter,” Obama said.
The former president also said that the possibility for social change was a “direct result of the activities and organizing and mobilization and engagement of so many young people across the country who put themselves out on the line to make a difference.”
While serving as president, following the death of Michael Brown and the uprising that ensued in Ferguson, Missouri, the Obama administration produced a series of recommendations for reforming police departments in cities across the U.S. The report called for, among other changes, independent investigators to handle inquiries when a law enforcement officer kills a civilian, and for an end to policies that reward police when they arrest or convict citizens.
Many were critical of the report, however, for not doing enough to address the root problems of racial prejudice in policing, and for being too procedural without concern for different outcomes in the end.
Dana Vivian White, a program officer with the LGBTQ+ organization True Colors United, noted that the former president’s words and calls for change were not as profound as the country needed them to be.
The police cannot be improved or reformed in the United States. They function as intended and need to be abolished. We need a new vision of safety and justice, which is not what Obama believes. Black people, all people, have the human right to resist a State that is murdering us. — Dana White (@DanaVivianWhite) June 3, 2020
“The police cannot be improved or reformed in the United States. They function as intended and need to be abolished,” White wrote on his Twitter account. “We need a new vision of safety and justice, which is not what Obama believes. Black people, all people, have the human right to resist a State that is murdering us.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.