truthout--2020-07-07--If Governments Believe So Much in Nonviolence, They Should Try It

There ’ s something rather baffling about hearing politicians and high-level government officials condemn the usefulness of violence and extol the virtues of nonviolence .
In the recent documentary series about her life and political career , Hillary Clinton discusses the 1968 protest movements during her politically formative years , and claims : “ I was never in the camp that thought violence was the answer to violence .
I never believed that , and I still to this day don ’ t believe that.
” What ’ s striking about this claim is that there ’ s basically no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like Clinton , who has spent their career supporting and funding the police and backing numerous wars and military deployments must at some level believe that violence is very much the answer — not only in response to violence but also to many other challenges .
As author and professor Alex Vitale said recently on the Rumble podcast , “ Police are violence workers.… The tools the police have to manage social problems are tools of violence.
” This is why blanket claims from government leaders about the lack of utility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the recent spate of protests and uprisings against anti-Black racism , we ’ ve heard condemnations of violence and corresponding valorizations of nonviolence from progressive mayors to conservative federal politicians .
Together they sing the praises of nonviolence both for its moral superiority and its greater efficacy , and they reject violence for both its wrongness and its wrongheadedness .
“ Violence and vandalism is [ sic ] never the answer , and they have no place in Dallas , Fort Worth , or anywhere in the state of Texas , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You ’ re not honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement , ” rebuked Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms .
While the motif of nonviolence has traditionally been less common on the right , in recent years conservatives have become very adept at cynically weaponizing the moral rhetoric and mystique of nonviolence against protest movements .
Liberal and progressive politicians , on the other hand , often come across as more sincere in their praise of nonviolence , especially those who see themselves as having gained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work of nonviolent social movements .
“ As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King ’ s life work , ” said a newly elected President Obama in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize lecture , “ I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence.
” He even quoted King ’ s own 1964 Nobel lecture , saying , “ Violence never brings permanent peace .
It solves no social problem ; it merely creates new and more complicated ones.
” So what allows for these statements to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hint of irony or concern about flagrant hypocrisy ?
It is , of course , the longstanding doctrine that the state has “ a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory , ” in the famous words of social theorist Max Weber .
In this view , violence is only properly entrusted to and wielded by governments ; it is not to be used by social movements and other civil society actors .
Violence is never the answer… for them .
The strict binary between state and non-state violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it often makes the former not even appear as violence to many .
Politicians can make blanket condemnations of violence without sounding hypocritical precisely because of this double standard .
It also plays a role in why so many people can be outraged about riots and property destruction and not even mention the immense , highly-militarized violence of police during the recent uprisings , to say nothing about the Black lives lost at the hands of police that have provoked the protests .
Indeed , the necessity and utility of state violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ( in ) famous pivot in his Nobel lecture , which immediately followed his praise and citation of King : “ I know there is nothing weak , nothing passive , nothing naïve in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King .
But as a head of state , sworn to protect and defend my nation , I can not be guided by their examples alone.
” Something very interesting is happening , however , in the midst of the current uprisings against anti-Black racism .
Where only two legitimate options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and non-state nonviolence — four quadrants are increasingly being taken seriously .
The topic of non-state violence has often been so moralized as to not even be entertained , but today many more honest discussions are taking place regarding when and what kinds of non-state violence might actually be necessary , effective , and/or justified under deeply violent and oppressive conditions .
Furthermore , an increasing number of questions are being raised about why the principles and techniques of nonviolence that are so often lauded for social movements are not adopted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defunding and abolishing the police is the clearest example of the erosion of the conventional dualism around state violence and non-state nonviolence .
The idea that the state must use force or the threat of force as a routine part of so many of its actions no longer seems so given ; in fact , it increasingly appears rather misguided .
Why are armed police dispatched to respond to mental health crises ?
Poverty and homelessness ?
Drug and alcohol issues ?
Noise complaints ?
School safety ?
Traffic violations ?
The common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deal with nonviolent offenses and social issues of all kinds , as well as to handle the aftermath of violent incidents when the threat is no longer imminent , is clearly and finally breaking down .
The availability and threat of lethal force in these situations regularly generates more problems than it solves .
Furthermore , important questions are being raised about why the police seem so much less skilled in nonviolent techniques of de-escalation and conflict resolution than the average bartender , ambulance attendant and social worker .
If nonviolence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep telling us it is , then why don ’ t they lead by example and implement it in their own institutions ?
Politicians love to remind the public that “ violence is not the answer.
” If they actually believe that at all , and aren ’ t being entirely disingenuous , they certainly have an ideal opportunity to prove it .

Part of the Series The Road to Abolition
There’s something rather baffling about hearing politicians and high-level government officials condemn the usefulness of violence and extol the virtues of nonviolence.
In the recent documentary series about her life and political career, Hillary Clinton discusses the 1968 protest movements during her politically formative years, and claims: “I was never in the camp that thought violence was the answer to violence. I never believed that, and I still to this day don’t believe that.”
What’s striking about this claim is that there’s basically no way it could be true. Anyone, like Clinton, who has spent their career supporting and funding the police and backing numerous wars and military deployments must at some level believe that violence is very much the answer — not only in response to violence but also to many other challenges. As author and professor Alex Vitale said recently on the Rumble podcast, “Police are violence workers.… The tools the police have to manage social problems are tools of violence.” This is why blanket claims from government leaders about the lack of utility of violence ring very hollow.
In response to the recent spate of protests and uprisings against anti-Black racism, we’ve heard condemnations of violence and corresponding valorizations of nonviolence from progressive mayors to conservative federal politicians. Together they sing the praises of nonviolence both for its moral superiority and its greater efficacy, and they reject violence for both its wrongness and its wrongheadedness.
“Violence never works,” proclaimed New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
“Violence and vandalism is [sic] never the answer, and they have no place in Dallas, Fort Worth, or anywhere in the state of Texas,” denounced Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
“You’re not honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement,” rebuked Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms.
In recent years conservatives have become very adept at cynically weaponizing the moral rhetoric and mystique of nonviolence against protest movements.
While the motif of nonviolence has traditionally been less common on the right, in recent years conservatives have become very adept at cynically weaponizing the moral rhetoric and mystique of nonviolence against protest movements. Liberal and progressive politicians, on the other hand, often come across as more sincere in their praise of nonviolence, especially those who see themselves as having gained access to political power due to the work of nonviolent social movements.
“As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work,” said a newly elected President Obama in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize lecture, “I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence.” He even quoted King’s own 1964 Nobel lecture, saying, “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem; it merely creates new and more complicated ones.”
So what allows for these statements to be made by public officials without a hint of irony or concern about flagrant hypocrisy? It is, of course, the longstanding doctrine that the state has “a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory,” in the famous words of social theorist Max Weber. In this view, violence is only properly entrusted to and wielded by governments; it is not to be used by social movements and other civil society actors. Violence is never the answer… for them.
The strict binary between state and non-state violence is so loaded and taken for granted that it often makes the former not even appear as violence to many.
The strict binary between state and non-state violence is so loaded and taken for granted that it often makes the former not even appear as violence to many. Politicians can make blanket condemnations of violence without sounding hypocritical precisely because of this double standard. It also plays a role in why so many people can be outraged about riots and property destruction and not even mention the immense, highly-militarized violence of police during the recent uprisings, to say nothing about the Black lives lost at the hands of police that have provoked the protests.
Indeed, the necessity and utility of state violence was at the heart of Obama’s (in)famous pivot in his Nobel lecture, which immediately followed his praise and citation of King: “I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naïve in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state, sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.”
Something very interesting is happening, however, in the midst of the current uprisings against anti-Black racism. Where only two legitimate options have conventionally been recognized — state violence and non-state nonviolence — four quadrants are increasingly being taken seriously. The topic of non-state violence has often been so moralized as to not even be entertained, but today many more honest discussions are taking place regarding when and what kinds of non-state violence might actually be necessary, effective, and/or justified under deeply violent and oppressive conditions. Furthermore, an increasing number of questions are being raised about why the principles and techniques of nonviolence that are so often lauded for social movements are not adopted by the state itself.
If nonviolence is as powerful and persuasive as government officials keep telling us it is, then why don’t they lead by example and implement it in their own institutions?
The current conversation about defunding and abolishing the police is the clearest example of the erosion of the conventional dualism around state violence and non-state nonviolence. The idea that the state must use force or the threat of force as a routine part of so many of its actions no longer seems so given; in fact, it increasingly appears rather misguided. Why are armed police dispatched to respond to mental health crises? Poverty and homelessness? Drug and alcohol issues? Noise complaints? School safety? Traffic violations?
The common sense around sending “violence workers” to deal with nonviolent offenses and social issues of all kinds, as well as to handle the aftermath of violent incidents when the threat is no longer imminent, is clearly and finally breaking down. The availability and threat of lethal force in these situations regularly generates more problems than it solves. Furthermore, important questions are being raised about why the police seem so much less skilled in nonviolent techniques of de-escalation and conflict resolution than the average bartender, ambulance attendant and social worker. If nonviolence is as powerful and persuasive as government officials keep telling us it is, then why don’t they lead by example and implement it in their own institutions?
Politicians love to remind the public that “violence is not the answer.” If they actually believe that at all, and aren’t being entirely disingenuous, they certainly have an ideal opportunity to prove it.
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--2020-07-08--Fauci Says Trump’s Focus on COVID Deaths is “False Narrative to Take Comfort In”

Speaking during a Facebook Live event on Tuesday , Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House ’ s coronavirus task force , seemingly contradicted notions put forth by President Donald Trump about the death rates from the disease .
Trump , also on Tuesday , had earlier tweeted a Washington Times report by Valerie Richardson , and dubiously claimed that the mortality rate from COVID-19 in the United States had dropped “ tenfold.
” Trump made other unfounded claims about the nation ’ s recent numbers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lowest Mortality Rate in the World .
The Fake News should be reporting these most important of facts , but they don ’ t , ” Trump said in his social media post .
The president repeated the line on Tuesday evening as well .
“ Death Rate from Coronavirus is down tenfold !
” he wrote in a tweet that he later deleted .
The “ tenfold ” decrease in death claims seems to have originated from Trump ’ s own press secretary , Kayleigh McEnany , who made note during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were down .
“ What the president is noting is that at the height of this pandemic we were at 2,500 deaths per day .
We are now at a place where on July 4 there were 254 .
That ’ s a tenfold decrease in mortality , ” McEnany said .
However , looking at the seven-day average in COVID-19 deaths rather than at the number for a single day demonstrates a different story .
That average , on July 7 , was at about 547 deaths per day , while on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,232 deaths per day — a fourfold decrease , not a tenfold one .
It ’ s also worth noting that the number of recorded COVID deaths for July 7 was 957 — an almost four-fold jump from the number of deaths recorded just three days earlier on July 4 and which figure had been used by McEnany to illustrate her dubious claim about the sharp decrease in COVID-related deaths .
Fact checking on Trump ’ s tweets on Tuesday further reveals that the limited amount of testing available makes understanding of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , according to reporting from CNN , of the 20 countries most affected by COVID-19 , at least 14 others have lower death rates than the U.S. does at this time .
The virus is also seeing a resurgence in a number of states , with three in particular recording higher daily death counts than ever before .
On Tuesday , Arizona announced 117 had died from coronavirus ; Texas announced 60 new deaths , while Mississippi saw 44 perish from the disease .
More deaths across the country are expected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relied upon in the past .
The University of Washington ’ s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation ( IHME ) predicts that more than 70,000 additional deaths could come about due to the coronavirus by November 1 — though , if 95 percent of the population wore masks or facial coverings , that number could decrease by 45,000 , researchers say .
But the focus on deaths is the wrong way to go , Fauci said on Tuesday while speaking online during the event hosted by Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more reasons than just the potential death count , he explained .
“ It ’ s a false narrative to take comfort in a lower rate of death .
There ’ s so many other things that are very dangerous and bad about this virus .
Don ’ t get yourself into false complacency , ” Fauci warned .
Indeed , for many patients , the fight with the disease lasts longer than most people may think .
Some patients who have had serious bouts with coronavirus are still recovering two or three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital , and are only at a fraction of being at the place they were at , health-wise , before they contracted the virus .
The long term impacts of COVID-19 are not yet known , many doctors say .
“ What will this lead to ?
How many [ coronavirus patients ] will recover completely , and how many of them will continue to have impairment ?
We do not know , ” Farha Ikramuddin , chief of rehabilitation services at M Health Fairview , said in an interview with Minnesota Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response that [ the virus ] creates that causes significant damage in various organs of our body is unprecedented.
” Asymptomatic carriers of the virus could suffer harm from COVID-19 , too .
A study published in Nature Medicine last month found that those testing positive for coronavirus but showing no observable symptoms of it could still develop minor lung inflammation as a result , similar to what patients who have walking pneumonia exhibit .
More study is needed to tell if these patients might develop serious issues further down the road .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , more than 3 million cases of coronavirus have been identified in the United States , with more than 131,000 deaths recorded as well .

Long-term impacts of the disease are unknown, and many asymptomatic patients are showing signs of some lung damage.
Speaking during a Facebook Live event on Tuesday, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, seemingly contradicted notions put forth by President Donald Trump about the death rates from the disease.
Trump, also on Tuesday, had earlier tweeted a Washington Times report by Valerie Richardson, and dubiously claimed that the mortality rate from COVID-19 in the United States had dropped “tenfold.”
Trump made other unfounded claims about the nation’s recent numbers on the disease.
“We have the lowest Mortality Rate in the World. The Fake News should be reporting these most important of facts, but they don’t,” Trump said in his social media post.
The president repeated the line on Tuesday evening as well. “Death Rate from Coronavirus is down tenfold!” he wrote in a tweet that he later deleted.
The “tenfold” decrease in death claims seems to have originated from Trump’s own press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, who made note during a press briefing earlier this week that numbers were down.
“What the president is noting is that at the height of this pandemic we were at 2,500 deaths per day. We are now at a place where on July 4 there were 254. That’s a tenfold decrease in mortality,” McEnany said.
However, looking at the seven-day average in COVID-19 deaths rather than at the number for a single day demonstrates a different story. That average, on July 7, was at about 547 deaths per day, while on April 17 the seven-day average had been 2,232 deaths per day — a fourfold decrease, not a tenfold one.
It’s also worth noting that the number of recorded COVID deaths for July 7 was 957 — an almost four-fold jump from the number of deaths recorded just three days earlier on July 4 and which figure had been used by McEnany to illustrate her dubious claim about the sharp decrease in COVID-related deaths.
Fact checking on Trump’s tweets on Tuesday further reveals that the limited amount of testing available makes understanding of the actual death rate difficult to comprehend. However, according to reporting from CNN, of the 20 countries most affected by COVID-19, at least 14 others have lower death rates than the U.S. does at this time.
The virus is also seeing a resurgence in a number of states, with three in particular recording higher daily death counts than ever before. On Tuesday, Arizona announced 117 had died from coronavirus; Texas announced 60 new deaths, while Mississippi saw 44 perish from the disease.
More deaths across the country are expected, according to models the White House has relied upon in the past. The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) predicts that more than 70,000 additional deaths could come about due to the coronavirus by November 1 — though, if 95 percent of the population wore masks or facial coverings, that number could decrease by 45,000, researchers say.
But the focus on deaths is the wrong way to go, Fauci said on Tuesday while speaking online during the event hosted by Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama. COVID-19 is worth worrying over for more reasons than just the potential death count, he explained.
“It’s a false narrative to take comfort in a lower rate of death. There’s so many other things that are very dangerous and bad about this virus. Don’t get yourself into false complacency,” Fauci warned.
Indeed, for many patients, the fight with the disease lasts longer than most people may think. Some patients who have had serious bouts with coronavirus are still recovering two or three months after having been discharged from the hospital, and are only at a fraction of being at the place they were at, health-wise, before they contracted the virus.
The long term impacts of COVID-19 are not yet known, many doctors say.
“What will this lead to? How many [coronavirus patients] will recover completely, and how many of them will continue to have impairment? We do not know,” Farha Ikramuddin, chief of rehabilitation services at M Health Fairview, said in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio. “The amount of inflammatory response that [the virus] creates that causes significant damage in various organs of our body is unprecedented.”
Asymptomatic carriers of the virus could suffer harm from COVID-19, too. A study published in Nature Medicine last month found that those testing positive for coronavirus but showing no observable symptoms of it could still develop minor lung inflammation as a result, similar to what patients who have walking pneumonia exhibit. More study is needed to tell if these patients might develop serious issues further down the road.
As of 2 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, more than 3 million cases of coronavirus have been identified in the United States, with more than 131,000 deaths recorded as well.
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--2020-07-08--If Schools Reopen This Fall, More People Will Likely Die. Full Stop.

The front page of Tuesday ’ s Miami Herald tells you all you need to know about the rising dread and panic being felt across the country by millions of parents with school-age children .
Bang in the center of that front page is the headline , “ Miami-Dade restaurants , gyms closing to fight COVID surge.
” Snuggled in to the left-side column is another headline : “ Florida schools ordered to reopen in August.
” For those of you bereft of a calendar , August is next month .
Raise your hand if you think this country is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children to occupy school buildings while the pandemic is surging to levels unseen even in the grim days of March and April .
Keep your hand raised if you believe this current and unprecedented infection surge will “ disappear ” in a month , as Donald Trump so devoutly hopes .
Yeah , me neither .
That Herald front page is cognitive dissonance in the raw , and mighty evidence that the United States is careening toward yet another COVID catastrophe , this one involving millions of children .
I am the parent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who , like her peers , lost the latter third of last year ’ s schooling experience to COVID .
I believe closing the schools was an absolutely vital step in effectively controlling the pandemic here in the Northeast , and I concur with epidemiologists who have said such closures should have taken place even earlier , and would have saved lives if they did .
My daughter is a lucky kid : A safe pre-programmed Chromebook was provided by her school for her to use during that blank and scary time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rich daily syllabus that demonstrably advanced her education despite the circumstances .
She has an internet connection at home to make it all work , and my own work-from-home schedule gifted me time to serve as her teacher-by-proxy .
Put plainly , my kid had pretty much the ideal educational experience given the situation , and I will be devoutly grateful to her school until the stars burn out for making that possible .
I will likewise be eternally grateful to Truthout for handily and willingly rolling with the schedule changes I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my daughter ’ s needs .
That latter scenario is key : My wife was deemed an essential worker and has had no flexibility in her all-day work schedule throughout the pandemic .
Like millions of parents , she was confronted with an impossible juggling act that was only ameliorated by the time I had available to focus on our daughter ’ s schoolwork .
Had I been in the position thrust upon parents like my wife , who had to work during school hours , I would not be singing so cheerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents who lack the presence of an in-home parent/teacher because of their work requirements , and will lack that presence if school-at-home is the policy in the coming academic year .
A great many kids do not have access to school-provided laptops , and if they do , there is no internet at home .
For millions of kids , school has been the one place where they are sure to get a decent meal every day .
School all day is the lynchpin for countless lives .
All of that collapsed under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pressure to get the schools going again in the fall is understandably extreme .
I also agree with child psychologists who say having students physically in school is vital not only to their educational development , but for their emotional well-being .
I can see it in my own kid , who was profoundly affected by those months of isolation .
Zoom chats with friends , helpful as they were , could never replace in-person interactions .
Her generation will be marked by this experience for the term of their lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is absolutely no way this country is presently ready to thrust millions of children back into the enclosed close-quarters reality of school .
There is no way to make sure grade-schoolers practice social distancing all day , every day .
There is no safe way to bus them to and from school .
There is no way to feed them safely .
There is absolutely no way to protect the teachers who will be put in grave peril every time they enter their classrooms .
Why ?
Because our leaders continue to pretend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as the toll blasts through 3 million infections and over 130,000 deaths , even as the South and West reckon with a pandemic nightmare already endured by the Northeast , but with far less medical infrastructure to contend with it .
If there is to be even a prayer of safely restarting schools this autumn , every school district in the country will need massive supplemental funds to do the necessary hourly sterilizing of the facilities , and will need PPE gear for students , teachers , administrators , janitors and basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just once , but every single day .
Every student , faculty member , administrator and worker in every school everywhere will have to be screened , every single day .
There is at least some funding for this to be found in the HEROES Act that was passed in May by the House of Representatives .
Though far from perfect , the bill provides billions of dollars for schools to begin preparing for the incredibly expensive reopening requirements before them .
At present , the HEROES Act lies dormant on Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because providing funds to keep kids and teachers safe apparently is not ideologically sound .
When reopening schools this fall fails — and it will even if McConnell grows a soul and releases the HEROES Act for a vote , because COVID is insidious and will defeat even the best safety measures in any closed , crowded environment — school districts will need to stop on a dime and have a pre-prepared program for home schooling , as well as pick-up meals for students who need them , when the pandemic closes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , returning children to school too early and without adequate preparation risks increasing the spread of the virus to their families , meaning parents will die , grandparents will die , friends and neighbors will die , teachers and other school workers will die , and they will do so in every school district in the country .
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , following her boss ’ s lead , has washed her hands of creating any sort of federal response to this looming crisis .
For her , and for Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and by the way , have some cake .
Trump made it abundantly clear on Tuesday where he stands .
He intends to bully governors into reopening this fall no matter what .
He offers no plan to make this happen , and it seems , primarily wants the schools open because he thinks it will help him win in November .
Indeed the president has signaled that he will see any decision to keep the schools closed as just another dirty liberal trick to defeat him .
“ We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or do it for political reasons , ” he said .
“ They think it ’ s going to be good for them politically , so they keep the schools closed .
No way .
We ’ re very much going to put pressure on governors and everyone else to open the schools.
” This , from a president whose reelection campaign is based entirely on the hope that “ Americans will grow numb to the escalating death toll and learn to accept tens of thousands of new cases a day , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbness will have to be particularly acute if we spend September and October burying too many parents , grandparents and teachers in early and thoroughly unnecessary graves .
The COVID-19 crisis has revealed how vital schools are to the stability of the country .
Not having children in school has made an already desperate situation worse by orders of magnitude .
Not funding those schools to effectively confront this crisis is a failure even beyond the scope of all the other deadly failures we have endured so far .
The situation could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fund workers who must stay home to teach their children , or if the administration had begun preparing for this eventuality months ago .
There are ways it can be done , even as the school experience itself will have to absorb some radical changes .
None of this has happened , and will not happen soon , even as we careen toward a dangerous reckoning with the school bell next month .
There are solutions , but under the leadership of Trump and McConnell , there is only noise and death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something astonishing happens , we must face the fact that reopening the schools at this juncture could be a calamity of national proportions .
This places millions of people in a disastrous situation , but the dangers that lie on the far side of reopening now are worse .
Reopening too soon is eating the South and West alive at this very moment .
If schools open next month under the current circumstances , I fear we may start painting corner after corner of the entire country “ infected ” red .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
The front page of Tuesday’s Miami Herald tells you all you need to know about the rising dread and panic being felt across the country by millions of parents with school-age children. Bang in the center of that front page is the headline, “Miami-Dade restaurants, gyms closing to fight COVID surge.” Snuggled in to the left-side column is another headline: “Florida schools ordered to reopen in August.”
For those of you bereft of a calendar, August is next month.
Raise your hand if you think this country is anywhere near prepared to allow millions of children to occupy school buildings while the pandemic is surging to levels unseen even in the grim days of March and April. Keep your hand raised if you believe this current and unprecedented infection surge will “disappear” in a month, as Donald Trump so devoutly hopes.
Yeah, me neither. That Herald front page is cognitive dissonance in the raw, and mighty evidence that the United States is careening toward yet another COVID catastrophe, this one involving millions of children.
I am the parent of a soon-to-be public school second grader who, like her peers, lost the latter third of last year’s schooling experience to COVID. I believe closing the schools was an absolutely vital step in effectively controlling the pandemic here in the Northeast, and I concur with epidemiologists who have said such closures should have taken place even earlier, and would have saved lives if they did.
My daughter is a lucky kid: A safe pre-programmed Chromebook was provided by her school for her to use during that blank and scary time, and her teachers labored mightily to create a rich daily syllabus that demonstrably advanced her education despite the circumstances. She has an internet connection at home to make it all work, and my own work-from-home schedule gifted me time to serve as her teacher-by-proxy.
Put plainly, my kid had pretty much the ideal educational experience given the situation, and I will be devoutly grateful to her school until the stars burn out for making that possible. I will likewise be eternally grateful to Truthout for handily and willingly rolling with the schedule changes I needed to make in order to serve my daughter’s needs.
That latter scenario is key: My wife was deemed an essential worker and has had no flexibility in her all-day work schedule throughout the pandemic. Like millions of parents, she was confronted with an impossible juggling act that was only ameliorated by the time I had available to focus on our daughter’s schoolwork. Had I been in the position thrust upon parents like my wife, who had to work during school hours, I would not be singing so cheerful a tune.
There are millions of parents who lack the presence of an in-home parent/teacher because of their work requirements, and will lack that presence if school-at-home is the policy in the coming academic year. A great many kids do not have access to school-provided laptops, and if they do, there is no internet at home. For millions of kids, school has been the one place where they are sure to get a decent meal every day. School all day is the lynchpin for countless lives. All of that collapsed under COVID during the school year, and the pressure to get the schools going again in the fall is understandably extreme.
If there is to be even a prayer of safely restarting schools this autumn, every school district in the country will need massive supplemental funds and PPE gear.
I also agree with child psychologists who say having students physically in school is vital not only to their educational development, but for their emotional well-being. I can see it in my own kid, who was profoundly affected by those months of isolation. Zoom chats with friends, helpful as they were, could never replace in-person interactions. Her generation will be marked by this experience for the term of their lives.
All this being rightly said, there is absolutely no way this country is presently ready to thrust millions of children back into the enclosed close-quarters reality of school. There is no way to make sure grade-schoolers practice social distancing all day, every day. There is no safe way to bus them to and from school. There is no way to feed them safely. There is absolutely no way to protect the teachers who will be put in grave peril every time they enter their classrooms.
Why? Because our leaders continue to pretend COVID-19 is nothing to worry about, even as the toll blasts through 3 million infections and over 130,000 deaths, even as the South and West reckon with a pandemic nightmare already endured by the Northeast, but with far less medical infrastructure to contend with it.
If there is to be even a prayer of safely restarting schools this autumn, every school district in the country will need massive supplemental funds to do the necessary hourly sterilizing of the facilities, and will need PPE gear for students, teachers, administrators, janitors and basically everyone who gets near the building, not just once, but every single day. Every student, faculty member, administrator and worker in every school everywhere will have to be screened, every single day.
There is at least some funding for this to be found in the HEROES Act that was passed in May by the House of Representatives. Though far from perfect, the bill provides billions of dollars for schools to begin preparing for the incredibly expensive reopening requirements before them.
At present, the HEROES Act lies dormant on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk, because providing funds to keep kids and teachers safe apparently is not ideologically sound.
When reopening schools this fall fails — and it will even if McConnell grows a soul and releases the HEROES Act for a vote, because COVID is insidious and will defeat even the best safety measures in any closed, crowded environment — school districts will need to stop on a dime and have a pre-prepared program for home schooling, as well as pick-up meals for students who need them, when the pandemic closes the schools again.
In the meantime, returning children to school too early and without adequate preparation risks increasing the spread of the virus to their families, meaning parents will die, grandparents will die, friends and neighbors will die, teachers and other school workers will die, and they will do so in every school district in the country.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, following her boss’s lead, has washed her hands of creating any sort of federal response to this looming crisis. For her, and for Trump, this is a state and local issue, and by the way, have some cake.
Trump made it abundantly clear on Tuesday where he stands. He intends to bully governors into reopening this fall no matter what. He offers no plan to make this happen, and it seems, primarily wants the schools open because he thinks it will help him win in November.
Indeed the president has signaled that he will see any decision to keep the schools closed as just another dirty liberal trick to defeat him. “We don’t want people to make political statements or do it for political reasons,” he said. “They think it’s going to be good for them politically, so they keep the schools closed. No way. We’re very much going to put pressure on governors and everyone else to open the schools.”
This, from a president whose reelection campaign is based entirely on the hope that “Americans will grow numb to the escalating death toll and learn to accept tens of thousands of new cases a day,” according to The Washington Post. That numbness will have to be particularly acute if we spend September and October burying too many parents, grandparents and teachers in early and thoroughly unnecessary graves.
The COVID-19 crisis has revealed how vital schools are to the stability of the country. Not having children in school has made an already desperate situation worse by orders of magnitude. Not funding those schools to effectively confront this crisis is a failure even beyond the scope of all the other deadly failures we have endured so far.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, following her boss’s lead, has washed her hands of creating any sort of federal response to this looming crisis.
The situation could be at least partially ameliorated if Congress chose to fund workers who must stay home to teach their children, or if the administration had begun preparing for this eventuality months ago. There are ways it can be done, even as the school experience itself will have to absorb some radical changes.
None of this has happened, and will not happen soon, even as we careen toward a dangerous reckoning with the school bell next month. There are solutions, but under the leadership of Trump and McConnell, there is only noise and death.
As matters stand, and unless something astonishing happens, we must face the fact that reopening the schools at this juncture could be a calamity of national proportions. This places millions of people in a disastrous situation, but the dangers that lie on the far side of reopening now are worse.
Reopening too soon is eating the South and West alive at this very moment. If schools open next month under the current circumstances, I fear we may start painting corner after corner of the entire country “infected” red.
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--2020-07-08--Supreme Court Ruling Means 126,000 May Lose Contraception Coverage

The United States Supreme Court delivered a blow to reproductive rights on Wednesday , siding with the Trump administration in a case that gave employers across the country more leeway in denying contraception to workers if it goes against the company ’ s morals .
In a 7-2 decision , the Court found that the Department of Health and Human Services was within its authority to create additional exemptions to the Affordable Care Act ’ s ( ACA ) contraceptive mandate , which had previously required companies with employer-based insurance plans , with limited exceptions for houses of worship and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to workers without increasing health insurance costs .
The ruling is viewed as a victory for President Donald Trump , who has pushed to expand contraceptive exemptions to private companies , schools , and other groups on the basis of moral or religious objections .
Justice Clarence Thomas , delivering the opinion of the Court , wrote that religious objectors “ have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.
” “ We hold today that the [ Trump administration ] departments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exemption , as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption , ” Thomas also said .
While the Court ’ s ruling is viewed as a win for those believing their religious liberties were being violated , it ’ s being seen as an egregious error in judgment for proponents of reproductive rights .
As many as 126,000 people across the country may lose birth control coverage due to the ruling , with many more at risk of losing access to contraception now that the floodgates of exemptions from the Trump administration have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most businesses that offered employer-based insurance to its workers to also pay for contraceptive services for them at no additional cost .
In 2014 , a ruling from the Supreme Court found that businesses like Hobby Lobby , which argued it was a religious-leaning private company , should also be granted exemptions .
The ruling issued this week expanded the possibility that publicly traded companies could also raise moral objections to the contraceptive mandate , if they fit in-line with the rules on exemptions put in place by the Trump administration .
Criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media .
Planned Parenthood tweeted out that birth control is largely considered “ basic , essential health care.
” “ And yet : The Supreme Court just ruled that your boss or university can opt out of covering it based on their personal beliefs , ” the family planning organization wrote .
“ Birth control is a medical necessity .
It helps us plan the lives we want , allowing us to choose if and when to have children , ” Planned Parenthood wrote in a second tweet .
Lauren Rankin , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , echoed those sentiments .
“ You have a fundamental right to contraception care and coverage .
This isn ’ t new , ” she wrote .
“ This isn ’ t even radical .
It ’ s the bare minimum .
Contraception is health care and your insurance company should have to cover it .
Today ’ s reckless Supreme Court decision endangers that for millions.
” Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal suggested the ruling could be rendered moot , however , if a new administration takes office next year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be rescinded .
“ Notably , the Supreme Court did not say that the Constitution forbids the federal govt from providing contraceptive care — [ Justice Samuel ] Alito said that but not the Court .
So a new Administration can reverse it , ” Katyal wrote .

Critics of the ruling said access to birth control is “basic, essential health care,” as well as a “fundamental right.”
The United States Supreme Court delivered a blow to reproductive rights on Wednesday, siding with the Trump administration in a case that gave employers across the country more leeway in denying contraception to workers if it goes against the company’s morals.
In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that the Department of Health and Human Services was within its authority to create additional exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate, which had previously required companies with employer-based insurance plans, with limited exceptions for houses of worship and religious nonprofit groups, to provide contraception to workers without increasing health insurance costs.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for President Donald Trump, who has pushed to expand contraceptive exemptions to private companies, schools, and other groups on the basis of moral or religious objections.
Justice Clarence Thomas, delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote that religious objectors “have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
“We hold today that the [Trump administration] departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption,” Thomas also said.
While the Court’s ruling is viewed as a win for those believing their religious liberties were being violated, it’s being seen as an egregious error in judgment for proponents of reproductive rights. As many as 126,000 people across the country may lose birth control coverage due to the ruling, with many more at risk of losing access to contraception now that the floodgates of exemptions from the Trump administration have been opened.
The ACA originally required most businesses that offered employer-based insurance to its workers to also pay for contraceptive services for them at no additional cost. In 2014, a ruling from the Supreme Court found that businesses like Hobby Lobby, which argued it was a religious-leaning private company, should also be granted exemptions.
The ruling issued this week expanded the possibility that publicly traded companies could also raise moral objections to the contraceptive mandate, if they fit in-line with the rules on exemptions put in place by the Trump administration.
Criticism against the ruling was swift on social media. Planned Parenthood tweeted out that birth control is largely considered “basic, essential health care.”
“And yet: The Supreme Court just ruled that your boss or university can opt out of covering it based on their personal beliefs,” the family planning organization wrote.
“Birth control is a medical necessity. It helps us plan the lives we want, allowing us to choose if and when to have children,” Planned Parenthood wrote in a second tweet.
Lauren Rankin, a freelance writer who often focuses on reproductive rights, echoed those sentiments.
“You have a fundamental right to contraception care and coverage. This isn’t new,” she wrote. “This isn’t even radical. It’s the bare minimum. Contraception is health care and your insurance company should have to cover it. Today’s reckless Supreme Court decision endangers that for millions.”
Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal suggested the ruling could be rendered moot, however, if a new administration takes office next year, as the rules on exemptions could be rescinded.
“Notably, the Supreme Court did not say that the Constitution forbids the federal govt from providing contraceptive care — [Justice Samuel] Alito said that but not the Court. So a new Administration can reverse it,” Katyal wrote.
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--2020-07-08--Pence Aide Katie Miller Admits She Was Unaffected by Seeing Family Separations

Katie Miller , an aide to Vice President Mike Pence , says she was sent to the border to see family separations in a bid to make her “ more compassionate ” — but “ it didn ’ t work , ” according to a new book .
Miller , the wife of immigration hardliner Stephen Miller and Pence ’ s press secretary , told MSNBC ’ s Jacob Soboroff that she did not share her colleagues ’ and friends ’ concerns about the family separation policy at the border when she worked as a spokeswoman for the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and colleagues told me that when I have kids , I will think about the separations differently , ” she told Soboroff for his new book , Separated .
“ I don ’ t think so .
DHS sent me to the border to see the separations myself to try to make me more compassionate , but it didn ’ t work.
” Soboroff struggled with Miller ’ s response .
The excerpt was first reported by MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on her primetime program .
Maddow read , “ Jacob responds : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I will never forget what I saw .
Seriously .
Are you a white nationalist ?
’ he asked , exasperated.
” “ ‘ No , but I believe if you come to America , you should assimilate , ” Miller responded , according to the book .
“ Why do we need to have ‘ Little Havana ? '
” Thousands of children were separated from their families at the border .
Many of the children were held in detention facilities in dangerous conditions .
An Associated Press report last year found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas , for example , did not have sufficient access to food , water or hygienic supplies .
The Department of Health and Human Services ’ Office of Inspector General found that children separated from their families suffered acute psychological trauma .
“ According to program directors and mental health clinicians , separated children exhibited more fear , feelings of abandonment and post-traumatic stress than did children who were not separated , ” the September report said .
Trump caved to pressure and signed an executive order to end the policy in June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Southern Poverty Law Center found that the policy continues to be used .
“ The welfare of children in our custody is paramount , ” Miller told CBS News in 2018 .
“ As we have already said — and the numbers show — separations are rare .
While there was a brief increase during zero tolerance as more adults were prosecuted , the numbers have returned to their prior levels.
” The separations were not “ rare.
” The Trump administration separated more than 5,000 children from their families at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s spokeswoman last year before he took over the White House coronavirus task force in the spring .
She tested positive for the coronavirus in May .
She married Stephen Miller , who has repeatedly pushed white nationalist talking points , in February .
The couple is now expecting their first child together .

The Trump administration has separated more than 5,000 children from their families at the border.
Katie Miller, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, says she was sent to the border to see family separations in a bid to make her “more compassionate” — but “it didn’t work,” according to a new book.
Miller, the wife of immigration hardliner Stephen Miller and Pence’s press secretary, told MSNBC’s Jacob Soboroff that she did not share her colleagues’ and friends’ concerns about the family separation policy at the border when she worked as a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security.
“‘My family and colleagues told me that when I have kids, I will think about the separations differently,” she told Soboroff for his new book, Separated. “I don’t think so. DHS sent me to the border to see the separations myself to try to make me more compassionate, but it didn’t work.”
Soboroff struggled with Miller’s response. The excerpt was first reported by MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on her primetime program.
Maddow read, “Jacob responds: ‘It didn’t work? I will never forget what I saw. Seriously. Are you a white nationalist?’ he asked, exasperated.”
“‘No, but I believe if you come to America, you should assimilate,” Miller responded, according to the book. “Why do we need to have ‘Little Havana?'”
Katie Miller, press secretary for Mike Pence, quoted in Jacob Soboroff's new book, Separated: "DHS sent me to the border to see the separations for myself — to try to make me more compassionate — but it didn't work." pic.twitter.com/EicRSNtO7N — Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) July 7, 2020
Thousands of children were separated from their families at the border. Many of the children were held in detention facilities in dangerous conditions. An Associated Press report last year found that children held at a facility in Texas, for example, did not have sufficient access to food, water or hygienic supplies.
The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that children separated from their families suffered acute psychological trauma.
“According to program directors and mental health clinicians, separated children exhibited more fear, feelings of abandonment and post-traumatic stress than did children who were not separated,” the September report said.
Trump caved to pressure and signed an executive order to end the policy in June of 2018, but a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center found that the policy continues to be used.
“The welfare of children in our custody is paramount,” Miller told CBS News in 2018. “As we have already said — and the numbers show — separations are rare. While there was a brief increase during zero tolerance as more adults were prosecuted, the numbers have returned to their prior levels.”
The separations were not “rare.” The Trump administration separated more than 5,000 children from their families at the border.
Miller was appointed as Pence’s spokeswoman last year before he took over the White House coronavirus task force in the spring. She tested positive for the coronavirus in May.
She married Stephen Miller, who has repeatedly pushed white nationalist talking points, in February. The couple is now expecting their first child together.
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.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-07-08--Trump Is Trying to Hide US and Israeli War Crimes by Attacking the ICC

A war crimes complaint has been filed against Donald Trump , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump adviser Jared Kushner in the International Criminal Court ( ICC ) .
It is now up to the ICC ’ s Office of the Prosecutor to decide whether the complaint should be pursued .
If the prosecutor launches a preliminary examination and finds reason to believe they committed war crimes , the court could then authorize a full investigation .
The complaint , filed by Middlesex University law professor William Schabas on June 30 on behalf of four Palestinians who live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is credible evidence ” that Trump , Netanyahu and Kushner “ are complicit in acts that may amount to war crimes relating to the transfer of populations into occupied territory and the annexation of the sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.
” Under article 15 of the ICC ’ s Rome Statute , any individual , group or organization can bring a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor .
Schabas ’ s complaint comes on the heels of unusual moves last month from the Trump administration , which declared a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to shield U.S. and Israeli officials from ICC accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity .
Trump issued an executive order on June 11 declaring a national emergency because , he says , any ICC attempt to investigate , arrest , detain or prosecute any personnel of the United States or its allies ( Israel ) without consent to the court ’ s jurisdiction “ constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.
” The order authorizes the freezing of assets and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others who have participated in , or provided assistance to investigations , arrests , detentions or prosecutions .
It ’ s not necessary that a person be involved with an ICC action , however , to be subject to Trump ’ s new sanctions .
His order covers any ICC employee or agent whom the secretary of state determines “ would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
” Schabas ’ s complaint alleges that the Trump administration ’ s endorsement of Israel ’ s annexation constitutes a war crime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” plan endorses the illegal Israeli annexation of 30 percent of the West Bank which , Schabas alleges , “ is intricately linked to the war crime of changing the population of an occupied territory.
” The annexation , slated to occur on July 1 , has been delayed , likely for political reasons .
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an “ occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.
” The Rome Statute says that an occupying power ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies ” is a war crime .
Sixty-seven special independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council declared in a statement that Israel ’ s annexation of occupied territory “ is a serious violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions , and contrary to the fundamental rule affirmed many times by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly that the acquisition of territory by war or force is inadmissible.
” Trump Claims the ICC Has No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 11 order , Trump states that the ICC ’ s “ illegitimate assertion of jurisdiction ” over nationals of the U.S. and its allies would “ threaten to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.
” Trump notes that the U.S. is not a party to the ICC ’ s Rome Statute and has never consented to the jurisdiction of the court .
Although Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute as he left office , the United States never ratified it .
In an unprecedented move , George W. Bush withdrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute in 2002 .
Even though the United States isn ’ t a party to the Rome Statute , U.S. nationals can still be held liable in the ICC for crimes that occurred in the territory of a country that is a party .
So although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute , the ICC nevertheless has jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. nationals in the territory of Afghanistan , which is a party .
On March 5 , the ICC Appeals Chamber accepted Bensouda ’ s recommendation to proceed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed by U.S. military and CIA officials in Afghanistan and at CIA black sites .
Less than three months prior , on December 20 , 2019 , Bensouda had found a reasonable basis to believe that Israeli forces and Palestinians committed war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories .
She recommended that the Pretrial Chamber launch an investigation if it decided the court had territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank , including East Jerusalem .
The same day the Appeals Chamber announced its approval of an investigation of U.S. war crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo threatened to “ take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade , so-called court.
” With his new national emergency declaration , Trump aims to ensure that no U.S. or Israeli persons are brought before the international court to answer for war crimes and crimes against humanity .
He cited the American Service-Members Protection Act , enacted after Bush removed the U.S. ’ s signature from the Rome Statute .
The act contains the “ Hague Invasion Clause , ” which authorizes the U.S. military to use armed force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detained by the ICC .
This provision has never been used but its ramifications are frightening .
U.S. Pressure on the ICC Didn ’ t Work the First Time In November 2017 , Bensouda ’ s preliminary examination found reasonable grounds to believe that , pursuant to U.S. policy , members of the U.S. military and the CIA had committed war crimes .
They included torture and cruel treatment , and outrages upon personal dignity and sexual violence against people in detention facilities in the territory of states parties to the Rome Statute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Lithuania .
The alleged crimes by the CIA and U.S. military “ were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals , ” but rather “ part of approved interrogation techniques in an attempt to extract ‘ actionable intelligence ’ from detainees , ” Bensouda wrote .
She concluded there was “ reason to believe ” that crimes were “ committed in the furtherance of a policy or policies … which would support US objectives in the conflict of Afghanistan.
” Bensouda requested that the ICC ’ s Pretrial Chamber approve an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration threatened to deny visas to ICC judges and prosecutors and warned it would retaliate with sanctions if the court opened an investigation .
On April 5 , 2019 , the U.S. government revoked Bensouda ’ s visa to travel to the United States .
A week later , on April 12 , 2019 , the Pretrial Chamber apparently succumbed to U.S. pressure and declined to authorize Bensouda ’ s investigation .
Although agreeing with Bensouda that there were reasonable grounds to believe that CIA members had committed war crimes , the Pretrial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ in the interests of justice.
” That chamber cited the “ extremely limited ” possibility of an effective judicial process due to the likely refusal of U.S. and Afghan authorities to cooperate .
But in a landmark decision , on March 5 , 2020 , the Appeals Chamber overruled the Pretrial Chamber ’ s determination and authorized Bensouda to initiate an investigation .
Trump declared his “ national emergency ” three months later .
Bensouda Requested an Investigation of War Crimes Committed in Palestine Trump ’ s June 11 executive order was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability in the ICC for their war crimes .
On December 20 , 2019 , Bensouda told the Pretrial Chamber there was a reasonable basis to launch an investigation of “ the situation in Palestine.
” She had a reasonable belief that Israeli forces had committed war crimes of willful killing , willfully causing serious injury to body or health , disproportionate use of force , transfer of Israeli civilians into the Palestinian territory of the West Bank , and the killing of more than 200 Palestinians during protests at the Israel-Gaza fence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate alleged war crimes by Palestinians , including intentional attacks against civilians , using civilians as human shields , and the commission of torture and willful killing .
Bensouda wrote that she was satisfied “ ( i ) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank , including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip … ( ii ) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible ; and ( iii ) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ICC has territorial jurisdiction over the West Bank , including East Jerusalem , and Gaza — she asked the Pretrial Chamber for a ruling on “ the scope of the territorial jurisdiction ” of the ICC .
Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute .
But the ICC could take jurisdiction over Israelis if their crimes were committed in the territory of a state party .
Israel maintains that Palestine is not a state so there is no ICC jurisdiction .
In 2012 , the UN General Assembly recognized Palestine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Nations .
Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute , thereby becoming a member of the States Parties of the International Criminal Court .
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers ( IADL ) filed an amicus brief on March 16 , 2020 , urging the ICC to confirm its jurisdiction over Palestine .
IADL bureau member Richard Harvey wrote : Sixty-seven ICC member countries representing regions throughout the world issued a joint statement expressing their “ unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution.
” They pledged to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the Court , its officials , and those cooperating with it.
” Likewise , 10 members of the 15-member UN Security Council issued a statement to “ reconfirm our unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution ” and “ preserve its integrity undeterred by any threats against the Court , its officials and those cooperating with it.
” The group , which included two permanent members of the Council – France and the United Kingdom – renewed their “ resolve to stand against impunity which is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The remarkable action of the Appeals Chamber in defying U.S. threats and blackmail and approving a war crimes investigation of U.S. officials indicates that the ICC is striving to fulfill its mandate to bring those who have committed the most serious crimes to justice .

Trump aims to ensure that no American or Israeli is brought to the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Part of the Series Human Rights and Global Wrongs
A war crimes complaint has been filed against Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump adviser Jared Kushner in the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is now up to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor to decide whether the complaint should be pursued. If the prosecutor launches a preliminary examination and finds reason to believe they committed war crimes, the court could then authorize a full investigation.
The complaint, filed by Middlesex University law professor William Schabas on June 30 on behalf of four Palestinians who live in the West Bank, states “there is credible evidence” that Trump, Netanyahu and Kushner “are complicit in acts that may amount to war crimes relating to the transfer of populations into occupied territory and the annexation of the sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.” Under article 15 of the ICC’s Rome Statute, any individual, group or organization can bring a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor.
Schabas’s complaint comes on the heels of unusual moves last month from the Trump administration, which declared a “national emergency” in June in an effort to shield U.S. and Israeli officials from ICC accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Trump issued an executive order on June 11 declaring a national emergency because, he says, any ICC attempt to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any personnel of the United States or its allies (Israel) without consent to the court’s jurisdiction “constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
The order authorizes the freezing of assets and family travel bans against ICC officials and others who have participated in, or provided assistance to investigations, arrests, detentions or prosecutions. It’s not necessary that a person be involved with an ICC action, however, to be subject to Trump’s new sanctions. His order covers any ICC employee or agent whom the secretary of state determines “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Trump’s Endorsement of Israel’s Illegal Annexation Is a War Crime
Schabas’s complaint alleges that the Trump administration’s endorsement of Israel’s annexation constitutes a war crime.
Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan endorses the illegal Israeli annexation of 30 percent of the West Bank which, Schabas alleges, “is intricately linked to the war crime of changing the population of an occupied territory.” The annexation, slated to occur on July 1, has been delayed, likely for political reasons.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an “occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.” The Rome Statute says that an occupying power’s direct or indirect transfer “of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime.
Sixty-seven special independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council declared in a statement that Israel’s annexation of occupied territory “is a serious violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, and contrary to the fundamental rule affirmed many times by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly that the acquisition of territory by war or force is inadmissible.”
Trump Claims the ICC Has No Jurisdiction Over Americans and Israelis
In his June 11 order, Trump states that the ICC’s “illegitimate assertion of jurisdiction” over nationals of the U.S. and its allies would “threaten to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.” Trump notes that the U.S. is not a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute and has never consented to the jurisdiction of the court.
Although Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute as he left office, the United States never ratified it. In an unprecedented move, George W. Bush withdrew the U.S.’s signature from the statute in 2002.
Even though the United States isn’t a party to the Rome Statute, U.S. nationals can still be held liable in the ICC for crimes that occurred in the territory of a country that is a party. So although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC nevertheless has jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. nationals in the territory of Afghanistan, which is a party.
On March 5, the ICC Appeals Chamber accepted Bensouda’s recommendation to proceed with an investigation of war crimes allegedly committed by U.S. military and CIA officials in Afghanistan and at CIA black sites.
Less than three months prior, on December 20, 2019, Bensouda had found a reasonable basis to believe that Israeli forces and Palestinians committed war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories. She recommended that the Pretrial Chamber launch an investigation if it decided the court had territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The same day the Appeals Chamber announced its approval of an investigation of U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened to “take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, so-called court.”
With his new national emergency declaration, Trump aims to ensure that no U.S. or Israeli persons are brought before the international court to answer for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He cited the American Service-Members Protection Act, enacted after Bush removed the U.S.’s signature from the Rome Statute. The act contains the “Hague Invasion Clause,” which authorizes the U.S. military to use armed force to extricate any U.S. or allied national detained by the ICC. This provision has never been used but its ramifications are frightening.
U.S. Pressure on the ICC Didn’t Work the First Time
In November 2017, Bensouda’s preliminary examination found reasonable grounds to believe that, pursuant to U.S. policy, members of the U.S. military and the CIA had committed war crimes. They included torture and cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity and sexual violence against people in detention facilities in the territory of states parties to the Rome Statute, including Afghanistan, Romania, Poland and Lithuania.
The alleged crimes by the CIA and U.S. military “were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,” but rather “part of approved interrogation techniques in an attempt to extract ‘actionable intelligence’ from detainees,” Bensouda wrote. She concluded there was “reason to believe” that crimes were “committed in the furtherance of a policy or policies … which would support US objectives in the conflict of Afghanistan.”
Bensouda requested that the ICC’s Pretrial Chamber approve an investigation into these allegations. The Trump administration threatened to deny visas to ICC judges and prosecutors and warned it would retaliate with sanctions if the court opened an investigation.
On April 5, 2019, the U.S. government revoked Bensouda’s visa to travel to the United States.
A week later, on April 12, 2019, the Pretrial Chamber apparently succumbed to U.S. pressure and declined to authorize Bensouda’s investigation. Although agreeing with Bensouda that there were reasonable grounds to believe that CIA members had committed war crimes, the Pretrial Chamber denied her request for an investigation “in the interests of justice.” That chamber cited the “extremely limited” possibility of an effective judicial process due to the likely refusal of U.S. and Afghan authorities to cooperate.
But in a landmark decision, on March 5, 2020, the Appeals Chamber overruled the Pretrial Chamber’s determination and authorized Bensouda to initiate an investigation.
Trump declared his “national emergency” three months later.
Bensouda Requested an Investigation of War Crimes Committed in Palestine
Trump’s June 11 executive order was also designed to shield Israeli officials from liability in the ICC for their war crimes.
On December 20, 2019, Bensouda told the Pretrial Chamber there was a reasonable basis to launch an investigation of “the situation in Palestine.” She had a reasonable belief that Israeli forces had committed war crimes of willful killing, willfully causing serious injury to body or health, disproportionate use of force, transfer of Israeli civilians into the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, and the killing of more than 200 Palestinians during protests at the Israel-Gaza fence. Bensouda also found a reasonable basis to investigate alleged war crimes by Palestinians, including intentional attacks against civilians, using civilians as human shields, and the commission of torture and willful killing.
Bensouda wrote that she was satisfied “(i) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip … (ii) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible; and (iii) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”
But although Bensouda determined that the ICC has territorial jurisdiction over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza — she asked the Pretrial Chamber for a ruling on “the scope of the territorial jurisdiction” of the ICC.
Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. But the ICC could take jurisdiction over Israelis if their crimes were committed in the territory of a state party. Israel maintains that Palestine is not a state so there is no ICC jurisdiction.
In 2012, the UN General Assembly recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state in the United Nations. Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute, thereby becoming a member of the States Parties of the International Criminal Court.
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) filed an amicus brief on March 16, 2020, urging the ICC to confirm its jurisdiction over Palestine. IADL bureau member Richard Harvey wrote:
The ICC’s normative power and legal authority will be strengthened by confirming its jurisdiction over the State of Palestine, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and opening an investigation into the Palestinian situation. Thereby the equal rights of all peoples to justice for international crimes will receive much-needed affirmation.
ICC States Parties and UN Security Council Members Express “Unwavering Support” for ICC
Sixty-seven ICC member countries representing regions throughout the world issued a joint statement expressing their “unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution.” They pledged to remain “undeterred by any measures or threats against the Court, its officials, and those cooperating with it.”
Likewise, 10 members of the 15-member UN Security Council issued a statement to “reconfirm our unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and “preserve its integrity undeterred by any threats against the Court, its officials and those cooperating with it.” The group, which included two permanent members of the Council – France and the United Kingdom – renewed their “resolve to stand against impunity which is at the core of the Rome Statute.”
The remarkable action of the Appeals Chamber in defying U.S. threats and blackmail and approving a war crimes investigation of U.S. officials indicates that the ICC is striving to fulfill its mandate to bring those who have committed the most serious crimes to justice.
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.