mintpressnews--2020-09-09--DHS Head Chad Wolf Adopts Language of War in Threats Against Portland Protesters

Even after three months of continuous demonstrations over the police killing of George Floyd , protests in Portland , Oregon continue , as demonstrators clash with police and pro-Trump groups .
With no end in sight , acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf sent a cryptic but threatening message to Black Lives Matter and other groups , telling ABC News that “ all options continue to be on the table ” as a response .
Since Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has attempted to undermine federal agents ’ presence , it appears that Wolf is hinting at a military response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to violence .
Senator Tom Cotton has already demanded that Trump send in the troops to deal with the protests .
The U.S. has a history of crushing domestic dissent with force .
In 1970 , the Ohio National Guard opened fire on anti-war protesters at Kent State University , killing four .
Fifteen years later , police used helicopters to drop bombs on the black activists at the MOVE compound in Philadelphia , destroying an entire block of housing .
While these are extreme events , the phrase “ all options on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics as a code phrase conveying the most extreme violence imaginable , without having to explicitly state it .
The phrase was famously used by President George W. Bush throughout his administration when discussing Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons program .
When asked by a reporter if “ all options ” could mean a nuclear attack on Iran , Bush refused to answer , simply re-stating that “ all options ” were on the table .
Iran is a particular target of the “ all options ” rhetoric , whether Republicans or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama also continually threatened Iran with a nuclear attack throughout his presidency , stating that he was prepared to strike .
In 2009 , he said he wished to go down the diplomatic path but “ without taking other options off the table.
” Three years later , Obama again insisted that “ all options ” were on the table , adding that he “ doesn ’ t bluff.
” Evidently , that was false , however , as the next year , he was making the same pronouncement about his options , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Netanyahu in Jerusalem .
All of this in an attempt to stop something which experts agree Iran was not even trying to pursue .
U.S. allies have begun to adopt the same rhetoric .
Last September , a Saudi ambassador announced that “ all options were on the table ” with Iran , after an attack on oil processing facilities — something which Riyadh immediately blamed on Iran .
As with many other issues , the Trump administration is more explicit and forthright in its rhetoric .
In 2017 , Vice President Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlighting the U.S. ’ resolve to stop North Korea from obtaining atomic weaponry .
“ We hope to achieve this objective through peaceful means , but all options are on the table , ” he stated , thereby strongly implying “ all options ” meant violence .
Trump was less able to use coded language , threatening the D.P.R.K with “ fire and fury ” like they had never seen before .
And consider this exchange that Trump had with journalists in 2019 .
After announcing that “ all options ” were on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked , “ Are you considering a military option for Venezuela ?
” Trump replied , “ We ’ re not considering anything but all options are on the table.
” The reporter pressed him , asking , “ Does that mean that you are considering a military— ” , but Trump cut him off , stating firmly : Considering that the United States had already placed devastating sanctions on the country , killing an estimated 100,000 people and that the U.S. has sent troops to neighboring Colombia , a military attack is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coups continue to fall flat .
Trump ’ s press secretaries have also used the “ all options on the table ” rhetoric in relation to Russia and Syria .
The phrase , therefore , is continually used against foreign enemies of the U.S. government as a way of threatening war or even nuclear annihilation without having to explicitly state it , letting the threat pass under the radar of many , and allowing for plausible deniability if challenged .
The fact that government officials are beginning to use that same rhetoric against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a positive sign for the future of the city or the country .
Feature photo | U.S. Army Commander Col. Rafael “ Pete ” Pazos speaks to Secretary of Homeland Security Chad F. Wolf and Sen. Martha McSally in Yuma , Arizona on January 10 , 2020 .
Catherine Carroll | DVIDS Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News .
After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age : Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

Even after three months of continuous demonstrations over the police killing of George Floyd, protests in Portland, Oregon continue, as demonstrators clash with police and pro-Trump groups. With no end in sight, acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf sent a cryptic but threatening message to Black Lives Matter and other groups, telling ABC News that “all options continue to be on the table” as a response.
Since Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has attempted to undermine federal agents’ presence, it appears that Wolf is hinting at a military response, despite his pleas for an end to violence. Senator Tom Cotton has already demanded that Trump send in the troops to deal with the protests. The U.S. has a history of crushing domestic dissent with force. In 1970, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on anti-war protesters at Kent State University, killing four. Fifteen years later, police used helicopters to drop bombs on the black activists at the MOVE compound in Philadelphia, destroying an entire block of housing.
While these are extreme events, the phrase “all options on the table” is largely used in politics as a code phrase conveying the most extreme violence imaginable, without having to explicitly state it. The phrase was famously used by President George W. Bush throughout his administration when discussing Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons program. When asked by a reporter if “all options” could mean a nuclear attack on Iran, Bush refused to answer, simply re-stating that “all options” were on the table.
Iran is a particular target of the “all options” rhetoric, whether Republicans or Democrats control the executive branch. President Obama also continually threatened Iran with a nuclear attack throughout his presidency, stating that he was prepared to strike. In 2009, he said he wished to go down the diplomatic path but “without taking other options off the table.” Three years later, Obama again insisted that “all options” were on the table, adding that he “doesn’t bluff.” Evidently, that was false, however, as the next year, he was making the same pronouncement about his options, this time alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. All of this in an attempt to stop something which experts agree Iran was not even trying to pursue.
U.S. allies have begun to adopt the same rhetoric. Last September, a Saudi ambassador announced that “all options were on the table” with Iran, after an attack on oil processing facilities — something which Riyadh immediately blamed on Iran.
As with many other issues, the Trump administration is more explicit and forthright in its rhetoric. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence gave a speech in South Korea highlighting the U.S.’ resolve to stop North Korea from obtaining atomic weaponry. “We hope to achieve this objective through peaceful means, but all options are on the table,” he stated, thereby strongly implying “all options” meant violence. Trump was less able to use coded language, threatening the D.P.R.K with “fire and fury” like they had never seen before.
And consider this exchange that Trump had with journalists in 2019. After announcing that “all options” were on the table for Venezuela, a reporter asked, “Are you considering a military option for Venezuela?” Trump replied, “We’re not considering anything but all options are on the table.” The reporter pressed him, asking, “Does that mean that you are considering a military—”, but Trump cut him off, stating firmly:
All options. Always. All options are on the table.”
Considering that the United States had already placed devastating sanctions on the country, killing an estimated 100,000 people and that the U.S. has sent troops to neighboring Colombia, a military attack is clearly a possibility, especially if U.S.-backed coups continue to fall flat.
Trump’s press secretaries have also used the “all options on the table” rhetoric in relation to Russia and Syria.
The phrase, therefore, is continually used against foreign enemies of the U.S. government as a way of threatening war or even nuclear annihilation without having to explicitly state it, letting the threat pass under the radar of many, and allowing for plausible deniability if challenged. The fact that government officials are beginning to use that same rhetoric against the domestic population in Portland is not a positive sign for the future of the city or the country.
Feature photo | U.S. Army Commander Col. Rafael “Pete” Pazos speaks to Secretary of Homeland Security Chad F. Wolf and Sen. Martha McSally in Yuma, Arizona on January 10, 2020. Catherine Carroll | DVIDS
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.


mintpressnews--2020-09-09--As Trump Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, Here Are Some of Its Worst Winners

Donald Trump has been nominated for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize .
The President of the United States was put forward by the far-right Norwegian member of parliament , Christian Tybring-Gjedde , who insists he is “ not a big Trump supporter , ” despite nominating him last year as well .
Tybring-Gjedde ’ s stated reason for nominating Trump is for his work in the UAE-Israel deal signed last month , which normalizes relations between the two nations .
While there have been a number of people and organizations already nominated for the award , Trump is immediately considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds drastically shortening with bookmakers today .
The announcement was predictably applauded by supporters of the president , who voiced their approval online .
Meanwhile , His detractors were unsurprisingly shocked and dismayed by the news .
“ Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by far-right anti-immigration nut job Christian Tybring-Gjedde is like getting a letter of recommendation to be a firefighter by a pyromaniac , ” wrote Dr. Eugene Gu , one of the president ’ s most vocal online opponents .
The prize is often considered among the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recognition of a supreme commitment to someone who has given “ the greatest benefit to humankind , ” in the organization ’ s own words .
But while there have been some worthy winners in its 119-year history , the prize ( and its ~ $ 1 million cash reward ) has very often been handed to some of the world ’ s most reprehensible individuals , including the following examples .
Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi received the award in 1991 “ for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between 1989 and 2010 , she was kept under house arrest by the ruling military junta .
Time magazine labeled her a “ child of Gandhi ” for her supposed commitment to pacifism .
Yet since her ascension to the office of state counselor ( the Burmese version of prime minister ) , she has overseen the Burmese army ’ s genocide of Rohingya Muslims in her own country , defending and supporting the same military who used to keep her locked up .
In 2017 she insisted that even ethnic cleansing was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describe events , claiming that “ it is Muslims killing Muslims , ” but denying visas to United Nations officials who wished to investigate the atrocities .
The violence is known to have killed at least 24,000 people and forced more than 730,000 Muslims to flee to neighboring Bangladesh .
A host of Israeli leaders , including Menachem Begin , Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres , have also won the prize for their supposed efforts in bringing peace to the Middle East , even though Israel has militarily occupied much of Palestine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking ceasefires to attack its neighbors .
In 1996 , for instance , Peres ordered Operation Grapes of Wrath , the most notorious chapter of which was the Qana massacre , where 106 Lebanese civilians were killed .
Peres appeared proud of his actions ; “ Everything was done according to clear logic and in a responsible way , ” he said .
Meanwhile , in 1967 , troops under Rabin ’ s command are thought to have killed around 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of war en masse .
Barack Obama was surprisingly given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few months in office , the Nobel Institute claiming that he was helping rid the planet of nuclear weapons , bringing peace to the world , and to tackle climate change , all of which in 2020 appear rather questionable claims .
Much of the Institute ’ s justification for the award is in the future tense .
“ Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened , ” they wrote , suggesting the prize-givers were awarding him for his promises rather than his actions .
In reality , Obama expanded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simultaneously , earning the moniker the “ Drone King.
” According to U.S. government documents , nearly 90 percent of those he killed were civilians .
Other estimates put that number much higher .
Perhaps the most egregious Nobel Peace Prize winner of all time was American war planner Henry Kissinger .
Kissinger was one of the chief architects of the U.S. attack on Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s , actively sabotaging President Johnson ’ s peace talks with the Viet Minh resistance .
He also delivered the infamous orders for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anything that flies on anything that moves , ” he instructed .
He also supported Indonesia ’ s genocide in East Timor and the Pakistani crackdown against Bangladesh ’ s independence movement .
Kissinger was the mastermind behind the attacks on Salvador Allende ’ s Chile , attempting to “ make the economy scream , ” also supporting and abetting the fascist coup that resulted in the end of democracy in the South American nation .
While Kissinger gratefully accepted his prize , his co-recipient , Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , doing so on the grounds that peace had not been achieved .
“ Once the Paris accord on Vietnam is respected , the arms are silenced and a real peace is established in South Vietnam , I will be able to consider accepting this prize , ” he said .
The U.S. would not stop bombing for another two years .
While there has been a great deal of consternation at the idea of Trump receiving the prize , the reality is that it has already drifted so far from Alfred Nobel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to individuals who spend their lives “ challenging militarism ” that it as often as not awarded to infamous warmongers .
Trump would merely be joining a select rogue ’ s gallery if he were to win .
Feature photo | Secretary of State Henry Kissinger being congratulated October 16 , 1973 by President Richard Nixon in the Oval office of the White House , following the announcement that Kissinger was a winner of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize .
Photo | AP Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ published two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age : Still Manufacturing Consent .
He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

Donald Trump has been nominated for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. The President of the United States was put forward by the far-right Norwegian member of parliament, Christian Tybring-Gjedde, who insists he is “not a big Trump supporter,” despite nominating him last year as well. Tybring-Gjedde’s stated reason for nominating Trump is for his work in the UAE-Israel deal signed last month, which normalizes relations between the two nations.
While there have been a number of people and organizations already nominated for the award, Trump is immediately considered among the favorites to win, his odds drastically shortening with bookmakers today.
The announcement was predictably applauded by supporters of the president, who voiced their approval online. Meanwhile, His detractors were unsurprisingly shocked and dismayed by the news. “Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by far-right anti-immigration nut job Christian Tybring-Gjedde is like getting a letter of recommendation to be a firefighter by a pyromaniac,” wrote Dr. Eugene Gu, one of the president’s most vocal online opponents.
The prize is often considered among the most esteemed awards any individual can win; a recognition of a supreme commitment to someone who has given “the greatest benefit to humankind,” in the organization’s own words. But while there have been some worthy winners in its 119-year history, the prize (and its ~$1 million cash reward) has very often been handed to some of the world’s most reprehensible individuals, including the following examples.
Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi received the award in 1991 “for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights.” For much of the time between 1989 and 2010, she was kept under house arrest by the ruling military junta. Time magazine labeled her a “child of Gandhi” for her supposed commitment to pacifism. Yet since her ascension to the office of state counselor (the Burmese version of prime minister), she has overseen the Burmese army’s genocide of Rohingya Muslims in her own country, defending and supporting the same military who used to keep her locked up. In 2017 she insisted that even ethnic cleansing was “too strong a word” to describe events, claiming that “it is Muslims killing Muslims,” but denying visas to United Nations officials who wished to investigate the atrocities. The violence is known to have killed at least 24,000 people and forced more than 730,000 Muslims to flee to neighboring Bangladesh.
A host of Israeli leaders, including Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, have also won the prize for their supposed efforts in bringing peace to the Middle East, even though Israel has militarily occupied much of Palestine and parts of Syria for decades, continually breaking ceasefires to attack its neighbors. In 1996, for instance, Peres ordered Operation Grapes of Wrath, the most notorious chapter of which was the Qana massacre, where 106 Lebanese civilians were killed. Peres appeared proud of his actions; “Everything was done according to clear logic and in a responsible way,” he said. Meanwhile, in 1967, troops under Rabin’s command are thought to have killed around 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of war en masse.
Barack Obama was surprisingly given the award in 2009, after only a few months in office, the Nobel Institute claiming that he was helping rid the planet of nuclear weapons, bringing peace to the world, and to tackle climate change, all of which in 2020 appear rather questionable claims. Much of the Institute’s justification for the award is in the future tense. “Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened,” they wrote, suggesting the prize-givers were awarding him for his promises rather than his actions. In reality, Obama expanded the American war machine, bombing seven countries simultaneously, earning the moniker the “Drone King.” According to U.S. government documents, nearly 90 percent of those he killed were civilians. Other estimates put that number much higher.
Perhaps the most egregious Nobel Peace Prize winner of all time was American war planner Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was one of the chief architects of the U.S. attack on Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, actively sabotaging President Johnson’s peace talks with the Viet Minh resistance. He also delivered the infamous orders for the massive bombing of Cambodia; “Anything that flies on anything that moves,” he instructed. He also supported Indonesia’s genocide in East Timor and the Pakistani crackdown against Bangladesh’s independence movement. Kissinger was the mastermind behind the attacks on Salvador Allende’s Chile, attempting to “make the economy scream,” also supporting and abetting the fascist coup that resulted in the end of democracy in the South American nation.
While Kissinger gratefully accepted his prize, his co-recipient, Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho, is the only individual to reject the prize, doing so on the grounds that peace had not been achieved. “Once the Paris accord on Vietnam is respected, the arms are silenced and a real peace is established in South Vietnam, I will be able to consider accepting this prize,” he said. The U.S. would not stop bombing for another two years.
While there has been a great deal of consternation at the idea of Trump receiving the prize, the reality is that it has already drifted so far from Alfred Nobel’s original intention of awarding it to individuals who spend their lives “challenging militarism” that it as often as not awarded to infamous warmongers. Trump would merely be joining a select rogue’s gallery if he were to win.
Feature photo | Secretary of State Henry Kissinger being congratulated October 16, 1973 by President Richard Nixon in the Oval office of the White House, following the announcement that Kissinger was a winner of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize. Photo | AP
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.


mintpressnews--2020-09-09--UN: Israel’s Handling of Palestinian Prisoners Amid COVID-19 “Discriminatory” “Violation of Int’l La

UN: Israel’s Handling of Palestinian Prisoners Amid COVID-19 “Discriminatory” “Violation of Int’l Law”

Due to unequal Israeli policy prioritizing the rights of Israeli Jews over Palestinians , the novel coronavirus is asymmetrically threatening incarcerated Palestinians in Israeli prisons .
This is causing international concern that the virus will spread like wildfire and infect the over 4,500 Palestinian prisoners living in dire conditions in notoriously overcrowded and unsanitary Israeli prisons , especially as Israel has thus far refused to follow the World Health Organization and United Nations guidelines on the humane treatment of prisoners amid the COVID-19 pandemic .
On Tuesday , September 8 , the International Middle East Media Center ( IMEMC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and prisoners in Israeli prisons have tested positive for COVID-19 .
IMEMC added that , without independent confirmation , it is impossible to know whether this number is accurate , as the Israel Prison Service may be withholding information .
At least 700 Palestinians in Israeli prisons are known to have health conditions making them particularly susceptible to the coronavirus .
In hopes of reducing the risk of COVID-19 exposure for its Jewish population , in July — the Israeli Prison service approved the transfer of five hundred Israeli prisoners to house arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same for Palestinian prisoners .
Numerous groups in Israel and worldwide use the word “ apartheid ” when describing the disparity in official policies for Israelis versus Palestinians .
UN human rights advocates expressed outrage that Israel “ has not applied similar measures to Palestinian prisoners , ” calling it “ discriminatory treatment ” and “ a violation of international law.
” UN advocates added that , since all legal proceedings are postponed due to the pandemic , IPS should also release all Palestinians being held in administrative detention – a designation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vast majority of these detainees are being held because of their political affiliation and other spurious allegations ( even waving a Palestinian flag can result in detention ) , or for throwing stones – an act that can land a Palestinian ( though not an Israeli ) behind bars for up to twenty years .
As early in the pandemic as March , the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights petitioned the Israel Prison Service to initiate measures to reduce crowding , improve hygiene , and adjust the amount of interaction between prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s demands were based on World Health Organization and United Nations guidelines and recommendations .
ReliefWeb reports that the IPS response was “ evasive , ” and “ the conditions in Israeli prisons [ continued ] to deteriorate.
” Gilboa prison , with 450 Palestinian security prisoners , has reported a particularly high COVID infection rate .
Adalah , a Palestinian prisoners ’ rights group , petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court , demanding that Israel enable social distancing guidelines in the prison .
The court rejected the petition and fined Adalah 5,000 NIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs .
Since 2000 , roughly 10,000 Palestinian children have been held in Israeli military detention .
On average , 500-700 Palestinian children are tried in Israeli military court each year , most often for stone-throwing .
As of the end of June 2020 , over 150 children languished in Israeli prisons with all family visits canceled due to the pandemic , which for incarcerated Palestinian minors and their families , is just another layer of discrimination and danger .
The first diagnosed child COVID case ( as reported by Israel ) occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense of Children International – Palestine ( DCIP ) and the UN have been calling for Israel to release all minors in detention , to no avail .
International law characterizes the detention of children as a “ measure of last resort , ” but In Israel , it is the norm .
The No Way To Treat a Child ( NWTTAC ) campaign points out that Israel is the only country in the world , “ that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts that lack fundamental fair trial rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ill-treatment in the Israeli military detention system remains “ widespread , systematic , and institutionalized throughout the process.
” The NWTTAC campaign is designed to hold Israel accountable for its treatment of Palestinian child detainees and includes an effort to pass H.R.2407 in the U.S. Congress .
Gaza has also seen a recent spike in COVID-19 cases and has appealed to the global community for assistance .
The enclave is in its thirteenth year of a brutal Israeli blockade that prohibits essential items – including many medical supplies – from reaching the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no plan to share its medical equipment with Gaza .
Inside the crowded refugee camps in the West Bank , the UN Relief and Works Agency ( UNRWA ) has seen a dramatic spike in coronavirus cases as well .
The UN has stepped in and appealed to the global community for assistance .
In July , Israel demolished a Palestinian COVID-19 testing center under construction in Hebron and confiscated the medical equipment .
That move tracks with a well-entrenched Israeli practice of failing to provide for the basic needs of Palestinian inmates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four inmates died from alleged medical neglect in Israeli prisons .
Many argue that even aside from international law , Israel has a moral obligation – especially during a pandemic – to care for the people of Palestine as it has nearly full control over their fate thanks to its ongoing military occupation .
Feature photo | A Palestinian painter work on a mural to draw attention to COVID-19 in Khan Yunis , Gaza , on March 28 .
Mustafa Hassana | Anadolu Kathryn Shihadah writes for MintPress News and If Americans Knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and demonization Palestinians face at the hands of Israel with complicity from the United States , especially to Christian audiences .
Kathryn has lived in the Middle East for ten years and has traveled extensively .
She blogs at PalestineHome.org .

Due to unequal Israeli policy prioritizing the rights of Israeli Jews over Palestinians, the novel coronavirus is asymmetrically threatening incarcerated Palestinians in Israeli prisons. This is causing international concern that the virus will spread like wildfire and infect the over 4,500 Palestinian prisoners living in dire conditions in notoriously overcrowded and unsanitary Israeli prisons, especially as Israel has thus far refused to follow the World Health Organization and United Nations guidelines on the humane treatment of prisoners amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
On Tuesday, September 8, the International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) reported that at least twenty-seven Palestinian detainees and prisoners in Israeli prisons have tested positive for COVID-19. IMEMC added that, without independent confirmation, it is impossible to know whether this number is accurate, as the Israel Prison Service may be withholding information.
At least 700 Palestinians in Israeli prisons are known to have health conditions making them particularly susceptible to the coronavirus.
In hopes of reducing the risk of COVID-19 exposure for its Jewish population, in July — the Israeli Prison service approved the transfer of five hundred Israeli prisoners to house arrest, but have subsequently refused to provide the same for Palestinian prisoners. Numerous groups in Israel and worldwide use the word “apartheid” when describing the disparity in official policies for Israelis versus Palestinians.
UN human rights advocates expressed outrage that Israel “has not applied similar measures to Palestinian prisoners,” calling it “discriminatory treatment” and “a violation of international law.” UN advocates added that, since all legal proceedings are postponed due to the pandemic, IPS should also release all Palestinians being held in administrative detention – a designation for prisoners held without charge.
The vast majority of these detainees are being held because of their political affiliation and other spurious allegations (even waving a Palestinian flag can result in detention), or for throwing stones – an act that can land a Palestinian (though not an Israeli) behind bars for up to twenty years.
Unequal treatment
International human rights attorney Shannon Maree Torrens articulates Israel’s obligation as occupier:
According to international humanitarian law…Israel is required to maintain medical establishments and hospitals, ensure public health and hygiene and importantly in the current circumstances – prevent the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics.”
As early in the pandemic as March, the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights petitioned the Israel Prison Service to initiate measures to reduce crowding, improve hygiene, and adjust the amount of interaction between prison personnel and prisoners. Al Mezan’s demands were based on World Health Organization and United Nations guidelines and recommendations.
ReliefWeb reports that the IPS response was “evasive,” and “the conditions in Israeli prisons [continued] to deteriorate.”
Gilboa prison, with 450 Palestinian security prisoners, has reported a particularly high COVID infection rate. Adalah, a Palestinian prisoners’ rights group, petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court, demanding that Israel enable social distancing guidelines in the prison. The court rejected the petition and fined Adalah 5,000 NIS (about $1,400) for court costs.
Child incarceration
Since 2000, roughly 10,000 Palestinian children have been held in Israeli military detention. On average, 500-700 Palestinian children are tried in Israeli military court each year, most often for stone-throwing. As of the end of June 2020, over 150 children languished in Israeli prisons with all family visits canceled due to the pandemic, which for incarcerated Palestinian minors and their families, is just another layer of discrimination and danger.
The first diagnosed child COVID case (as reported by Israel) occurred in August, but for months, Defense of Children International – Palestine (DCIP) and the UN have been calling for Israel to release all minors in detention, to no avail.
International law characterizes the detention of children as a “measure of last resort,” but In Israel, it is the norm. The No Way To Treat a Child (NWTTAC) campaign points out that Israel is the only country in the world, “that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts that lack fundamental fair trial rights and protections,” adding that the “Ill-treatment in the Israeli military detention system remains “widespread, systematic, and institutionalized throughout the process.”
https://twitter.com/MirandaCleland/status/1287443800772796418
The NWTTAC campaign is designed to hold Israel accountable for its treatment of Palestinian child detainees and includes an effort to pass H.R.2407 in the U.S. Congress.
All Palestinians at risk
Gaza has also seen a recent spike in COVID-19 cases and has appealed to the global community for assistance. The enclave is in its thirteenth year of a brutal Israeli blockade that prohibits essential items – including many medical supplies – from reaching the people.
Israel has indicated that it has no plan to share its medical equipment with Gaza.
Inside the crowded refugee camps in the West Bank, the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has seen a dramatic spike in coronavirus cases as well. The UN has stepped in and appealed to the global community for assistance.
In July, Israel demolished a Palestinian COVID-19 testing center under construction in Hebron and confiscated the medical equipment. That move tracks with a well-entrenched Israeli practice of failing to provide for the basic needs of Palestinian inmates. In 2019, for example, four inmates died from alleged medical neglect in Israeli prisons.
Many argue that even aside from international law, Israel has a moral obligation – especially during a pandemic – to care for the people of Palestine as it has nearly full control over their fate thanks to its ongoing military occupation.
Israel, however, disagrees.
Feature photo | A Palestinian painter work on a mural to draw attention to COVID-19 in Khan Yunis, Gaza, on March 28. Mustafa Hassana | Anadolu
Kathryn Shihadah writes for MintPress News and If Americans Knew. She speaks regularly about the injustice and demonization Palestinians face at the hands of Israel with complicity from the United States, especially to Christian audiences. Kathryn has lived in the Middle East for ten years and has traveled extensively. She blogs at PalestineHome.org.


mintpressnews--2020-09-09--The 20-Year Journey From 9/11 To COVID-19 and the Freedoms Lost Along the Way

You can map the nearly 20-year journey from the 9/11 attacks to the COVID-19 pandemic by the freedoms we ’ ve lost along the way .
The road we have been traveling has been littered with the wreckage of our once-vaunted liberties , especially those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment .
The assaults on our freedoms that began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act laid the groundwork for the eradication of every vital constitutional safeguard against government overreach , corruption and abuse .
The COVID-19 pandemic with its lockdowns , mask mandates , surveillance , snitch lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for engaging in risky behavior , and veiled threats of forced vaccinations has merely provided the architects of the American police state with an opportunity to flex their muscles .
These have become mile markers on the road to tyranny .
Free speech , the right to protest , the right to challenge government wrongdoing , due process , a presumption of innocence , the right to self-defense , accountability and transparency in government , privacy , press , sovereignty , assembly , bodily integrity , representative government : all of these and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ongoing war on the American people .
In the process , the American people have been treated like enemy combatants , to be spied on , tracked , scanned , frisked , searched , subjected to all manner of intrusions , intimidated , invaded , raided , manhandled , censored , silenced , shot at , locked up , denied due process , and killed .
What the past 20 years have proven is that the U.S. government poses a greater threat to our individual and collective freedoms and national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills , foreign wars , color-coded warnings , partisan politics , pandemic scares , and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda , sleight of hand , and obfuscation , we failed to recognize that the U.S. government—the government that was supposed to be a “ government of the people , by the people , for the people ” —has become the enemy of the people .
Indeed , the U.S. government has grown so corrupt , greedy , power-hungry and tyrannical over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our constitutional republic has since given way to an idiocracy , and representative government has given way to a kleptocracy ( a government ruled by thieves ) and a kakistocracy ( a government run by unprincipled career politicians , corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens ) .
Although the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny , in America today , the government does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We the people ” have been terrorized , traumatized , and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties .
The bogeyman ’ s names and faces have changed over time ( terrorism , the war on drugs , illegal immigration , a viral pandemic ) , but the end result remains the same : in the so-called name of national security , the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at , undermined , eroded , whittled down , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the White House , and the courts .
What we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago .
Sadly , most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights .
Here is what it means to live under the Constitution , post-9/11 and in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic .
The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind , assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government .
It also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the right to worship and pray without interference .
In other words , Americans should not be silenced by the government .
To the founders , all of America was a free speech zone .
Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment , the freedoms described therein are under constant assault .
Increasingly , Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “ contempt of cop ” charges such as “ disrupting the peace ” or “ resisting arrest ” for daring to film police officers engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers .
States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices .
Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless .
Protesters are being tear-gassed , beaten , arrested and forced into “ free speech zones.
” And under the guise of “ government speech , ” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum .
The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear arms.
” Essentially , this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government .
Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right , Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield .
As such , this amendment has been rendered null and void .
The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home without “ the consent of the owner.
” With the police increasingly training like the military , acting like the military , and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams , military weapons , assault vehicles , etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil .
The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you , unless they have some evidence that you ’ re up to something criminal .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodily integrity .
Unfortunately , the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens , surveillance ( corporate and otherwise ) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism , as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors .
The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem .
These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you of your life , your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge .
However , in the new suspect society in which we live , where surveillance is the norm , these fundamental principles have been upended .
Certainly , if the government can arbitrarily freeze , seize or lay claim to your property ( money , land or possessions ) under government asset forfeiture schemes , you have no true rights .
The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populace has no idea of what ’ s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears .
However , as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize , the power of the jury to nullify the government ’ s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated .
Jury nullification reminds the government that “ we the people ” retain the power to ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment .
However , the Supreme Court ’ s determination that what constitutes “ cruel and unusual ” should be dependent on the “ evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society ” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether .
The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment .
However , it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “ important government interest ” in doing so .
As for the Tenth Amendment ’ s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local , state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington , DC , power elite—the president , Congress and the courts .
If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost , it is simply this : our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government ’ s powers could be expanded .
Mind you , by “ government , ” I ’ m not referring to the highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Democrats .
Rather , I ’ m referring to the Deep State—the corporatized , militarized , entrenched bureaucracy that has set itself beyond the reach of the law and is unaffected by elections , unaltered by populist movements , and staffed by unelected officials who are , in essence , running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC , no matter who sits in the White House .
This is a government that , in conjunction with its corporate partners , views the citizenry as consumers and bits of data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is a government that spies on and treats its citizens as if they have no right to privacy , especially in their own homes .
This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public ’ s biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain “ unacceptable ” social behaviors .
This is a government that subjects its people to scans , searches , pat downs and other indignities by the TSA and VIPR raids on so-called “ soft ” targets like shopping malls and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look-alikes .
This is a government that uses fusion centers , which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal , state and local law enforcement , to track the citizenry ’ s movements , record their conversations , and catalogue their transactions .
This is a government whose wall-to-wall surveillance has given rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof has been reversed such that Americans are now assumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence .
This is a government that treats its people like second-class citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working overtime to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government ’ s plans for this country .
This is a government that uses free speech zones , roving bubble zones and trespass laws to silence , censor and marginalize Americans and restrict their First Amendment right to speak truth to power .
The kinds of speech the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship , surveillance , investigation , prosecution and outright elimination include : hate speech , bullying speech , intolerant speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatening speech , incendiary speech , inflammatory speech , radical speech , anti-government speech , right-wing speech , left-wing speech , extremist speech , politically incorrect speech , etc .
This is a government that adopts laws that criminalize Americans for otherwise lawful activities such as holding religious studies at home , growing vegetables in their yard , and collecting rainwater .
This is a government that persists in renewing the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) , which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us with the Patriot Act , which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy .
This is a government that , in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country , has allowed the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) to establish a standing army by way of programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police .
This is a government that has militarized American ’ s domestic police , equipping them with military weapons such as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines ; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment ; and hundreds of silencers , armored cars and aircraft , ” in addition to armored vehicles , sound cannons and the like .
This is a government that has provided cover to police when they shoot and kill unarmed individuals just for standing a certain way , or moving a certain way , or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun , or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer ’ s mind that has nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their safety .
This is a government that has allowed private corporations to get rich at taxpayer expense by locking people up in private prisons for non-violent crimes , while providing Corporate America with a source of cheap labor .
This is a government that has created a Constitution-free zone within 100 miles inland of the border around the United States , paving the way for Border Patrol agents to search people ’ s homes , intimately probe their bodies , and rifle through their belongings , all without a warrant .
Incredibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2/3 of the U.S. population , 197.4 million people ) now live within that 100-mile-deep , Constitution-free zone .
This is a government that treats public school students as if they were prison inmates , enforcing zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior , failing to teach them their rights under the Constitution , and indoctrinating them with teaching that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning , synthesizing and critical thinking .
This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front : it ’ s spending far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the American taxpayers ) and it is borrowing heavily ( from foreign governments and Social Security ) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad .
Meanwhile , the nation ’ s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads , water pipelines , ports , dams , bridges , airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating .
This is a government whose gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams , militarized police , and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooter .
There are now reportedly more bureaucratic ( non-military ) government agents armed with high-tech , deadly weapons than U.S. Marines .
This is a government that has allowed the presidency to become a dictatorship operating above and beyond the law , regardless of which party is in power .
This is a government that treats dissidents , whistleblowers and freedom fighters as enemies of the state .
This is a government—a warring empire—that forces its taxpayers to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest , the acquisition of greater wealth , scientific experimentation , and technological advances , all packaged in the guise of the greater good .
This is a government that allows its agents to break laws with immunity while average Americans get the book thrown at them .
This is a government that speaks in a language of force .
What is this language of force ?
Militarized police .
Riot squads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armored vehicles .
Mass arrests .
Pepper spray .
Tear gas .
Batons .
Strip searches .
Surveillance cameras .
Kevlar vests .
Drones .
Lethal weapons .
Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force .
Rubber bullets .
Water cannons .
Stun grenades .
Arrests of journalists .
Crowd control tactics .
Intimidation tactics .
Brutality .
Contempt of cop charges .
This is a government that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security , national crises and national emergencies .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of this country ’ s most profitable exports being weapons .
Indeed , the United States , the world ’ s largest exporter of arms , has been selling violence to the world in order to prop up the military industrial complex and maintain its endless wars abroad .
This is a government that is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process .
This is a government that believes it has the authority to search , seize , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probe , pat down , taser , and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation , the Constitution be damned .
In sum , this is a government that routinely undermines the Constitution and rides roughshod over the rights of the citizenry .
This is not a government that believes in , let alone upholds , freedom .
So where does that leave us ?
As always , the first step begins with “ we the people.
” Those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behest of its citizens .
It is there to protect , defend and even enhance our freedoms , not violate them .
Our power as a citizenry comes from our ability to agree and stand united on certain freedom principles that should be non-negotiable .
It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words : “ We the people.
” In other words , we have the power to make and break the government .
We are the masters and they are the servants .
We the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America ’ s welfare , defense , liberty , laws and prosperity .
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America : The War on the American People , we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far .
Barely .
Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized .
For instance , some argue that we need to make America great again .
I , for one , would prefer to make America free again .
Feature photo | Police detain a woman during the 100th consecutive day of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sept. 5 , 2020 .
Noah Berger | AP Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute .
His new book Battlefield America : The War on the American People ( SelectBooks , 2015 ) is available online at www.amazon.com .
Whitehead can be contacted at johnw @ rutherford.org .

You can map the nearly 20-year journey from the 9/11 attacks to the COVID-19 pandemic by the freedoms we’ve lost along the way.
The road we have been traveling has been littered with the wreckage of our once-vaunted liberties, especially those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.
The assaults on our freedoms that began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act laid the groundwork for the eradication of every vital constitutional safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.
The COVID-19 pandemic with its lockdowns, mask mandates, surveillance, snitch lines for Americans to report their fellow citizens for engaging in risky behavior, and veiled threats of forced vaccinations has merely provided the architects of the American police state with an opportunity to flex their muscles.
These have become mile markers on the road to tyranny.
Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s ongoing war on the American people. In the process, the American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, denied due process, and killed.
What the past 20 years have proven is that the U.S. government poses a greater threat to our individual and collective freedoms and national security than any terrorist, foreign threat or pandemic.
In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, partisan politics, pandemic scares, and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the U.S. government—the government that was supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”—has become the enemy of the people.
Indeed, the U.S. government has grown so corrupt, greedy, power-hungry and tyrannical over the course of the past 240-plus years that our constitutional republic has since given way to an idiocracy, and representative government has given way to a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) and a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens).
Although the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, in America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.
“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.
The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, a viral pandemic), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called name of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.
What we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Sadly, most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.
Here is what it means to live under the Constitution, post-9/11 and in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic.
The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.
Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.
The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered null and void.
The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.
The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.
The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.
The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.
As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts.
If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.
Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to the Deep State—the corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that has set itself beyond the reach of the law and is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House.
This is a government that, in conjunction with its corporate partners, views the citizenry as consumers and bits of data to be bought, sold and traded.
This is a government that spies on and treats its citizens as if they have no right to privacy, especially in their own homes.
This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors.
This is a government that subjects its people to scans, searches, pat downs and other indignities by the TSA and VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes.
This is a government that uses fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement, to track the citizenry’s movements, record their conversations, and catalogue their transactions.
This is a government whose wall-to-wall surveillance has given rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof has been reversed such that Americans are now assumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence.
This is a government that treats its people like second-class citizens who have no rights, and is working overtime to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.
This is a government that uses free speech zones, roving bubble zones and trespass laws to silence, censor and marginalize Americans and restrict their First Amendment right to speak truth to power. The kinds of speech the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation, prosecution and outright elimination include: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, left-wing speech, extremist speech, politically incorrect speech, etc.
This is a government that adopts laws that criminalize Americans for otherwise lawful activities such as holding religious studies at home, growing vegetables in their yard, and collecting rainwater.
This is a government that persists in renewing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely.
This is a government that saddled us with the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.
This is a government that, in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country, has allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a standing army by way of programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police.
This is a government that has militarized American’s domestic police, equipping them with military weapons such as “tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft,” in addition to armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like.
This is a government that has provided cover to police when they shoot and kill unarmed individuals just for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.
This is a government that has allowed private corporations to get rich at taxpayer expense by locking people up in private prisons for non-violent crimes, while providing Corporate America with a source of cheap labor.
This is a government that has created a Constitution-free zone within 100 miles inland of the border around the United States, paving the way for Border Patrol agents to search people’s homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant. Incredibly, nearly 66% of Americans (2/3 of the U.S. population, 197.4 million people) now live within that 100-mile-deep, Constitution-free zone.
This is a government that treats public school students as if they were prison inmates, enforcing zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, failing to teach them their rights under the Constitution, and indoctrinating them with teaching that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing and critical thinking.
This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.
This is a government whose gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.
This is a government that has allowed the presidency to become a dictatorship operating above and beyond the law, regardless of which party is in power.
This is a government that treats dissidents, whistleblowers and freedom fighters as enemies of the state.
This is a government—a warring empire—that forces its taxpayers to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach of the military industrial complex.
This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.
This is a government that allows its agents to break laws with immunity while average Americans get the book thrown at them.
This is a government that speaks in a language of force. What is this language of force? Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.
This is a government that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security, national crises and national emergencies.
This is a government that exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world in order to prop up the military industrial complex and maintain its endless wars abroad.
This is a government that is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.
This is a government that believes it has the authority to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation, the Constitution be damned.
In sum, this is a government that routinely undermines the Constitution and rides roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.
This is not a government that believes in, let alone upholds, freedom.
So where does that leave us?
As always, the first step begins with “we the people.”
Those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them. Our power as a citizenry comes from our ability to agree and stand united on certain freedom principles that should be non-negotiable.
It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.
Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.
Feature photo | Police detain a woman during the 100th consecutive day of demonstrations in Portland, Ore. on Saturday, Sept. 5, 2020. Noah Berger | AP
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].


mintpressnews--2020-09-09--Belarus: A Catalyst for Regime Change and the Peace Alternative

Back in the 1970s , the left , and even many liberals , were clear that Nixon ’ s dropping of napalm on Vietnamese villages was an abomination .
By the 1990s , some thought Bill Clinton ’ s bombing of Yugoslavia was , perhaps , humanitarian .
Fast forward to the present , there is a sentiment that the US has a global “ responsibility to protect ” the less enlightened lands in the name of “ democracy.
” Some on the liberal-left fail to recognize the fallacy of what Jean Bricmont exposes as “ humanitarian imperialism – using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to a peace organization advocating no foreign intervention in the internal affairs of Belarus , a US commentator protested : So , several inevitable questions arise .
What is a dictator ?
Has there been foreign intervention in Belarus ?
Who has the right to intervene ?
And does advocating non-intervention implicitly support a presumptive dictator ?
Opposition elements in Belarus had long planned to use the September 9 presidential election as a catalyst for regime change .
Their main base is with upwardly mobile white-collar professionals .
However , they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of thousands of demonstrators had there not been broad and genuine discontent with President Alexander Lukashenko .
Elements of the opposition leadership in Belarus are partly financed by the European Union and the US and reflect those political interests .
They have adopted the red and white flag , flown during the Nazi occupation .
Their Resuscitation Reform Package , modeled after a nearly identical program for Ukraine , calls for the complete neoliberal privatization of the economy and an alignment with the NATO west .
Exit polls , conducted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral fraud with Lukashenko garnering only 3 % of the vote .
Other observers accepted that Lukashenko won a majority but not by the official count of 80 % .
Golos , a pro-opposition election monitoring organization using data collected by US-backed youth organizations , reported Lukashenko winning with 61.7 % .
BBC News laments that the election in Belarus had “ no independent observers invited.
” Yet there was an election observation delegation from the Commonwealth of Independent States ( CIS ) , which reported the August 9 election “ was open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could freely express their will.
” But the CIS report did not have the kind conclusion or “ independence ” sought by the BBC , itself a quasi-governmental corporation of the British state and funded by a mandatory state levy .
The voices of political tendencies and parties in Belarus and elsewhere in Europe that consider themselves socialist or communist , but are critical of their home governments , are excluded by western media .
Even leftish outlets such as Democracy Now !
follow the flag repeating the US/NATO regime change narrative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laments the “ massive crackdown on any kind of independent reporting ” in Belarus , while serving as an information gatekeeper in the homeland of the empire .
Objectively , no one authoritatively knows the real outcome of the vote .
Being unelected or fraudulently elected is not the only definition of a dictator .
The functional definition for the US government is a leader disloyal to the empire .
Washington considers the democratically elected President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro a dictator .
While Juan Guaidó , who proclaimed himself president of Venezuela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately recognized by the US government , is considered a legitimate head of state .
The monarch of Saudi Arabia is considered legitimate by Washington , even though the ruling House of Saud does not even bother to conduct sham elections .
This is a country where women do not have basic rights , where slavery is practiced , and where those who run afoul with the law are routinely beheaded .
But Saudi Arabia is the largest purchaser of US military equipment in the world , eclipsing the next contender by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saudi monarch is not on the official US list of dictators .
Then there are the leaders chosen and installed by the US after coups , such as Ukraine in 2014 .
There , the US literally handpicked the post-coup leader for Ukraine from a rogue ’ s gallery of neo-Nazis .
Intervention in Belarus by the West The US does not have boots on the ground in Belarus and , so far , has refrained from drone attacks on funerals or wedding parties .
Despite this praiseworthy restraint by the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong to assume that the US is not intervening in Belarus .
A US hybrid warfare program has been in effect since at least 2004 when the US passed the Belarus Democracy Act creating anti-government NGOs in Belarus and prohibiting loans .
Belarus is under unilateral US sanctions , illegal under international law , but justified by a presidential declaration , which bogusly claims a “ national emergency ” because Belarus “ constitute [ s ] an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CIA , states in Orwellian language the US regime change plans for Belarus : [ P ] romote the emergence of a…market-oriented Belarus…USAID works…to stimulate the country ’ s transition to a market-based economy through programs that support…private business .
Such is the imperial mindset that the US brazenly takes upon itself to “ transition ” a supposedly sovereign state into a neoliberal dependency .
The website of the quasi-governmental National Endowment for Democracy ( NED ) , a CIA cutout , lists some three dozen current projects in Belarus for what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online media , civil society , culture , and public discourse .
NED ’ s years of hard work were on display in the media sophistication of the opposition in Belarus .
The runner-up in the Belarus presidential election with 10 % of the official vote , Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya , fled to Lithuania , where she met with US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun .
Although self-described as apolitical with no prior political experience , she proclaimed herself ready to lead Belarus .
Indeed the 37-year-old has all the qualifications for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ English .
On September 4 , she addressed the UN Security Council calling for punishing sanctions on her own people .
The European Union is playing an even more overt role in promoting regime change in Belarus and is planning to extend sanctions .
The openly anti-Semitic government of Poland , with which Belarus shares a border , has an irredentist interest in “ recovering ” portions of the country which were once part of a Polish empire .
Belarus was a Soviet republic , which did not become a sovereign country until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Belarus has strong historical and cultural affinities with its Russian neighbor to the east .
Some 70 % of Belarusians speak Russian at home .
In 2000 , Belarus and Russia established the Union State , a supranational confederation for economic integration and common defense .
The US and the European Union yearn to use the color revolution in Belarus to complete the military occupation of Russia ’ s western border .
Belarus is the last piece in that puzzle now that Latvia and Estonia are in the NATO camp and Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s involvement has largely been in reaction to this hostile military encirclement .
Escalation of tensions only motivates Russia to be more defensive .
The best antidote to Russian intrusion is détente rather than a new cold war .
Besides , the government that the US peace movement can best influence is its own .
The color revolution in Belarus is now stalled and the opposing forces appear to be stalemated .
Without getting into a debate over Lukashenko , the salient question is how the working people of Belarus can best determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 26-year rule of Belarus has degenerated with questionable elections , mismanagement , and corruption .
But the cure could be worse than the disease , as in the case of Libya , especially if it is left up to the tender mercies of the US empire to dictate the new “ democratic ” leader and the form of government to follow .
Belarus has enjoyed a low level of unemployment , public housing , almost no homelessness , and accessible and affordable healthcare and education .
These social welfare factors compare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil disintegration of its neighbors , now drawn into the NATO bloc .
The critical issue is how can the Belarusians defend their gains in a contentious international milieu .
Tony Kevin , the former Australian ambassador to Poland , sums up the current impasse : Regardless of what the security forces might do , Lukashenko could easily be deposed if the workers in the major industrial enterprises went on a wildcat strike .
Some discontented workers have walked off their jobs , but a majority look to the cautionary examples of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeltsin in Russia , and the neo-Nazis in Ukraine .
In those and other examples , state enterprises were sold off at bargain basement prices to new oligarchs and western financiers .
Factory equipment was ransacked , work forces drastically downsized , and labor rights abrogated .
Absent the specter of another US-backed coup like in Ukraine with its severe neoliberal austerity , Lukashenko would likely have been history .
The principle of non-intervention is enshrined in the UN Charter .
There is no unilateral right to intervene into the internal affairs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this fundamental international law is the world ’ s sole superpower .
The consequence , according to the late Uruguayan political analyst Eduardo Galeano has been : “ Every time the US ‘ saves ’ a country , it converts it into either an insane asylum or a cemetery.
” A non-interventionist stance should not be confused with an endorsement of Lukashenko .
Opposing US/NATO interventionism is no more an endorsement of Lukashenko than opposing the invasion of Iraq was an endorsement of Saddam Hussein .
Belarus needs more than the binary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option .
To have that space requires no foreign intervention in Belarus .
For those of us in the US , that means keeping our own government from fishing in troubled waters and letting the people of Belarus decide .
They have the power and don ’ t need to be told what democracy looks like by those of us who will choose between Trump or Biden in November .
Feature photo | A man waves a wooden rifle as opposition supporters gather in front of police line toward the Independence Palace , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minsk , Belarus , Sept. 6 , 2020 .
Photo | AP Roger D. Harris is with the Task Force on the Americas , a human rights group working in solidarity with the social justice movements in Latin America and the Caribbean since 1985 .
Two of his grandparents were from Belarus .

Back in the 1970s, the left, and even many liberals, were clear that Nixon’s dropping of napalm on Vietnamese villages was an abomination. By the 1990s, some thought Bill Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia was, perhaps, humanitarian. Fast forward to the present, there is a sentiment that the US has a global “responsibility to protect” the less enlightened lands in the name of “democracy.” Some on the liberal-left fail to recognize the fallacy of what Jean Bricmont exposes as “humanitarian imperialism – using human rights to sell war.”
In response to a peace organization advocating no foreign intervention in the internal affairs of Belarus, a US commentator protested:
[T]here has been no US intervention in the country. There’s nothing wrong, intrinsically, with external support of democracy. Your support for someone who seems like a bloody dictator is dismaying.”
So, several inevitable questions arise. What is a dictator? Has there been foreign intervention in Belarus? Who has the right to intervene? And does advocating non-intervention implicitly support a presumptive dictator?
A catalyst for regime change
Opposition elements in Belarus had long planned to use the September 9 presidential election as a catalyst for regime change. Their main base is with upwardly mobile white-collar professionals. However, they would have not been able to rally the tens of thousands of demonstrators had there not been broad and genuine discontent with President Alexander Lukashenko.
Elements of the opposition leadership in Belarus are partly financed by the European Union and the US and reflect those political interests. They have adopted the red and white flag, flown during the Nazi occupation. Their Resuscitation Reform Package, modeled after a nearly identical program for Ukraine, calls for the complete neoliberal privatization of the economy and an alignment with the NATO west.
Exit polls, conducted by the opposition, were cited to claim gross electoral fraud with Lukashenko garnering only 3% of the vote. Other observers accepted that Lukashenko won a majority but not by the official count of 80%. Golos, a pro-opposition election monitoring organization using data collected by US-backed youth organizations, reported Lukashenko winning with 61.7%.
BBC News laments that the election in Belarus had “no independent observers invited.” Yet there was an election observation delegation from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which reported the August 9 election “was open and competitive and ensured that Belarus citizens could freely express their will.” But the CIS report did not have the kind conclusion or “independence” sought by the BBC, itself a quasi-governmental corporation of the British state and funded by a mandatory state levy.
The voices of political tendencies and parties in Belarus and elsewhere in Europe that consider themselves socialist or communist, but are critical of their home governments, are excluded by western media. Even leftish outlets such as Democracy Now! follow the flag repeating the US/NATO regime change narrative, without providing alternative views. DN! laments the “massive crackdown on any kind of independent reporting” in Belarus, while serving as an information gatekeeper in the homeland of the empire.
Objectively, no one authoritatively knows the real outcome of the vote.
Definitions of a dictator
Being unelected or fraudulently elected is not the only definition of a dictator. The functional definition for the US government is a leader disloyal to the empire.
Washington considers the democratically elected President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro a dictator. While Juan Guaidó, who proclaimed himself president of Venezuela on a Caracas street corner and was immediately recognized by the US government, is considered a legitimate head of state.
The monarch of Saudi Arabia is considered legitimate by Washington, even though the ruling House of Saud does not even bother to conduct sham elections. This is a country where women do not have basic rights, where slavery is practiced, and where those who run afoul with the law are routinely beheaded. But Saudi Arabia is the largest purchaser of US military equipment in the world, eclipsing the next contender by a factor of 2.6. So, the Saudi monarch is not on the official US list of dictators.
Then there are the leaders chosen and installed by the US after coups, such as Ukraine in 2014. There, the US literally handpicked the post-coup leader for Ukraine from a rogue’s gallery of neo-Nazis.
Intervention in Belarus by the West
The US does not have boots on the ground in Belarus and, so far, has refrained from drone attacks on funerals or wedding parties. Despite this praiseworthy restraint by the world’s sole superpower, it would be wrong to assume that the US is not intervening in Belarus. A US hybrid warfare program has been in effect since at least 2004 when the US passed the Belarus Democracy Act creating anti-government NGOs in Belarus and prohibiting loans.
Belarus is under unilateral US sanctions, illegal under international law, but justified by a presidential declaration, which bogusly claims a “national emergency” because Belarus “constitute[s] an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
The USAID, the above-ground face of the CIA, states in Orwellian language the US regime change plans for Belarus:
[P]romote the emergence of a…market-oriented Belarus…USAID works…to stimulate the country’s transition to a market-based economy through programs that support…private business.
Such is the imperial mindset that the US brazenly takes upon itself to “transition” a supposedly sovereign state into a neoliberal dependency.
The website of the quasi-governmental National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA cutout, lists some three dozen current projects in Belarus for what are euphemistically called strengthening “independent” online media, civil society, culture, and public discourse. NED’s years of hard work were on display in the media sophistication of the opposition in Belarus.
The runner-up in the Belarus presidential election with 10% of the official vote, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, fled to Lithuania, where she met with US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun. Although self-described as apolitical with no prior political experience, she proclaimed herself ready to lead Belarus. Indeed the 37-year-old has all the qualifications for a puppet president, being photogenic and speaking English. On September 4, she addressed the UN Security Council calling for punishing sanctions on her own people.
The European Union is playing an even more overt role in promoting regime change in Belarus and is planning to extend sanctions. The openly anti-Semitic government of Poland, with which Belarus shares a border, has an irredentist interest in “recovering” portions of the country which were once part of a Polish empire.
The Russian legacy
Belarus was a Soviet republic, which did not become a sovereign country until 1990 after the breakup of the USSR. Belarus has strong historical and cultural affinities with its Russian neighbor to the east. Some 70% of Belarusians speak Russian at home. In 2000, Belarus and Russia established the Union State, a supranational confederation for economic integration and common defense.
The US and the European Union yearn to use the color revolution in Belarus to complete the military occupation of Russia’s western border. Belarus is the last piece in that puzzle now that Latvia and Estonia are in the NATO camp and Ukraine is on its way.
Russia’s involvement has largely been in reaction to this hostile military encirclement. Escalation of tensions only motivates Russia to be more defensive. The best antidote to Russian intrusion is détente rather than a new cold war. Besides, the government that the US peace movement can best influence is its own.
The current impasse in Belarus
The color revolution in Belarus is now stalled and the opposing forces appear to be stalemated. Without getting into a debate over Lukashenko, the salient question is how the working people of Belarus can best determine their destiny.
The opposition claims Lukashenko’s 26-year rule of Belarus has degenerated with questionable elections, mismanagement, and corruption. But the cure could be worse than the disease, as in the case of Libya, especially if it is left up to the tender mercies of the US empire to dictate the new “democratic” leader and the form of government to follow.
Belarus has enjoyed a low level of unemployment, public housing, almost no homelessness, and accessible and affordable healthcare and education. These social welfare factors compare favorably to the harsh neoliberal austerity and civil disintegration of its neighbors, now drawn into the NATO bloc. The critical issue is how can the Belarusians defend their gains in a contentious international milieu.
Tony Kevin, the former Australian ambassador to Poland, sums up the current impasse:
Belarus is at risk, because in the Lukashenko political twilight there is confusion and fear: the people have lost their ideological moorings, and there is no coherent national vision as was recovered in Russia under Vladimir Putin starting in 2000. Belarusians hopefully are coming to see the danger they will be in if they depose Lukashenko without knowing what comes after.”
Regardless of what the security forces might do, Lukashenko could easily be deposed if the workers in the major industrial enterprises went on a wildcat strike. Some discontented workers have walked off their jobs, but a majority look to the cautionary examples of the turncoat Solidarity in Poland, the sellout Yeltsin in Russia, and the neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
In those and other examples, state enterprises were sold off at bargain basement prices to new oligarchs and western financiers. Factory equipment was ransacked, work forces drastically downsized, and labor rights abrogated. Absent the specter of another US-backed coup like in Ukraine with its severe neoliberal austerity, Lukashenko would likely have been history.
The peace alternative
The principle of non-intervention is enshrined in the UN Charter. There is no unilateral right to intervene into the internal affairs of another sovereign state. The greatest violator of this fundamental international law is the world’s sole superpower. The consequence, according to the late Uruguayan political analyst Eduardo Galeano has been: “Every time the US ‘saves’ a country, it converts it into either an insane asylum or a cemetery.”
A non-interventionist stance should not be confused with an endorsement of Lukashenko. Opposing US/NATO interventionism is no more an endorsement of Lukashenko than opposing the invasion of Iraq was an endorsement of Saddam Hussein. Belarus needs more than the binary choice of Lukashenko and the failed Ukrainian option. To have that space requires no foreign intervention in Belarus.
For those of us in the US, that means keeping our own government from fishing in troubled waters and letting the people of Belarus decide. They have the power and don’t need to be told what democracy looks like by those of us who will choose between Trump or Biden in November.
Feature photo | A man waves a wooden rifle as opposition supporters gather in front of police line toward the Independence Palace, residence of the President Alexander Lukashenko in Minsk, Belarus, Sept. 6, 2020. Photo | AP
Roger D. Harris is with the Task Force on the Americas, a human rights group working in solidarity with the social justice movements in Latin America and the Caribbean since 1985. Two of his grandparents were from Belarus.