President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of US troops to Portland, Oregon, authorising use of “full force” if needed.

Trump said he was “directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland”.

He claimed that the move would help protect “any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” adding on Truth Social: “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

The announcement drew pushback from Democratic lawmakers, who said there was no need for federal troops to be deployed to the city.

“There is no national security threat in Portland. Our communities are safe and calm,” said Oregon Governor Tina Kotek in a statement, adding that she has asked the Trump administration for further information.

Portland’s mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement that the “number of necessary troops is zero, in Portland and any other American city”.

Saturday’s announcement marks the further expansion of deployment of troops in American cities, amid a wider crackdown by the Trump administration on illegal immigration.

Trump’s post does not specify whether he intends to activate national guard or regular US military. The post also did not specify what is meant by the use of “full force”.

“We stand ready to mobilize U.S. military personnel in support of DHS operations in Portland at the President’s direction,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman, Sean Parnell told the BBC. “The Department will provide information and updates as they become available.”

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland has been targeted by protesters since early June, sometimes leading to violent clashes.

As of 8 September, the US Attorney’s Office had brought federal charges against 26 people for crimes including arson, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that demonstrators had “repeatedly attacked and laid siege to an ICE processing centre” in Portland.

In a post on the social media platform X, the department stated that several individuals had been arrested and charged with federal offences.

“Rose City Antifa, a recently designated domestic terrorist organization, illegally doxed ICE officers. They published their home address online and on public flyers. Individuals associated with Antifa also sent death threats to DHS personnel,” DHS wrote on X.

Earlier this week, Trump signed an order formally designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation.

Antifa, short for “anti-fascist”, is a loosely organised movement of primarily far-left activists.

Legal experts have pointed out that there is no legal mechanism in the US that would formally establish any group as a domestic terror organisation. Such efforts, they said, could face constitutional challenges under the First Amendment, which protects free speech and assembly.

Democratic lawmakers have criticised both the president’s rhetoric and the reported actions of ICE agents in the state.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said on Friday that there were “credible” reports that federal agents “may be replaying the 2020 playbook “, in a reference to federal forces being deployed in response to protests against the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody.

“I urge Oregonians not to fall into Trump’s attempt to incite violence,” Wyden said.

Local lawmakers have also accused ICE of going after people who are not an actual danger to society.

“ICE has said they’re targeting people for arrest and detainment who have committed crimes. That’s what they told us. But that’s not what we are seeing,” said Democratic house representative Suzanne Bonamici on Friday.

Lawmakers cited recent incidents, including the detention of a father outside his child’s preschool and a wildland firefighter who was arrested while battling fires in the Olympic National Forest.

They also pointed to a statistic published by the Cato Institute, a US think tank based in Washington DC, which reported that 65% of people detained by ICE had no criminal convictions.

World Opinions + BBC News

L’article Debate. Trump orders deployment of troops to Portland and authorises ‘full force’.. Video est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Democratic presidential candidate in ‘excellent health’ before November’s US election, doctor says.

United States Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, released a letter from her doctor that pronounced her in “excellent health” and fit for high office, in an effort to draw a contrast with her counterpart, Donald Trump.

As president, I will take on corporate price gouging to lower the cost of groceries.

Donald Trump can’t figure out what groceries are. pic.twitter.com/fhvYsYj9Ep

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 12, 2024

In a memo released on Saturday, physician Joshua Simmons said Harris’s April exam was “unremarkable”, noting her active lifestyle, “very healthy diet”, seasonal allergies, sporadic hives, and moderate alcohol use.

“In summary, Vice President Harris remains in excellent health. She possesses the physical and mental resiliency required to successfully execute the duties of the presidency, to include those as chief executive, head of state and commander in chief,” Simmons wrote.

Donald Trump’s Project 2025 plan will gut Social Security and Medicare. pic.twitter.com/BcmhhA593n

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 9, 2024

Harris, 59, is running against Republican Trump, 78, for the White House in November.

Locked in a tight race, Harris’s campaign hopes that contrasting her comparative youth and mental acuity with Trump’s more advanced age and tendency to meander, along with the differences in transparency between the two, will help convince undecided voters that she is more fit for office than he is.

Simmons said Harris’s allergies had been well-managed with over-the-counter and prescription medications.

Her urticaria, or hives, were “sporadic and transient and do not seem to be triggered by any particular exposure nor are they associated with other symptoms” and respond well to antihistamine treatment.

Harris has been on allergen immunotherapy for the last three years, dramatically improving her allergy and urticaria symptoms and negating her need for medication other than occasional nasal spray, he said.

Trump’s health

Former President Trump questioned President Joe Biden’s health when the 81-year-old president was seeking re-election. Since Biden was replaced on the ticket with Harris, Trump’s own health has drawn more attention.

According to a Harris aide, the vice president made her medical information public on Saturday in an effort to draw attention to Trump’s refusal to do so.

Trump has released very little health information, including after his ear was grazed by a bullet during an assassination attempt in July.

Last November, Trump marked Biden’s birthday by releasing a letter from his physician that reported the former president was in “excellent” physical and mental health.

The letter posted on Trump’s social media platform contained no details to support its claims – measures like weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels, or the results of any test.

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article Kamala Harris releases medical report, drawing contrast with Donald Trump est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

En marge de la convention démocrate à Chicago, des milliers d’Américains ont manifesté pour réclamer un cessez-le-feu à Gaza. Entre le vote juif d’une part, le vote arabe et musulman de l’autre, la guerre à Gaza constitue un jeu d’équilibriste électoral pour la candidate démocrate, Kamala Harris.

La grand-messe démocrate se poursuit, mardi 20 août à Chicago, alors que la convention doit officialiser jeudi soir la candidature de Kamala Harris à l’élection présidentielle. La vice-présidente de Joe Biden incarne un immense espoir pour des millions d’Américains, celui de battre dans les urnes en novembre le candidat républicain Donald Trump.

Mais sur les bords du lac Michigan, l’euphorie des uns doit composer avec la colère des autres. Lundi, des milliers de personnes ont manifesté pour dénoncer – notamment – le soutien de l’administration Biden-Harris à la guerre menée par Israël contre le Hamas dans la bande de Gaza.

“Ces manifestants ont des arguments à faire valoir. Beaucoup de personnes innocentes ont été tuées, des deux côtés”, a concédé le président Joe Biden, qui est monté sur scène lundi soir pour réitérer son soutien à Kamala Harris.

Une situation “inédite”

Éloigné de la citadelle américaine, le conflit israélo-palestinien a longtemps occupé une place mineure parmi les préoccupations de la société civile. Aujourd’hui pourtant, le sujet est largement abordé dans la campagne. “C’est absolument inédit dans l’histoire de notre pays”, estime Sara Yael Hirschhorn, historienne américaine, professeure à l’université de Haïfa (Israël).

À Chicago, de retour d’une manifestation pour un cessez-le-feu à Gaza, Arielle, 29 ans, confie à France 24 son rêve : “Un monde où nous serions tous libres et en sécurité, de Chicago à la Palestine.” Cette juive américaine exige de ses dirigeants un embargo sur les livraisons d’armes à l’armée israélienne. “C’est désormais la seule solution concrète pour parvenir à une paix durable au Moyen-Orient, spécifiquement à Gaza, et à un monde plus sûr pour tous.”

Pour Sara Yael Hirschhorn, cette position ne reflète pas la perception majoritaire chez les juifs américains – environ 7,5 millions de personnes, soit 2 % de la population. Mais dans ce pays allié d’Israël, des organisations juives – telles que Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) – qui manifestent parfois aux côtés de Palestino-Américains pour réclamer la fin des combats à Gaza attirent les caméras du monde.

“Autrefois incontesté, le soutien à Israël est de plus en plus remis en question, au sein de l’électorat démocrate comme dans les rangs du parti”, commente Sara Yael Hirschhorn.

À près de 10 000 kilomètres des combats, les États-Unis restent un acteur majeur du conflit déclenché dans la bande de Gaza après les massacres du Hamas sur le sol Israélien le 7 octobre 2023. Hyperactifs dans l’arène diplomatique, ils continuent de livrer à Israël armes et munitions.

Des livraisons sans lesquelles l’État hébreu serait contraint d’arrêter sa guerre “dès demain”, assurent les experts contactés par France 24.

La riposte israélienne a ôté – selon le ministère de la Santé du Hamas – plus de 40 000 vies palestiniennes. Malgré l’indignation qu’elle suscite au sein d’une partie de la jeunesse juive, la communauté – acquise aux démocrates de longue date – devrait voter à 75 % pour Kamala Harris, prédit prudemment Sara Yael Hirschhorn, elle-même issue d’une famille juive américaine.

L’adhésion arabe et musulmane fragilisée par Gaza

Un autre électorat pourrait se détourner – plus dangereusement pour les démocrates – du duo Harris-Walz. Si les Américains originaires du Moyen-Orient et d’Afrique du Nord ont rejoint le camp démocrate depuis les guerres lancées par l’administration George W. Bush en Irak puis en Afghanistan, ce qui est perçu comme le soutien de Joe Biden à Israël dans la guerre à Gaza a fragilisé l’adhésion arabo-américaine.

“Certains membres de notre communauté ont travaillé dur pour faire élire Joe Biden en 2020 et se sentent maintenant trahis”, témoigne auprès de l’AFP Souzan Naser, d’origine palestinienne, qui a grandi dans la banlieue de Chicago.

Dans un sondage réalisé par le New York Times mi-mai, plus de 70 % de cet électorat affirmait alors que la situation à Gaza représentait leur principale priorité électorale.

Si certains Américains d’ascendance arabe ou de religion musulmane se tournent vers Donald Trump, le désaveu de nombre d’autres vis-à-vis de l’administration Biden-Harris pourrait surtout se traduire par de l’abstention.

“Ils n’auront pas notre vote cette année, et nous ne voulons pas qu’ils soient élus, parce que ce qui se passe (à Gaza) est mal, et nous ne tolérons pas cela”, assurait lundi Ali Ibrahim, 20 ans et d’origine palestinienne, croisé par l’AFP à Bridgeview. La ville, située à une vingtaine de kilomètres de Chicago et surnommée “Little Palestine”, abrite la plus grande communauté palestinienne des États-Unis.

Au niveau national, les communautés issues d’Afrique du Nord et du Moyen-Orient représentent 3,5 millions de personnes, soit seulement 1 % de la population totale du pays.

Un électorat crucial dans les États-clés

Le système fédéral américain fait de ces communautés un électorat crucial dans certains États-clés, les “swing states”. Comme dans le Michigan, où la minorité arabo-américaine, forte de quelque 310 000 électeurs, représente environ 5,6 % des personnes appelées aux urnes dans cet État du Midwest.

Ces considérations ont vraisemblablement pesé dans la décision de Kamala Harris de ne pas prendre Josh Shapiro sur le ticket démocrate : “Un candidat juif et sioniste n’aurait pas été attrayant dans certains États-clés”, selon Sara Yael Hirschhorn. Jugé trop proche d’Israël par ses détracteurs, le gouverneur de Pennsylvanie, apparu un temps comme un candidat crédible pour la vice-présidence, avait finalement été écarté au profit de Tim Walz.

Au début du mois, Kamala Harris a par ailleurs rencontré Abdullah Hammoud, le maire de Dearborn, dans la banlieue de Détroit. En janvier, ce jeune cadre du Parti démocrate avait attiré l’attention médiatique en refusant de rencontrer les responsables de la campagne de Joe Biden. “Le génocide (à Gaza) pèse plus lourd que l’impact de la politique intérieure de Biden”, assurait le Libano-Américain.

“Dans la discrétion, Kamala Harris courtise évidemment le vote musulman, tente de toucher cette communauté, et d’en comprendre les revendications”, note l’historienne Sara Yael Hirschhorn.

Le 26 juillet, lors de la venue du Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu au Congrès américain, Kamala Harris avait fait une promesse : ne pas rester “silencieuse” face aux souffrances des civils dans l’enclave palestinienne. La vice-présidente avait alors insisté sur la nécessité de conclure un accord de paix sans tarder.

Jusqu’où la candidate démocrate pourrait-elle aller dans ses promesses de campagne ? Face à la menace qu’incarne Donald Trump, le duo Harris-Walz “n’a qu’un objectif : la victoire”, souligne Sara Yael Hirschhorn. “S’ils estiment qu’ils doivent adopter des positions plus propalestiniennes pour gagner, alors ils le feront.”

World Opinions + Agences

L’article La guerre à Gaza et le vote des Américains, un casse-tête pour Kamala Harris.. Vidéo est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Democrats returned to the Capitol on Friday deeply divided but determined to make progress on Joe Biden’s ambitious economic vision after an embarrassing setback delayed a planned vote on a related $1tn measure to improve the nation’s infrastructure.

A vote on the $1tn bipartisan infrastructure bill was delayed late on Thursday night despite a promise by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to centrists that she would bring it to the floor.

The move represented a victory for progressives who were unwavering in their threat to vote against the public-works bill unless they received firm commitments that Biden’s $3.5tn social and environmental package will also pass.

The wrangling between the White House, Senate and House resumed on Friday, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, said, insisting that “we are closer to an agreement than ever”.

But Thursday’s stalemate after long hours of negotiation exposed deep ideological fractures in the party, which holds razor-thin majorities in both chambers and can expect little support from Republicans.

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia has proposed a spending package of about $1.5tn – less than half the size of the proposal put forward by the president and Democratic leaders. Another Democratic centrist, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, declined to say whether she agreed with Manchin’s proposal.

Unlike the debate over Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation a decade ago, progressives appear to be more closely aligned with the president and able to flex their political muscles. On Thursday they were united in making the case that centrists are now in the minority.

Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told the MSNBC network: “Four per cent of all the Democrats in the House and Senate are blocking the Build Back Better Act from passing. Ninety-six per cent agree with us.”

The point was echoed by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and others on the party’s emboldened left flank as they sought to overturn frequent media narratives that progressives are holding up the Biden agenda.

Meanwhile Manchin, Sinema and House centrists such as Josh Gottheimer seemed increasingly isolated as their hopes of passing the infrastructure deal alone slipped away.

Varshini Prakash, executive director of Sunrise Movement, a youth group fighting the climate crisis, said: “Tonight, we are so proud of progressives for holding the line. But let’s be clear, progressives are not the ones delaying the vote – Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are.”

Thursday’s delay could anger moderates and cause further infighting that puts Biden’s agenda at risk. Earlier this week Stephanie Murphy, a congresswoman from Florida, warned: “If the vote were to fail or be delayed, there would be a significant breach of trust.”

Republicans who had supported the infrastructure bill in the Senate also acknowledged the setback. Senators Rob Portman, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney said in a joint statement: “While we are disappointed the House of Representatives did not meet its deadline to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, we remain hopeful the House will come together in a spirit of bipartisanship just as the Senate did and pass this important piece of legislation.

“This bill is critically important to modernizing and upgrading everything from our roads and bridges to broadband and increasing the resiliency of the nation’s electrical grid.”

Both pieces of legislation are critical to Biden’s economic vision. While he has staked his domestic agenda – and his legacy – on a $3.5tn social policy package, he invested precious political capital in courting Republicans to support the infrastructure bill, part of a campaign promise to usher in a new era of bipartisanship in Congress. The bill passed the Senate in August, with 19 Republican votes and great fanfare.

But the spirit of bipartisanship dissipated quickly. In the House, Republican leaders lobbied members to vote against the bipartisan bill, forcing Democrats to come up with the votes on their own. Republicans are unified in opposition to the president’s broader spending-and-tax plan.

In a statement on Friday, the Republican senator Mitt Romney, who voted for the infrastructure bill, called the delay a “profound disappointment”.

“It is unacceptable that a major piece of bipartisan legislation, which is vital to our economy and necessary to keep important transportation programs going, is being held hostage by the most extreme House Democrats for a completely unrelated and still unwritten piece of legislation. What a profound disappointment, and how unfortunate to put politics over what is good for our country,” he said.

The House is scheduled to leave Washington at the end of this week for a two-week recess but this could be delayed if no deal has been reached. Congress must also find a way to raise the debt ceiling to avoid the US defaulting for the first time in its history.

By David Smith and Lauren Gambino in Washington – theguardian.com

L’article Democrats return to Capitol for crunch talks on Biden agenda after setback est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

On January 6, as the two chambers of Congress convened to count Electoral College votes and officially certify Joe Biden as the president-elect of the United States, a violent mob stormed the US Capitol in support of President Donald Trump and his false allegation that the presidential contest was “stolen” through voter fraud.

Carrying Confederate flags and wearing red “Make America Great Again” hats, hundreds of rioters broke through barricades, smashed windows and entered congressional offices and chambers. After wreaking havoc on the very heart of American democracy and live-streaming their unlawful actions on social media for several hours, the rioters left the Capitol with ease, with only a few dozen of them being detained. Some even carried “souvenirs” with them as they walked out.

So where were the mighty US security forces during this unprecedented domestic terror attack? How did a bunch of violent white supremacists manage to breach a high-security federal building, defile the “seat of American democracy”, threaten the lives of some of America’s highest-ranking elected representatives, and leave without facing any real resistance from the police?

The authorities tried to explain their failure to swiftly secure the Capitol and detain those responsible for the attack by claiming that they were “underprepared” and did not have the necessary resources at their service to keep the angry mob under control. They said their officers were simply “overwhelmed”.

These excuses did not sit well with anyone who watched the US security forces clamp down on last year’s racial justice protests, which were overwhelmingly peaceful, using not only excessive force but also seemingly limitless resources.

On June 1, when Black Lives Matter demonstrators peacefully gathered near the White House to demand an end to impunity for the police killing of Black Americans, for example, the US security forces were neither “underprepared” nor “overwhelmed”.

They charged on the mostly Black crowd, situated almost a block away from the White House, with a large force made up of Washington police, US Park Police, National Guard troops, and members of other federal agencies. Army helicopters swooped low over the heads of protesters, forcing them to disperse. And when Trump wanted to stage a photo op outside a church across the street, officers used tear gas, batons and horses to quickly clear the president’s way.

That day, 289 Black Lives Matter protesters were arrested. The protesters never even came close to breaching the White House and were doing nothing other than exercising their First Amendment right to protest, but nonetheless, they faced the full force of US law enforcement.

In the following days, as Black Lives Matter protests gathered steam across the country, the National Guard from several states were deployed to Washington, DC to guard federal buildings and public monuments. They stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in full military gear in an ironic show of force against thousands of peaceful protesters calling for racialised police brutality to come to an end. Meanwhile, federal police patrolled the streets of the capital without nameplates or badges. Some 14,000 arrests were made across 49 US cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to The Washington Post.

The very same security forces that cracked down on overwhelmingly peaceful racial justice protests with such “efficiency” just a few months ago, however, were not able (or willing) to defend the US Capitol against a relatively small mob on January 6.

Moreover, last week’s riot did not come as a surprise to anyone, let alone the security agencies who had months ago warned that “white supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the US”. White supremacist groups and individuals who led the attack on the Capitol advertised their plans for violence on social media for everyone to see long before they travelled to Washington, DC.

The day before the riot, the FBI issued a report warning of a violent “war” at the US Capitol, which authorities did not heed or take seriously. Meanwhile, President Trump himself proclaimed January 6 a day of reckoning and urged his supporters to come to the Capitol on that day to help him overturn the election. “Big protest in DC on January 6th,” he tweeted on December 19, “Be there, will be wild!”

Nevertheless, as the images of a handful of officers unsuccessfully trying to keep the angry crowds behind a few light-weight barriers outside the Capitol building clearly demonstrated, the US security apparatus was neither prepared nor overly eager to get this riot under control.

Why did security forces treat Black Lives Matter protesters and pro-Trump rioters so differently?

Because the storming of the Capitol was not only about overturning the election but also maintaining white supremacy in an increasingly diverse America. This was evident in most rioters carrying not only pro-Trump insignia but also confederate flags and neo-Nazi emblems as they ransacked congressional offices and chambers.

As law enforcement itself has a long history of acting as a tool for maintaining white power in America, the security forces are not inclined to see overwhelmingly white, nationalist groups as threats. So while they are always prepared to crush even the most peaceful protests led by Americans of colour, they are often reluctant to intervene with force when white Americans, who they view as their primary supporters and benefactors, resort to unlawfulness and violence to preserve their privilege.

Indeed, social media footage from the Capitol riot show not only that the authorities failed to take the threat posed by the pro-Trump white nationalist gathering seriously, but also that some of the officers on the ground viewed the rioters as allies. Several officers were filmed joking, shaking hands or taking selfies with the rioters inside the Capitol building. One officer allegedly donned a MAGA hat and directed the pro-Trump mob around the Capitol building. According to The New York Times, another officer tried to direct rioters to the office of  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

There were also numerous off-duty police officers, military veterans and other security personnel actively participating in the riots in a personal capacity. Larry Rendall Brock Jr, a retired air force lieutenant colonel, for example, was pictured wearing combat gear and carrying zip-tie handcuffs in the Senate chamber. Ashli Babbitt, the woman who was shot and killed as she was trying to breach a barricaded door in Congress, was also an air force veteran.

Two Seattle police officers who allegedly travelled to Washington, DC to participate in Trump’s Stop the Steal “rally” were put on administrative leave so it can be determined whether they took part in the consequent riots. In the coming days, as we learn more about the rioters, we will most certainly hear many more stories of officers and other security personnel actively participating in, or at least voicing their support for, this attack on American democracy.

The police’s subdued and inefficient response to and tacit support for the Capitol riot was not an isolated incident. American police have long been treating white vigilantes who resort to violence to maintain white supremacy and suppress movements for racial justice with kid gloves. This is why far-right vigilantes felt emboldened enough to threaten and violently assault Black Lives Matter protesters hundreds of times in the last year. And this is why Kyle Rittenhouse was not immediately arrested after opening fire on anti-racist protesters in Kenosha.

The police support for angry white mobs targeting Americans of colour did not start during the Trump presidency either. Throughout US history, the police often either tacitly approved or actively participated in racist mob violence against Black Americans.

During the deadly New Orleans race riots in 1900, for example, as journalist Ida B Wells-Barnett explains, “The police and the legally constituted authorities showed plainly where their sympathies were, for in no case reported through the daily papers does there appear the arrest, trial and conviction of one of the mob for any of the brutalities which occurred. The ringleaders of the mob were at no time disguised.”

In 1898, when a mob of 400 white supremacists staged a coup against the local government of Wilmington, North Carolina, the police once again did nothing to stop the attack which resulted in dozens of deaths, or bring the perpetrators to justice.

In 1921, a white mob decimated the thriving Black community of Tulsa, Oklahoma, massacring hundreds, destroying homes and businesses and leaving thousands homeless. Bombs were dropped from aeroplanes on what was known as Black Wall Street in what is now considered the first aerial bombing of a US city. Despite all this, the local police and the National Guard did nothing to protect the victims or hold those responsible to account.

Decades later, in 1985, the second aerial bombing of a US city took place, and the target was once again Black Americans. The Philadelphia police bombed a home occupied by the Black radical group MOVE, killing 11 people, including five children, and burning a city block of 61 homes to the ground, leaving more than 250 homeless. Despite two grand jury investigations, a civil suit, and a commission report that defined the bombing as “reckless, ill-conceived, and hastily-approved”, no one was ever criminally charged for the attack.

So there is no reason to wonder why the police failed to secure the Capitol on January 6. The American police are efficient and ready to crush any dissent with excessive force – but only when the perpetrators are Black. In the land of the free, police afford white terrorists more respect than peaceful Black protesters, and this is an outrage.

David A Love – Philadelphia-based freelance journalist, commentator and media studies professor.

L’article The Capitol riot exposed police double standards est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

To understand what’s going on at the Capitol today as the House considers impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time, it’s helpful to look at a bit of recent history.

Throughout much of 2009, progressives watched in deep frustration as President Barack Obama and his allies kept chasing bipartisan buy-in for the massive health care law under consideration in Washington. Democrats, against all realism, thought they might be able to win over some Republican colleagues through the merits of the legislation, the political upsides of getting onboard or even personal affinity.

Democrats included a stunning 188 concessions to Republicans, including allowing small businesses to band together to increase their negotiating power and forcing members of Congress to use it as their provider. White House negotiators spent hours monitoring the bipartisan Gang of Six in the Senate, chasing a way to get Republican buy-in. The genuine friendship between Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Bachus and top Republican Chuck Grassley led to some fun conversations about how to structure this part or that to make a deal less toxic to Republicans.

In the end, though, Republicans never got to yes. Grassley started talking about “death panels” and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled that the future of lawmakers in his chamber hinged on toeing the line on this major vote. In the end, Obamacare became law without any meaningful Republican support.

In Washington, there are few lines as strong as a critique of a bill that “passed without a single vote from the other party.” It means the result was entirely one-sided — and it gives the other party implicit permission to scrap it as soon as it gets a majority. (One GOP House member, after the bill passed, cast his vote in support of Obamacare.) The 2009 economic stimulus package also passed without a single vote in the House, as did the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, which attracted zero GOP yays in the House. Taken together, they all all served to unify Republicans to start to tear down the laws’— and Obama’s — legitimacy.

But there’s another, possibly equal power to be harnessed. Let’s call it the Power of Non-Zero. Even a few votes in support of a piece of opposition-led legislation insulates it from total demonization, for to call it evil incarnate and corrupt at its core implies members of your own tribe betrayed your common sense of values. Want to neutralize your critics? Hire their best friends.

It’s why on questions of national importance, you usually see lawmakers reach across the aisle, even if they have the numbers they need to get something passed. President George W. Bush and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy were about as different as they came, but found common ground on education with No Child Left Behind. A year later, when it came time for Bush to get the greenlight for wars in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, Bush’s White House lobbied for a bipartisan resolution. In the end, only one member of the House voted against Afghanistan and no Senators joined Rep. Barbara Lee in doing so. When it came to Iraq, roughly 40% of House Democrats backed it, and 60% of Senate Democrats did the same.

If you want to do big, durable things in Washington, you seldom can do it along party lines.

Which brings us to today, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to set in motion Trump’s second impeachment. A little more than a year ago, the House voted in favor of his first impeachment in a pretty straight, party-line vote. No Republicans in the House voted for it, and only Sen. Mitt Romney was willing to cross the President. Romney cast his vote to convict only on one of the two charges.

Now, you’re starting to see the floodgates break. Most significantly, Rep. Liz Cheney, a member of her party’s Leadership team, isn’t whipping votes away from Pelosi. She’s calling it a “vote of conscience,” meaning members can do what they think is best, and on Tuesday evening said she would be voting for impeachment. “There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the President,” she said.

In the Senate, Republican lawmakers like Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney have also been urging Trump to resign. It would take a massive flood of GOP defections to convict and remove Trump from office, though it might be possible. The rift between Establishment Republicans and the White House clearly is agape. But getting to the necessary 67 votes required in the upper chamber has always been tough, and purposefully so.

Ultimately, it doesn’t seem that enough Republicans in the Senate will defect, at least not right now. But that may not matter. The measure already has the Power of Not-Zero behind it, which may ultimately be what tells Trump that his career in politics is over next week.

World Opinions News – time.com

L’article Republicans Are Breaking Ranks on Impeachment. That’s Good for Democrats — and Bad for Trump est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

On global issues from climate change, to non-proliferation and human rights, the US under the Trump administration had literally gathered up its papers and pens and left the meeting room. Biden’s election victory and choice of committed internationalists to lead the foreign policy team, means that there will actually be someone sitting in what has been an empty chair.

“There’s a lot of relief that we’re going to have a much more normal US to deal with,” said Richard Gowan, the UN director at the International Crisis Group. “It has been symptomatic of US diplomacy in the last couple of years that other countries have really struggled to get a clear picture of what US policies are at times on issues like Libya or Yemen.”

Gowan said one of the many clear winners on the world stage from Biden’s win is the UN secretary general, António Guterres, who has spent four years straining to make nice with Donald Trump to prevent the outgoing president from pulling the plug altogether on US involvement in, and funding for, UN agencies.

“Now there’s a lot of talk that Guterres is preparing to put out lots of big ideas next year about fighting inequality, speeding up the fight against climate change, and really try to get the UN back into the centre of global conversation.”

How a slogan as all-encompassing as “America is Back” is received around the world will inevitably be a Rorschach test for what is perceived to be the “real America” that has been absent in the past four years.

In the liberal democracies in Europe, the general hope and expectation from Biden’s language and demeanour is that the America being restored includes all the best features from the past – with an added dose of humility.

“‘America is Back’ means something very different than if George W Bush had said it, or even if Obama had said it in the context,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller, a senior fellow at the centre on the US and Europe at the Brookings Institution. “And this means that this is a different kind of America – not a rapacious America First at whatever price, but one that makes a very sober assessment of its options and limitations of power.”

The clear lack of US popular support for adventurism in foreign support – which was effectively channeled by Trump – the failures in Libya, Yemen and Syria, and the loss of relative power and prestige of the past four years, suggest that the country returning to the world stage is a chastened America.

“I think that Obama was still able to assume that America had almost unlimited power, and therefore had sovereign choices to make about international engagement, and about the way it dealt with authoritarian rivals,” Stelzenmüller said. “I think the huge difference with this administration is going to be a distinct understanding of limitations – domestic and foreign. And that puts an entirely new value on allies, and also gives allies a great deal of power.”

Some leaders and governments were clearly quite happy with the America that has been evident in the Trump era – none more than the Gulf monarchs and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. They are now making common cause to try to block a US return to pre-Trump policies, particularly the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

“A lot of these regimes were extremely fond of the Trump administration, for a variety of reasons,” said Khaled Elgindy, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “Obviously the posture towards Iran is one issue, but also the kind of laissez-faire attitude toward human rights and rule of law is another reason I think a lot of these authoritarians especially are going to really miss the Donald Trump era.”

It is not just the world’s autocracies who are apprehensive about the “America is Back” slogan. For some longstanding critics of US foreign policy, the very idea of a golden age to which the next administration can return, is a delusion.

For those sceptics, much will depend on whether the Biden foreign policy team, who are familiar faces from the Obama era, will aspire to a restoration or to a fundamental rethink.

“I think the big question – given that Biden is basically putting the Obama band back together – is did they learn anything from the previous eight years they had in power, which was not a stunning success in lots of respects?” asked Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

“Have they acquired a greater sense of realism about what American foreign policy can accomplish and what American power can do?”

By Julian Borger in Washington – theguardian.com

L’article Biden says ‘America is back’ at the head of the table – but is that a good thing? est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.