Black Leaders Discussion feat. Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael/Kwame Ture & Fannie Lou Hamer ETC.(1973)
•Jul 21, 2019
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Politicians Tell Trump To Go Back To The Bunker After His Threat To ‘Take Back’ Seattle
Ed Mazza HuffPost June 11, 2020
President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to “take back” Seattle from protesters, tweeting that “ugly anarchists must be stooped.” In response, state and local politicians told him to go back to his bunker beneath the White House ― and keep out of local business.
Seattle had been marked by violent clashes with police amid the demonstrations that broke out after a cop killed George Floyd, a Black man, in Minneapolis last month. But earlier this week, Seattle police left the area and demonstrators took over, cordoning off several blocks which they’ve declared the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” or “CHAZ,” now the site of peaceful ongoing protests.
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan (D) said the police pullback was done “to proactively de-escalate interactions between protestors and law enforcement.” But Trump was unhappy with the move even though it ― at least temporarily ― worked. He tweeted:
Radical Left Governor @JayInslee and the Mayor of Seattle are being taunted and played at a level that our great Country has never seen before. Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will. This is not a game.
These ugly Anarchists must be stooped (SP) IMMEDIATELY. MOVE FAST!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2020
ANARCHIST STOOPED WALK
As far as I know, this is the first time that the "Walk this Way" gag appeared in any film or video. It's from the 1936 movie, "After the Thin Man", which starred William Powell and Myrna Loy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoMmn31q-d0
MARXIST VERSION
WALK LIKE GROUCHO
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2020
ANARCHIST STOOPED WALK
As far as I know, this is the first time that the "Walk this Way" gag appeared in any film or video. It's from the 1936 movie, "After the Thin Man", which starred William Powell and Myrna Loy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoMmn31q-d0
MARXIST VERSION
WALK LIKE GROUCHO
This special new series about the Marx Brothers in New York continues this week, following the brothers into a career in Broadway and into the movies, but first I would like to take a little time to discuss Groucho's peculiar way of walking. Sometimes described as a "lope" or "stoop," Groucho's silly and often lecherous walk became just as an important part of his persona as his glasses, eyebrows, cigar and greasepaint moustache. He didn't walk this walk all the time, but as you recall from the films, Groucho would often bend his knees and lean forward as he proceeded from point A to point B. To imitate Groucho properly at a costume party, it's important to get this part down.
https://walkingoffthebigapple.blogspot.com/2009/06/marx-brothers-in-new-york-interlude-on.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn1JUCFobBM
Domestic Terrorists have taken over Seattle, run by Radical Left Democrats, of course. LAW & ORDER!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2020
Durkan fired back by referring to the White House bunker Trump was rushed to as demonstrations broke out in D.C.:
Make us all safe. Go back to your bunker. #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/H3TXduhlY4
— Mayor Jenny Durkan (@MayorJenny) June 11, 2020
Trump claimed he was only inspecting the bunker when Secret Service agents rushed him there as protesters gathered outside the White House at the end of May. However, earlier this week, Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed that the president was taken to the bunker for his own safety.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who represents Seattle in Congress, also made a reference to the bunker incident:
Don’t you have a bunker to be in? https://t.co/pywCiDfCml
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) June 11, 2020
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who has clashed with Trump repeatedly over the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, also told the president to butt out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn1JUCFobBM
Domestic Terrorists have taken over Seattle, run by Radical Left Democrats, of course. LAW & ORDER!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2020
Durkan fired back by referring to the White House bunker Trump was rushed to as demonstrations broke out in D.C.:
Make us all safe. Go back to your bunker. #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/H3TXduhlY4
— Mayor Jenny Durkan (@MayorJenny) June 11, 2020
Trump claimed he was only inspecting the bunker when Secret Service agents rushed him there as protesters gathered outside the White House at the end of May. However, earlier this week, Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed that the president was taken to the bunker for his own safety.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who represents Seattle in Congress, also made a reference to the bunker incident:
Don’t you have a bunker to be in? https://t.co/pywCiDfCml
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) June 11, 2020
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who has clashed with Trump repeatedly over the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, also told the president to butt out:
A man who is totally incapable of governing should stay out of Washington state’s business. “Stoop” tweeting. https://t.co/O6i04qmZ9v
— Jay Inslee (@JayInslee) June 11, 2020
This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
New arms race taking shape amid a pandemic and economic crisis. What could go wrong?
James Kitfield
Contributor,
Yahoo News•June 6, 2020
New arms race taking shape amid a pandemic and economic crisis
James Kitfield
Contributor,
Yahoo News•June 6, 2020
New arms race taking shape amid a pandemic and economic crisis
Three decades after the Cold War ended without a long-feared nuclear cataclysm, arms control experts are starting to think the sigh of relief heard around the world then might have been premature.
In recent weeks Russian fighter aircraft intercepted U.S. strategic bombers and surveillance planes over the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean, in one case risking a midair collision. At the same time, Moscow tested a new missile capable of destroying U.S. satellites. China recently closed its authoritarian grip around Hong Kong, threatened to “smash” any formal independence move on the part of Taiwan and announced an unprecedented show of military force with an amphibious landing exercise in the South China Sea this summer that neighbors worry could foreshadow a military incursion. For its part, the Pentagon recently test-fired a new “hypersonic” missile and reportedly increased strategic bomber flights on Russia’s periphery. The Trump administration knocked down another arms control pillar by rejecting the Open Skies Treaty and raised the idea of resuming nuclear weapons testing for the first time in nearly three decades.
During much of the Cold War, tensions between nuclear-armed superpowers were kept in check by an architecture of military de-confliction agreements, open communication channels and nuclear arms control and verification treaties erected over decades. But today’s world bears an unsettling resemblance to the early years of the Cold War, when missteps like the Korean War, Berlin Blockade and Cuban Missile Crisis pushed the major powers to the brink.
In recent weeks Russian fighter aircraft intercepted U.S. strategic bombers and surveillance planes over the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean, in one case risking a midair collision. At the same time, Moscow tested a new missile capable of destroying U.S. satellites. China recently closed its authoritarian grip around Hong Kong, threatened to “smash” any formal independence move on the part of Taiwan and announced an unprecedented show of military force with an amphibious landing exercise in the South China Sea this summer that neighbors worry could foreshadow a military incursion. For its part, the Pentagon recently test-fired a new “hypersonic” missile and reportedly increased strategic bomber flights on Russia’s periphery. The Trump administration knocked down another arms control pillar by rejecting the Open Skies Treaty and raised the idea of resuming nuclear weapons testing for the first time in nearly three decades.
During much of the Cold War, tensions between nuclear-armed superpowers were kept in check by an architecture of military de-confliction agreements, open communication channels and nuclear arms control and verification treaties erected over decades. But today’s world bears an unsettling resemblance to the early years of the Cold War, when missteps like the Korean War, Berlin Blockade and Cuban Missile Crisis pushed the major powers to the brink.
Xi Jinping, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: AP (3), Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)
“I think we have forgotten some lessons of the Cold War, one of which was that the more tensions you have in international relations, and the greater the level of crisis, the more likely it is that a mistake or miscalculation on either side will lead to a catastrophic error,” said former Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn, D-Ga., currently co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nuclear nonproliferation group. The United States, China and Russia are aggressively modernizing their nuclear weapons arsenals to incorporate new types of weapons such as hypersonic missiles, which travel many times the speed of sound, thwarting existing missile defense systems and shrinking reaction times, and low-yield nuclear warheads, more likely to be used on a battlefield, he noted. But there is little serious consideration of how those changes will affect the delicate calculus of nuclear deterrence. Nor have the major nuclear powers agreed on constraints on cyberattacks that can wreak havoc on early warning and command-and-control systems for nuclear weapons, greatly increasing the danger of a mishap.
“At a time like this I also don’t understand the Trump administration’s strategy in throwing out arms control treaties like the INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] and the Open Skies treaties, when they don’t seem to have a ‘Plan B’ for filling that big vacuum in arms control and verification,” said Nunn. “So I think we’re moving into a new era where the risk of a catastrophic miscalculation or mistake involving nuclear weapons is much higher.”
Even before the coronavirus pandemic and the attendant economic free fall, major power relations were trending dangerously toward confrontation. In annexing Crimea in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin redrew the boundaries of Europe by military force for the first time since World War II. Putin’s subsequent backing of separatist rebels in Ukraine, military intervention and war crimes in Syria, and interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election have only worsened relations with the U.S.
“I think we have forgotten some lessons of the Cold War, one of which was that the more tensions you have in international relations, and the greater the level of crisis, the more likely it is that a mistake or miscalculation on either side will lead to a catastrophic error,” said former Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn, D-Ga., currently co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nuclear nonproliferation group. The United States, China and Russia are aggressively modernizing their nuclear weapons arsenals to incorporate new types of weapons such as hypersonic missiles, which travel many times the speed of sound, thwarting existing missile defense systems and shrinking reaction times, and low-yield nuclear warheads, more likely to be used on a battlefield, he noted. But there is little serious consideration of how those changes will affect the delicate calculus of nuclear deterrence. Nor have the major nuclear powers agreed on constraints on cyberattacks that can wreak havoc on early warning and command-and-control systems for nuclear weapons, greatly increasing the danger of a mishap.
“At a time like this I also don’t understand the Trump administration’s strategy in throwing out arms control treaties like the INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] and the Open Skies treaties, when they don’t seem to have a ‘Plan B’ for filling that big vacuum in arms control and verification,” said Nunn. “So I think we’re moving into a new era where the risk of a catastrophic miscalculation or mistake involving nuclear weapons is much higher.”
Even before the coronavirus pandemic and the attendant economic free fall, major power relations were trending dangerously toward confrontation. In annexing Crimea in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin redrew the boundaries of Europe by military force for the first time since World War II. Putin’s subsequent backing of separatist rebels in Ukraine, military intervention and war crimes in Syria, and interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election have only worsened relations with the U.S.
A nuclear-powered Type 094A Jin-class ballistic missile submarine of the Chinese People's Liberation Army's Navy during a 2018 military display in the South China Sea. (Reuters)
In a bellicose speech in 2018, Putin revealed the centrality of nuclear weapons to Russia’s increasing international assertiveness, introducing five (since increased to six) new nuclear weapons delivery systems in development, including the already tested “Avangard” long-range hypersonic glide vehicle, which can fly 20 times the speed of sound, as well as such novel weapons as nuclear-powered torpedoes and cruise missiles with potentially unlimited range. Moscow also maintains a stockpile estimated in the thousands of shorter-range, lower-yield “tactical” nuclear weapons that could be used in a conventional battle. “Listen to us now,” Putin said in a direct challenge to the West.
“Instead of lessening its reliance on nuclear weapons, Russia has adopted a provocative nuclear doctrine that calls for early use and ‘escalate to win,’” said Marshall Billingslea, the Trump administration’s special presidential envoy for arms control, speaking recently at an event organized by the Hudson Institute. “Why else would Russia hoard thousands of tactical nuclear weapons? Why does Russia conduct war games that involve the simulated use of these smaller nuclear weapons against conventional U.S. and NATO forces?”
China’s strategic nuclear weapons arsenal of an estimated 300 warheads is only a fraction of U.S. and Russian stockpiles (an estimated total of 6,100 and 6,500, respectively, though capped at 1,550 “deployed” nuclear warheads by the New START agreement). Beijing is also in the midst of an aggressive modernization effort, however, that will likely double its nuclear arsenal in the next decade and includes new hypersonic missiles, according to estimates by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Of major concern to the Pentagon, China has built up the world’s largest arsenal of more than 2,000 ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, most with conventional warheads but some unknown number “dual capable” of carrying either conventional or nuclear warheads.
In a bellicose speech in 2018, Putin revealed the centrality of nuclear weapons to Russia’s increasing international assertiveness, introducing five (since increased to six) new nuclear weapons delivery systems in development, including the already tested “Avangard” long-range hypersonic glide vehicle, which can fly 20 times the speed of sound, as well as such novel weapons as nuclear-powered torpedoes and cruise missiles with potentially unlimited range. Moscow also maintains a stockpile estimated in the thousands of shorter-range, lower-yield “tactical” nuclear weapons that could be used in a conventional battle. “Listen to us now,” Putin said in a direct challenge to the West.
“Instead of lessening its reliance on nuclear weapons, Russia has adopted a provocative nuclear doctrine that calls for early use and ‘escalate to win,’” said Marshall Billingslea, the Trump administration’s special presidential envoy for arms control, speaking recently at an event organized by the Hudson Institute. “Why else would Russia hoard thousands of tactical nuclear weapons? Why does Russia conduct war games that involve the simulated use of these smaller nuclear weapons against conventional U.S. and NATO forces?”
China’s strategic nuclear weapons arsenal of an estimated 300 warheads is only a fraction of U.S. and Russian stockpiles (an estimated total of 6,100 and 6,500, respectively, though capped at 1,550 “deployed” nuclear warheads by the New START agreement). Beijing is also in the midst of an aggressive modernization effort, however, that will likely double its nuclear arsenal in the next decade and includes new hypersonic missiles, according to estimates by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Of major concern to the Pentagon, China has built up the world’s largest arsenal of more than 2,000 ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, most with conventional warheads but some unknown number “dual capable” of carrying either conventional or nuclear warheads.
China's DF-41 nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles in a military parade at Beijing's Tiananmen Square on Oct. 1, 2019. (Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images)
With New START scheduled to sunset on Feb. 5, 2021, the Trump administration wants to bring both Russia and China to the negotiating table for a trilateral “grand bargain” that limits the arsenals of all three major powers. Given that talks with Russia are only just getting underway and China is adamant that it has no interest in capping its much smaller nuclear arsenal, many arms control experts believe that Trump administration hawks like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are just running out the clock to finish off the only remaining nuclear arms control treaty. That would be in keeping with the administration’s record: withdrawing from the Iran nuclear accord, rejecting the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and Open Skies treaties, casting doubt on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and adopting a lackadaisical approach to New START.
“I do think the Trump administration has an almost philosophical antipathy to arms control, which stems from President Trump not investing the time to understand the issues, making him susceptible to manipulation by hawks in the administration,” said Steven Pifer, an arms control expert and the William Perry fellow at Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies. He points out that complicated arms control deals can take years of painstaking negotiation. “Consider that Trump called for a trilateral deal 18 months ago involving the U.S., Russia and China. In the intervening months there has been no administration proposal, no outline, not even a hint of what such a deal would look like. So I’m dubious that they are serious about striking an agreement. That means New START, and with it the last nuclear weapons verification regime, could disappear early next year. That could send us back to the era of ‘worst-case assumptions’ on all sides.”
With New START scheduled to sunset on Feb. 5, 2021, the Trump administration wants to bring both Russia and China to the negotiating table for a trilateral “grand bargain” that limits the arsenals of all three major powers. Given that talks with Russia are only just getting underway and China is adamant that it has no interest in capping its much smaller nuclear arsenal, many arms control experts believe that Trump administration hawks like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are just running out the clock to finish off the only remaining nuclear arms control treaty. That would be in keeping with the administration’s record: withdrawing from the Iran nuclear accord, rejecting the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and Open Skies treaties, casting doubt on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and adopting a lackadaisical approach to New START.
“I do think the Trump administration has an almost philosophical antipathy to arms control, which stems from President Trump not investing the time to understand the issues, making him susceptible to manipulation by hawks in the administration,” said Steven Pifer, an arms control expert and the William Perry fellow at Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies. He points out that complicated arms control deals can take years of painstaking negotiation. “Consider that Trump called for a trilateral deal 18 months ago involving the U.S., Russia and China. In the intervening months there has been no administration proposal, no outline, not even a hint of what such a deal would look like. So I’m dubious that they are serious about striking an agreement. That means New START, and with it the last nuclear weapons verification regime, could disappear early next year. That could send us back to the era of ‘worst-case assumptions’ on all sides.”
An intercontinental ballistic missile Avangard lifts off from a truck-mounted launcher somewhere in Russia. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)
Given the worst global pandemic since the 1919 so-called Spanish flu, the worst economic shock since the 1930s Great Depression and the desire of three nationalist leaders like Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping to shift blame and manipulate the crisis to their advantage, we may already be in an era when great power leaders assume the worst about their counterparts’ motivations and intensions. Adding a nuclear arms race to that already volatile mix greatly increases the instability.
“We’re living in a period of very high, great power tensions, and the weakening of norms, treaties and multilateral institutions that are the foundation of the international order,” said Aaron Friedberg, co-director of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson Center for International Security Studies. “From the start, the pandemic and economic crises were likely either to shock us out of that spiral towards dissolution and conflict, or else accelerate it. And the evidence to date is that these crises are accelerating it.”
Given the worst global pandemic since the 1919 so-called Spanish flu, the worst economic shock since the 1930s Great Depression and the desire of three nationalist leaders like Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping to shift blame and manipulate the crisis to their advantage, we may already be in an era when great power leaders assume the worst about their counterparts’ motivations and intensions. Adding a nuclear arms race to that already volatile mix greatly increases the instability.
“We’re living in a period of very high, great power tensions, and the weakening of norms, treaties and multilateral institutions that are the foundation of the international order,” said Aaron Friedberg, co-director of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson Center for International Security Studies. “From the start, the pandemic and economic crises were likely either to shock us out of that spiral towards dissolution and conflict, or else accelerate it. And the evidence to date is that these crises are accelerating it.”
A Pantsir self-propelled surface-to-air and antiaircraft missile system fires a missile during a military exercise by the Russian Armed Forces simulating a response to enemy attacks. (Russian Defence Ministry\TASS via Getty Images)
Joseph Nye Jr. is Harvard University’s distinguished service professor, emeritus and former dean of the Kennedy School of Government. “What we know for certain from history is that periods of deep economic distress give rise to great domestic political pressures, and they discourage international cooperation as countries adopt ‘beggar thy neighbor’ policies,” he said in an interview, citing as an example the Trump administration’s recent decision to abandon the World Health Organization and blame China for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. “Combine all that with this nuclear arms race we’re seeing, and you have a crisis atmosphere that greatly increases the potential for miscalculation. That does make for a more dangerous world.”
Senate panel OKs $6 billion military fund to confront China
Joe Gould,
Defense News•June 11, 2020
1 / 2
Senate panel OKs $6 billion military fund to confront China
WASHINGTON ― Plans for a Senate-crafted version of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, a new military fund to boost deterrence against China in the Pacific, is one step closer to becoming law.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved nearly $6 billion for the fund in its version of the annual defense policy bill, the panel announced Thursday. It authorizes $1.4 billion in fiscal 2021, which would be $188.6 million above the administration’s budget request, and $5.5 billion for fiscal 2022. The bill also directs the defense secretary to create a spending plan for all of the funds.
“The best way to protect U.S. security and prosperity in Asia is to maintain a credible balance of military power, but, after years of underfunding, America’s ability to do so is at risk,” the committee’s summary stated. “The FY21 [National Defense Authorization Act] establishes the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) to send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that America is deeply committed to defending our interests in the Indo-Pacific.
“PDI will enhance budgetary transparency and oversight, focus resources on key military capability gaps, reassure U.S. allies and partners, and bolster the credibility of American deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.”
Though not all details of the fund were immediately made public, SASC Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., previously said they would sponsor a measure to enable U.S. military operations in the region, beyond supporting new weapons platforms.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said China is his department’s top adversary, but said Congress has worked to sharpen the Pentagon’s spending and focus in the region. The PDI would follow the form of the multiyear European Deterrence Initiative, which has consumed $22 billion since its inception after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.
Congress will have to internally negotiate the final dollar amount for PDI and what those funds would buy, but House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., and ranking member Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, have expressed support for the idea. Though the Senate’s approach differs, Thornberry has also proposed spending $6 billion―all in FY21―on priorities that include air and missile defense systems as well as new military construction in partner countries; Smith hasn’t released his own plan.
Once approved by the full Senate, its version of the NDAA would be reconciled with the House’s version, which the HASC is expected to make public late this month before it goes through markup July 1 and advances to the House floor.
With an eye on China beyond the PDI, the SASC bill also encourages the Air Force to establish an operating location in the Indo-Pacific region for F-35A fighter jets and to allocate “sufficient resources and prioritize the protection of air bases that might be under attack from current or emerging cruise missiles and advanced hypersonic missiles, specifically from China."
There are also a number of provisions aimed at safeguarding America’s technology and industrial base from Chinese intellectual property theft and “economic aggression,” according to the summary. The bill would also require reports from the Pentagon on how to mitigate the risks from vendors like Chinese telecom firms Huawei and ZTE when basing U.S. troops overseas.
The SASC summary said its proposed PDI would:
Increase lethality of the joint force in the Pacific, including by improving active and passive defense against theater cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles for bases, operating locations and other critical infrastructure.
Enhance the design and posture of the joint force in the Indo-Pacific region by transitioning from large, centralized and unhardened infrastructure to smaller, dispersed, resilient and adaptive basing; increasing the number of capabilities of expeditionary airfields and ports; enhancing pre-positioning of forward stocks of fuel, munitions, equipment and materiel; and improving distributed logistics and maintenance capabilities in the region to ensure the sustainment of logistics under persistent multidomain attack.
Strengthen alliances and partnerships to increase capabilities, improve interoperability and information sharing, and support information operations capabilities with a focus on countering malign influence.
Joseph Nye Jr. is Harvard University’s distinguished service professor, emeritus and former dean of the Kennedy School of Government. “What we know for certain from history is that periods of deep economic distress give rise to great domestic political pressures, and they discourage international cooperation as countries adopt ‘beggar thy neighbor’ policies,” he said in an interview, citing as an example the Trump administration’s recent decision to abandon the World Health Organization and blame China for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. “Combine all that with this nuclear arms race we’re seeing, and you have a crisis atmosphere that greatly increases the potential for miscalculation. That does make for a more dangerous world.”
Senate panel OKs $6 billion military fund to confront China
Joe Gould,
Defense News•June 11, 2020
1 / 2
Senate panel OKs $6 billion military fund to confront China
WASHINGTON ― Plans for a Senate-crafted version of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, a new military fund to boost deterrence against China in the Pacific, is one step closer to becoming law.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved nearly $6 billion for the fund in its version of the annual defense policy bill, the panel announced Thursday. It authorizes $1.4 billion in fiscal 2021, which would be $188.6 million above the administration’s budget request, and $5.5 billion for fiscal 2022. The bill also directs the defense secretary to create a spending plan for all of the funds.
“The best way to protect U.S. security and prosperity in Asia is to maintain a credible balance of military power, but, after years of underfunding, America’s ability to do so is at risk,” the committee’s summary stated. “The FY21 [National Defense Authorization Act] establishes the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) to send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that America is deeply committed to defending our interests in the Indo-Pacific.
“PDI will enhance budgetary transparency and oversight, focus resources on key military capability gaps, reassure U.S. allies and partners, and bolster the credibility of American deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.”
Though not all details of the fund were immediately made public, SASC Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., previously said they would sponsor a measure to enable U.S. military operations in the region, beyond supporting new weapons platforms.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said China is his department’s top adversary, but said Congress has worked to sharpen the Pentagon’s spending and focus in the region. The PDI would follow the form of the multiyear European Deterrence Initiative, which has consumed $22 billion since its inception after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.
Congress will have to internally negotiate the final dollar amount for PDI and what those funds would buy, but House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., and ranking member Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, have expressed support for the idea. Though the Senate’s approach differs, Thornberry has also proposed spending $6 billion―all in FY21―on priorities that include air and missile defense systems as well as new military construction in partner countries; Smith hasn’t released his own plan.
Once approved by the full Senate, its version of the NDAA would be reconciled with the House’s version, which the HASC is expected to make public late this month before it goes through markup July 1 and advances to the House floor.
With an eye on China beyond the PDI, the SASC bill also encourages the Air Force to establish an operating location in the Indo-Pacific region for F-35A fighter jets and to allocate “sufficient resources and prioritize the protection of air bases that might be under attack from current or emerging cruise missiles and advanced hypersonic missiles, specifically from China."
There are also a number of provisions aimed at safeguarding America’s technology and industrial base from Chinese intellectual property theft and “economic aggression,” according to the summary. The bill would also require reports from the Pentagon on how to mitigate the risks from vendors like Chinese telecom firms Huawei and ZTE when basing U.S. troops overseas.
The SASC summary said its proposed PDI would:
Increase lethality of the joint force in the Pacific, including by improving active and passive defense against theater cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles for bases, operating locations and other critical infrastructure.
Enhance the design and posture of the joint force in the Indo-Pacific region by transitioning from large, centralized and unhardened infrastructure to smaller, dispersed, resilient and adaptive basing; increasing the number of capabilities of expeditionary airfields and ports; enhancing pre-positioning of forward stocks of fuel, munitions, equipment and materiel; and improving distributed logistics and maintenance capabilities in the region to ensure the sustainment of logistics under persistent multidomain attack.
Strengthen alliances and partnerships to increase capabilities, improve interoperability and information sharing, and support information operations capabilities with a focus on countering malign influence.
AMERIKA ROGUE STATE
Ramping up fight, Trump authorizes sanctions over ICC war crimes probe
President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered sanctions against any official at the International Criminal Court who investigates US troops, ramping up pressure to stop its case into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
In an executive order, Trump said the United States would block all US property and assets of anyone in the Hague-based tribunal involved in probing or prosecuting US troops.
"We cannot -- we will not -- stand by as our people are threatened by a kangaroo court," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement to reporters.
"I have a message to many close allies around the world -- your people could be next, especially those from NATO countries who fought terrorism in Afghanistan right alongside of us."
Attorney General Bill Barr alleged without giving detail that Russia and other adversaries of the United States have been "manipulating" the court to serve their own agenda.
Using the language of Trump's "America First" principle, Barr said that the administration was trying to bring accountability to an international institution.
"This institution has become, in practice, little more than a political tool employed by unaccountable international elites," he said.
Human Rights Watch said that Trump's order "demonstrates contempt for the global rule of law."
"This assault on the ICC is an effort to block victims of serious crimes whether in Afghanistan, Israel or Palestine from seeing justice," said the group's Washington director, Andrea Prasow.
"Countries that support international justice should publicly oppose this blatant attempt at obstruction," she said.
Trump has been tearing down global institutions he sees as hindering his administration's interests, recently ordering a pullout from the World Health Organization over its coronavirus response.
In The Hague, a spokesperson said the court was "aware" of the announcement from Washington and would react after examining it.
- Long-running US anger -
The Trump administration has been livid over the International Criminal Court's investigation into atrocities in Afghanistan, the longest-running war of the United States.
The administration has also voiced anger over the ICC's moves to probe alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories by close US ally Israel.
"The ICC is a failed institution. The court is ineffective, non-accountable and is a politically motivated bureaucracy," said Robert O'Brien, Trump's national security advisor.
The administration last year revoked the US visa of the court's chief prosecutor, Gambian-born Fatou Bensouda, to demand that she end the Afghanistan probe.
But judges in March said the investigation could go ahead, overturning an initial rejection of Bensouda's request.
Under Trump's order on Thursday, visa restrictions will be expanded to any court official involved in investigations into US forces.
The United States argues that it has its own procedures in place to investigate accusations against troops.
"We are committed to uncovering, and if possible holding people accountable, for their wrongdoing -- any wrongdoing," Barr said.
Trump, however, used his executive powers last year to clear three military members over war crimes, including in Afghanistan.
Among them was Eddie Gallagher, who had been convicted by a military tribunal of stabbing to death with a hunting knife a prisoner of war from the Islamic State group in Iraq.
Gallagher had become a cause celebre among US conservatives, although Trump's action troubled some in the US military.
Founded in 2002, the International Criminal Court was set up with a mission to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
But it immediately ran into opposition from Washington, where the then administration of George W. Bush actively encouraged countries to shun the court.
President Barack Obama took a more cooperative approach with the court but the United States remained outside of it.
Faced with US criticism, the court has focused its efforts on Africa. Pompeo mocked the court for securing few convictions and for judges' past calls for pay hikes.
"This record of botched prosecutions and poor judgment casts grave doubt on the court's ability to function at the most basic level," he said.
Embattled at home, Pompeo and Barr
lash out at foreign foe
Trump administration to impose
sanctions against the International
Criminal Court
National Correspondent,
Yahoo News•June 11, 2020
WASHINGTON — A defiant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced the International Criminal Court as a “highly politicized” institution on Thursday morning as he announced new sanctions against it for its investigation into potential war crimes by U.S. forces during the years-long conflict in Afghanistan.
“We cannot, we will not stand by as our people are threatened by a kangaroo court,” Pompeo said. He was joined at the press conference by Defense Secretary Mark Esper, U.S. Attorney General William Barr and national security adviser Robert O’Brien.
In his own remarks, Barr noted that the United States would pay no heed to a body he described as guided by “unaccountable international elites.” The court is based in The Hague.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, holds a joint news conference on the International Criminal Court with U.S. Attorney General William Barr at the State Department on Thursday. (Yuri Gripas/AFP via Getty Images)
The United States has never been a party to the Rome Statute, which in 1998 created the court to prosecute “the most serious crimes of international concern,” including war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggressive war and acts of genocide. Past indictments have named Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony and Moammar Gadhafi, the Lybian dictator.
The new U.S. measures include “economic sanctions against International Criminal Court officials directly engaged with any effort to investigate or prosecute United States personnel without the consent of the United States,” according to an announcement released by the White House. In addition, both ICC officials and their family members will face “visa restrictions.”
Speaking some minutes later, Pompeo said that “it gives us no joy to punish them,” but argued that it would be insensible to allow ICC officials and their families to “to come to the United States, to shop, travel and otherwise enjoy American freedoms as these same officials think to prosecute the defender of those very freedoms.”
ICC spokesman Fadi El Abdallah did not immediately respond to a Yahoo News request for comment about the sanctions on its officials.
The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. While the Taliban government was quickly toppled, armed hostilities have continued for nearly two decades, killing as many as 157,00 people and 2,353 members of the U.S. armed forces. In February, President Trump signed a deal with the Taliban that would effectively conclude U.S. military occupation of the war-torn nation, though this week a senior military commander said the conditions for U.S. withdrawal have not yet been met.
Members of the U.S. military have been accused of killing civilians, including children, in its airstrikes, while the CIA operated a torture facility in Afghanistan in the early days of the war. Most such excesses took place during the presidencies of George W. Bush and his successor, Barack Obama, who did not bring the war to the conclusion he had once promised.
Trump has expressed skepticism of foreign military intervention, but he is just as skeptical of oversight by foreign bodies like the ICC. “Rest assured that the men and women of the United States Armed Forces will never appear before the ICC,” Esper said in his remarks on Thursday morning.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, and Attorney General William Barr, left, speaks at Thursday’s joint news conference on the International Criminal Court. (Yuri Gripas/AFP via Getty Images)
It’s unclear why the Trump administration is choosing the present time to pursue sanctions, since there hasn’t been any indication that the U.S. would comply with the results of an ICC investigation into its conduct in the Afghanistan War.
ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in 2017 asked to investigate “alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed in the context of the ongoing armed conflict in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.” Her investigations would have included not only U.S. forces — and the Central Intelligence Agency — but also the Taliban and the Afghan National Security Forces.
ICC judges rejected her request last year. But that decision was overturned in March, meaning that Bensouda’s investigation could proceed.
News of the new sanctions comes as Barr and Esper are facing intense questioning over their participation in the clearing of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House, last week. Pompeo, meanwhile, has been hounded by accusations over the firing of State Department Inspector General Steve Linick.
Barr speaks at Thursday’s joint news conference as Pompeo looks on. (Yuri Gripas/AFP via Getty Images)
Linick was conducting investigations into Pompeo, a close Trump ally of considerable political ambition.
Speaking yesterday, Pompeo denounced Linick as a “bad actor” who “didn’t take on the mission of the State Department to make us better.” Linick has alleged that Pompeo’s deputies attempted to intimidate him into dropping investigations into an armaments deal with Saudi Arabia, and abuse of State Department resources by Pompeo and his wife. Linick was conducting five investigations into Pompeo at the time that he was fired.
Pompeo’s comments about the ICC were hardly less combative than the previous day’s remarks on Linick, with the secretary of state branding the court “grossly ineffective and corrupt.”
The sanctions will only deepen long-standing hostility between Washington and the Netherlands-based court.
Bush was resistant to any U.S. collaboration with the ICC, but even Obama, despite his internationalist leanings, made no move for the U.S. to join the court. And when, for example, U.S. forces were sent in 2014 to the African nation of Mali for peacekeeping efforts, Obama signed a memorandum asserting that U.S. troops were operating “without risk of criminal prosecution or other assertion of jurisdiction” on the part of the ICC.
Hug me tender: scientists unlock the secret to the perfect cuddle
AFP / TORU YAMANAKA
Don't squeeze too tight Daddy!
In this era of social distancing and depressing news, we could all do with a good hug. Now scientists have analysed what makes the perfect cuddle -- just don't squeeze too tight.
A team from Japan's Toho University measured the calming effect on infants of hugs of different pressures, and when given by strangers compared to from parents.
By monitoring heart rates for the infant and using pressure sensors on the adult's hand, the researchers assessed the baby's reaction to just being held, a hug with medium pressure, and what they called a "tight hug."
According to the results, published in the journal Cell, babies were soothed more by a medium-pressure hug than just being held but the calming effect decreased during a "tight" hug.
The researchers kept the length of the hug to 20 seconds as "it was almost impossible to avoid infant's bad mood during a one-minute or longer hold or hug," they admitted in their paper.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, for infants older than 125 days, the calming effect was greater when receiving a hug from a parent than from a female stranger.
So, the perfect hug is considered to be medium pressure from a parent, the scientists believe.
The infants are not the only ones who feel the benefits of a comforting hug, the research showed.
Parents also exhibited significant signs of calmness while hugging their child.
It is known that a hormone called oxytocin, sometimes known as the "love hormone", is released during close physical contact but the researchers said the time period of their hug experiment was too short for this to play a role.
The scientists believe their research is the first time the physiological impact of hugging infants has been measured and say their work should advance knowledge of parent-child bonding and child psychology.
There could also be an application in the early detection of autism, Hiromasa Funato, one of the researchers on the team, told AFP.
The research centres on the various sensory inputs received during a hug -- this is what alters the heart rate, explained Funato.
"Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have difficulties in sensory integration and social recognition," he said.
"Therefore, our simple hug experiment might be utilised in the early screening of the autonomic function (that regulates unconscious bodily processes), sensory integration, and development of social recognition in infants with high familial risk for ASD," concluded the scientist.
In this era of social distancing and depressing news, we could all do with a good hug. Now scientists have analysed what makes the perfect cuddle -- just don't squeeze too tight.
A team from Japan's Toho University measured the calming effect on infants of hugs of different pressures, and when given by strangers compared to from parents.
By monitoring heart rates for the infant and using pressure sensors on the adult's hand, the researchers assessed the baby's reaction to just being held, a hug with medium pressure, and what they called a "tight hug."
According to the results, published in the journal Cell, babies were soothed more by a medium-pressure hug than just being held but the calming effect decreased during a "tight" hug.
The researchers kept the length of the hug to 20 seconds as "it was almost impossible to avoid infant's bad mood during a one-minute or longer hold or hug," they admitted in their paper.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, for infants older than 125 days, the calming effect was greater when receiving a hug from a parent than from a female stranger.
So, the perfect hug is considered to be medium pressure from a parent, the scientists believe.
The infants are not the only ones who feel the benefits of a comforting hug, the research showed.
Parents also exhibited significant signs of calmness while hugging their child.
It is known that a hormone called oxytocin, sometimes known as the "love hormone", is released during close physical contact but the researchers said the time period of their hug experiment was too short for this to play a role.
The scientists believe their research is the first time the physiological impact of hugging infants has been measured and say their work should advance knowledge of parent-child bonding and child psychology.
There could also be an application in the early detection of autism, Hiromasa Funato, one of the researchers on the team, told AFP.
The research centres on the various sensory inputs received during a hug -- this is what alters the heart rate, explained Funato.
"Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have difficulties in sensory integration and social recognition," he said.
"Therefore, our simple hug experiment might be utilised in the early screening of the autonomic function (that regulates unconscious bodily processes), sensory integration, and development of social recognition in infants with high familial risk for ASD," concluded the scientist.
JK Rowling says she is survivor of sexual assault
AFP / Angela WeissJK Rowling says she has suffered domestic abuse and sexual abuse in the past
"Harry Potter" author JK Rowling revealed on Wednesday she is a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.
The celebrated British writer said in a blog post that she was disclosing the information to give context to her controversial past comments about transgender women.
"This isn't an easy piece to write," Rowling said in a 3,695-word essay on gender identity and her own troubled past.
"I've been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor," Rowling wrote.
"This isn't because I'm ashamed those things happened to me, but because they're traumatic to revisit and remember."
Rowling caused a scandal by tweeting last weekend about "people who menstruate".
"I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
The tweet forced "Harry Potter" star Daniel Radcliffe to apologise to trans women who may have been offended by Rowling's remark.
"Transgender women are women," Radcliffe wrote in a post for The Trevor Project website.
The feud dated back to comments from December in which Rowling expressed support for a woman who had lost her job over what her employer deemed to be "transphobic" tweets.
Rowling said on Wednesday that "accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline" ever since.
"Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories," she wrote.
Rowling ended her post by affirming that she was "a survivor (and) certainly not a victim".
"I haven't written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one," she said.
"I've only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions."
- 'Mentally sexless' -
Rowling said she had spent many years thinking about trans issues because of her own troubles with gender identity when she was young.
"When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth," she wrote.
"As I didn't have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens."
The 54-year-old said she spent a period feeling "ambivalence about being a woman" before learning that "it's OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are".
She also argued that "the current explosion of trans activism" has resulted in too many people undergoing gender reassignment surgery without giving it sufficient thought.
"I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I'm also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90 percent of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria," she said.
"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make... girls and women less safe."
But she also stood up for her right to speak freely about an issue that she said has been with her throughout life.
"As a much-banned author, I'm interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump," she wrote.
Rowling's books have been banned in parts of the world because of their association in some cultures with witchcraft and the occult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)