Scotland launches national plan to end need for food banks

by Agency Reporter | Oct 21, 2021 | Briefing

PROPOSALS TO END the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity have been published by the Scottish Government. Views are being sought on a draft national plan, which is supported by food bank operators including the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network.

The plan follows action during the pandemic to prevent food insecurity through strengthening household incomes and the delivery of cash-first responses to financial hardship.

Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison said: “We share the same vision as food bank operators – they are not a long term solution to poverty. Our draft plan sets out what we will do within our powers – including introducing a shopping voucher pilot scheme – to make food banks the last port of call.

“Over the last year we have invested around £2.5 billion to support low income households, including nearly £1 billion to directly support children. Despite our fixed budget and limited powers we are taking action to support those in poverty, including discussions around establishing a minimum income guarantee for Scotland.

“As part of the right to an adequate standard of living, people need to be able to access food that meets their dietary, social and cultural needs and this plan shows the way forward.”

Sabine Goodwin, co-ordinator of the Independent Food Aid Network, which represents more than 500 food banks across the UK, said: “As the cut to Universal Credit and cost of living increases exacerbate poverty in Scotland, the publication of the draft national plan to end the need for food banks couldn’t be more timely.

“With a cash first, collaborative approach to food insecurity as the cornerstone of this plan, a time when food banks will no longer be needed to plug the gaps left by financial hardship is within sight.”

The draft national plan aligns with the Scottish Government’s national mission to eradicate poverty, the Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan and Good Food Nation ambition.

The Scottish Government’s Statement on Food Insecurity and Poverty, published in February, details the Scottish Government’s approach, prioritising action that prevents poverty and promoting cash-first responses alongside holistic support services where needed.

It concludes: “The UK Government needs to recognise that endemic poverty is neither accidental nor inevitable. Social security is a fundamental and inalienable human right. The safety net which it provides has never been more important. Nor has it ever been more scandalous and unnecessary that so many adults and children in our society are continuing to go hungry.”

* Read the Statement on Food Insecurity and Poverty here.

* The Consultation on the draft plan is now open, and closes on 25 January 2022. More information here.

* Source: Scottish Government

Royal Mint to recover gold from smartphones and laptops in world first

An estimated $57 billion is lost through e-waste, with a single smartphone containing around 0.035g of gold
by: Sabina Weston
21 Oct 2021


The Royal Mint will begin recovering gold from discarded smartphones and laptops, it announced on Wednesday.

The technology to extract the precious metal from circuit boards is to be provided by Canadian startup Excir, with the UK being the first country in the world to benefit from it.

BT sheds light on the UK's growing e-waste problem

MPs bash Amazon and Apple over UK e-waste crisis

EU targets e-waste with ambitious ‘circular economy’ plan

The Royal Mint said that the decision had been motivated by the increasing issue of electronic waste, with less than 20% of discarded devices being currently recycled world-wide.

With e-waste estimated to reach 74 million tonnes by 2030, it's thought that $57 billion worth of highly valued metals are being disposed of instead of reused.

A single smartphone contains an estimated 0.035g of gold, depending on the model and date of manufacture, a spokesperson for the Royal Mint told IT Pro.

The UK’s main coin manufacturer is focused on firstly “growing the technology” patented by Excir, with plans to use it in a “fully scaled-up plant” in South Wales.
“Once scaled up, a potential plant would have the capacity to process significant volumes of e-waste annually generating hundreds of kilograms of gold and additional precious metals,” the spokesperson added.

The process of extraction will be performed at room temperature, being more environmentally friendly than smelting. The choice of the plant in Wales means that the process won’t require the electronic waste to leave the UK, minimising the environmental impact of transport.

Once scaled up, the process will also be used to recover palladium, silver, and copper, which are also found in electronic waste.

The Royal Mint’s chief executive Anne Jessopp said that the process will provide “the opportunity to make a genuine impact on one of the world’s greatest environmental challenges while helping to secure our future as a leader in high quality, sustainable precious metals”.

Jessopp described the partnership with Excir as “a significant milestone for The Royal Mint as we reinvent for the future as the home of precious metals in the UK”.
Related Videos

“The potential of this technology is huge – reducing the impact of electronic waste, preserving precious commodities, and forging new skills which help drive a circular economy,” she added.

Excir CEO Jim Fox said that the startup’s patented technology will be scaled up “from laboratory to mass production over the coming years”, without providing a concrete date.

Olympus US hack tied to sanctioned Russian ransomware group

Zack Whittaker, Carly Page/•October 20, 2021



Image Credits: Bryce Durbin / TechCrunch


An “ongoing” cyberattack against the Japanese technology giant Olympus was caused by a Russian ransomware group sanctioned by the U.S. government, according to two people with knowledge of the incident.

A new malware variant known as Macaw was used in the attack that began on October 10, which encrypted Olympus’ systems in the U.S., Canada and Latin America. Macaw is a variant of the WastedLocker malware, both of which were created by Evil Corp., a Russia-based crime group that was subject to U.S. Treasury sanctions in 2019.

It’s the second ransomware attack to hit the company in as many months, after its networks in Europe, the Middle East and Africa were knocked offline by the BlackMatter ransomware group in September. (BlackMatter and Evil Corp. are not known to be linked.)

“Olympus was hit by BlackMatter last month and then hit by Macaw a week or so ago,” Allan Liska, a senior threat analyst at security firm Recorded Future, told TechCrunch. Liska said that the Macaw malware leaves behind a ransom note on hacked computers that claims to have stolen data from its victims.

Olympus said in a statement on Tuesday that the company was investigating the “likelihood of data exfiltration,” a common technique by ransomware groups known as “double extortion,” where the hackers steal files before encrypting the victim’s network and threaten to publish the files online if the ransom to decrypt the files is not paid.

When reached on Wednesday, Olympus spokesperson Jennifer Bannan declined to answer our questions or say if the company paid the ransom.

“In the best interests of the security of our system, our customers and their patients, we will not comment on criminal actors and their actions, if any. We are committed to providing appropriate notifications to impacted stakeholders,” the company said in a statement.

Treasury sanctions make it more difficult for companies based or operating in the United States to pay a ransom to get their files back, since U.S. nationals are “generally prohibited” from transacting with sanctioned entities. Evil Corp. has renamed and modified its malware several times to circumvent U.S. sanctions.

Bloomberg reported Wednesday that the Macaw malware was also used to cause widespread disruption last week at Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns or operates 185 television stations across more than 80 markets. Sinclair said in a statement on Monday that while some data was stolen from Sinclair’s network, it wasn’t clear exactly what information was taken.

Evil Corp. also launched attacks at Garmin, which caused a nearly week-long outage after a ransomware attack in 2020, as well as insurance giant CNA.

CISA, FBI and NSA publish BlackMatter ransomware warning

The agencies are warning organisations about the attacks which they say have been used in the past to target US critical infrastructure

by: Zach Marzouk
19 Oct 2021


The CISA, FBI, and NSA have published a cyber security advisory warning organisations of BlackMatter ransomware attacks which have targeted multiple US critical infrastructure entities in the food and agriculture sector.

BlackMatter demands $5.9 million ransom from Iowa farm cooperative

Minnesota farm coop caught in ransomware attack

Olympus hit by suspected ransomware attack

The organisations underlined that BlackMatter, first seen in July 2021, is a ransomware as a service (RaaS) tool which cyber actors have used to access a network and remotely encrypt host and shared drives. The developers who sell the tool are able to profit from cyber criminal affiliates who deploy it, said the advisory.

The agencies underlined that ransomware attacks against critical infrastructure entities could directly affect consumer access to these services, which is why the CISA, FBI, and NSA have urged all organisations to implement a number of mitigations to help organisations reduce the risk of compromise from BlackMatter ransomware attacks.

The mitigations include implementing and enforcing backup procedures, using strong unique passwords, using multi-factor authentication, and implementing network segmentation and traversal monitoring.

“This advisory highlights the evolving and persistent nature of criminal cyber actors and the need for a collective public and private approach to reduce the impact and prevalence of ransomware attacks,” said Eric Goldstein, executive assistant director for Cybersecurity at the CISA.

“CISA, FBI and NSA are taking every step possible to try to make it harder for cyber criminals to operate. Americans can help us in this long-term endeavor by visiting Stopransomware.gov to learn how to reduce their risk of becoming a victim of ransomware.”

Bryan Vorndran, assistant director of the FBI’s Cyber Division, highlighted the need for organisations to report any ransomware incidents by contacting their local FBI Field Office and speaking to a cyber agent.

“By reporting a cyber incident, targeted entities are enhancing our ability to respond and investigate with the goal of disrupting cybercriminal operations,” he said.

In September, the BlackMatter ransomware group hit New Cooperative, an Iowa-based farming cooperative, with a $5.9 million ransom demand. The gang had obtained financial documents, networking information, employee social security numbers, and the source code for a farmer technology platform from the cooperative. The timing of the attack made it crucial for the organisation to get its systems back online as soon as possible as the harvesting season was about to begin.

Hacker Who Built A Fake News Pro-Trump Empire Has Unmasked Himself

BY : CAMERON FREW ON : 15 OCT 2021 

Alamy

Hacker X, the man responsible for a pro-Trump fake news empire, has revealed himself.

Over the course of two years, Hacker X sat at the helm of a ‘monster’ which relentlessly spread baseless stories, conspiracy theories and propaganda in aid of the former president’s rhetoric, all with the aim of securing a victory in the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton.

Armed with a team of writers and editors paid specifically to undermine facts by conjuring content, he believes the bulk of interference in the election came from misinformation in the US, not Russia, which ultimately played ‘such a minor role that they weren’t even a blip on the radar’.

Alamy

Speaking exclusively to Ars Technica, the hacker revealed his identity: Robert Willis, who dubs himself an ‘ethical hacker’. The publication insists it’s fact-checked his claims, only conceding to use a fake name, Koala Media, for his former company.

In 2015, he was on the hunt for a job in IT. ‘I showed up at the location, which was a large corporate building. I was given directions to wait downstairs until I was collected. The secretiveness was intriguing. It may have turned some people off, but I love an adventure,’ he recalled.

‘I had not been given any information on the job other than that they were very excited, because to find someone like me was very rare – I had tons of random, overlapping, highly technical skills from years of wearing multiple hats at smaller private companies.’

Alamy

The interviewers eventually revealed the name of the company and its wider intentions. ‘I wasn’t scared but excited at how crazy this was already turning out [to be]. I listened. I was told that there were big plans for the office I was sitting in and that they had already hired the initial writers and editor for the new operation,’ he said.

‘They told me that they were against big companies and big government because they are basically the same thing. They said they had readers on the right and the left. They said they were about freedom,’ Willis continued, before they told him, ‘If you work for us, you can help stop Hillary Clinton.’

‘I hated the establishment, Republicans, and Democrats, and Hillary was the target because she was as establishment as it got and was the only candidate that was all but guaranteed to be running on the main ticket in the future 2016 cycle.

Alamy


‘If I were to choose a lesser evil at the time, it would have, without a doubt, been the Republican Party, since I had moved to the new city due to the Democrats literally destroying my previous home state. It felt like good revenge.’

Of course, he took the job. Quite quickly, he realised how easy it was to get engagement on any anti-Clinton content. ‘Pieces that ran… claimed, among other things, that Clinton had plans to criminalise gun owners, to kill the free press, to forcefully drug conservatives, to vaccinate people against their wills, to euthanise some adults, and to ban the US flag,’ he said.

Willis left after two years, and Koala Media has since been exorcised from Facebook. Upon seeing the damage of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic – including his own father being manipulated – he wishes to make amends. ‘COVID has shown me the deadly side of fake news and anti-vaccination people,’ he said.

Trump’s ‘TRUTH’ Social Media App Features Fake Chevy Trucks Accounts That GM Disavows

BY SEBASTIEN BELL | POSTED ON OCTOBER 22, 2021

Donald Trump launched a new social media app this week called “TRUTH Social” and Chevrolet was unexpectedly drawn into the controversy as a result of an account it says it has no affiliation with.

Screenshots for the app that appeared on Apple’s app store showed an account called @ChevyTrucks that promoted—what else?—Chevrolet trucks. The posts, though inoffensive, are just kind of weird.

One post used in the social media network’s screenshots writes “We’re going electric just like @elon and we’d love to know what vehicle you think we should start with… our favorite is the classic Chevy Tahoe. Share & comment.”



Besides seemingly being unaware that Chevrolet is currently teasing an electric Sierra, the post also suggests that Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, is on the app. Although it doesn’t use either of their full names, one wonders why the writer would have chosen that point to start exercising plausible deniability.

Another fake post featured in the screenshots includes the following: “The Chevy Avalanche is the mullet of trucks but it sure is fun at party,” which is almost a complete thought.

The Washington Post reached out to GM for comment. A spokesperson told the outlet that it has “no affiliation with this platform.”

Chevrolet wasn’t the only company whose name was used in fake posts in screenshots promoting the ironically named social media platform. Fox News, The New York Times, Variety, and TechCrunch were also drawn into the unusual stunt.

Chevrolet and GM are well-advised to distance themselves from the platform being run by Trump’s team. The former president has been kicked off most established social media platforms after his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

#AUSTERITYKILLS

Austerity policies in England linked to 57,550 extra deaths in five years

Simon Whelan
WSWS.ORG

The BMJ Open journal published by the BMJ (British Medical Journal) has released findings from the largest study yet of its kind into the cost in human lives of the savage austerity spending cuts initiated in the UK from 2008 onwards.

Analysing the combined impact of cuts to healthcare, public health and social care in the four years between 2010 and 2014, researchers from the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York found 57,550 more deaths than would have been expected.

Professor Karl Claxton of York’s Department of Economics and Related Studies told the Guardian: “Restrictions on the growth in health and social care expenditure during ‘austerity’ have been associated with tens of thousands more deaths than would have been observed had pre-austerity expenditure growth been sustained.”

The team of researchers found that social care spending rose by 2.2 percent per capita between 2001-02 and between 2009-10 but fell by 1.57 percent between 2010-11 and again between 2014-15. This loss alone in social care funding caused an astonishing 23,662 additional deaths, according to the research findings.

A homeless person sleeping on Euston Road in London last winter (credit: WSWS Media)

The University of York research found that a slowing in life expectancy improvement coincided with the Cameron government’s severe reductions to health and social care spending. Professor Claxton said, “Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the slowdown in the rate of improvement in life expectancy in England and Wales since 2010 is attributable to spending constraints in the healthcare and social care sectors.”

Speaking to the Guardian on the University of York’s’ findings, David Finch, assistant director of healthy lives at the Health Foundation think tank, said even before the COVID-19 pandemic there was “an extremely concerning pattern of stalling life expectancy, particularly in the poorest areas of the country” and subsequently the pandemic had “laid bare the tragic consequences of underlying poor health”.

Separate research by Imperial College London (ICL), published in the LancetPublic Health journal just days before the York findings, reached similar conclusions. Analysing all deaths in England between 2002-2019, the ICL researchers found that life expectancy in many working-class communities was declining years prior to the arrival of the pandemic in the UK in early 2020.

The research conducted by the ICL is the first of its kind to analyse longevity trends in microscopic detail capable of identifying where life expectancy declined with greater precision than any previously conducted research.

A sample of 8.6 million records were analysed by the ICL research team with each record assigned to the community where the person resided at the time of their death. A total of 6,791 local communities were examined and the researchers assessed life expectancy trends over time for each of these almost 7,000 people. The research tracked life expectancy in communities of around 8,000 people, with other research typically based on much larger areas containing some 140,000 subjects.

The research reveals how class inequality in UK life expectancy is growing. In 2019, men living in Kensington and Chelsea in London, the wealthiest district in the country, had an average expectancy 27 years longer than that of males living in Blackpool. In the ailing north-west coastal town of Blackpool life expectancy has now fallen beneath 70 years for men and 75 for women.

The ICL’s research found that the communities with the lowest life expectancy, just beneath 70 years for men and 75 years for women, are situated in the north of England’s inner cities and social housing estates.

In the richest districts of the British capital and across the affluent home counties, the trajectory of growing longevity continues. Simultaneously, life expectancy has fallen fastest in working-class districts in northern cities like Leeds, Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool.

For example, women living in the inner London borough of Camden can expect to live to approximately 95 years of age, almost 21 years longer than women in the working-class communities with the lowest life expectancy in the west Yorkshire city of Leeds.

The ICL research discovered that as life expectancy rose across much of the country during the first decade of the 21st century, then beginning an ongoing steep decline in the poorest working-class districts in 2010. The research findings assert that from 2014 until 2019 life expectancy fell in almost one in five communities for females, and one in nine communities for males.

The ICL research points out that declines in life expectancy were once rare in wealthier countries like the UK. The existence of the post-war welfare state in Britain, now massively eroded, led to sustained increases in life expectancy. Professor Majid Ezzati from ICL’s School of Public Health told the Independent that this period was at an end: “These data show that longevity has been getting worse for years in large parts of England.”

Declines in life expectancy in wealthy countries, explained Ezzati, have previously occurred only during wars and pandemics. “For such declines to be seen in ‘normal times’ before the pandemic is alarming and signals ongoing policy failures to tackle poverty and provide adequate social support and health care.”

Further damning research released earlier this month was based on an analysis of official government data by the King’s Fund think tank. The research suggests that disparities in expected lifespan between some of the wealthiest and poorest districts of the country has at least doubled since the early 2000s.

“There is a growing chasm in health inequalities revealed by the data,” says Veena Raleigh, a fellow at the think tank. Raleigh continued “Our analysis shows that life expectancy has continued to increase in wealthier areas but has virtually stagnated in deprived areas in the north with the result that the gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of the country has grown by almost two-and-a-half years over the last two decades.” There is a “deprivation divide” in life expectancy between the more affluent areas in the south of England and poorer areas in the north.

As the Kings Fund research findings were released, a report by the Longevity Science Panel (LSP)—a group of doctors, statisticians and NHS leaders—found that male and female life expectancy fell by 1.3 years and 0.9 years respectively in 2020 as a direct result of coronavirus. The LSP warned that possible new variants of COVID, the impact of Long COVID and the delayed diagnosis and treatment caused by an enormous NHS care backlog could still negatively impact the public’s expected lifespans.

Speaking on behalf of the LSP, Professor Debora Price, Professor of Social Gerontology at the University of Manchester, said: “The pandemic has plainly exposed the many structural and systemic inequalities in our societies that people live with from day to day and that have become a matter of life and death. Health inequalities have worsened.”

This plethora of scientific research, synthesizing data from both the natural and the social sciences, reveals that, in the second decade of the 21st century, life expectancy growth has stalled, stagnated and is now falling precipitously among the working class, in the fifth-richest country on the planet.

This health crisis, exacerbated by the pandemic, is first and foremost a class issue. The explosive growth of social inequality over recent decades is the key factor in understanding the disproportionate and devastating impact of reduced life expectancy in working-class communities. The widening of the already huge gap in life expectancy between the classes is one increasingly characterised by stunted lives, early deaths and misery for the working class.

Sen. Joe Manchin wants to restrict who gets the child tax credit. These West Virginians may pay the price if he gets his way.

Manchin supports new requirements for the expanded child tax credit that would likely end the benefit for thousands of families in his state.

Ruth Jones, left, and husband James Jones, right, pose for a portrait with grandchildren Ayricah Clark, 10, and Nilique Jones, 17, near their home in Charleston, W.Va., on Oct. 21. The Joneses, both in their early 60s, are raising their grandchildren. 

(Lexi Browning for The Washington Post)


By Yeganeh Torbati and Kyle Swenson
Yesterday at 7:00 a.m. EDT

LONG READ

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Cable news flickered on the flat-screen television in Ruth and James Jones’s living room. The CNN ticker read: “Biden lowers spending bill price in effort to lure Manchin and Sinema.” The couple watched and listened.

They are raising two grandchildren, ages 10 and 17, on a limited income — James’s part-time earnings as an Applebee’s cook and Ruth’s Social Security payments. Like thousands of other West Virginians, their financial burden has been eased since July by monthly federal payments, championed by the Biden administration, to support families with children. Now, however, those funds — which total $500 a month — could vanish if lawmakers agree to the demands of their own U.S. senator, Joe Manchin III.

Appearing on CNN in September, the moderate Democrat from West Virginia implied that he would not support extending the monthly payments, which come in the form of an expanded child tax credit (CTC), without changes. “There’s no work requirements whatsoever,” he said. “There’s no education requirements whatsoever for better skill sets. Don’t you think, if we’re going to help the children, that the people should make some effort?”

Then on Oct. 17, Axios reported that Manchin also wanted to restrict the program to families with incomes of about $60,000 or less. If he prevails, it would most likely mean the end of those payments for James and Ruth.

“We want Manchin to take a little bit more active role in protecting us as far as West Virginians,” James, 64, said from his chair. “We’re not a bunch of deadbeats. We work for a living and we’re due.”

A spokeswoman for Manchin did not respond to requests for comment, including when asked about what specific requirements the senator would like to see in exchange for his support for continuing the expanded payments.

In West Virginia, 170,000 children became newly eligible under the tax credit expansion, which was included in Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package passed in March. The changes to the tax credit raised the maximum benefit from $2,000 to $3,600 per child per year and dramatically expanded the share of poor families receiving the credit. In July, the food insecurity rate in West Virginia households with children dropped from 11.6 percent to 8.4 percent, and in September a survey found 86 percent of West Virginians felt the payments had made a “huge difference.”

In interviews, families across the state said they used the money for essentials and small luxuries: new clothes for growing middle-schoolers, firewood to heat a home in the coming winter, pumpkins and a cheery scarecrow to mark the fall season, a 3-year-old’s class pictures. But now, advocates for the poor caution that Manchin’s requirements could have an impact on thousands of households, from parents grappling with expensive child care, to families earning over $60,000 but still struggling, to grandparents who are raising grandchildren but aren’t able to reenter the workforce.

“It takes everything out of us just to make sure these children are fed and taken care of and clothed,” said Ruth, 61. “We’ve been taking care of the children on our own dime.”

The future of the expanded child tax credit remains unclear as negotiations continue over the White House’s package of far-reaching social programs. Biden has signaled that he will resist attaching work requirements to the program.

For the Joneses, the cloakroom discussions and cable news debates playing out on television only seem to spotlight the gulf between their family and policymakers.

“The struggle is real,” James said. “These are not just numbers, these are people.”

‘Parenting is work. Raising kids is work.’

As the payments hit bank accounts in July, the benefit reached an estimated 60 million children in 39 million households across the country.

A team of researchers from Columbia University determined that the first round lifted 3 million children out of poverty and that if all eligible children had access to the payments, child poverty would be reduced by 40 percent.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that in West Virginia, 93 percent of children would benefit from a permanent expansion of the credit.

“For some of our clients, this is keeping them above water right now,” said Beth Zarate, president and chief executive of Catholic Charities West Virginia. “West Virginia just has so many challenges. We struggle with jobs, we struggle with our people leaving our state for other jobs. So the Child Tax Credit has been huge.”

But even as the program’s benefits were registering in West Virginia, Manchin expressed concern over what he saw as an overly lax social program available to too many. Fortifying Manchin’s criticism was a recent study from the University of Chicago finding that roughly 1.5 million workers would quit the labor market under the Biden plan.

Proponents of the plan counter that an expanded CTC offers a unique chance to combat poverty and say children should not be cut off from resources because of their parents’ circumstances.

“The opportunity to cut child poverty in half in West Virginia is one that we have to take and imposing a work requirement basically neutralizes that benefit right out the gate,” said Seth DiStefano, policy outreach director at the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, a nonpartisan research organization. “Let’s be clear: Parenting is working, raising kids is work.”

‘It’s hard to get a job at this age.’

Ruth Jones stacks folded laundry in her living room as her husband prepares a meal of pot roast and potatoes in their home on Oct. 21 in Charleston, W.Va. (Lexi Browning for The Washington Post)

Relative to other states, large numbers of West Virginia grandparents are raising their grandchildren — a partial legacy of the opioid pandemic that tore through Appalachia.

For that demographic, including James and Ruth Jones, the idea of rushing into the job market seems like an insurmountable barrier. “It’s hard to get a job at this age,” Ruth said.

Neither Ruth nor James feels capable of returning full time to the workforce. Ruth has multiple sclerosis and receives about $1,300 each month from Social Security. Before retiring for health reasons, she worked for a Charleston hospital for 36 years. James’s part-time work as a cook earns him about $1,400 a month, but he can’t work more because he has to take care of his elderly mother, who lives nearby.

The $500 monthly payments have helped with household repairs and senior pictures for their grandson, the couple said. In the past, to make sure the children had what they needed, Ruth had to forgo buying medicine to treat her MS, she said.

Despite her ailments, Ruth’s days start at 6 a.m., with the neighborhood outside her window still wrapped in darkness. One recent October morning, she coaxed her granddaughter Ayricah awake and packed snacks while the local news played on television. With a black marker she wrote, “Have a great day,” on the clear plastic bag before reminding the girl to take a mask for school.

Before leaving, Ayricah silently showed Ruth one of her graded assignments.

“100 percent? Very good!” Ruth replied. “Share some of those smarts with your granny.”

A penalty for stay-home parents

Mali Gank, left, holds one of her infant sons, Jeremiah, as she talks to stepdaughter Makayla Gank at their home in Terra Alta, W.Va., on Oct. 21. (Duncan Slade for the Washington Post)

Mali Gank and her husband, Cris, who live in a small town in West Virginia’s rural northeast, have gotten by on her teacher’s salary for the past three years, ever since Cris, 47, was laid off from his manufacturing job. They have a 3-year-old son and infant twins, born in February.

Mali, 43, has learned to budget “to the penny,” creating spreadsheets that lay out an entire year of expenses. The first credit hitting their bank account this summer felt like “relief,” she said.

They used the money to stockpile truckloads of firewood — enough to feed the family’s wood-burning stove through the winter. The temperature inside the home can get to 90 degrees or higher when the fire is going, but it’s the most economical way the family has found to keep warm in a state where electricity prices can fluctuate wildly in the winter.

Cris Gank uncovers a wood pile on the front porch of his house in Terra Alta, W.Va., on Oct. 21. The wood will keep the family's house warm through the winter in a state where energy prices can fluctuate dramatically in the winter. (Duncan Slade for The Washington Post)

They’ve also managed to get ahead on car repairs, a constant worry when contending with the area’s often-rough, potholed roads.

Depending on how strict a work requirement Manchin succeeds in imposing, and whether it would apply to both parents, the couple may be at risk of losing access to the expanded credit.

If Cris were to work, his income would probably put them over the $60,000 threshold, even though most, if not all, of the extra money would go toward paying for child care.

Right now, Cris cares for the twin boys while Mali teaches. When she did try to find licensed child care in their rural area, she was quoted a price of $1,300 per month at a day care an hour away.

“I don’t feel like there should be a penalty for one parent staying home,” Mali said. “It would also feel like a penalty for my husband being the one instilling values in our children.”

Upper-class poor

Jess Greenlief, 38, is the executive director of a family basic needs pantry in Gilmer County, a rural region in central West Virginia where the poverty rate is 25.5 percent.

With a 1-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter, Greenlief was both a recipient of the payments as well as a witness to their impact on clients coming through her pantry door.

“It takes close to an hour to get anywhere important,” she said. “A lot of the resources that typically are available elsewhere don’t trickle down to us. Many of our jobs are related to the gas and oil industry, and a lot of those jobs are on hold right now or are out of state.”

Greenlief used her $550 monthly payments for school clothes and car repairs — a necessity in an area with limited public transportation options.

Often she works with families that are fully employed, making more than the proposed $60,000 income cap but still unable to meet their daily needs, she said.

“What we see a lot of are upper-class poor,” Greenlief said. “These are individuals who make too much money for programmatic support, but they are still struggling on the whole.”

Greenlief said that she often sees families where one or both parents are “working to survive” — meaning rent, food and utilities swallow up their salaries, leaving little to spare. That’s when they show up at Greenlief’s pantry looking for basics such as baby formula, laundry detergent or personal hygiene products.

For this group, the expanded payments have also been critical, she said.

“The families that I’ve been working with over the past several years, they have not had to come back to see me after the CTC,” she said.


Torbati reported from West Virginia. Swenson reported from Washington.

Scoop: Facebook exec warns of "more bad headlines"

Sara Fischer, author of Media Trend


Illustration: Megan Robinson/Axios

In a post to staffers Saturday obtained by Axios, Facebook VP of global affairs Nick Clegg warned the company that worse coverage could be on the way: “We need to steel ourselves for more bad headlines in the coming days, I’m afraid.”

Catch up quick: Roughly two dozen news outlets had agreed to hold stories based on leaked materials from Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen for Monday publication — but the embargo fell apart Friday night as participating newsrooms posted a batch of articles ahead of the weekend.

Why it matters: Confusion and intrigue about the "Facebook Consortium," a group of news outlets that were brought together to report on the same set of leaked documents, known as "The Facebook Papers," has quickly become a story itself.

Driving the news: Clegg's memo warned that the new coverage would likely "contain mischaracterizations of our research, our motives and where our priorities lie," and said employees must “listen and learn from criticism when it is fair, and push back strongly when it is not.”

“But, above all else,” he told Facebook staff, “we should keep our heads held high and do the work we came here to do."

In the note, Clegg references investments made by the company in safety and security, including efforts to boost voting and vaccinations rates. “The truth is we’ve invested $13 billion and have over 40,000 people to do one job: keep people safe on Facebook,” he wrote.

How it happened: Shortly after Haugen appeared on CBS News' "60 Minutes" on Oct. 4, reporters began reaching out to her for interviews and comment, according to two sources familiar with the process.

Haugen had been getting legal and communications help from Harvard Law professor and attorney Larry Lessig. Lessig retained services from former Obama administration communications official Bill Burton through Burton's strategic communications firm Bryson Gillette.

Burton's team then reached out via email to a group of reporters across several newsrooms asking them if they would want to receive a copy of some of the leaked documents from Haugen, according to two sources.

Lessig and Burton's involvement was first reported by Politico, which also reported that eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar was providing support for Haugen.

Participating newsrooms include Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, CBS News, USA Today, Financial Times, The Atlantic, Fox Business, NPR, Bloomberg, Politico, Wired, Casey Newton's Platformer newsletter, Le Monde and German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, in addition to a few other European outlets, according to a list obtained by Axios.

The Wall Street Journal was not part of the consortium, as it had already obtained the leaked documents from Haugen, leading to its blockbuster series called "The Facebook Files."

The outlets that shared the documents began communicating via Slack, per a Friday story in the Information with initial details on the consortium.

Participating newsrooms collectively drew up a set of terms, including publishing all stories based on the leaked documents at the same time early Monday morning.
They also agreed not to share the documents with Facebook or to go to the company for comment until a few days before the publish date.

Reporters received the documents on Oct. 10, according to one source, and some outlets contacted Facebook afterward.

Facebook wanted to learn more about the content of the leaked documents, so about a week later, on Oct. 18, Facebook's VP of communications, John Pinette, sent a cryptic tweet from Facebook's public relations Twitter account, saying "to those news organizations who would like to move beyond an orchestrated ‘gotcha’ campaign, we are ready to engage on the substance."

That got Facebook more information, but it never gained access to any of the actual documents, per two sources familiar with the situation. For the public outside of the consortium, Facebook's tweet was the first they'd hear of the effort.

Where things got muddled: On Friday, The Wall Street Journal published a story referencing the role Facebook played in the Jan. 6 insurrection based on documents it had obtained from Haugen.

Those documents were a part of the leaked set given to the consortium, so the consortium lifted its embargo on that material, opening the door for stories from The New York Times, CNN, NBC News, Bloomberg and others. New York Times reporter Sheera Frankel tweeted confirming that scenario.

What to watch: The consortium's organizers aimed to amplify findings from the leaked documents by having many news organizations report on them simultaneously, creating a big splash.

The public should expect to see much more reporting based off the documents in coming days and weeks, according to sources.

Sources also told Axios that some news outlets have gotten the leaked documents from members of Congress or committee staff, which has helped publications avoid potential liability for publishing illegally obtained material.

Fox News host reveals his company's vaccine mandate on-air: 'I know it's going to get me in trouble'

David Edwards

RAW STORY
October 24, 2021

Fox News/screen grab

After battling Covid-19, Fox News host Neil Cavuto returned to the airwaves on Sunday, where he spoke in favor of vaccine mandates.

"I know it's going to get me in trouble," Cavuto told Fox News host Howard Kurtz. "I hear from a lot of people. I've gotten a lot of nasty emails. The same ones: you're a never-Trumper, you're this, we don't trust you, we don't believe a word you're saying. And that's just coming from my family."

"But having said that, I just want to stress here this is not really about me," he continued. "It's not about people's political positions on this. I get that. No one likes to be ordered to get a vaccine. But I can tell you right now, those who have been vaccinated are in a far better position right now to survive this and even handle cases where they come down with this. The numbers prove it."

Cavuto went on to recommend that other organizations adopt the type of vaccine mandate that is in place at Fox News.

"Maybe there's a call for a protocol much like the one that Fox has where you sort of share your vaccine status," he explained. "If you choose not to get vaccinated, you get regular testings so that you are not a threat to spread this to the workforce."

The Fox News host also addressed people who oppose vaccine mandates.

"I get that," he remarked. "I want to stress that I appreciate that. Look, I have a problem with people telling me what to do. Back in college, I had a problem with bouncers. That's a separate story."

"But for God's sake, think of the bigger picture here," Cavuto added. "Get outside yourself and think about those you work with, think about those around you. Think about just keeping them safe."

"Would it kill you to at least look at those all around you?" he pleaded. "I get where you're coming from on this idea of mandates but get a protocol down that satisfies this. So that we're all safe."

Cavuto concluded by insisting that he does not feel unlucky despite his health problems.

"It does make me a changed person," he said. "I don't look at things through a political spectrum. Down to all my shows. I have no time for that. Life is too short to be an ass. Life is way too short to be ignorant of the promise of something that is helping people worldwide. Stop the deaths. Stop the suffering. Please, get vaccinated. Please."

Watch the video below from Fox News.

Pro-Trump activists reveal Republican elected officials who participated in planning of Jan. 6 rallies: report



Screenshots

ALL STORIES 

BY Sarah K. Burris

RAW STORY
October 24, 2021

A slate of Republican members of Congress is being outed by those who attended planning meetings for the protest that resulted in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, according to a new report in Rolling Stone.

Two sources, according to their story, revealed that Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) were all present on "dozens" of calls with organizers of the group.

Trump aide Katrina Pierson was also named by them a "liaison" between the White House and the rally organizers. Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows was cited as someone who also aided the group.

"I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically," the organizer told Rolling Stone. "I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs."

The former president also spoke to the group, saying that they were going to march to the U.S. Capitol and tell the members of Congress that they needed to hand Trump the election. He promised that he would lead them and walk with them, but that never happened.

"These two sources also helped plan a series of demonstrations that took place in multiple states around the country in the weeks between the election and the storming of the Capitol," said Rolling Stone. "According to these sources, multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process."

"We would talk to Boebert's team, Cawthorn's team, Gosar's team like back to back to back to back," the organizer recalled.

While there have been reports of officials being part of the planning, this is the first report from those involved on the inside, willing to go on the record with investigators and the press.

"Nick Dyer, who is Greene's communications director, said she was solely involved in planning to object to the electoral certification on the House floor," said the report. "Spokespeople for the other members of Congress, who the sources describe as involved in the planning for protests, did not respond to requests for comment."

"Congresswoman Greene and her staff were focused on the Congressional election objection on the House floor and had nothing to do with planning of any protest," Dyer said in an email.

"She objected just like Democrats who have objected to Republican presidential victories over the years," Dyer wrote, which is incorrect. No Democrats have ever attempted to stop certification of election results. Greene's office named a list of Democrats, falsely saying that they attempted to do exactly that when it came to President Donald Trump in 2017.

Dyer went on to say that no one in the U.S. cares about Jan. 6.
Ali Alexander, the original organizer of the event is now in hiding, but he's already said in a since-deleted video that Gosar, Brooks, and Biggs all aided his efforts for the event

"I was the person who came up with the Jan. 6 idea with Congressman Gosar, Congressman Mo Brooks, and Congressman Andy Biggs," Alexander said in the video. "We four schemed up on putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting so that — who we couldn't lobby — we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body hearing our loud roar from outside."

When he organized an event in Phoenix, Gosar was the main speaker. Alexander even referred to him as "my captain" and called him "one of the other heroes has been Congressman Andy Biggs."

"He just couldn't help himself but go on his live [feed] and just talk about everything that he did and who he talked to," one of the planners told Rolling Stone about Alexander. "So, he, like, really told on himself."


"The breaking point for me [on Jan. 6 was when] Trump starts talking about walking to the Capitol," said the organizer. "I was like. 'Let's get the f*ck out of here.'"

"I do kind of feel abandoned by Trump," the planner added. "I'm actually pretty pissed about it, and I'm pissed at him. What the f*ck?"

"I have no problem openly testifying," the planner also said.

Republican Paul Gosar told Jan. 6 rioters they'd get a blanket pardon from Trump: report

Rolling Stone is reporting that a pair of witnesses have spoken to the House Jan. 6 Select Committee revealing that Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) told them President Donald Trump would issue a blanket pardon for some who attacked the U.S. Capitol that day.

According to the report, some of the planners of the rally are communicating with the investigators and the committee.

"Two of these people have spoken to Rolling Stone extensively in recent weeks and detailed explosive allegations that multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump's efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent," said the report, saying that it confirmed the account from a third person.

It's the first time that Americans have heard about a member of Congress being officially tied to the events that unfolded that day.

"While there have been prior indications that members of Congress were involved, this is also the first account detailing their purported role and its scope," said the report. Both of the sources said that there were several members of Congress who participated in planning calls, but Gosar, in particular, was named for making blanket promises that couldn't be kept.

Gosar participated in a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on May 12, 2021, that focused on the Capitol attack and unanswered questions.

"And Gosar, who has been one of the most prominent defenders of the Jan. 6 rioters, allegedly took things a step further," said the report. "Both sources say he dangled the possibility of a 'blanket pardon' in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests."

"Our impression was that it was a done deal," the organizer told Rolling Stone, "that he'd spoken to the president about it in the Oval … in a meeting about pardons and that our names came up. They were working on submitting the paperwork and getting members of the House Freedom Caucus to sign on as a show of support."

They noted that Gosar made the promise "several" times.

"I was just going over the list of pardons and we just wanted to tell you guys how much we appreciate all the hard work you've been doing," Gosar told those on the call.

"I would have done it either way with or without the pardon," the organizer explained. "I do truly believe in this country, but to use something like that and put that out on the table when someone is so desperate, it's really not good business."

The report said that it has "documentary evidence" to prove what the three sources claimed.

Trump campaign aide Katrina Pierson has also been called a "liaison" between the insurrectionists and the White House and Mark Meadows was also named as a key part of the organizing.

Katrina Pierson served as liaison between Jan. 6 insurrectionists and the White House: report

Katrina Pierson talks about Trump's debate performance on CBS (Screen cap).

Rolling Stone spoke to two organizers of the Jan. 6 rally, according to a new report. In so doing, they outed a slate of Republican officials and revealed that Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) claimed, ahead of the rally, that some protesters would be given a "blanket pardon" from President Donald Trump.

While Republican members of Congress participated in the planning discussions leading into the Jan. 6 attack, top Trump aide Katrina Pierson was a "key liaison between the organizers of protests against the election and the White House." Pierson worked for Trump's campaign in 2016 and 2020. Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows was also named.

The two witnesses in Rolling Stone's story claimed they told the investigators that they would be willing to testify against the Republicans, Pierson and any others involved that they knew about.

"Katrina was like our go-to girl," the organizer told Rolling Stone. "She was like our primary advocate."

Pierson was also one of the speakers at the Jan. 6 rally ahead of the attack. She has been named along with several members of Congress who the sources said participated in the planning meetings.

Read the full Rolling Stone report here.

How Biden is trying to rebrand the drone war

The White House is touting an ‘over-the-horizon’ capability as the new face of US counterterrorism, but it’s actually just a repackaged policy from previous administrations.

OCTOBER 25, 2021
Written by  Nick Turse

For months, the White House and Pentagon have been touting the efficacy of “over the horizon” warfare — purportedly an accurate and effective targeting of terrorists in nations where the United States has few or no boots on the ground. “Terrorism has metastasized around the world,” said President Joe Biden in August. “We have over-the-horizon capability to keep them from going after us.”

While peddled as innovative, experts say that over-the-horizon warfare is effectively a rebranding of the drone campaign that has been employed for almost 20 years in places like Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. It is also, they told Responsible Statecraft, likely to fail.

“This idea that over-the-horizon strikes are going to solve all the problems is absolute horseshit,” said Marc Garlasco, who served for seven years at the Pentagon, including as chief of high value targeting during the Iraq War in 2003.

Luke Hartig, who worked on drone strike policy for the Obama administration as a senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, was less colorful but similarly dubious. “I’ve been skeptical of ‘over the horizon’ as the means to conduct counterterrorism strikes since it first started being discussed,” he said. “I’m highly skeptical that maintaining a steady pace of counterterrorism operations — meaning mostly drone strikes — against al Qaeda and ISIS-K is absolutely necessary to keep our country safe.”

The debate regarding over-the-horizon warfare is occurring as the White House attempts to complete its new rules for overseas counterterrorism operations and the Pentagon is doing the same in terms of civilian casualties. All of it comes in the wake of the Taliban victory in Afghanistan and a parting drone strike there that calls the efficacy of remote warfare into question.

“We struck ISIS-K remotely, days after they murdered 13 of our servicemembers and dozens of innocent Afghans,” Biden said in an August 31 speech marking the end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. “We have what’s called over-the-horizon capabilities, which means we can strike terrorists and targets without American boots on the ground — or very few, if needed.”

Two days earlier, on August 29, the Pentagon reported it had carried out a “righteous strike” in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, against an “imminent ISIS-K threat” to U.S. forces. But the final drone strike of America’s 20-year occupation had the same outcome as America’s first in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. It missed its target. Last month, the Pentagon admitted that the Kabul strike was actually a “horrible mistake” that killed 10 civilians, seven of them children.

***

After 20 years of armed conflict around the world, American war-making is in a state of flux. President Biden not only declared an end to the Afghan War but “an era of major military operations to remake other countries.” Last month, his administration also began touting what it bills as new and innovative “core counterterrorism principles.”

“The terror threat has metastasized across the world, well beyond Afghanistan,” said Biden. “We face threats from al-Shabaab in Somalia, al-Qaida affiliates in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula, and ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates across Africa and Asia.” He called it a “new world,” but the United States has been carrying out military interventions across the Greater Middle East and Africa for the last 20 years. This past summer alone, the United States conducted airstrikes not only in Afghanistan, but in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia.

The White House, Pentagon, and State Department have been peddling over-the-horizon counterterrorism operations as a panacea for Afghanistan and beyond. “There are other parts of the world — Somalia, Libya, Yemen — where we don’t have a presence on the ground, and we still prevent terrorist attacks or threats,” said White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, while discussing “over-the-horizon capacities” on August 30. U.S. military spokespersons contradicted Psaki, telling Responsible Statecraft that America does, indeed, have troops on the ground in Somalia and Yemen. Even more worrisome, say experts, is that “over the horizon” looks like a retread of ineffective remote warfare programs of the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations that took a grave toll on civilians.

“Over the horizon? It’s the same program, the same weapon, the same targeting process,” said Jennifer Gibson, a human rights lawyer and project lead on extrajudicial killing at the international human rights group, Reprieve. “It’s as if they said, ‘If we rename it, nobody will know that it’s the same program that’s been killing innocent civilians for more than a decade.’”

The August 29 attack that killed Zemari Ahmadi, a longtime employee of Nutrition and Education International, a U.S.-based charity, three of his sons — Zamir, 20, Faisal, 16, and Farzad, 11; three children of his brother Romal — Arween, 7, Binyamin, 6 and Ayat, 2; Malika, 3, the daughter of another brother, and a cousin’s infant daughter, Sumaiya, was initially touted by the White House as a validation of its new concept. “I would say the fact that we have had two successful strikes confirmed by CENTCOM tells you that our over-the-horizon capacity works and is working,” Psaki said a day later. Since the Pentagon admitted that the attack killed 10 civilians, the White House has backtracked, citing the difference between self-defense strikes and over-the-horizon attacks.

The Kabul strike was rare for two reasons — there were ample reporters on the ground to conduct comprehensive investigations of the August 29 attack and the evidence was so overwhelming that the U.S. military was forced to make a timely admission of culpability — and the first ever apology to a non-Western drone strike victim. “We have had 20 years of strikes just like this that people don’t know about, that have never been investigated thoroughly — or investigated at all, in many cases,” said Garlasco, who was also formerly the head of civilian protection at the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

“The president’s view is that the loss of any civilian life is a tragedy,” a senior White House official, who would speak only on background, told Responsible Statecraft when asked about the August 29 attack. “It is important to note that no military works harder than ours to avoid civilian casualties.”

For the last 20 years, however, the Pentagon has shown little inclination to conduct vigorous inquiries into civilian casualty allegations. An analysis of 228 official U.S. military investigations conducted in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria between 2002 and 2015 found site inspections were carried out only 16 percent of the time, according to researchers from the Center for Civilians in Conflict and the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute. But when journalists, outside investigators, or internal watchdogs have thoroughly examined the military’s airstrikes and “over-the-horizon” capabilities, they have discovered far higher numbers of civilian casualties.

Secret documents obtained by The Intercept revealed that during a five-month stretch of Operation Haymaker — a 2011 to 2013 air campaign aimed at al-Qaida and Taliban leaders along the Afghan-Pakistan border — more than 200 people were killed in airstrikes conducted to assassinate 35 high-value targets. In other words, nearly nine out of 10 people slain in those attacks were not the intended targets.

A 2017 New York Times Magazine investigation of nearly 150 U.S.-led coalition airstrikes targeting ISIS in Iraq found that one in five of the attacks resulted in civilian death, a rate more than 31 times that acknowledged by the coalition.

A 2019 investigation by Amnesty International and Airwars, a U.K.-based airstrike monitoring group, revealed that while U.S.-led forces took responsibility for the deaths of 159 civilians in Raqqa, Syria, they actually killed more than 1,600 in airstrikes and artillery bombardments.

While the Pentagon now admits that, since 2014, it has killed 1,417 civilians in attacks in Iraq and Syria, Airwars, for example, assesses that the number may be as high as 13,172.

Similarly, the Pentagon claims that, after 14 years of attacks in Somalia, it has killed five civilians. Numerous investigations by journalists and NGOs suggest a much higher number. Airwars found that as many as 143 civilians may have died in U.S. strikes.

***

Earlier this year, the Biden administration suspended looser Trump-era targeting principles, imposed temporary limits on counterterrorism “direct action” operations, requiring White House approval for drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional war zones, and launched a review of such operations.

While the creation of a new playbook for counterterrorism operations has been underway since early this year, the White House offered no timeline for its completion. “Because the review is ongoing, I don’t want to speculate on how long the review will take,” the senior official said, emphasizing that similar efforts during the Obama and Trump administrations took “multiple years.” But the Trump administration actually implemented its playbook, known as “Principles, Standards, and Procedures,” or PSP, in 2017, during Trump’s first year in office.

Reports by the press and NGOs indicate that the new “Authorization for the Use of Lethal Force” also known as the “presidential policy memorandum” or PPM will be an amalgam of Obama- and Trump-era policies. It will reportedly employ Obama-esque vetting of intelligence about terrorism suspects and centralized oversight mechanisms but, in certain cases, leave in place Trump-type “country plans” that provide ground commanders significant discretion to conduct strikes.

As the Biden administration crafts its new policy, the Pentagon is reportedly finalizing its Department of Defense Instruction (DoD-I) on Minimizing and Responding to Civilian Harm in Military Operations. Experts are hoping for stringent regulations to safeguard civilian lives. “If the U.S. put as much emphasis on protection as they do on targeting, I think we would have far fewer civilian casualty incidents,” said Garlasco, now the military advisor for PAX, a Dutch civilian protection organization and one of the 12 human rights NGOs that provided recommendations for the forthcoming DoD-I. “If we had a better understanding of how and why civilians are harmed on the battlefield, it would inform the targeting system and fewer people would die from it.”

The senior White House official told Responsible Statecraft that Biden’s counterterrorism review would “seek to ensure appropriate transparency measures,” without defining what they might be. “It’s going to be important to understand how they are assessing civilian casualties and how they are going to assess that the target they wanted to strike is the target they actually struck. It’s more than a policy question. It’s an operational question that has to be unpacked further,” said Luke Hartig, a fellow at New America who focuses on counterterrorism.

Reprieve’s Jennifer Gibson emphasized that while the August 29 Kabul strike was unique due to media accessibility and ample CCTV footage, it still fit a predictable script. “The whole arc of it was the same as ever,” she explained. “A strike occurs, there are claims of civilian casualties, the U.S. insists they were militants. And it would have ended with the U.S. insisting the driver was with ISIS.” In this case, press coverage forced the military to reverse itself.

But such admissions have been rare, even though mountains of evidence demonstrate consistent failures, across many countries, of over-the-horizon warfare. “At what point do we say that we need more than government assurances?” asked Gibson. “After all these years, the burden of proof has to be on the United States.”