Archive for March, 2017

Russian election hack might also expose a strength of American democracy – MarketWatch

Once the U.S. intelligence community came to the conclusion that Russian state actors had interfered in aspects of the 2016 presidential election, a question immediately arose as to whether the Kremlin sought to tilt the scale decisively in Donald Trumps favor or the highest ambition of its alleged hacking and disinformation campaigns during the run-up to the U.S. vote was merely a marginal diminution of faith in Western-style democracy. Consensus seemed to form around the notion that the latter came closer to truth.

Surveying the postelection status quo, an Obama administration official quoted in the much-discussed New Yorker story Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War, frames an alternate, and ultimately more hopeful, question:

The triple-bylined story, spanning 15 pages of the weekly magazine, examines, among numerous other facets, the shaping of the post-1989 (and post-1991) Putin worldview; how the Clintons, and President Obama, became Putin nemeses; when and how Kremlin-aligned entities evolved into global leaders in cyberwarfare tactics, particularly given that Putin himself rarely uses a computer; how alleged Russian efforts in the U.S. culminating last fall could become a template for similar interference in coming European elections; and why the Obama administration was so unwilling to raise the alarm when presented evidence in mid-2016 that Russia had insinuated itself in the central act of American democracy.

Dont miss: Russians alone predicted Donald Trumps victory in November, boasts Putin

Also see: Democrats lighting their hair on fire over Sessions-Russia story, Ryan says

Go here to read the rest:
Russian election hack might also expose a strength of American democracy - MarketWatch

Revealed: Environmental Activist Berta Cceres’ Suspected Killers Received US Military Training – Democracy Now!

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We end todays show by remembering renown Honduran environmental activist Berta Cceres, who was assassinated a year ago in her home in La Esperanza, Honduras, just before midnight, March 2, 2016. Berta Cceres was the co-founder of COPINH, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. In 2015, she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her decade-long fight against the Agua Zarca Dam, a project planned along a river sacred to the indigenous Lenca people. On Thursday, hundreds rallied outside the Honduran Supreme Court building to demand justice for Berta Cceres and for the license of the company behind the Agua Zarca Dam to be revoked. Eight men have been arrested as suspects in Bertas killing, including one active army major and two retired military members. Two of the suspects reportedly received military training in the United States. Also Thursday here in Washington, D.C., Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson reintroduced the "Berta Cceres Human Rights in Honduras Act," which seeks to withhold U.S. military aid to Honduras until the Honduran government addresses human rights violations by its police and security forces. Were turning now to a new investigation that reveals further ties between Berta Cceress killing, Honduran military intelligence, and the United States. Joining us from London is Nina Lakhani, a freelance journalist who has been based in Mexico and Central America for the last four years. Her piece in The Guardian is headlined, "Berta Cceress Court Papers Show Murder Suspects Links to U.S.-trained Elite Troops." Nina, welcome to Democracy Now! What are those links?

NINA LAKHANI: The U.S., over the last decade or so, has really focused a lot of its military training in Central America on special forces. We know that over a period, I think, of five years, 2008-2014, the U.S. went 21 times to Honduras to train their special forces. Two of the military men who have been charged with her murder and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro was special forces. So Major Mariano Diaz who was a veteran special forces officer, at least seven years according to his military records. And also Henry Hernandez, Sergeant Henry Hernandez, who had left the military in 2013, but he was special forces for three years and worked under the direct command of Major Diaz.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about Douglas Giovanni Bustillo?

NINA LAKHANI: Bustillo, he did receive some training as a cadet, I believe, just before he finished his initial military training. Both him and Diaz, who went into the military together, both went to the U.S. to receive training courses. Bustillo did some early training in the School of Americas I think back in 1997.

AMY GOODMAN: So talk about the evidence that youve seen, from text messages to phone calls. And if you can re-create for us what you think took place.

NINA LAKHANI: The evidence really points to I think a very well-planned military operation that took place that night. What we know from witnesses is that there is a police and military checkpoint as you come into Esperanza. And that night, many witnesses have told me and other investigators that there was no one there that night. There was none at the base that night. We know from phone records and from testimony that Hernandez and Bustillo, who knew each other from working a private security, in the months leading up to Bertas assassination, have working together in private security. We know that they were in La Esperanza at least three times in the weeks leading up to her murder. And so at least four people were there that night. Hernandez admits to being there. And at least three other civilians who have been accused of murder were placed at her house because of telephone analysis. They went in. They knew what they were doing. They knew where they were going. All of the evidence points to the house. Inside and out had been under surveillance. Theyd been there several times. And her house was set back from the main gate. It was a guarded community. There was a guard there that night whoits very likely they had communication with him. I met with him before because they came in. It was very dark. Its an isolated place. They knew were the door was. They knew where she would be sleeping. So the evidence points to her house and the area surrounding it had been surveyed, had been studied beforehand. All of that points to really like a military-type operation. Hernandez is the one military person that was placed there that night. Like I say, he was special forces. He worked under Diaz. He was a highlyhed been a decorated sniper. Its not clear whether he pulled the trigger that night, but it would appear that he was in charge of the operation on the night.

AMY GOODMAN: And why would they want

NINA LAKHANI: He was a low-level military officer and rose to the rank of sergeant.

AMY GOODMAN: Nina, why would they want Berta Cceres dead, in this last minuet we have?

NINA LAKHANI: I dont think the people under arrest probably did. The context of her Bertas death: she was the most well-known activist, not only in Honduras, but probably in America, at the time of her murder. None of the individuals who were under arrest, none of the eight, had anything personal to gain from her being killed. And the idea that someone as celebrated as her could be murdered without at least the implicit knowledge of people higher up in the Armed Forces or even the government and the company, I think is highly improbable. None of the eight who were under arrest had anything personal to gain.

AMY GOODMAN: But the government? And has the U.S. been held accountable?

NINA LAKHANI: I think the U.S.I dont think the U.S. governmentthey would not admit to bearing any responsibility to Bertas assassination. I think its important to remember I interviewed her around 2013 just around the elections and she was publicly denouncing the fact she had been told and had been made aware that her name appeared at the top of a military hit-list in which I think there were 16. She was one of 16 activists. She was telling people, you know

AMY GOODMAN: Were going to continue this conversation after the broadcast and post it online. Nina Lakhani, thanks so much for joining us.

Continue reading here:
Revealed: Environmental Activist Berta Cceres' Suspected Killers Received US Military Training - Democracy Now!

Bright Line Watch examines US democracy – The Dartmouth

by Debora Hyemin Han | 3/3/17 2:05am

Last week, government professors John Carey and Brendan Nyhan, University of Rochester political science professor Gretchen Helmke, Yale University political science professor Susan Stokes and market research company partner Mitch Sanders released data from the first survey conducted by Bright Line Watch a project that seeks to use scholarly expertise to monitor democratic practices and call attention to threats to American democracy, according to its website. BLW gave The New York Times early access to the results, which were reported in the Upshot section on Feb. 23.

For its first survey, BLW aimed to understand what qualities were most essential to democracy and use those characteristics to assess the current state of democracy in the U.S. Of the approximately 10,000 political scientists who were invited to participate in the survey, over 1,500 responded, according to Sanders, who is BLWs director of survey research. He said that the survey connects the perspective of political scientists to the questions that people are asking about democracy and political institutions. The survey was based on 19 statements related to characteristics of democracy, from fraud-free elections to limits on executive power to equal-impact voting. Respondents were asked to evaluate the statements on their relevancy and how well the U.S government meets those standards.

The survey found that an overwhelming majority of the experts believe the U.S. meets democratic standards of fraud-free elections, freedom of speech and judicial limits of executive power. Fewer than two-thirds of respondents said the U.S. meets standards of the majority showing restraint and reciprocity and noncriticism of opponents patriotism.

According to Carey, the idea for BLW originated from emails and Facebook messages between himself, Helmke and Stokes prior to the November election. They shared new polls and articles about the election with one another and had conversations about the way American democracy was being spoken about in the media. Most take stability and performance of U.S. democracy for granted, according to Carey, and despite how much people complain about democracy, they usually do not talk about it in existential terms. After the election, the group began to speak about the project in more concrete terms, and by November, the name Bright Line Watch had been established and the method of surveying was beginning to be discussed, Carey added.

The name is a metaphor for the bright line between liberal democracy and other forms of government, according to Nyhan. Because it is often unclear when political regimes cross this line, BLW aims to bring scholarly expertise to the conversation, Nyhan added.

Political scientists have a more nuanced view of what constitutes democracy, and thats what we wanted to capture, Nyhan said.

Sanders said that a survey does well aggregating many opinions based on a robust sample, calling it a good snapshot of what political scientists are thinking.

According to Nyhan, BLW hopes to catalyze a conversation among political scientists about current issues as they occur, adding that it is important for scholars to show their expertise as events unfold.

Ultimately, were counting on expert judgment to ... re-aggregate that information and give you some kind of summary judgment on how the U.S. is performing in those areas, he said.

Both Carey and Nyhan, while emphasizing the non-partisan nature of the project, agreed that the political climate leading up to the election and during the election was a big factor in creating the project. However, Nyhan said that BLW also has elements that originated before President Donald Trumps era.

Its very much inspired [by] current events, but it draws on a vast scholarly literature that long predates Donald Trump or anything having to do with his political relevance, he said.

Furthermore, Nyhan said that it does not seem that the political scientists who participated in the study used the survey as a Trump-bashing vehicle, noting that some responses had very favorable views on certain aspects of the current state of democracy and that the political scientists are answering the question as scholars more so than as individual citizens.

Going forward, Carey said that the project aims to not only aid the American public in understanding the current state of democracy, but also contribute to research and scholarship. Because anyone is able to download the data, do their own analysis and publish their findings, he said he looks forward to seeing how the data can be utilized and incorporated. He added that the resource will become more and more valuable as the group continues to survey and add more waves of data.

In addition, Carey said he sees potential for the group to inform local governments about the current state of democracy. The survey sample could expand to include local officials, rather than just focusing on government at the national level, he said.

We designed the survey in a way that we hope will be interesting to people, to newspaper readers, but actually also to civic leaders, to people working in government at all levels or people who are working in advocacy, Carey said.

Carey and Nyhan say there is also a possibility for BLW to explore a comparative aspect, asking scholars to evaluate the state of American democracy in comparison to democracies of other nations around the world. Carey, Helmke and Stokes all focus on comparative government in their research. Carey said the team has already noticed parallels between the current state of American democracy and the democracies of other nations that they have studied.

[The survey results] were echoing the same themes that weve been debating throughout our whole professional careers you know, how democracy erodes, declines, in some cases, or is extinguished all together, he said.

Carey said that as the project is still new, a year from now, [the group will] have a much better idea of the data the survey is generating.

See original here:
Bright Line Watch examines US democracy - The Dartmouth

Leaked DHS Memo Shows Most Foreign-Born Terrorists Radicalized in US – Democracy Now!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday he will recuse himself from any investigation into last years presidential campaign, following reports he met twice with Russias ambassador to the U.S. while serving as a campaign surrogate for Donald Trump. The revelation directly contradicts Sessions sworn testimony to Congress in January that he did not meet with any Russian officials in the run-up to Novembers election. In a hastily assembled news conference Thursday, Sessions called charges he lied under oath "totally false" and said he failed to mention the meetings with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak because the two did not discuss the campaign.

Jeff Sessions: I was taken aback a little bit about this brand new information, this allegation that surrogates and I have been, I had been called a surrogate for Donald Trump, had been meeting continuously with Russian officials. And thats what struck me very hard and thats what I focused my answer on. In retrospect, I should have slowed down and said, 'But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times, that would be the ambassador.' Thank you all, take care." Sessionss decision to recuse himself came just hours after President Trump said calls for Sessions to resign amounted to a total witch hunt." Trump was questioned by reporters while touring a naval warship Thursday.

Reporter: Mr. President, do you still have confidence in the Attorney General, sir?

President Donald Trump: Total."

Reporter: Should Sessions recuse himself from investigations into your campaign and Russia?"

President Donald Trump: "I dont think so at all. I dont think so" [crosstalk]

Reporter: When did you first learn Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador? Did you know during the campaign?"

President Donald Trump: "I dont think he should do that at all."

Reporter: When were you aware that he spoke to the Russian ambassador?"

President Donald Trump: "I wasnt aware at all."

Meanwhile, ABC News reported Thursday that Sessions used political funds from his senatorial re-election account to meet with Ambassador Kislyak on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention in July. There were growing calls Thursday for Sessions to resign and even to face prosecution. The ACLU demanded an investigation into whether Sessions committed perjury. And President George W. Bushs former ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, said, Misleading the Senate in sworn testimony about [ones] own contacts with the Russians is a good way to go to jail. On Capitol Hill, a chorus of Democratic lawmakers called for Sessions to step down, while demands grew for a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump.

Read the original post:
Leaked DHS Memo Shows Most Foreign-Born Terrorists Radicalized in US - Democracy Now!

Dan Hannan on Communism, Ostalgie, first loves and enforced atheism – EurActiv

Fresh from his Brexit victory over Brussels, Conservative MEP and thinker Daniel Hannan now has Communism in his sights organising an ACRE conference next month in Tirana, Albaniaon the legacy of state socialism for Europe.

EURACTIV.coms Matt Tempest met him for a discussion ranging across the 1968s Prague Spring, first loves, enforced secularism, Che Guevara and the Dunblane handgun ban.

Mr Hannan, youre organising a conference on the legacy of communism and its to coincide with the centenary of the Bolshevik revolution. But it seems to me that anybody who can remember a communist government in Europe must be at least 40 years old and no communist party is in government or even poised to take power anywhere across Europe. So it has to be asked: why now?

Its exactly the centenary year. So 100 years since the beginning of what has to be reckoned, mathematically, the most murderous ideology ever devised by human intelligence. But I think this is an argument that we have to have in every generation. Youre right, there is not a communist regime still standing in Europe and most communist parties have transformed themselves into something else. But the argument has to be held again in every generation.

I read a poll last month that a third of American millennials think that more people were murdered by George W. Bush than by Stalin. When you see those idiotic Che Guevara t-shirts when people unconsciously adopt Marxist language about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, very few people realise that theyre indirectly quoting him. You realise that this is something that goes very deep and you need to show that this is not some respectable alternative among many. The ethic of coercion which was intrinsic to communist rule, leading, sooner or later, to the secret police and the gulags. You can have it in a mild version or you can have it in a brutal version, but in the end, it always ends in autocracy.

I lived in Berlin for six years and had several East German friends. None of them was nostalgic at all for the Stasi, or the Berlin wall, or for the fact that they couldnt leave the country. But there was a certain sense, youve heard of the term Ostalgie they were nostalgic for that sense of free education, full employment, effectively rent-free accommodation. Obviously, none of it was very nice but it removed that worry you have in a capitalist rat race society of How do I pay the bills every month? Is there anything in you, even from the right end of the spectrum, that can see those lures or attractions of communism?

I think something else is going on there. I think people are nostalgic for having been 17-years-old. Which is a very natural and human thing. Were all the centre of our own universes. When we think back to the bright primary colours of our teenage years; the intensity of your first adolescent crush on someone, then the Stasi and the shortages and the drabness fade into the background. Thats not really what youre thinking about. But youre right, it has created this bizarre nostalgia in every communist country from people who forget what it was really like. Theyll say things like we had time to talk.

Well, living one week like that again, without even the most basic necessities being available would be a pretty strong cure if you actually had to go back and do it. But again, this exactly illustrates why we need to keep explaining to people where it leads. This wasnt a system that just meant a bit more state control and a bit less individual liberty. It was a complete hollowing out of civil society; the destruction of everything between the individual and the state. And then, ultimately, the NKVD, the knock in the night, and the torture chambers.

Obviously, all communist governments and regimes were officially atheist and secular. Isnt there something now, when were living in a period of, supposedly, a clash of civilisations Islam versus the West or Islam versus Christianity wasnt there something progressive in this idea of secular states?

I think theres a very respectable argument for secularism on the American model, where the state is effectively holding the ring and allowing each religion to proselytise. Or even secularism on the French model, where you say all of this is a private business. But enforcing atheism, which is effectively what ends up happening because everything is enforced, is every bit as tyrannical as enforcing Taliban-style sharia law, or enforcing fundamentalist Christianity, or any other belief system. The reason that this still matters is its very difficult, even a generation on, to rebuild where civil society has been systematically hollowed out and destroyed.

In 1948, when the Communists took power in Hungary, Jnos Kdr, who went on to become the Hungarian leader, was given the job of destroying independent associations. He systematically went through and closed down every church, every charity, every chess club, every village band, every boy scouts troupe; everything that fills the space normally between the individual and the government. 5,000 organisations, he boasted, that hed liquidated. Thats what we mean by a totalitarian society. And it bizarrely leaves people both atomised and controlled because people are denied the wherewithal to relate one to the other in a voluntary way as individuals. Everything is channelled through the party and the state.

I think of you as the libertarian, free market, property rights end of the right-wing spectrum, but not really the evangelical Christian, who are more obsessed with issues around handguns, banning abortion. Am I right in thinking that those arent your pet issues?

Handguns are not a big issue in the UK. Actually, I do regret the handgun ban. I think it was disproportionate and I dont think it was anything to do with what had just happened the abomination that wed seen. Nobody serious tried to argue that it would have made a difference. But, you know, we are where we are. Its not a campaign of mine to try and reverse the ban. But I do believe in freedom. I believe, very much, in people perusing their own happiness by making their own decisions and finding virtue by not having it coerced. And the defining ethic of communism was not equality, it was coercion.

Sort of a Brexit question, the only Brexit question, and its not a totally facetious analogy; but having defeated the EU with Brexit, and looking at communist regimes, can you see something of that in the EU? Not with the violence or the oppression or the authoritarianism, but as a supranational institution; pan-states and sucking sovereignty inwards.

Not in my worst nightmares have I ever thought that the European Union is going to take away our passports, throw us into gulags or torture us. I suppose that the parallel, and its a very minor and limited one, but its an interesting one in so far as it goes, would be this. By the end of the communist era, you really struggled to find anyone who believed in it. I remember travelling in what we still called Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and I remember thinking this cant carry on because nobody believes in it. None of the people running these countries still believed, if ever they did believe, in the principles of Marxism or Leninism.

But on the other hand, how was it going to end? Because so many people had a vested interest in the status quo. So many people had learned to rise through that power structure. And in that limited sense, I think you can draw a parallel, in that there are very few true believers left in Brussels. But there are an awful lot of people who have learned how to make a good living out of it. And I dont just mean Eurocrats. I mean the armies of consultants and contractors, the big landowners getting money from the CAP, the lobbyists, the professional associations; all sorts of parastatal actors who have learned how to make a handy living out of the EU, one way or another. And just like the nomenklatura in the 1980s, they will fight very hard to maintain their position, not on dogmatical grounds, but out of sheer self-interest.

Certainly, we saw that in the UK referendum a lot of the opposition came from organisations that were directly or indirectly funded by the EU. This wasnt, in other words, about sovereignty or federalism or democracy; it was about mortgages and school fees. And that is a very difficult thing to end. But Ill end on a cheerful note. I think the communist system had been basically delegitimised after the Prague Spring. Up until 1968, you could find idealistic Marxists in central and eastern Europe, who believed that they would eventually get to the stage where they could reintroduce democracy. That once the system had been shown to work, shown to be more economically productive than capitalism, then they could have free elections again. After 1968, nobody really believed that and there were just people clinging on to their position.

I think the French and Dutch referendums in 2004 were a similar moment in Brussels. I think after that, people stopped believing that European federalism would win mass support. But they were determined to cling on to their positions. What was it in the end that brought the communist system down? Again, I can remember in the 80s, very few people saw the end coming. People would say maybe over twenty or thirty years there will be a gradual move to a more reformed kind of Marxism. And a few isolated dreamers would say, no, maybe there will be an exogenous shock; a kind of Chernobyl type massive event that will bring it all down. What was the event that brought down the Marxist system in the end? It was the smallest thing. It was the decision of the Hungarian interior ministry to stop requiring exit visas from East Germans who wanted to travel to Austria. Within two weeks, the whole rotten system had unravelled. And that, I think, does give me hope. Permanence is the illusion of every age.

So why Tirana, Albania?

Tirana is, if you like, the most vivid physical place where you can see the legacy of a communist regime. It was the ultimate autocratic system and the ultimate paranoid system. Enver Hoxha spent an immense amount of money fortifying the country. It was rather like North Korea is today. And a hungry and immiserated population, to use a Marxist word, was paying the cost of what had become a leadership cult, because thats where it ends.

Read more from the original source:
Dan Hannan on Communism, Ostalgie, first loves and enforced atheism - EurActiv