Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored

 06/29/2016 01:17 pm ET | 

Lisa Bloom 
Legal analyst for NBC News and 
Avvo, attorney and bestselling author

MIKE SEGAR / REUTERS

An anonymous “Jane Doe” filed a federal lawsuit against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump last week, accusing him of raping her in 1994 when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media ignored the filing.

If the Bill Cosby case has taught us anything, it is to not disregard rape cases against famous men. Serious journalists have publicly apologized for turning a blind eye to the Cosby accusers for over a decade, notwithstanding the large number of women who had come forward with credible claims. And now history is repeating itself.

In covering a story, a media outlet is not finding guilt. It is simply reporting the news that a lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Trump, and ideally putting the complaint in context. Unproven allegations are just that - unproven, and should be identified that way. (Mr. Trump’s lawyer says the charges are “categorically untrue, completely fabricated and politically motivated.”) Proof comes later, at trial. But the November election will come well before any trial. And while Mr. Trump is presumed innocent, we are permitted - no, we are obligated — to analyze the case’s viability now.

No outsider can say whether Mr. Trump is innocent or guilty of these new rape charges. But we can look at his record, analyze the court filings here, and make a determination as to credibility - whether the allegations are believable enough for us to take them seriously and investigate them, keeping in mind his denial and reporting new facts as they develop.

I have done that. And the answer is a clear “yes.” These allegations are credible. They ought not be ignored. Mainstream media, I’m looking at you.

1. Consider the Context: Mr. Trump’s Overt, Even Proud Misogyny

The rape case must be viewed through the lens of Mr. Trump’s current, longstanding and well documented contempt for women. Men who objectify women are more likelyto become perpetrators of sexual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime.

Mr. Trump has relished calling women “dogs,” “slobs” and “pigs,” and cyberstalked and derided journalist Megyn Kelly for having the temerity to ask him to defend his own words. He threw out the most misogynist of attacks, attempting to undermine her professionalism by accusing her of menstruating. He’s cruelly ridiculed the appearance of a female opponent (Carly Fiorina) and an opponent’s wife (Heidi Cruz). His campaign even openly acknowledged that it disqualified all women for consideration as his vice-president.

Mr. Trump has a long history of debasing women he’s worked with, crossing the line on a regular basis. He’s taken lifelong joy in objectifying women, including hisproclamation: “Women, you have to treat ‘em like shit.”

This cannot be ignored. Decades of abusive language does not make him a rapist. But it does show us who the man is: a callous, meanspirited misogynist who no sane person would leave alone with her daughter. As Dr. Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they really are, believe them.”

2. More context: two prior sexual assault court claims have been made against Mr. Trump

But Mr. Trump has been accused of worse than just misogynist language. Two prior women have accused Mr. Trump, in court documents, of actual or attempted sexual assault. (Mr. Trump denies all the allegations.)

Under oath, Ivana Trump accused Mr. Trump of a violent rape.

First was Ivana Trump, Donald Trump’s first wife, who said under oath in a 1989 deposition that he had violently attacked her, ripped out her hair and forcibly penetrated her without her consent. According to the Daily Beast, she claims he was wildly angry that she’d referred him to a cosmetic surgeon who had botched a “scalp reduction” job (to cover a bald spot) and caused pain in his scalp - hence the vindictive yanking on her hair. At the time Ms. Trump said she felt “violated” by the alleged “rape.”

A few years later, after their divorce was settled, Ms. Trump claimed that she did not mean the word “rape” in a “literal or criminal” sense.

Note: virtually every settlement of a case involving a high profile person paying money to a former spouse - or anyone - requires the person receiving the money to agree in writing to ironclad non-disparagement and confidentiality. In plain English: you promise to be quiet and not say anything bad about the party paying you money. This has been the case in hundreds of settlement agreements I have worked on over the years. Ms. Trump was almost certainly contractually prohibited after she signed from saying anything negative about Mr. Trump. And it is also common to attempt to “cure” prior negative statements with new agreed-to language - like, I didn’t mean it literally. (You didn’t mean forcible penetration literally?)

A business acquaintance accused Mr. Trump of sexual harassment and “attempted rape”.

A second woman accused Donald Trump of sexual assault, in 1997. According to The Guardian, then thirty-four year old Jill Harth alleged in a federal lawsuit that Trump violated her “physical and mental integrity” when he touched her intimately without consent after her husband went into business with him, leaving her “emotionally devastated [and] distraught.” The lawsuit called the multiple acts “attempted rape.” Shortly thereafter she voluntarily withdrew the case when a parallel suit against Mr. Trump brought by her husband was settled. When The Guardian reached the woman in 2016 to ask whether she stood by her sexual assault allegations, she responded, “yes.”

In a court filing, according to a report, Ms. Harth alleged that while she and her husband were trying to do a business deal with Mr. Trump regarding a beauty pageant, he repeatedly propositioned her for sex and groped her, culminating in this frightening alleged incident:

Trump forcefully removed (Harth) from public areas of Mar-A-Lago in Florida and forced (her) into a bedroom belonging to defendant’s daughter Ivanka, wherein (Trump) forcibly kissed, fondled, and restrained (her) from leaving, against (her) will and despite her protests.” In the court document, she said that Trump bragged that he ”would be the best lover you ever have.”

Recently Donald Trump issued a statement that women’s claims of sexual harassment, documented in a lengthy New York Times investigation which included Ms. Harth’s lawsuit, were “made up.”

Jill Harth responded angrily on Twitter last week: “My part was true. I didn’t talk. As usual you opened your big mouth.” 

In other words, she is standing by her story.

3. The new Jane Doe child rape claim against Mr. Trump is consistent with verifiable facts about Mr. Trump and his friend Jeffrey Epstein, and has a powerful witness statement attached to it.

A third woman accused Mr. Trump of rape very recently. According to the Daily Mail, a woman filed an April 2016 lawsuit claiming that when she was thirteen years old she was held as a sex slave to Mr. Trump and his friend Jeffrey Epstein. The woman claimed to have a witness, “Tiffany Doe,” to the incidents. She filed the case in pro per, that is, without the assistance of a lawyer.

The case was dismissed by the court for technical filing errors. She then obtained a lawyer and the case was modified and refiled in New York federal court, against Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein.

I’ve carefully reviewed this federal complaint. It is now much stronger than the one she filed on her own, which makes sense because she now has an experienced litigator representing her. Jane Doe says that as a thirteen year old, she was enticed to attend parties at the home of Jeffrey Epstein with the promise of money modeling jobs. Mr. Epstein is a notorious  “billionaire pedophile” who is now a Level 3 registered sex offender - the most dangerous kind, “a threat to public safety” — after being convicted of misconduct with another underage girl.

Jane Doe says that Mr. Trump “initiated sexual contact” with her on four occasions in 1994. Since she was thirteen at the time, consent is not an issue. If Mr. Trump had any type sexual contact with her in 1994, it was a crime.

On the fourth incident, she says Mr. Trump tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her, in a “savage sexual attack,” while she pleaded with him to stop. She says Mr. Trump violently struck her in the face. She says that afterward, if she ever revealed what he had done, Mr. Trump threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed.” She says she has been in fear of him ever since.

New York’s five year statute of limitations on this claim - the legal deadline for filing — has long since run. However, Jane Doe’s attorney, Thomas Meagher, argues in his court filing that because she was threatened by Mr. Trump, she has been under duress all this time, and therefore she should be permitted additional time to come forward. Legally, this is calling “tolling” - stopping the clock, allowing more time to file the case. As a result, the complaint alleges, Jane Doe did not have “freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time.” He cites two New York cases which I have read and which do support tolling

Two unusual documents are attached to Jane Doe’s complaints - sworn declarations attesting to the facts. The first is from Jane Doe herself, telling her horrific story, including the allegation that Jeffrey Epstein also raped her and threatened her into silence, and this stunner:

Defendant Epstein then attempted to strike me about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at me that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who took my virginity, not Defendant Trump . . .

And this one:

Defendant Trump stated that I shouldn’t ever say anything if I didn’t want to disappear like Maria, a 12-year-old female that was forced to be involved in the third incident with Defendant Trump and that I had not seen since that third incident, and that he was capable of having my whole family killed.

The second declaration is even more astonishing, because it is signed by “Tiffany Doe”, Mr. Epstein’s “party planner” from 1991-2000. Tiffany Doe says that her duties were “to get attractive adolescent women to attend these parties.” (Adolescents are, legally, children.

Tiffany Doe says that she recruited Jane Doe at the Port Authority in New York, persuaded her to attend Mr. Epstein’s parties, and actually witnessed the sexual assaults on Jane Doe:

I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.

It is exceedingly rare for a sexual assault victim to have a witness. But Tiffany Doe says:

I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.

Tiffany Doe corroborates, based on her own personal observations, just about everything in Jane Doe’s complaint: that twelve year old Maria was involved in a sex act with Mr. Trump, that Mr. Trump threatened the life of Jane Doe if she ever revealed what happened, and that she would “disappear” like Maria if she did.

Tiffany Doe herself says that she is in mortal fear of Mr. Trump to this day:
I am coming forward to swear to the truthfulness of the physical and sexual abuse that I personally witnessed of minor females at the hands of Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein . . . I swear to these facts under the penalty for perjury even though I fully understand that the life of myself and my family is now in grave danger.

Given all this, and based on the record thus far, Jane Doe’s claims appear credible. Mr. Epstein’s own sexual crimes and parties with underage girls are well documented, as is Mr. Trump’s relationship with him two decades ago in New York City. Mr. Trump told a reporter a few years ago: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Powerfully, Jane Doe appears to have an eyewitness to all aspects of her claim, a witness who appears to have put herself in substantial danger by coming forward, because at a minimum Mr. Epstein knows her true identity.

Jane Doe has not granted any interviews, and we don’t know anything about her background, or Tiffany Doe’s, or the details of their stories. Much information needs to be revealed to fully assess this case. Perhaps they will be discredited on cross-examination. Perhaps they will recant. But if we’re going to speculate in that direction, we should speculate in the other direction as well. Perhaps Jane Doe and her lawyer will have more evidence and witnesses to corroborate her claim. Perhaps witnesses from Mr. Epstein’s notorious parties will come forward. We just can’t know any of that at this point.

But based on what we do know now, Jane Doe’s claims fall squarely into the long, ugly context of Mr. Trump’s life of misogyny, are consistent with prior sexual misconduct claims, are backed up by an eyewitness, and thus should be taken seriously. Her claims merit sober consideration and investigation.

We live in a world where wealthy, powerful men often use and abuse women and girls. While these allegations may shock some, as a lawyer who represents women in sexual abuse cases every day, I can tell you that sadly, they are common, as is an accuser’s desire to remain anonymous, and her terror in coming forward.

What do you call a nation that refuses to even look at sexual assault claims against a man seeking to lead the free world?

Rape culture.

We ignore the voices of women at our peril.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

UK Israel Lobby Excoriates Leading Jewish Corbyn Supporter for Pointing Out Jews Weren’t Only Victims of Holocaust

UK Israel Lobby Excoriates Leading Jewish Corbyn Supporter for Pointing Out Jews Weren’t Only Victims of Holocaust

September 29, 2016 By Richard Silverstein 

Momentum vice-chair, Jackie Walker

There is a major flaw in permitting non-Jews and the Israel Lobby to define key aspects of Jewish identity.  Especially when those controlling the process either are ignorant of Jewish history or exploit it for political advantage.  Take, for example, the Holocaust and anti-Semitism.  The Likudists in Israel and in the Diaspora have twisted the accepted definition of anti-Semitism so that it now includes virtually any criticism of Israel.  As for the Holocaust it is, in this view, the sole property of the Jewish people.  And our victimhood has assumed saintly status, which may neither be questioned or criticized.

For example, anyone who points out that the pre-State Yishuv leadership, including David Ben Gurion, adopted a severely compromised moral position regarding saving the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust.  And if you, God forbid, point out there were high-level Nazi leaders who, like Ben Gurion, saw for a time an answer to the Jewish Question inexpelling European Jews to Palestine–well, then the sky and the wrath of the Lobby will fall upon you.

Over the past few months, as Jeremy Corbyn has assumed leadership of the British Labour Party and triumphed in a second leadership battle last week, the UK Israel Lobby and disgruntled establishment figures in the Party have mounted a rearguard action seeking to undermine him by accusing him of being insufficiently deferential to the interests of Israel.  Indeed, they’ve gone further and accused him of supporting Islamist groups like Hezbollah or even being a closet anti-Semite.

These nigglers know that they can’t mount a direct assault on Corbyn, who has already won two decisive victories in leadership battles, so they pick and choose among various key Corbyn supporters who display the temerity to question the political line of the Lobby.  Such happened earlier today to a leader of the Momentum faction, which offers key support to Corbyn, Jackie Walker.  It’s rather shocking to discover, in light of the vicious attack against her, that she is, in fact, Jewish.  It’s not at all surprising that the media outlet which ginned up the latest anti-Corbyn outrage is none other than the Telegraph, otherwise known as Torygraph.

At a Party conference on anti-Semitism, she offered the following observations:

““I came in here … and I was looking for information and I still haven’t heard a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with … [shouting from audience] and in terms of Holocaust day, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust day was open to all people who experienced Holocaust … [shouting from audience] in practice, it’s not actually circulated and advertised as such.”

I’m not at all surprised that Walker is dissatisfied with the definitions of anti-Semitism offered by Israel advocates since they are attempts to expand the traditional definition of the term which is confined to hatred of Jews or discrimination of Jews as a religion or ethnic group.  There is no reference at all to Israel in conventional definitions, unless someone derogates Israel referring to it solely in a disparaging Jewish context.

It’s worth quoting from the actual purpose of the UK Holocaust Memorial Day as stated in the official website:

Holocaust Memorial Day aims to:

• recognise that the Holocaust was a tragically defining episode of the 20th Century, a crisis for European civilisation and a universal catastrophe for humanity
• provide a national mark of respect for all victims of Nazi persecution and demonstrate understanding with all those who still suffer its consequences
• raise awareness and understanding of the events of the Holocaust as a continuing issue of fundamental importance for all humanity
• ensure that the horrendous crimes, racism and victimisation committed during the Holocaust are neither forgotten nor repeated, whether in Europe or elsewhere in the world
• restate the continuing need for vigilance in light of the troubling repetition of human tragedies in the world today
• reflect on more recent atrocities that raise similar issues
• provide a national focus for educating subsequent generations about the Holocaust and the continued relevance of the lessons that are learnt from it
• provide an opportunity to examine our nation’s past and learn for the future
• promote a democratic and tolerant society, free of the evils of prejudice, racism and other forms of bigotry
• support the view that all citizens – without distinction – should participate freely and fully in the economic, social and public life of the nation
• highlight the values of a tolerant and diverse society based upon the notions of universal dignity and equal rights and responsibilities for all its citizens
• assert a continuing commitment to oppose racism, antisemitism, victimisation and genocide
• support our shared aspirations with both our European partners and the wider international community centred on the ideals of peace, justice and community for all

Note, that there isn’t a single reference to “Israel” nor even a reference to Jews or Judaism.  Clearly, those who authored this statement and conceived of transforming Holocaust Memorial Day into a UK national holiday saw the best way to do that as presenting the Holocaust as a crime not just against Jews, but all of humanity.  They wisely understood that presenting it solely as a symbol of Jewish victimhood would have less appeal to the British populace.

What’s interesting regarding this outburst is that all of a sudden, when it becomes useful, Holocaust Memorial Day relapses into a day owned by Jews.  What happened to the universality theme espoused above?  It was dropped quicker than a hot potato.

Here is some of the meretricious nonsense offered by Jeremy Newmark, chairman of the Board of Deputies in criticism of Walker:

“I am appalled that somebody who has already caused great hurt and pain to so many Jewish people by promoting an anti-Semitic myth would come to a training session designed to help party activists address anti-Semitism and use the occasion to challenge the legitimacy of the training itself,” he said.

“To denigrate security provision at Jewish schools, make false claims about the universality of National Holocaust Memorial Day and to challenge recognised definitions of anti-Semitism is provocative, offensive and a stark example of the problem facing the Labour Party today.

“As vice-chair of Momentum, Jackie Walker has consistently failed to demonstrate any sensitivity to the impact of her words and actions upon the Jewish community. She must now consider her position, show some sensitivity and contrition or resign.”

According to the media coverage of the event, Walker didn’t question the training itself.  She questioned the definition of anti-Semitism it offered.  And she certainly wasn’t questioning the “universality” of Holocaust Memorial Day.  In fact, just the opposite: she was asking why the Day had been shorn of its universality.

But what Newmark is really arguing is that the Day should be recognized universally as the property of Jews, not that non-Jewish victims (of whom there were many millions) should be recognized as victims.  What about the gays, Communists, disabled people, and Gypsies who were “offered” the Final Solution?  Have you forgotten them, Mr. Newmark?

Apparently, another major irritant for the Israel Lobby is that Walker has compared the slave trade to genocide by calling it an “African holocaust.”  In truth, given the millions of Africans who were enslaved or died on their path to the New World, and the role which European powers played in maintaining it, there is ample justification to label this genocide.  Just because slave traders didn’t set up crematoria and burn their chattel alive doesn’t mean the term doesn’t apply.

In truth, this mock horror at the supposed anti-Semitism of the new Labour Party is a sham.  It is a useful cudgel the Israel Lobby and a largely Tory-aligned UK Jewish community can wield against a Party which threatens to adopt a more even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.  Corbyn’s critics are either Tories, or old Labour who hate the fact that their Party has turned from its Blairite path.

There are Jewish Labour Party supporters who have risen to defend Walker here.  For a more sympathetic account of Jackie Walker and her background including an interview with her, read this.  H/t to OffCentreNews.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2016/09/29/uk-israel-lobby-excoriates-leading-jewish-corbyn-supporter-pointing-jews-werent-victims-holocaust/

The Countless Contradictions of the Late and Great Shimon Peres

The Countless Contradictions of the Late and Great Shimon Peres

Israeli politicians and American Jewish leaders lauding him today,

undermined Shimon Peres when it could have made a difference.

Chemi Shalev Sep 28, 2016 12:57 PM

Friedrich Nietzsche provided the formula that was the essence of Shimon Peres’s long and remarkable life. “One is fruitful only at the cost of being rich in contradictions; one remains young only on condition that the soul does not relax, does not long for peace,” the German philosopher wrote, as if he was intimately acquainted with the intricacies of the future Israeli leader.

But Peres longed for peace, you might protest, but you’d be wrong. Peres longed for peace for Israel, but not for himself. He fought for peace every way he could, conventionally and unconventionally, with the armies at his disposal and with guerilla tactics, in direct confrontations as well as psychological warfare. If Peres had seen peace in his time he would have grown tired of it and moved on to something else, which he did in any case. His soul never relaxed, as Nietzsche noted, which is why he stayed forever young even as he grew old.

Peres was abundantly rich in contradictions. It made him fruitful and fascinating, complicated instead of straightforward, multilayered rather than direct. It was his greatest strength but also his biggest weakness. Throughout most of his life, the Israeli public shied away from Peres’ complexity. It was misinterpreted as a sign of deviousness and even corruption. It sparked fear and hostility, before these emotions evolved, in the twilight of his life, to appreciation and admiration.

Peres was Israel, from start to finish, but he was never fully accepted as an Israeli. In his life he was often seen as an outsider and in his death he is depicted as an apparition from the heavens above. Peres lived in Israel for 82 of his 93 years, but he never looked like an Israeli, never sounded like one, never behaved like one and never thought like one. He was a man of the world in a country that sees only itself, a connoisseur of nuance and finesse playing to bleachers of bluster and bombast, a rational actor on a stage where emotions reign supreme.

Peres was a founder of the country’s defense establishment but also a pioneer of its search for peace. He fathered Israeli settlements in the territories but crafted the instruments of their potential demise. He was the first Israeli leader to treat Palestinian leaders as human beings, going out of his way to show respect and sometimes affection, but he was a Johnny-come-lately in supporting Palestinian statehood. 

As prime minister he ordered Operation Grapes of Wrath, possibly for electoral reasons, and it was under his watch that the Israeli Army committed the Qana massacre in South Lebanon, in which over a hundred Palestinians were killed.

Peres was the architect and sub-contractor of Israel’s doomsday apparatus, but he was ridiculed as a wishy-washy trench-dodger, scorned for preferring suits to khakis, never accepted as one of the boys. He was a hawk who was mistaken for a dove, a local-patriot with cosmopolitan designs, a pragmatist portrayed as an idealist, a man of vision described by his enemies as suffering from hallucinations. 

Peres was insulted to the very core of his being when his arch rival Yitzhak Rabin branded him forever as a “tireless schemer” in his 1970’s autobiography Service Book, but he was all that and more: a tireless dreamer, a tireless thinker, a tireless planner, a tireless speaker, a tireless persuader, a tireless reader, a tireless writer and a tireless performer. Sometimes, he was a tireless gossip as well. 

Peres seemed like a fish out of water in rough and tumble Israeli politics, but he was also a slight from the lowliest of politicians and journalists, yet he absorbed more scorn and ridicule than any other Israeli politician and always came out stronger.

Peres didn’t suffer fools gladly and he surrounded himself with the best and the brightest. He was always flabbergasted when bettered by the simpler and more direct Rabin and Yitzhak Shamir and amazed when they seemed more popular too.

 Peres was often too clever by half, way too smart for his own good: perhaps this is the secret of his soft spot for Benjamin Netanyahu, a politician as well read and as self-conflicted as Peres himself.

Peres fulfilled every major role that Israel had to offer yet often sounded as if he’d been unjustly denied. He was lauded and feted and admired throughout the world, yet felt deprived and thirsted for more. He is being hailed now as the godfather of peace in the Middle East, yet it was Menachem Begin who signed a peace treaty with Egypt and Rabin who reached an accord with King Hussein of Jordan, while Peres’ offspring, the Oslo Accords, stalled and derailed. And while the 1993 agreement was a springboard for an unprecedented Israeli renaissance in the diplomatic, cultural and technological arenas, Peres was denied proper credit and singled out instead as the man who brought terror to Israel’s doorstep.

In his latter years, Peres was Israel’s fig leaf. The man who was always depicted as a foreign entity miraculously metamorphosed into a poster boy for the Zionist entity. He was the Israel that everyone wanted it to be, rather than the country that actually is. He epitomized an innovative, forward-looking, peace-seeking cosmopolitanism, an Israel that is a member in good standing in the international community, a beacon onto the nations rather than a recalcitrant occupier and subjugator of the Palestinians. He was unappreciated and undermined, by Israeli politicians as well as American Jewish leaders, when he needed help and was in a position to make history; he was embraced and placed on a pedestal only when it made no difference at all.

Peres was, the New Yorker once wrote of Winston Churchill, larger than life, a giant among pygmies, warts and all. Over the course of the past 30 years, it was my privilege and my pleasure to enjoy his company from time to time, on good days as well as awful. Like most politicians, Peres liked to talk, but unlike his peers, he sometimes chose to listen. He was concerned with himself, but interested in his interlocutor as well. He had a wicked sense of humor, though one reserved mainly for his enemies rather than himself.

I was never blind to Peres’ shortcomings, though I can’t say he appreciated it when I occasionally pointed them out. He was brilliant but sometimes obtuse, curious but always self-centered, broad minded but sometimes petty, generous but sometimes vindictive and mean. He was no Nietzschean superman by any measure but whenever I was with him there was never a doubt in my mind that I was in the company of greatness.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.744735

Watching Trump and Clinton debate Isis from my home in the Middle East was as predictable as it was absurd

'We have to knock the hell out of Isis – and we have to do it fast,' Trump told the world. Well, sure, but haven’t we all been knocking the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, even Lebanon, and achieving the constant rebirth of ever more vicious warriors, of which Isis may soon generate another, even worse progeny? 

• Robert Fisk
• 
  

  27-09-2016

Watching them both yacking on about the Middle East as a pink dawn glowed from behind the Lebanese mountains above Beirut, I found the Trump-Clinton show a grimly instructive experience. In the few hundred miles east and south of Lebanon, hundreds are dying every week – in Syria, in Yemen, in Iraq – and yet there were the terrible twins playing “I can beat Isis better than you can beat Isis”. Was this what the Arab world really meant to the reality show participants at the unpronounceable university campus on Long Island?

READ MORE

Former Miss Universe branded 'Miss Piggy' by Trump trolls him

What was it Trump said to Clinton? “You’ve been fighting Isis your entire adult life!” And what did Clinton say? “Well at least I have a plan to fight Isis!” After an hour, I was praying that the Lebanese slept on amid the mountains. Please God there would be electricity cuts in Aleppo and Baghdad and Sanaa – just for these 90 minutes, you understand – so that the people enduring the Middle East tragedy did not witness how the next US president was using their homelands as a movie back-lot.

“He has no plan to defeat Isis,” quoth Madame Clinton. But does anyone? It’s a pity, for example, that they didn’t outline “plans” for justice, freedom and dignity in the Middle East and an end to the policy of bombing, bombing, bombing and more bombing that now seems to equal political initiative in the Arab world. But of course they did not, for all this was slotted into the last bit of the CNN show, the climax which was – wearingly and predictably – entitled “American security”.

There was a very brief mention by Trump of “Bibi Netanyahu” that must have left many American viewers completely floored – save for those supporters of Israel to whom, of course, it was addressed – but that was all we heard about another small conflict in the Middle East. Cliché and banality rubbed up against each other. Clinton claimed that Obama had stopped those “centrifuges that were whirling away” in Iran – I’m not sure that centrifuges do “whirl”, though Clinton may have been talking about the “whirling dervishes” who also live in the region. And then Trump came up with his apple pie throwaway.

“The Middle East is a total mess,” and Iran would soon be a “major power” – as if Iran was not already a major power in the region, as it has been for around 3,000 years. But what particular “mess” was he talking about? The “mess” in the hospitals of eastern Aleppo? The “mess” of Egypt’s civil rights – though I do suspect that Brigadier-General-President al-Sissi’s version would rather appeal to Trump – or the “mess” left behind by the bombing of the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Afghanistan? Or perhaps the “mess” of Palestine – another word that mercifully was not dwelt upon by the duo who both plan to rule America? Didn’t “Bibi” mention that to Trump? Or the “mess” of Nato, whose killing of Serbs (and quite a few Kosovo Muslims) in 1999 was followed by the Alliance’s support for the Afghan war but which, according to Trump, “does not focus on terror”?

“We have to knock the hell out of Isis – and we have to do it fast,” the great man told the world. Well, sure, but haven’t we all been knocking the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, even Lebanon (a few years ago), and achieving the constant rebirth of ever more vicious warriors, of which Isis – heaven spare us the thought – may soon generate another, even worse progeny? Trump apparently believed that Isis would not exist if Obama had left 10,000 US troops in Iraq – a strategy Isis would surely have applauded – while Clinton moaned on about how the Iraqi government “would not protect American troops”.

And there you have it, I suppose. It is the Arab world’s job, isn’t it, to “protect” America in its various military occupations, or – at the very least – the task (yes, this old chestnut was indeed produced) of “our friends in the Middle East”. And who were they, I wondered? Those fantastic Saudis who gave us 15 of the 9/11 hijackers? About the only nonsense left un-uttered by Trump and Clinton was that Isis was born outside the United States. There they would have been on safe ground. Or would they? For I suspect there may be a growing number of Arabs who believe that Isis is indeed a child born in America.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-america-presidential-debate-first-isis-american-security-middle-east-a7332516.html

Clinton Emails on Libya Expose The Lie of ‘Humanitarian Intervention’

 

01/22/2016 04:16 pm ET |

 Updated Jan 22, 2016

Dan Kovalik 

Human & Labor Rights Lawyer, Adjunct Professor of International Human Rights Law

STRINGER VIA GETTY IMAGES

By now, everyone but the most delusional must concede that the Libya intervention was a debacle of gigantic proportions. Libya remains a failed state with Jihadists controlling huge swaths of the country, including the once-prosperous town of Sirte. 
The security of Tunisia, Mali and the Lake Chad Region (Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon) has been profoundly undermined by the spill-over from the Libya conflict. And, though the NATO intervention in Libya was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as “thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,” and “kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant.”

Incredibly, the deeper questions about the Libya intervention and its aftermath remain a largely verboden topic, even as the invasion’s prime intellectual author, Hillary Clinton, campaigns for the highest office in the land. However, thanks to the release of many of her emails from her time as Secretary of State, one can get a rare glimpse into the making of what has been claimed to be a “humanitarian intervention.” And, the emails show that the NATO operation was nothing of the sort.

Thus, while Clinton was able to obtain passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 - a resolution which authorized a no-fly zone to protect civilians - on March 17, 2011, those civilians that Clinton claimed needed most urgent protection (the civilians in the town of Benghazi) were relatively safe by this time. Thus, Hillary’s assistant, Huma Abedin, in an email (Doc No. C05778494) dated February 21, 2011 - that is, just a mere 4 days after the initial anti-government protests broke out in Libya — explains:

Based on numerous eyewitness reports, it is the Embassy’s assessment that the government no longer controls Benghazi. This is likely the case for Ajdabiyah as well. Numerous sources in Benghazi report that Libyan Interior Minister Abdul Fattah Younes has “changed sides” and is “now with the protesters in Benghazi.” The mood in Benghazi and Ajdabiyah is allegedly “celebratory” and all posters of Qadhafi have been knocked down. . . .

Then, on March 2, a couple of weeks before Resolution 1973 was passed, Harriet Spanos of USAID sent an email (Doc No. C05778340) describing the relative calm in Benghazi. Thus, she explains that “Security Reports . . . confirm that Benghazi has been calm over the past couple of days.” She explains that “economic activity is going on in Benghazi,” that shops and banks are open and that “[m]obile and landline phones are working and Internet has returned.”

Probably the most revealing email is dated March 30, 2011, just 11 days into the NATO bombing campaign which would go on until October, 20, when Qaddafi was finally murdered (after being sodomized). In this email (C05782459), entitled “Win this War,” Clinton’s closest adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, makes it clear that, in terms of the continuing reasons for the war, any “humanitarian motive offered is limited, conditional and refers to a specific past situation.” In other words, while NATO would go on bombing for another 7 months, Blumenthal is already admitting that there is really no humanitarian basis for continuing the conflict.

Still, Blumenthal insists on the importance for pressing on until final victory (i.e., the overthrow of Qaddafi, who he calls “Q”). And, he explains that the reasons for doing so include, first and foremost, boosting Obama’s then-anemic approval ratings. The other reasons he outlines are “establishing security in North Africa, securing democracy in Egypt and Tunisia, economic development, effect throughout Arab world and Africa, extending U.S. influence, counter-balancing Iran, etc.” Again, humanitarianism is notably absent from this list.

Moreover, in terms of the alleged goal of promoting regional security, a number of emails reflect the awareness that the bombing campaign, and the toppling of the aggressively anti-Al Qaida Qadhafi, might very well open a space for Al Qaida and allied forces to take over many parts of Libya, as they actually have. For example, one email (Doc No. C05780521), again from Blumenthal to Clinton, explains that “[t]raditionally, the eastern part of Libya has been a stronghold for radical Islamist groups, including the al Qaida-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. While Qaddafi’s regime has been successful in suppressing the jihadist threat in Libya, the current situation opens the door for jihadist resurgence.” Given this knowledge, how Blumenthal could then argue that “winning the war” against Qaddafi was somehow necessary for regional security is bizarre in the extreme. Of course, such muddled thinking is not unique to Blumenthal or Clinton, but seems to pervade the leadership of both our political parties.

Meanwhile, the emails actually demonstrate a complete lack of concern for humanitarian violations by the pro-NATO rebels. Thus, in but another email to Hillary, dated March 27, 2011 (C057824501), Blumenthal explains, “[s]peaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries in the fighting.” Now, summarily executing even armed combatants is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, but neither Blumenthal nor Hillary demonstrate much concern about such trifles.

Even more concerning, it became known during the course of the NATO invasion thatthe claims of foreign mercenaries fighting for Qaddafi were false; that, in fact, the alleged foreign mercenaries were really African guest workers. What was really happening was that the rebels were summarily arresting and murdering people who happened to be black, and doing so in very large numbers. In other words, it was the U.S.’s rebel friends who were actually carrying out genocide in Libya, and NATO, which had a UN mandate to protect civilians in Libya, was aiding and abetting them in doing it.

All of this should be of great concern for those truly interested in human rights, and for those interested in stopping the next war which will surely be premised on some alleged humanitarian concerns. This should be a lesson that such concerns should be looked at quite skeptically, and that, as international law requires, peaceful means should be the first resort to try to protect the lives of innocents. And, in terms of peaceful means, the Clinton emails reveal one other important fact - that before and during the NATO conflict, 

Clinton and her team knew very well, and actually feared, that the conflict in Libya might very well have been resolved through negotiations; that indeed, Muammar Qaddafi’s son Saif was actually trying to find ways to do just that. However, Clinton shunned such efforts, instead preferring a war, despite its quite predictably horrible consequences, which would give the U.S. and its allies the hand they wanted in the future of Libyan and African affairs. In the end, the welfare of the Libyan people, and of the people of Northern Africa, were sacrificed, not protected, by such a choice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/clinton-emails-on-libya-e_b_9054182.html