Author: d.lundy

Much furor arose over the past weekend regarding comments Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made, saying that roughly half of Republican candidate Donald Trump’s supporters could be put in a “basket of deplorables”, citing their bigoted attitudes and highly questionable (to put it mildly) views about women and non-whites.  Mr. Trump, along with other Republicans, screamed and hollered over the remarks, accusing Mrs. Clinton of generalizing supporters of the unorthodox candidate and painting them in a negative light.

The question here, however, is this: Was Mrs. Clinton being unfair to certain Trump supporters in her characterization?  As shown in this piece by Vox, the polls seem to indicate otherwise.

Let’s look, for example, at a poll from Reuters and Ipsos conducted from June and July looking at broad views regarding Islam.  Here, 58 percent of Trump supporters held “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” views on the religion (compared to 24 percent of Clinton supporters).

Another Poll, from the Texas Politics Project, goes further, showing that 76 percent of Republicans support the idea of banning Muslims from entering the US.  This is in comparison to just 26 percent of Democrats.

When it comes to immigration, a poll from Fox News in July of 2015 asked voters about their opinions on Mr. Trump’s remarks during the launch of his campaign, referring to Hispanics as “criminals” and “rapists”.  About 70 percent of Republicans found the underlying meaning of the comments “acceptable”, aside from the wording that was used.

The polling presented in the Vox piece goes down the line, showing that quite significant numbers of Trump supporters hold other disturbing views when it comes to other groups such as blacks.  In total, a disturbing picture is illustrated before us, portraying an entire, significant chunk of supporters with disturbing views, all coalescing around the Republican candidate.  What does that tell us about the Trump campaign, and ultimately the state of our democratic system, that we have gotten to such a place.

Michael Hirsh, the national editor of Politico Magazine, came out with a piece over this past weekend taking stock of where things stand in terms of the United State’s “Global War on Terrorism.”  He states the obvious on the total, unmitigated quagmire that the war has become, and spends a good fraction of the piece tearing apart the Bush Administration’s decisions in this respect.

He tells us here that our nation’s battle against terrorism could have been one wrapped up in roughly six months, a sentiment expressed by people such as CIA officer in charge of the Tora Bora operation in Afghanistan that once cornered Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, Gary Berntsen.  Of course, instead, beginning with that very moment, when then-President George W. Bush turned down Berntsen’s request to go after Bin Laden, disastrous foreign policy mistake after disastrous foreign policy mistake was made, leading to the current messy situation in Iraq and Syria, facing a viscous, brutal enemy in ISIS with no end in sight.

One obvious area where the Bush administration has blundered significantly in is when it comes to civil liberties.  We now know about the renditions, the waterboarding (along with the other enhanced interrogation techniques), the indefinite detentions, etc.  Barack Obama was elected president in part to repudiate these violations and to leave the US with a better “code” to combating terrorism while still respecting civil rights and liberties under the Constitution.

However, as Hirsh points out:

“Sadly, rather than developing a ‘code’ for future presidents, as he’s said he wants to do, the president’s policy of dramatically stepped-up and secretly targeted drone killings and special-ops raids—for which there is no real public accountability—could well end up leaving a less principled successor an open-ended license to conduct permanent drone warfare, or to place American boots on the ground anywhere in the world.

Obama has in fact stretched the laws of war—never that clear to begin with—past their intended breaking point in the effort to continue his secret global war without new authorization. There may be no better example than the concept of ‘elongated imminence’—a new, quasi-Orwellian term for a tactic the Obama administration is using to justify more strikes under Article II of the Constitution, under which the president has the power to respond on his own to ‘imminent’ threats. Under this new interpretation, according to an account in Daniel Klaidman’s 2012 book, Kill Or Capture, terrorists no longer have to be on the verge of pulling the trigger or boarding a plane, or for an attack to be about to happen. They just have to be in the first stages of planning an attack for the president to order them killed. ‘It would be enough if they were designing the suicide vests,’ Klaidman wrote.”

Last night, at the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton certainly got a grilling.  She got peppered, both by moderator Matt Laurer of NBC News, and by the audience, with questions bringing to light her judgement.  She was hammered not only in regards to her e-mail scandal, but also in regards to her vote to support the Iraq War and her decisions as Secretary of State, with the underlying question at hand being whether we as a nation can trust Mrs. Clinton to use our armed forces for legitimate reasons.

But, let’s face it.  The real main event of the night was the half-hour where Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump took the stage.  And, boy, did he deliver (as far as entertainment/scare factor is concerned).

During his portion of the forum, the Donald proceeded to heap much praise upon Russian President Vladimir Putin, referring to him as a great leader.  He talked about how he would convene with generals to formulate a plan to defeat ISIS, despite having previously said that he himself had a plan to take down the terror group that he didn’t want to make public (revealing, perhaps, that he has no such plan).  To add the cherry on top, he repeated his past statements about how the US should’ve “taken the oil” during the war in Iraq.

Quite an entertaining half hour as far as Mr. Trump is concerned.  Also a very frightening one.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein had some harsh words for a number of world leaders and political figures during a security and justice conference on Monday.  Calling out Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump, along with others around the world such Dutch leader Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen of the French National Front, and Nigel Farage of Britain, Commissioner Hussein accused them of pushing “humiliating racial and religious prejudice”, stating that their actions can lead to a rise of populism that could “turn violent.”

He went further, making a striking comparison between these people and the ever-vicious, most well known terror group of the moment, ISIS.

Saying that they were employing fear tactics similar to that of the terror group, Commissioner Hussein stated that “Make no mistake, I certainly do not equate the actions of nationalist demagogues with those of Daesh…But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Daesh uses tactics similar to those of the populists.”

He ends with a word of caution, a warning that we should have all learned from history a long time ago about how effectively xenophobia and bigotry have been “weaponized” through the ages.  Clearly, this lesson seems to fly right over most people’s heads, even when it stares them right in the face.

If you ask me, it could be that some don’t want to take that lesson to heart…that they rather enjoy the implications of such warnings.

The former head of the CIA and NSA, General Michael Hayden, recently spoke with Vice News about the ongoing presidential campaign.  He was among the 50 officials from past Republican Administrations who signed a letter earlier this year calling Republican nominee Donald Trump a “risk to America’s ‘national security and well being'”.

General Hayden certainly made his feelings on Mr. Trump known quite clearly during this short interview.  To him, the Donald is a reckless, unstable individual who should have no business dealing with national security, a man who should cause concern for everyone should he govern based on his words on the campaign trail.

More interesting to me, however, is when he touches on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama.  Its obvious that he doesn’t seem to have particularly high opinions of both of them.  What’s intriguing here, though, is that he appears to view Mrs. Clinton as better on national security in contrast to the President, a solid sign that we could expect a possibly more hawkish foreign policy from a Clinton Administration.

One more thing; General Hayden defended waterboarding during the interview.  I think that speaks for itself.

This recent piece in the Huffington Post raises a rather frightening question:  Would the US Military obey the orders of current Republican nominee Donald Trump should he be elected President in November and become the Nation’s Commander in Chief?

Keep in mind all of what Mr. Trump has promised on the campaign trail that he would do as president:  Carpet-bombing cities in Syria, taking out the families of ISIS fighters, torturing detainees (doing “worse” than waterboarding) and disengaging from NATO, among other things.  Of course, as MSNBC host Joe Scarborough mentioned not to long ago, the Republican nominee mused about why the US wasn’t making use of its nuclear weapons if they have them.

People within the military have expressed concern over Mr. Trump and the possibility of having to carry out orders that range from the highly questionable to the downright illegal (under US and international law).  Whether or not they want to obey the Donald, unfortunately, they are duty bound to do as he say if he is Commander-in-Chief.  As the Post piece points out, disobedience doesn’t have a great track record, and the military tends to ultimately obey orders regardless of how questionable they are.

It has been reported today by ISIS news agency Amaq that the terror group’s spokesperson, Mohammad al-Adnani, has been killed.  The outlet said in a statement that al-Adnani was killed in the midst of inspecting military operations in Aleppo.  No further information was given on the exact cause of death.

ISIS had this (admittedly insane quote) to say on this occasion:

“After a journey filled with sacrifice and fight against non-believers, the Syrian Gallant knight, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, joined the convoy of martyr leaders…to the filthy and coward non-believers and to the holders of the Christ emblem, we bring the good news, which will keep them awake, that a new generation in the Islamic State … that loves death more than life … this generation will only grow steadfast on the path to Jihad, stay determined to seek revenge and be violent toward them.”

Al-Adnani, possibly the most public face of the terrorist “caliphate”, was known for encouraging supporters in the West to carry out lone-wolf style attacks in countries joining in the US-led coalition to defeat the group, calling it a “religious duty”.  It has even been said that he was next in line to take the helm as ISIS’ leader should anything happen to current head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  A reward for $5 million had been announced by the US State Department for information leading to this “specially designated global terrorist”.

Al-Adnani’s death is the highest profile killing of an ISIS figure at this time.

As discussed in this article from the UK Daily Mail, Vice President Joe Biden announced in a press conference in Sweden that he expects the infamous military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be closed down by the end of Obama’s Presidency in January.

This announcement comes just after Obama ordered the release of 15 prisoners from the facility earlier this month, with plans to send them to the United Arab Emirates.  This group includes 12 Yemeni Nationals and 3 Afghans, and this constitutes the single largest release of detainees from the facility during Obama’s tenure.

Predictably, Republicans have railed against Obama’s decision.  New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte called the decision “reckless”, criticizing the administration for releasing “terrorists” in the name of “fulfill[ing] a misguided campaign promise to empty and close Guantanamo.”  Representative Ed Royce of California, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, joined in on the criticism, saying that those being released are “hardened terrorist”.

And then, of course, there’s the Republican Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, who certainly wouldn’t miss an opportunity to make his opinions known.  In a fundraising email sent out Thursday, he made clear that “[a]s president, Trump REFUSES to shut down Gitmo and REFUSES to have foreign radical Islamic terrorists tried in our regular court systems here in America.”  He continued, saying that “Americans oppose shutting down Gitmo and releasing terrorists to our shores…his has to end. And it has to end NOW.”

Keeping in mind that Obama has tried during his Administration to shut down Gitmo, and has been vehemently stymied by Congress throughout, Vice President Biden’s announcement is welcome but, at the end of the day, is simply just nice words.  Republicans will shout and holler, loud opposition will be drummed up, and a bold (certainly in this political environment) proposal will likely go nowhere.

One shouldn’t hold their breath on whether Guantanamo will truly be closed by January 20th, 2017.