Shell, Exxon, Total, Dupont, Dow en anderen lobbyen bij Trump om afval plastic te exporteren naar Afrika

De American Chemistry Council (ACC), een lobbyorganisatie van chemische bedrijven, waar ook oliemaatschappijen als Shell deel van uitmaken, is tegen nieuwe wereldwijde regels om de stroom van plastic naar arme landen op het zuidelijk halfrond te beperken....

Niet vreemd dus dat oliemaatschappijen als Shell, Exxon en Total, plus een aantal grote chemische bedrijven waaronder Du Pont en Dow Chemical, die zijn aangesloten bij de ACC, de Coronacrisis hebben aangegrepen om bij de, wat betreft milieu maatregelen totaal onverantwoorde, Trump administratie te lobbyen tegen beperkingen die zijn opgelegd aan het exporteren van afval plastic.....

Eén van de landen die men wil gebruiken voor het onverantwoord dumpen van gigantische hoeveelheden plastic is Kenya, waar al een enorme stroom plastic uit de VS naartoe gaat........

Als je nu denkt dat genoemde bedrijven en anderen zich inzetten om de productie van eenmalig te gebruiken plastic te verminderen, heb je het helemaal mis, nee zelfs daar weigert men actie op te ondernemen.....

Nogmaals geven dit soort bedrijven aan dat ze lak hebben aan het redden van de planeet zoals wij die kennen, nee: 'Geld über alles....'

Vergeet niet dat Shell al een paar jaar bezig is om haar naam op valse gronden groen te wassen (greenwashing), terwijl de praktijk laat zien dat het bedrijf alles behalve duurzaam bezig is, of zelfs maar poogt echt duurzame doeleinden na te streven, zoals ook uit dit bericht weer blijkt......

Lees het volgende artikel van Unearthed (onderdeel Greenpeace) over deze zaak en zegt het voort, de hoogste tijd dat deze bedrijven tot de orde worden geroepen (boycot Shell, Total en Exxon benzinestations!!), zeker als je ziet dat een aantal van die bedrijven zoals Shell, zich zoals gezegd in het openbaar voordoen als duurzaam bedrijf dat 'zich echt inzet om de klimaatverandering af te remmen en vervuiling tegen te gaan.......'

Oil-backed trade group is lobbying the Trump administration to push plastics across Africa 


Thousands of plastic bottles lay on the ground at the Dandora rubbish dump, an eastern suburb of Nairobi, Kenya's capital. Photo: Jan Hetfleisch/Getty
 

The American Chemistry Council also pushed back against new global rules that will restrict the flow of plastic waste to the global south

A lobby group representing oil and chemical companies, including Shell, Exxon, Total, DuPont and Dow, has been pushing the Trump administration during the pandemic to use a US-Kenya trade deal to expand the plastic and chemical industry across Africa.

Documents obtained by Unearthed show the same lobby group – and the US recycling industry – also lobbied against changes to an international agreement that puts new limits on plastic waste entering low- and middle-income countries.

Several of the companies in the American Chemistry Council (ACC) – including Shell, Exxon and Total but not BP – were the founders of a $1bn initiative that pledges to create “a world free of plastic waste”.

In public letters to top officials at the US Trade Representative (USTR) and US International Trade Commission (USITC), the ACC writes: “Kenya could serve in the future as a hub for supplying U.S.-made chemicals and plastics to other markets in Africa through this trade agreement.” 

The letters also call for the lifting of limits on the waste trade, a move which experts say amounts to an attempt to legally circumvent the new rules on plastic waste, rules which – the documents reveal – the firms had also vigorously opposed. 

Kenyan environmentalists said the proposals would mean that “Kenya will become a dump site for plastic waste”.

US Democratic Senator Tom Udall, who last year introduced legislation to tackle the plastic waste crisis accused the companies of “double dealing.” 

He told Unearthed: “It is outrageous that petrochemical and plastic industries claim the solution to our mounting plastic waste crisis is to produce more disposable plastic. These same companies and corporations then point the finger at developing nations for the plastic waste showing up in our oceans. This double-dealing makes clear what the true source of our plastic waste crisis is: companies and corporations off-shoring their responsibilities to make billions of dollars… Requiring these companies to take responsibility for their excessive waste and pollution is the only way we will tackle our colossal plastic waste problem.”

Workers sort recycling material at a waste management facility in Maryland. US waste, including plastic, is often shipped overseas to poorer countries. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty

The ACC is a major trade association for chemical companies, including Dow and DuPont, as well as the petrochemical arms of some of the oil majors. Although BP is a member, it does not produce any plastics and last month sold off its petrochemicals business to Ineos. A spokesperson told Unearthed that their work with the ACC focuses on Castrol lubricants, which are used in the automotive industry. 

Basel Convention

Following public outcry about plastic waste, in May last year, new rules agreed under a global treaty called the Basel Convention mean that as of 2021, almost all countries outside the OECD will be prohibited from trading mixed, contaminated or unrecyclable plastic with the US, because it is one of the few countries not party to the Convention. 

The OECD has not yet ruled on whether it will accept the new plastic waste rulings, following objections from the US. The Basel Convention provides a limited exception which would allow continued trade between the US and the 37 member countries of the OECD, but only if those countries adopt standards on plastic waste as strong as those in the Convention. 

The 187 countries that are part of the treaty will have to partake in a procedure to obtain prior informed consent from importing countries, a procedure which requires checks on environmental processing facilities. 

Unpublished documents obtained by Unearthed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that the oil and chemical industry lobby group wrote to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention in March 2019. 

It objected to the new rules on the basis that they would create a “regulatory burden”, lead to shipping delays, logistical issues and increased costs. It forwarded its letter to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) two weeks later, requesting a meeting to discuss its concerns. 

The documents also reveal that the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) – a major trade association representing the US recycling industry – lobbied against the new rules on the basis that they could severely limit US exports, discourage legitimate trade and exacerbate marine litter by preventing plastic from reaching recycling facilities.

“In principle, we would prefer the proposals not be adopted and maintain the status quo,” they wrote in an email sent to USTR on 3 April 2019.

A spokesperson from the ACC told Unearthed the basis of their concerns regarding the new Basel restrictions was that they “could very well limit the ability of African and other developing countries to properly manage plastic waste,” because they will restrict their capacity to export materials to other countries.

Academics, civil society and politicians are concerned that Kenya - and other African countries - do not have the infrastructure to manage increasing plastic production and exports. Photo: Simon Maina/AFP via Getty

ISRI echoed these concerns. A spokesperson told Unearthed that the new restrictions “will prevent countries that lack materials management infrastructure – such as for collection, sorting and recycling – from sending what they can collect to countries that do have recycling and disposal capacity… Without this outlet for developing countries, ISRI worries that an already bad situation will become much worse.”

According to ISRI, in 2018 the US imported more than 92,000 metric tons of plastic waste from non-OECD countries. 

However, in the first six months of that year, US exports to China, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam alone – all countries outside the OECD – totalled 480,432 tons. These exports are five times the US imports in half the time. 

The Trump administration backed the industry position – opposing the implementation of the new rules at the OECD. US opposition has led to concerns over whether the country will seek ways around the changes. 

Dr. Innocent Nnorom, an associate professor in environmental chemistry at Abia State university in Nigeria, who co-authored a recent inventory of plastic consumption in Africa, told Unearthed: “Most countries in Africa do not have the recycling infrastructure for managing increasing plastic waste.

“It appears that loopholes are being sought to continue the trade in plastic waste. Once in Africa, the emerging free trade routes could be used to facilitate transboundary movements to other African countries. The African Union and its member states should be on the look-out.”

Demand for petrochemicals is expected to rocket in coming decades, with companies expected to be looking to low- and middle-income countries to expand the market. Plastic is already the US’ biggest export to Kenya, with sales totalling $58m in 2019.

In their letters to the Trump administration regarding the US-Kenya FTA* earlier this year, the ACC called for it to “prohibit imposition of domestic limits on production or consumption of chemicals and plastic and restrictions on cross-boundary trade of materials and feedstocks”. Feedstocks could include plastic waste for recycling.

They added that the US and Kenya should “enable trade in waste for the purposes of sound management and recycling consistent with relevant international commitments”.

Even so, David Azoulay, an attorney and director of the environmental health programme at the Center for International Environmental Law told Unearthed: “The suggestion to use this potential agreement to preempt any national limitation on plastic production and consumption is a clear indication of the ACC’s objective to leverage such a trade agreement to circumvent global efforts to curb plastic production and use, as well as newly adopted provisions from the Basel Convention to better control the global plastic waste trade.”

US president Donald Trump shakes hands with Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in 2018. Photo: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty

Jim Puckett, executive director of the NGO Basel Action Network commented that it would also contradict the Bamako Convention, a separate treaty in Africa.

“The effort to enlarge trade in waste and harmful chemicals in between the US and Kenya is a rather insidious effort that, if taken across Africa would go head to head against Africa’s Bamako Convention – a treaty which prohibits virtually all plastic waste imports into Africa as well as the import of many hazardous chemicals,” he told Unearthed.

Kenya

Environmentalists are concerned the deal could also undermine national efforts to limit plastic consumption, including new rules on plastic bags. 

Sub-Saharan Africa is thought to lead the world on plastic bag laws, according to reports, with 34 countries adopting taxes or bans.

Dorothy Otieno, the plastics programme co-ordinator at the Centre for Environment, Justice and Development (CEJAD) in Kenya, told Unearthed that this trade deal could threaten the momentum and change created by these efforts. 

“As a country we have made strides to reduce the plastics that are used here, and which end up as waste – there is a ban on use and manufacture of carrier bags and recently a ban on plastic in protected areas – so this trade deal would diminish what we have achieved as a country.” 

But Kenyan politicians and trade groups said such fears will be addressed. Negotiations began several weeks ago, but have recently stalled due to coronavirus concerns.

Cornelly Serum, an MP for the ruling Jubilee Party and member of the Trade and Industry Parliamentary Committee, told Unearthed: “Fears that under the trade deal use of plastics might be reintroduced into the country are valid… Trade associations planning to expand their businesses in Africa – and mainly in Kenya – are welcome but cannot use the deal to introduce materials that have so far been banned and as a parliament we will not allow any protocols likely to ruin our economy.”

Carol Karuga, CEO of broad-based lobby group the Kenya Private Sector Alliance, added: “It does not augur well to ban use of plastics materials in the economy and later reintroduce the same through a trade deal… The deal before it is finally agreed will have to be checked at all levels.”

Otieno also expressed concerns about the impact of more waste. “There would be an increase in waste – some will be reused and recycled but the majority will end up in dump sites. We will end up in a situation where Kenya will become a dump site for plastic waste,” she said.

“It clogs our waterways and our drainage systems and leads to flooding. We also see the effect of pollution from the burning of plastics – it produces dioxins and furans that lead to respiratory diseases… Somebody can burn these wastes right next to your house and suffer the impacts. We also see the aesthetic value of our towns being reduced because of plastics.”

Last year, some of the ACC companies – including Shell, Exxon and BASF – alongside major consumer goods and waste management companies launched the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW), committing $1bn, in part to finance waste management projects to clean up and prevent plastic waste in Africa and Asia. 

In the public letters, the ACC wrote that: “There is a global need to support infrastructure development to collect, sort, recycle, and process used plastics, particularly in developing countries such as Kenya. 

“Such infrastructure will create opportunities for trade and investment and help keep used plastics out of the environment, thereby reducing marine litter… The U.S. and Kenya can play a strong role together in promoting innovative circular economy solutions in East Africa that enable universal access to better waste management capacity and for used plastics in all countries.”

Voor de rest van het artikel, zie het origineel.

* FTA: Free Trade Agreement, ofwel vrijhandelsverdrag.

Zie ook:

'Microplastics doden ons lichaam, tijd voor actie!!'

'Microplastics ongevaarlijk aldus TNO en kunststofverwerkende industrie......'

'Alarmerende hoeveelheid microplastics gevonden in het lichaam van kinderen'

'Shell en Exxon lobbyen voor het behoud van eenmalige plasticverpakkingen'

VS vs. Black Lives Matter en links: de federale staatsgreep tegen afzonderlijke staten

De federale agenten die willekeurig mensen van de straat plukken en die rondrijden in 'anonieme auto's' zijn gekleed als commando's waarop als enige herkenbaar woord 'Police' is te zien...... Ik dacht eerder dom genoeg dat het hier om agenten in burger ging, daar er gewag van werd gemaakt dat ze niet te herkennen waren, bedoeld werd echter dat deze agenten geen nummer of naam dragen, zodat je ze later niet ter verantwoording kan roepen als ze zich te buiten gaan aan 'ongefundeerd geweld'. (iets dat 'nogal eens gebeurt' in de VS als de overheid tekeergaat tegen haar burgers.....)

En dat gaan deze anonieme federale troepen: tekeer tegen vreedzame demonstranten of gewoon mensen die hen op straat verdacht voorkomen, daarvoor hoef je bijvoorbeeld alleen maar geheel in zwart gekleed te gaan...... Een veteraan die een paar van die agenten aansprak daar hij verontrust was over het optreden van deze anonieme troepen, werd 'behandeld' met pepperspray en wapenstok, waarna hij werd afgevoerd in zo'n anoniem voertuig........ De opgepakte mensen worden naar plekken gebracht waar ze onder bewaking staan en waar hen verder niets ten laste wordt gelegd en waar ze niet te woord worden gestaan....... En dan durven de psychopathische oorlogsmisdadigers Trump, Pompeo en andere schoften van Trump's administratie een grote bek te hebben over China en Rusland, terwijl de VS hard op weg is om de grootste politiestaat ter wereld te worden......

John Whitehead van The Rutherford Institute waarschuwt dan ook dat Trump en zijn legertje agenten, personeel van o.a. ICE, DEA en van de grensbewaking, tegen het tiende amendement van de VS grondwet ingaan en in feite een staatsgreep plegen tegen de staten waarin deze 'federale agenten' tekeergaan.......

Whitehead waarschuwt tegen het gevaar dat dit de voorloper is van een politiestaat..... Als Whitehead wat beter had opgelet had hij gezien dat de fundamenten voor zo'n staat al onder George W. Bush werden gelegd en dat na 9/11....... De VS is in feite allang een politiestaat, zie de bevoegdheden van de geheime diensten die nu zelfs VS burgers kunnen oppakken en vasthouden zonder vorm van proces, inderdaad hetzelfde als de 'federales' (federaal personeel) van Trump nu doen..... Voorts mogen deze diensten iedereen in de gaten houden zonder daar toestemming voor te vragen, alsmede hun telefoon afluisteren en de computer van afstand hacken om daar in rond te pluizen...... Me dunkt, een fiks deel van George Orwells 1984 is al in vervulling gegaan...... Vergeet daarbij niet dat de Trump administratie al weer teostemming heeft gegeven om verdachten te martelen.....

Zwaar lullig dat Whitehead voor dit alles met de beschuldigende vinger wijst naar de zwarten die winkels plunderden tijdens de demonstraties waar de politie op inhakte..... Als je nagaat dat de gekleurde bevolking 30% minder betaald krijgt voor dezelfde baan die een witte vervult, is het niet vreemd dat de nieuwe werklozen hun kans hebben gegrepen en voedsel en apparatuur hebben gestolen die ze nodig hebben daar ze geen geld hebben om nieuw te kopen (dat percentage van 30% kan overigens nog hoger zijn, het is een raar gemiddelde waarvan de ondergrens 30% is, ofwel hoogstwaarschijnlijk ligt het werkelijke gemiddelde op dik meer dan 30%...) Voorts zou Whitehead moeten weten dat een flink deel van de plunderingen, zeker in aanvang van de demonstraties werden georganiseerd door infiltranten van politie en geheime diensten........

Trump was al lang voor de Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesten doende een burgeroorlog op te stoken met zijn uitlatingen over zijn tegenstanders: zwarten, latino's, 'linksen' en anarchisten, mensen die hij bij zijn achterban aanduidt als vijanden van het Amerikaanse volk.... Daarbij heeft Trump die achterban, vooral de plattelandsbevolking in zijn zak, mensen die hij beterschap beloofde na zijn aantreden, maar waarvan een heel groot deel dat na meer dan 3 jaar nog steeds niet ziet...... Ach het maakt die mensen niets uit en als hij ze zou oproepen om de genoemde groepen aan te vallen, zullen ze dat op zeker doen!! (bovendien: voor hun blijvende ellende wijzen Trump c.s. maar al te graag naar de Democraten als de schuldigen.....)

Lees het artikel van Whitehead (dat ik overnam van het rechtse Zero Hedge) en zegt het voort, immers ook wij moeten waakzaam zijn, zeker nu men steeds harder van de toren blaast dat het aantal besmettingen toeneemt, terwijl dat logisch is gezien het veel grotere aantal testen, waarvan de uitkomsten zelfs een wachttijd kennen van een paar dagen (testen die overigens waardeloos zouden zijn.....).... Weer schreeuwen zogenaamde deskundigen om inperking van vrijheden, waarbij men ook daadkrachtiger wil optreden tegen mensen die er wat betreft het Coronavirus andere denkbeelden op na houden en die op de sociale media forse kritiek leveren op het waardeloze hap snap beleid van Rutte 3 en het meer dan disfunctionerende RIVM.....

Whitehead: The Federal Coup To Overthrow The States And Nix The 10th Amendment Is Underway

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“I don’t need invitations by the state, state mayors, or state governors, to do our job. We’re going to do that, whether they like us there or not.”

- Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf’s defense of the Trump Administration’s deployment of militarized federal police to address civil unrest in the states

This is a wake-up call.

What is unfolding before our very eyes—with police agencies defying local governments in order to tap into the power of federal militarized troops in order to put down domestic unrest—could very quickly snowball into an act of aggression against the states, a coup by armed, militarized agents of the federal government.

At a minimum, this is an attack on the Tenth Amendment, which affirms the sovereignty of the states and the citizenry, and the right of the states to stand as a bulwark against overreach and power grabs by the federal government.

If you’re still deluding yourself into believing that this thinly-veiled exercise in martial law is anything other than an attempt to bulldoze what remains of the Constitution and reinforce 
the iron-fisted rule of the police state, you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

This is no longer about partisan politics or civil unrest or even authoritarian impulses.

This is a turning point.

Unless we take back the reins—and soon—looking back on this time years from now, historians may well point to the events of 2020 as the death blow to America’s short-lived experiment in self-government.  

The government’s recent actions in Portland, Oregon—when unidentified federal agents (believed to be border police, ICE and DHS agents), wearing military fatigues with patches that just say “Police” and sporting all kinds of weapons, descended uninvited on the city in unmarked vehicles, snatching protesters off the streets and detaining them without formally arresting them or offering any explanation of why they’re being held—is just a foretaste of what’s to come.

One of those detainees was a 53-year-old disabled Navy veteran who was in downtown Portland during the protests but not a participant. Concerned about the tactics being used by government agents who had taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, Christopher David tried to speak the “secret” police. Almost immediately, he was assaulted by federal agents, beaten with batons and pepper sprayed
Another peaceful protester was reportedly shot in the head with an impact weapon by this federal goon squad.

The Trump Administration has already announced its plans to deploy these border patrol agents to other cities across the country (Chicago is supposedly next) in an apparent bid to put down civil unrest. Yet the overriding concerns by state and local government officials to Trump’s plans suggest that weaponizing the DHS as an occupying army will only provoke more violence and unrest.

We’ve been set up.

Under the guise of protecting federal properties against civil unrest, the Trump Administration has formed a task force of secret agents who look, dress and act like military stormtroopers on a raid and have been empowered to roam cities in unmarked vehicles, snatching citizens off the streets, whether or not they’ve been engaged in illegal activities.

As the Guardian reports, “The incidents being described sound eerily reminiscent of the CIA’s post-9/11 rendition program under George W Bush, where intelligence agents would roll up in unmarked vans in foreign countries, blindfold terrorism suspects (many of whom turned to be innocent) and kidnap them without explanation. Only instead of occurring on the streets of Italy or the Middle East, it’s happening in downtown Portland.”

The so-called racial justice activists who have made looting, violence, vandalism and intimidation tactics the hallmarks of their protests have played right into the government’s hands

They have delivered all of us into the police state’s hands.

There’s a reason Trump has tapped the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for this dirty business: these agencies are notorious for their lawlessness, routinely sidestepping the Constitution and trampling on the rights of anyone who gets in their way, including legal citizens.

Indeed, it was only a matter of time before these roving bands of border patrol agents began flexing their muscles far beyond the nation’s borders and exercising their right to disregard the Constitution at every turn.

Except these border patrol cops aren’t just disregarding the Constitution.

They’re trampling all over the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government from carrying out egregious warrantless searches and seizures without probable cause.

As part of the government’s so-called crackdown on illegal immigration, drugs and trafficking, its border patrol cops have been expanding their reach, roaming further afield and subjecting greater numbers of Americans to warrantless searches, ID checkpoints, transportation checks, and even surveillance on private property far beyond the boundaries of the borderlands.

That so-called border, once a thin borderline, has become an ever-thickening band spreading deeper and deeper inside the country.

Now, with this latest salvo by the Trump administration in its so-called crackdown on rioting and civil unrest, America itself is about to become a Constitution-free zone where freedom is off-limits and government agents have all the power and “we the people” have none.

The Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with its more than 60,000 employees, supplemented by the National Guard and the U.S. military, is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, a national police force imbued with all the brutality, ineptitude and corruption such a role implies.
As journalist Todd Miller explains:

In these vast domains, Homeland Security authorities can institute roving patrols with broad, extra-constitutional powers backed by national security, immigration enforcement and drug interdiction mandates. There, the Border Patrol can set up traffic checkpoints and fly surveillance drones overhead with high-powered cameras and radar that can track your movements. Within twenty-five miles of the international boundary, CBP agents can enter a person’s private property without a warrant.

Just about every nefarious deed, tactic or thuggish policy advanced by the government today can be traced back to the DHS, its police state mindset, and the billions of dollars it distributes to local police agencies in the form of grants to transform them into extensions of the military.

As Miller points out, the government has turned the nation’s expanding border regions into “a ripe place to experiment with tearing apart the Constitution, a place where not just undocumented border-crossers, but millions of borderland residents have become the targets of continual surveillance.”

In much the same way that police across the country have been schooled in the art of sidestepping the Constitution, border cops have also been drilled in the art of “anything goes” in the name of national security.

In fact, according to FOIA documents shared with The Intercept, border cops even have a checklist of “possible behaviors” that warrant overriding the Constitution and subjecting individuals—including American citizens—to stops, searches, seizures, interrogations and even arrests.

For instance, if you’re driving a vehicle that to a border cop looks unusual in some way, you can be stopped. If your passengers look dirty or unusual, you can be stopped. If you or your passengers avoid looking at a cop, you can be stopped. If you or your passengers look too long at a cop, you can be stopped.

If you’re anywhere near a border (near being within 100 miles of a border, or in a city, or on a bus, or at an airport), you can be stopped and asked to prove you’re legally allowed to be in the country. If you’re traveling on a public road that smugglers and other criminals may have traveled, you can be stopped.

If you’re not driving in the same direction as other cars, you can be stopped. If you appear to be avoiding a police checkpoint, you can be stopped. If your car appears to be weighed down, you can be stopped. If your vehicle is from out of town, wherever that might be, you can be stopped. If you’re driving a make of car that criminal-types have also driven, you can be stopped.

If your car appears to have been altered or modified, you can be stopped. If the cargo area in your vehicle is covered, you can be stopped.

If you’re driving during a time of day or night that border cops find suspicious, you can be stopped. If you’re driving when border cops are changing shifts, you can be stopped. If you’re driving in a motorcade or with another vehicle, you can be stopped. If your car appears dusty, you can be stopped.

If people with you are trying to avoid being seen, or exhibiting “unusual” behavior, you can be stopped. If you slow down after seeing a cop, you can be stopped.

In Portland, which is 400 miles from the border, protesters didn’t even have to be near federal buildings to be targeted. Some claimed to be targeted for simply wearing black clothing in the area of the demonstration.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

This was never about illegal aliens and border crossings at all. It’s been a test to see how far “we the people” will allow the government to push the limits of the Constitution.

We’ve been failing this particular test for a long time now.

It was 1798 when Americans, their fears stoked by rumblings of a Quasi-War with France, failed to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized anti-government speech, empowered the government to deport “dangerous” non-citizens and made it harder for immigrants to vote.

During the Civil War, Americans went along when Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus (the right to a speedy trial) and authorized government officials to spy on Americans’ mail.

During World War I, Americans took it in stride when  President Woodrow Wilson and Congress adopted the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to interfere with the war effort and criminalized any speech critical of war.

By World War II, Americans were marching in lockstep with the government’s expanding war powers to imprison Japanese-American citizens in detainment camps, censor mail, and lay the groundwork for the future surveillance state.

Fast-forward to the Cold War’s Red Scares, the McCarthy era’s hearings on un-American activities, and the government’s surveillance of Civil Rights activists such as Martin Luther King Jr.—all done in the name of national security.

By the time 9/11 rolled around, all George W. Bush had to do was claim the country was being invaded by terrorists, and the government was given greater powers to spy, search, detain and arrest American citizens in order to keep America safe.

The terrorist invasion never really happened, but the government kept its newly acquired police powers made possible by the nefarious USA Patriot Act.

Barack Obama continued Bush’s trend of undermining the Constitution, going so far as to give the military the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights, label them extremists, and detain them indefinitely without trial, all in the name of keeping America safe.

Despite the fact that the breadth of the military’s power to detain American citizens violates not only U.S. law and the Constitution but also international laws, the government has refused to relinquish its detention powers made possible by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Then Donald Trump took office, claiming the country was being invaded by dangerous immigrants and insisting that the only way to keep America safe was to build an expensive border wall, expand the reach of border patrol, and empower the military to “assist” with border control.

That so-called immigration crisis has now morphed into multiple crises (domestic extremism, the COVID-19 pandemic, race wars, civil unrest, etc.) that the government is eager to use in order to expand its powers.

Yet as we’ve learned the hard way, once the government acquires—and uses—additional powers (to spy on its citizens, to carry out surveillance, to transform its police forces into extensions of the police, to seize taxpayer funds, to wage endless wars, to censor and silence dissidents, to identify potential troublemakers, to detain citizens without due process), it does not voluntarily relinquish them

This is the slippery slope on which we’ve been traveling for far too long.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder explains, “This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes, whether it’s Franco’s Spain or whether it’s the Russian Empire. The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.”

Sure, it’s the Trump Administration calling the shots right now, but it’s government agents armed with totalitarian powers and beholden to the bureaucratic Deep State who are carrying out these orders in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and all it represents.

Whether it’s Trump or Biden or someone else altogether, this year or a dozen years from now, the damage has been done: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have allowed the president to acquire dictatorial powers that can be unleashed at any moment.

There’s a reason the Trump Administration is consulting with John Yoo, the Bush-era attorney notorious for justifying waterboarding torture tactics against detainees. They’re not looking to understand how to follow the law and abide by the Constitution. Rather, they’re desperately seeking ways to thwart the Constitution.

As Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe recognizes, “The dictatorial hunger for power is insatiable.

This is how it begins.

This is how it always begins.

Don’t be fooled into thinking any of this will change when the next election rolls around.
===============================
* DHS, ofwel Department of Homeland Security. 

Zie ook:
'Cancel culture is volgens Raisa Blommenstijn (docent/onderzoeker universiteit Leiden) een hellend vlak en uitholling van de vrijheid van meningsuiting.......'

'Slavernij in VS nog steeds toegestaan in de grondwet: inzet slaven bij bosbranden Californië' 

'Rutte (VVD premier) maakt zich schuldig aan racistische leugens en bedrog'(en deze hufter-figuur mag les geven aan het voorgezet onderwijs......)

'De militarisering van de VS gaat ten koste van de eigen bevolking, van sociale rechtvaardigheid en van gelijkheid'

'#ADEMBENEMEND: Nederlandse hiphopscene laat zich horen tegen racisme'

'Politieracisme en -geweld tegen oorspronkelijke volkeren van Canada' 

'Black Lives Matter in de VS: nog een politiemoord op een zwart gekleurde man vanwege diens kleur, zonder dat de daders werden gestraft'

'New Jersey police shooting: Bodycam video released in killing of unarmed black man' (nog een zwarte man die werd vermoord door de politie en dan durft men in de VS onder leiding van de psychopathische fascist Trump, de niet centraal geleide organisatie Black Lives Matter, als een terreurorganisatie neer te zetten.....) 

'Black Lives Matter: toestemming vergroting van politiegeweld in Nederland moet worden gestopt'

'Black Lives Matter: 3 zwarte mannen gelyncht in de VS en de doodsbedreiging tegen coureur Bubba Wallace'

'BLM: Politie VS schiet, vermoordt en zet meer mensen gevangen dan andere ontwikkelde landen: 'de cijfers' van CNN, vooral schrikbarend als het om gekleurde mensen gaat'

'Trump en Fox zijn uit op een militaire coup' (o.a. over de bemoeienissen van Trump met de demonstraties tegen racistisch politie geweld)

'Rayshard Brooks: weer een gekleurde VS burger die om niets werd vermoord door de politie'

'Black Lives Matter, maar niet voor BBC First: Midsomer Murders met racist John Nettles wordt gewoon uitgezonden'

'Leopold II en wit geweld in Congo: Geert Jan Hahn (BNR) weer eens uit de bocht: een beeld van 150 jaar geleden is het oudste beeld in België' 

'Vriendschappelijke en handelsrelaties met landen die minderheden vervolgen moeten worden gekapt'

'Militairen op de straten van Washington: VS op weg naar een burgeroorlog'

'Obama en 'change' n.a.v. de moord op George Floyd: een ongelofelijke hypocriet aan het woord'  

'Brekend nieuws: militairen op straat in Washington!!' 

'Donald Trump geeft gekleurde burgers een schop na, mensen die al extra worden getroffen door COVID-19'

'VS politiegeweld tegen demonstranten is illegaal volgens internationale wetten: VN veroordeel dit geweld!!' 

'Black Lives Matter: een cartoon'

'Trump poseert met bijbel, waarvoor hij een vreedzame demonstratie met grof geweld middels traangas en rubberkogels uit elkaar heeft laten jagen'

'Politiemoord op George Floyd: de druppel die de emmer deed overlopen, waar tevens sociale achterstand een motivering is, zoals in Frankrijk, Chili en andere landen' 

'Anti-racisme demonstratie in Amsterdam reden voor hysterische ophef'

'Uitrusting Politie VS versus die van medisch hulpverleners' 

'Politie VS infiltreert protesten n.a.v. de dood van George Floyd en zet aan tot geweld' 

'George Floyd: de voortdurende politiemoorden op gekleurden in de VS: de witte overheersing met vervolging van gekleurden.....'

'Trump wil sociale media ontdoen van factcheckers die de Republikeinen de bel aanbinden vanwege nepnieuws en andere bagger'

Zie wat betreft de 'Coronachantage' tijdens de BLM protesten van Curaçao, Aruba en Sint Maarten: 'Black Lives Matter maar niet voor neokoloniaal Rutte 3: Coronahulp voor Antilliaanse slaveneilanden alleen na hervormingen' (en zie de links in dat bericht)

'Rellen op Curaçao, de verantwoordelijken: Raymond Knops (CDA staatssecretaris) en Kajsa Ollongren (D66 minister)'

'Nederland chanteert alweer Antilliaanse eilanden: nu voor hulp bij Coronacrisis'

Afghanistan oorlog: militaire top VS zei al voor het begin dat dit een niet te winnen oorlog is

De Washington Post (WaPo) doet af en toe ook wel iets goed, naast het maken van nepnieuws en het manipuleren van haar gebruikers. De WaPo heeft na een gevecht met de overheid documenten op tafel gekregen waarin duidelijk is te lezen dat de militaire top van de VS van meet af aan heeft gesteld dat de oorlog tegen de Taliban in Afghanistan niet is te winnen..... Kortom niet alleen werd op oneigenlijke gronden een oorlog aangegaan, zoals die later tegen Irak, Libië en Syrië, maar blijkt nu ook nog eens dat de militaire top in de VS vooraf heeft gesteld dat deze oorlog niet is te winnen....... Al moet gezegd worden, dat het militair-industrieel complex in de VS enorme kapitalen heeft verdiend aan deze oorlog (en de illegale oorlogen tegen de andere genoemde landen....).....  

De schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, Caitlin Johnstone vindt eigenlijk dat het gevecht van de WaPo om de bewuste gegevens boven tafel te krijgen, een nog belangrijker onderwerp..... Wat dat betreft ben ik het overigens niet met haar eens, immers het is de zoveelste keer dat er in de VS en de rest van het westen documenten worden achtergehouden waar het volk recht op heeft.... Echter veel is al bekend wat in deze Afghanistan papers staat, zo weten we al lang dat de VS al voor 9/11 een oorlog tegen Afghanistan voorbereidde...... 

Middels de Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) wat wij een 'WOB-verzoek' noemen (Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur), heeft WaPo de documenten boven tafel gekregen. Wel moet ik zeggen dat Johnstone een mooie analyse heeft gemaakt van het 'wobben' in de VS.....

Overigens zet e.e.a. nog grotere vraagtekens bij het meedoen van Nederland aan de illegale oorlog in Afghanistan die ons honderden miljoenen aan belastinggeld heeft gekost, om maar te zwijgen over de door Nederlands ingrijpen omgekomen burgers en Nederlandse militairen die omkwamen, of voor de rest van hun leven geestelijk en/of lichamelijk zijn beschadigd...... Daarnaast hebben we ook nog eens te maken met de burgerdoden in de andere genoemde illegale oorlogen en de Nederlandse militairen die bij deze andere oorlogen omkwamen..... 

In totaal moeten de kosten voor de inzet van Nederlandse militairen (ook in Mali, wat een uitvloeisel is van de schandelijke NAVO oorlog tegen Libië) meer dan 1 of zelfs 2 miljard euro bedragen en dan lopen de VS en anderen te zeiken dat we meer moeten uitgeven aan 'defensie' (lees: oorlogsvoering in een land waar we niets te zoeken hebben!!)..... Dan reken ik niet eens de kosten mee van de enorme vluchtelingenstromen richting Europa en de terreur op de straten van Europa, beiden het gevolg van die illegale oorlogsvoering.... 

Terecht stelt Johnstone dat men zoveel mogelijk documenten geheim verklaart, in het belang van de staatsveiligheid, terwijl die documenten niets te maken hebben met de staatsveiligheid en het volk juist recht heeft op die informatie...... Dat is dan ook de manier waarop men bepaalde zaken onder de pet kan houden en er een enorme strijd nodig is om ze toch boven tafel te krijgen..... Hier hebben we o.a. te maken met de commissie stiekem, waar alleen bepaalde politici toegang tot hebben en zelfs als zij concluderen dat e.e.a niet thuishoort bij de commissie stiekem mag er niet over gesproken worden, een schande van formaat dat politici zich hieraan hebben verbonden, ronduit een aanslag op onze democratie!! Voorts worden niet zelden de middels een WOB-verzoek verkregen documenten voor een groot deel zwart gemaakt....*

 The Most Significant Afghanistan Papers Revelation Is How Difficult They Were To Make Public

by Caitlin Johnstone

The Washington Post has published clear, undeniable evidence that US government officials have been lying to the public about the war in Afghanistan, a shocking revelation for anyone who has done no research whatsoever into the history of US interventionism.

In all seriousness it was a very good and newsworthy publication, and those who did the heavy lifting bringing the Afghanistan Papers into public awareness deserve full credit. The frank comments of US military officials plainly stating that from the very beginning this was an unwinnable conflict, initiated in a region nobody understood, without anyone being able to so much as articulate what victory would even look like, make up an extremely important piece of information that is in conflict with everything the public has been told about this war by their government.

But the most significant revelation to come out of this story is not in the Afghanistan Papers themselves.

The most significant Afghanistan Papers revelation comes from The Washington Post's account of the extremely difficult time they had extricating these important documents from the talons of government secrecy, as detailed in a separate article titled "How The Post unearthed The Afghanistan Papers". WaPo explains how the papers were ultimately obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which, after they were initially rejected by the US government, needed to be supplemented over three years with two lawsuits.

"The Post’s efforts to obtain the Afghanistan documents also illustrate how difficult it can be for journalists — or any citizen — to pry public information from the government," WaPo reports. "The purpose of FOIA is to open up federal agencies to public scrutiny. But officials determined to thwart the spirit of the law can drag out requests for years, hoping requesters will eventually give up."

"In October 2017, The Post sued the inspector general in U.S. District Court in Washington — a step that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees — to obtain the Flynn interview materials," WaPo adds.

Now, The Washington Post is a giant, for-profit corporate media outlet which is solely owned by Jeff Bezos, who is currently listed as the wealthiest person on earth. Does anyone reading this have hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life to spend battling the US government into complying with its own transparency laws? Are any of the alternative media outlets which consistently oppose US imperialism able to afford many such expenditures? I would guess not.

Is it not disturbing that the American taxpayer has to depend on outlets like The Washington Post, a neocon-packed outlet with an extensive history of promoting US interventionism at every opportunity, to extract these documents from behind the wall of government opacity?

After all, by WaPo's own admission it both sought and published the Afghanistan Papers in order to take a swing at Donald Trump. According to the Post it went down this path in 2016 initially seeking documents on Michael Flynn, who was then part of the Trump campaign, after receiving a tip that he'd made some juicy statements about the war in Afghanistan to the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). WaPo then made the decision to publish the papers now rather than waiting for its legal battle for more information to complete because Trump is currently in the midst of negotiating with the Taliban over a potential troop withdrawal.

"The Post is publishing the documents now, instead of waiting for a final ruling, to inform the public while the Trump administration is negotiating with the Taliban and considering whether to withdraw the 13,000 U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan," WaPo reports.

It is obviously an inherently good thing that WaPo poured its immense wealth and resources into pursuing and publishing these documents. But would it have done so if those documents hadn't presented an opportunity to embarrass the Trump administration? What kinds of information does the notoriously war-happy WaPo not spend its wealth and resources pursuing and publishing? Probably a whole lot.

It is a very safe assumption that, because of the immense walls of government opacity that have been built up around the unconscionable things America's elected and unelected leadership is doing, there are far, far more evil things that are far, far worse than anything revealed in the Afghanistan Papers that we don't know about, and that we don't even know we don't know about. Is it not deeply disturbing that we have to pray that some war-loving, establishment-supporting billionaire media outlet will have a partisan agenda to advance if we want to know about even a tiny sliver of this information?

Max Abrahms

✔@MaxAbrahms

I’m waiting for something like the #AfghanistanPapers to be released about U.S. involvement in Syria.

The story won’t be one about corruption and false reports of progress but of knowingly helping Al Qaeda, its radical rebel friends, even ISIS.

529

9:23 PM - Dec 10, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy

I mean, it's not like the Afghanistan Papers revealed anything we didn't already know. It's been public knowledge for many years that there was a preexisting agenda to invade Afghanistan well before September 11, it's been public knowledge that many lies were put in place after the invasion, and it's been public knowledge for a long time that we're being lied to about how well the war is going. All these new revelations did was reify and draw attention to what anyone with an ear to the ground already knew: like all other US-led military interventions, we were lied to about Afghanistan. It's not like the US government was staving off some massive unknown bombshell revelation with its resistance to WaPo's FOIA requests. Yet it resisted them anyway, just because it was more convenient.

Julian Assange once said "The overwhelming majority of information is classified to protect political security, not national security," and we see this tacitly confirmed by the US government in its massive backlogs of unanswered FOIA requests, illegitimate refusals, unjustifiable redactions and exploitation of loopholes to retain as much security as possible. As one Twitter follower recently put it, "The FOIA was enacted in 1966 to make legally compulsory the opening of government activities to 'sunlight'. Fifty-three years later, the government has learned how to neutralize the law and once again hide their misconduct. Classifying everything is one way, requiring an expensive 'lawsuit' is another."

It shouldn't work this way. People shouldn't have to count on immoral plutocratic media institutions to get their government to tell them the truth about what's being done in their name using their tax dollars. A free nation would have privacy for its citizenry and transparency for its government; with the growing increase in surveillance and government secrecy across the entire US-centralized empire, what we're getting is the exact opposite.

_____________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Caitlin Johnstone | December 11, 2019 at 3:04 am | Tags: afghanistan, FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, papers, transparency, war, washington post | Categories: Article, News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1WY

============================
* Nederland is overigens ook goed in het achterhouden van documenten, neem het net gepasseerde 'gevalletje' met de Belastingdienst, die gedupeerden van de teruggevorderde toeslag kinderopvang, ofwel van haar misdadig handelen, een rapport opstuurden (wat eerder werd geweigerd) waarvan letterlijk alle bladzijden zwart zijn gemaakt..... 

Zie ook:
'VS vermoordde in Afghanistan weer 15 burgers waaronder 3 vrouwen en 3 kinderen.......' 

'Moordenaar van Soleimani komt om bij neerhalen van VS spionage vliegtuig in Afghanistan'

'Arnon Grunberg bagatelliseert tevergeefs embedded zijn bij Nederlands leger in Afghanistan en Irak'

'VS wist al een paar weken dat zich op een later te bombarderen doel in Afghanistan (veel) burgers bevonden' 

'VS bombardeerde het Artsen zonder Grenzen ziekenhuis in Kunduz niet per ongeluk.......... Ofwel: VS terreur op grote schaal, over een lange periode!!' 

'Artsen zonder Grenzen ziekenhuis: tijdens bombardement werden vluchtenden vanaf relatief korte afstand beschoten....... Vergissing??' 

'VS ramt ditmaal hek van gebombardeerd ziekenhuis' 

'Afghanistan: VS en Afghaans leger bombarderen bruiloftsstoet: 40 burgers vermoord'

'BBC met uiterst hypocriete anti-Taliban propaganda'

'De Bundeswehr massamoord op 142 Afghanen >> 4 september 2009'

'Afghanistan, westerse terreur: in juli 1.400 burgerslachtoffers'
'Meerderheid van burgerslachtoffers Afghanistan vermoord door de westerse coalitie en het Afghaanse leger'

'Internationaal Strafhof (ICC) stopt na bedreigingen met onderzoek naar VS oorlogsmisdaden.....'

'Uruzgan: VS vernietigt militaire basis van bevriend Afghaanse leger in precisie bombardement'

'Madeline Albright 'gegrild' over illegale interventies en sancties van de VS'

'ICC rechter Flügge stapt op vanwege zware dreigementen uit de VS'

'NAVO, het grootste militaire verbond maakt zich schuldig aan grootschalige terreur i.p.v. de vrede te bewaren'

'Afghanistan: VS gaat terreur vergroten'

'VS gaf sinds 2001 meer dan 5,9 biljoen dollar uit aan oorlogen, ofwel: $ 5,933.000.000.000.......'
       

'VS standrechtelijke executies: voor de zoveelste keer niet-verdachten slachtoffer drone-aanval >> 15 Afghaanse politieagenten vermoord....'

'Afghaanse oorlog in het 17de jaar: Taliban nu sterker dan eerder sinds de VS de oorlog van 2001 begon'

'Ten Broeke (VVD) steunt beslissing Trump de illegale oorlog in Afghanistan te laten voortduren en zo meer terreur te creëren........'

'Afghanistan: de VS stelt de papaverteelt veilig voor de komende jaren...........'

Meer voorbeelden van VS terreur op grote schaal:
VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII........' (tot het jaar 2000, deze eeuw zijn daar al meer dan 2,5 miljoen dodelijke slachtoffers aan toegevoegd.....)

'VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen..........'

'List of wars involving the United States'

'VS: openlijke militaire oefening met terreurgroep in Syrië......'

'Bang voor Amerika'