SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
avril haines
House Dems Voice 'Deep Concern' Over Biden Claim That Israel Is Legally Using US Arms
A letter from 26 lawmakers notes the "stark differences and gaps" between what Biden administration officials say and the opinions of "prominent experts and global institutions" accusing Israel of genocide.
Apr 16, 2024
More than two dozen House Democrats on Tuesday challenged the Biden administration's claim that Israel is using U.S.-supplied weapons in compliance with domestic and international law—an assertion made amid an ongoing World Court probe of "plausibly" genocidal Israeli policies and practices in Gaza.
Citing "mounting credible and deeply troubling reports and allegations" of human rights crimes committed by Israeli troops in Gaza and soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank, 26 congressional Democrats led by Texas Reps. Veronica Escobar—who co-chairs President Joe Biden's reelection campaign—and Joaquin Castro asked U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines "whether and how" their agencies determined Israel is lawfully using arms provided by Washington.
"We write to express our deep concern regarding the U.S. Department of State's recent comments regarding assurances from the Israeli government, under National Security Memorandum (NSM) 20, that the Israeli government is using U.S.-origin weapons in full compliance with relevant U.S. and international law and is not restricting the delivery of humanitarian assistance," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the Cabinet members.
The letter acknowledges the "grave concerns" of institutions and experts around the world regarding Israel's "conduct throughout the war in Gaza, its policies regarding civilian harm and military targeting, unauthorized expansion of settlements and settler violence in the West Bank, and potential use of U.S. arms by settlers, in additional to limitations on humanitarian aid supported by the U.S."
The legislators noted Israeli attacks on aid convoys, workers, and recipients—like the February 29 "
Flour Massacre" in which nearly 900 starving Palestinians were killed or wounded at a food distribution site—and "the closure of vital border crossings" as Gazan children starve to death as causes for serious concern.
While the lawmakers didn't mention the International Court of Justice's January 26
preliminary finding that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza, their letter highlights the "stark differences and gaps in the statements" made by Biden administration officials and "those made by prominent experts and global institutions"—many of whom accuse Israel of genocide.
The lawmakers' letter came amid reports of fresh Israeli atrocities, including a drone strike on a playground in the Maghazi refugee camp in northern Gaza that killed at least 11 children. Eyewitnesses described a "horrific scene of children torn apart."
While Biden has called out Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" in Gaza—much of it carried out using U.S.-supplied warplanes and munitions including 2,000-pound bombs that can level whole city blocks—his administration has approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel, has repeatedly sidestepped Congress to fast-track emergency armed aid, and is seeking to provide the key ally with billions of dollars in addition weaponry atop the nearly $4 billion it gets annually from Washington.
This, despite multiple federal laws—and the administration's own rules— prohibiting U.S. arms transfers to human rights violators.
According to Palestinian and international officials, more than 110,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 7. Most of the dead are women and children. At least 7,000 Palestinians are also missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out homes and other buildings.
Around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people have been forcibly displaced in what many Palestinians are calling a second Nakba, a reference to the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
A growing number of not only progressive lawmakers but also mainstream Democrats are calling for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel.
On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who was criticized earlier in the war for not calling for a cease-fire—stood beside a photo of a starving Gazan girl while declaring "no more money for" the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his "war machine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Need Answers': House Dems Demand Probe Into US Military Purchases of Location Data From Muslim-Focused Apps
"We cannot pick and choose who the Constitution applies to," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "Our government cannot continue to violate the privacy of Americans."
Feb 17, 2021
More than a dozen Democratic lawmakers concerned about possible violations of civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights asked Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines on Thursday for more information about how and why the U.S. military is buying "access to large quantities of personal data" collected from cellphone applications targeted toward Muslim users.
"The American Muslim community deserves to know why the U.S. military targeted their data and what they did with that data."
--Rep. Mark Pocan
The letter (pdf) requesting an investigation into U.S. military purchases of private location data was led by Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
The demand for a probe comes in the wake of a bombshell report published in November by Motherboard about the Pentagon's acquisition of "the granular movement data of people around the world, harvested from innocuous-seeming apps," including but not limited to a widely used Muslim prayer and Quran app with nearly 100 million downloads worldwide as well as a popular Muslim dating app.
Referring to Motherboard's reporting on how "a company called X-Mode... obtains location data directly from apps, then sells that data to contractors, and by extension, the military," the lawmakers wrote that "this disclosure raises serious concern that such information is advancing systematic, warrantless surveillance of the Muslim-American community contrary to the privacy protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution."
In a joint statement released Thursday, Pocan said that "we cannot begin another administration continuing the systemic surveillance of Muslim communities."
"The American Muslim community deserves to know why the U.S. military targeted their data and what they did with that data," Pocan continued. "We cannot simply repeat the mistakes and opacity of the previous administration."
"The Biden administration," he added, "has an opportunity to prioritize transparency and the civil liberties of Muslim Americans after two decades of surveillance and spying by our federal intelligence community. We urge them to do so."
Tlaib--who, along with Omar, was one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress--called it "beyond troubling" that the U.S. military purchased data from apps catering to Muslim audiences. "We need answers," Tlaib added, "as to why this happened and action to ensure it never happens again."
\u201cWe cannot pick and choose who the Constitution applies to. Our government cannot continue to violate the privacy of Americans.\u201d— Rashida Tlaib (@Rashida Tlaib) 1613671449
Denouncing the fact that Muslim communities throughout the country "have had their civil liberties compromised, their rights abused, and their privacy ignored... for decades now," Omar said those injustices are especially "unacceptable in a country that promotes the freedom of religion and assembly."
"The Biden administration must provide a full explanation for this blatant abuse of power and potential violation of the Constitution," she added, "and ensure that it does not happen again."
\u201cFor decades now, the Muslim community have had their civil liberties compromised, their rights abused, and their privacy ignored.\n\nThe Biden Administration must provide a full explanation for this blatant abuse of power and ensure that it does not happen again.\u201d— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Rep. Ilhan Omar) 1613673141
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights organization, applauded the Democratic lawmakers for "working hard to defend the civil rights of American Muslims by rejecting government surveillance and seeking answers from the Biden administration about whether it will reject such discriminatory abuses of power or inherit ownership of them from the prior administration."
\u201cThank you @repmarkpocan, Rep.@Ilhan Omar, @RepRashida Tlaib, @RepAndreCarson, and the dozen+ lawmakers who wrote to #BidenAdministration DoD & Intelligence heads seeking answers on collection of location data from Muslim apps.\u201d— CAIR National (@CAIR National) 1613672574
In their letter to the Pentagon, the lawmakers wrote that "we wish to know more about these data purchases, the use of information gleaned from the data, and any possible violation of privacy rights granted by the Constitution and protected by law."
They demanded answers--with separate responses from each military and intelligence agency--to the following questions:
- Has any warrantless surveillance occurred on any U.S. citizen using purchased location data?
- Has any surveillance whatsoever occurred on any U.S. citizen using purchased location data?
- Did X-Mode or any other location data provider tout access to location data of Muslims as a feature of its service in communications with U.S. military or intelligence community agencies?
- Were apps used primarily by the Muslim community targeted for data purchases? If so, which apps specifically?
- For the first and second questions above, how many Muslim Americans were impacted? How many non-Muslim Americans?
- Have agencies purchased information or data (or access to information or data) that would otherwise be unavailable to the American military, American intelligence community, or American law enforcement agencies? If so, specifically what type of information/data, and how many individuals were possibly included in the data/information?
- Do the U.S. military or intelligence community agencies currently possess location data of American citizens, including Muslim Americans? If so, which agencies, and how was this data obtained?
- What was the cost of each contract the military has executed for the purchase of location data?
- Of the location data that the military and the intelligence community possess, is the data of Muslim American citizens and non-Muslim American citizens segregated in any way? If so, please describe the process, purpose, and use of any such segregation and resulting usage.
- Has evidence been used in any court application, trial, hearing, or other proceeding that consists of, was obtained from, or was derived from location information purchased from a commercial vendor?
- What are the circumstances under which the government notifies criminal defendants, or other parties in legal proceedings, of the use of evidence that consists of, was obtained from, or was derived from location information purchased from a commercial vendor?
- For any purchased location data, are--or were--the military and intelligence community agencies aware of what apps generated such data prior to purchasing? Please describe each agency's awareness of the source of the data.
- If the military or intelligence community has engaged in any data purchasing that targeted Muslim Americans or Muslims generally, has similar targeted purchasing occurred with respect to any other ethnic or religious minority?
"Thank you for your attention to this important matter," the lawmakers concluded. "It is imperative that every American citizen, no matter their ethnicity or religion, is certain their Fourth and First Amendment rights are not only protected, but equally enforced."
As Tlaib put it in her statement, President Joe Biden "must ensure that the civil rights of all people, including Muslim Americans are protected."
"We cannot continue to allow our government to intrude on and violate the privacy and rights of people across this country," Tlaib added. "We cannot pick and choose who the Constitution applies to."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Neera Tanden and Antony Blinken Personify the 'Moderate' Rot at the Top of the Democratic Party
What's so moderate about being on the take from rich beneficiaries of corporate America while opposing proposals that would curb their profits in order to reduce income inequality and advance social justice?
Dec 27, 2020
Sometimes a couple of nominations convey an incoming president's basic mindset and worldview. That's how it seems with Joe Biden's choices to run the Office of Management and Budget and the State Department.
For OMB director, Biden selected corporate centrist Neera Tanden, whose Center for American Progress thrives on the largesse of wealthy donors representing powerful corporate interests. Tanden has been a notably scornful foe of the Democratic Party's progressive wing; former Sanders speechwriter David Sirota calls her "the single biggest, most aggressive Bernie Sanders critic in the United States." Who better to oversee the budget of the U.S. government?
For Secretary of State, Biden chose his longtime top foreign-policy adviser, whose frequent support for U.S. warfare included pushing for the disastrous 2011 military intervention in Libya. Antony Blinken is a revolving-door pro who has combined his record of war boosterism with entrepreneurial zeal to personally profit from influence-peddling for weapons sales to the Pentagon. Who better to oversee diplomacy for the U.S. government?
"With few exceptions, Biden's current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic." Standard news coverage tells us that Tanden and Blinken are "moderates." But what's so moderate about being on the take from rich beneficiaries of corporate America while opposing proposals that would curb their profits in order to reduce income inequality and advance social justice? What's so moderate about serving the military-industrial complex while advocating for massive "defense" spending and what amounts to endless war?
Unless they fail to get Senate confirmation, Tanden and Blinken will shape future history in major ways.
As OMB director, Tanden would head what the Washington Postdescribes as "the nerve center of the federal government, executing the annual spending plan, setting fiscal and personnel policy for agencies, and overseeing the regulatory process across the executive branch."
Blinken is ready to be the administration's most influential figure on foreign policy, bolstered by his longstanding close ties with Biden. As staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Biden chaired the panel's mid-2002 crucial sham hearings on scenarios for invading Iraq, Blinken helped grease the skids for the catastrophic invasion.
Overall, purported "moderates" Tanden and Blinken have benefited from favorable mass-media coverage since their nominations were announced several weeks ago. Most of the well-documented critical accounts have appeared in progressive outlets such as Common Dreams, Democracy Now, The Daily Poster, In These Timesand The American Prospect. But some unappealing aspects of their records have been reported by the mainstream press.
"In her nine years helming Washington's leading liberal think tank, Neera Tanden mingled with deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America," the Washington Postreported in early December. "At formal pitches and swanky fundraisers, Tanden personally cultivated the bevy of benefactors fueling the $45 million to $50 million annual budget of the Center for American Progress."
The Post added: "As OMB director, Tanden would have a hand in policies that touch every part of the economy after years spent courting corporate and foreign donors. These regulatory decisions will have profound implications for a range of U.S. companies, dictating how much they pay in taxes, the barriers they face and whether they benefit from new stimulus programs."
Blinken's eagerness to cash in on the warfare state -- when not a formal part of the government's war-making apparatus -- is well-documented and chilling. In a healthier political culture, Blinken's shameless insistence on profiteering from military weapons sales, as spelled out in a Nov. 28 New York Timesnews story, would have sunk his nomination for Secretary of State.
As for Tanden, in recent years her Center for American Progress received between $1.5 million and $3 million from the United Arab Emirates, which is allied with Saudi Arabia in waging a long and murderous war on Yemen. CAP refused to back a Senate resolution calling for the U.S. government to end its military support for that war. On a range of foreign-policy issues, Tanden has shown dedication to militarism again and again and again.
By many accounts, progressive organizing was a key factor in preventing the widely expected nomination of hawkish Michele Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense. (RootsAction.org, where I'm national director, was part of that organizing effort.) Last week, the withdrawal of torture defender Mike Morell from consideration for CIA director was a victory for activism led by CodePink, Progressive Democrats of America, Witness Against Torture and other groups.
During the first weeks of 2021, such organizing could be effective in helping to derail other nominations. High on the deserving list are Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom "Mr. Monsanto" Vilsack, a loyal ally of corporate Big Ag, and Director of National Intelligence nominee Avril Haines -- whose record as former deputy director of the CIA included working to prevent accountability for agency personnel who engaged in torture, as well as crafting legal rationales for drone strikes that often killed civilians.
Such deplorable nominees don't tell the whole story of Biden's incoming team, which includes some decent economic and environmental appointees. "There's no question that progressive focus on personnel has led to far better outcomes than when Obama put a corporate- and bank-friendly Cabinet together with little resistance," The American Prospect's executive editor, David Dayen, correctly pointed out last week. At the same time, none of Biden's high-level nominees were supporters of the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign or are fully in sync with the progressive wing of the party.
The brighter spots among Joe Biden's nominations reflect the political wattage that progressives have generated in recent years on a wide array of intertwined matters, from climate to healthcare to economic justice to structural racism. Yet, with few exceptions, Biden's current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic. It's hardly incidental that the list of key White House staff is overwhelmingly dominated by corporate-aligned operatives and PR specialists.
Wishful thinking aside, on vital issue after vital issue, it's foreseeable that Biden -- and the people in line for the most powerful roles in his administration -- will not do the right thing unless movements can organize effectively enough to make them do it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular