During the Biden administration, the fate of the founding publisher of WikiLeaks, an Australian national who had never been on American soil and had published classified US defence and diplomatic material outside the country (Cablegate was a gem; Collateral Murder, a chilling exposure of atrocity in Baghdad), was decided. Kept in the excruciating, spiritually crushing conditions of Belmarsh Prison in London for over five years, Julian Assange was convicted under the US Espionage Act of 1917 in June 2024, the victim of a relic dusted and burnished for deployment against the Fourth Estate. Assange’s conviction on one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information has paved a grim road for future prosecutions against the press, a pathway previously not taken for its dangers.

With this nasty legacy, recent threats by Trump against journalists who published and discussed the findings of a leaked preliminary report from the Defense Intelligence Agency are hard to dismiss. The report dared question the extent of damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Operation Midnight Hammer, which involved 75 precision guided munitions in all. “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images,” Trump asserted with beaming confidence. “Obliteration is an accurate term!”

CNN and the New York Times duly challenged the account in discussing the findings of the short DIA report. Damage to the program had not been as absolute as hoped, setting it back by a matter of months rather than years. This sent Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth into a state of apoplexy, haranguing those press outlets who “cheer against Trump so hard, it’s like in your DNA and in your blood”. For his part, Trump accused the Democrats on a Truth Social post of leaking “information on the PERFECT FLIGHT on the Nuclear Sites in Iran”, demanding their prosecution. He further charged his personal lawyer to harangue the New York Times with a letter demanding it “retract and apologize for” the article, one it claimed was “false” and “defamatory”.

To Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business, Trump also added that reporters could be forced to reveal their sources on “National Security” grounds. “We can find out. If they want to, we can find out easily. You go up and tell a reporter, ‘National security, who gave it?’ You have to do that, and I suspect we’ll be doing things like that.”

According to RollingStone, the President has already queried whether the press could be snared by the Espionage Act. While the magazine misses a beat in ignoring the Assange precedent, it notes the current administration’s overly stimulated interest in the statute. Prior to returning to the White House, Trump and his inner circle considered how the Act could be used not only to target leakers in government and whistleblowers “but against media outlets that received classified or highly sensitive information”. The publication relies on two sources who had discussed the matter with the President.

One source, a senior Trump administration official, insists that the Act has again come up specifically regarding reports on the efficacy of the US strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Members of the administration are “looking for the right case to launch their ‘maiden voyage’ of an unprecedented type of Espionage Act prosecution”, one designed to deter news outlets from publishing classified government information or concealing the identities of their leaking sources. “All we’d really need is one text or email from a reporter telling a source: ‘Can you pull something for me?’ or something very direct of that nature’.” A less ignorant source would not have to look far for the one existing, successful example in the US prosecutor’s kit.

When pressed on the issue of whether the espionage statute would become the spear for the administration to target leakers and journalists, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly was broad in reply: “Leaking classified information is a crime, and anyone who threatens American national security in this manner should be held accountable.”

The unanswered question regarding Assange’s prosecution and eventual conviction remains the possible and fundamental role played by the Constitution’s First Amendment protecting press freedom. Unfortunately, the central ghastliness of the Espionage Act is its subversion of free speech and motive. Given the Australian publisher’s plea deal, the mettle of that defence was never tested in court.

Some members of Congress have shown a worthy interest in that valuable right, notably in the context of defending Assange. In their November 8, 2023 letter to President Joe Biden, sixteen lawmakers spanning both sides of politics, including Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene and progressive Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, declared their commitment “to the principles of free speech and freedom of the press” in urging the withdrawal of the US extradition request for Assange. Unfortunately, and significantly, that request was ignored.

Where Greene and other MAGA cheerleaders sit on Trump’s dangerous enchantment with the Espionage Act remains to be seen, notably on the issue of prosecuting publishers and journalists. MAGA can be incorrigibly fickle, especially when attuned to the authoritarian impulses of their great helmsman.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The Fordow site was of particular interest, located some eighty to a hundred metres underground and cocooned by protective concrete. For its purported destruction, B-2 Spirit stealth bombers were used to drop GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator “bunker buster” bombs. All in all, approximately 75 precision-guided weapons were used in the operation, along with 125 aircraft and a guided missile submarine.

Trump was never going to be anything other than optimistic about the result. “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images,” he blustered. “Obliteration is an accurate term!”

At the Pentagon press conference following the attack, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bubbled with enthusiasm. “The order we received from our commander in chief was focused, it was powerful, and it was clear. We devastated the Iranian nuclear program.” The US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, was confident that the facilities had been subjected to severe punishment. “Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.” Adding to Caine’s remarks, Hegseth stated that, “The battle damage assessment is ongoing, but our initial assessment, as the Chairman said, is that all of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect.”

Resort to satellite imagery was always going to take place, and Maxar Technologies willingly supplied the material. “A layer of grey-blue ash caused by the airstrikes [on Fordow] is seen across a large swathe of the area,” the company noted in a statement. “Additionally, several of the tunnel entrances that lead into the underground facility are blocked with dirt following the airstrikes.”

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, also added his voice to the merry chorus that the damage had been significant. “CIA can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran’s Nuclear Program has been severely damaged by the recent, targeted airstrikes.” The assessment included “new intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.”

Israeli sources were also quick to stroke Trump’s already outsized ego. The Israel Atomic Energy Commission opined that the strikes, combined with Israel’s own efforts, had “set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years.” IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir’s view was that the damage to the nuclear program was sufficient to have “set it back by years, I repeat, years.”

The chief of the increasingly discredited International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, flirted with some initial speculation, but was mindful of necessary caveats. In a statement to an emergency meeting of the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors, he warned that, “At this time, no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage at Fordow.” Cue the speculation: “Given the explosive payload utilised and extreme(ly) vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred.”

This was a parade begging to be rained on. CNN and The New York Times supplied it. Referring to preliminary classified findings in a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment running for five pages, the paper reported that the bombing of the three sites had “set back the country’s nuclear program by only a few months”. The strikes had sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities, but they were not successful in precipitating a collapse of the underground buildings. Sceptical expertise murmured through the report: to destroy the facility at Fordow would require “waves of airstrikes, with days or even weeks of pounding the same spots.”

Then came the issue of the nuclear material in question, which Iran still retained control over. The fate of over 400 kg of uranium, which had been enriched to 60% purity, is unclear, as is the number of surviving or hidden centrifuges. Iran had already informed the IAEA on June 13 that “special measures” would be taken to protect nuclear materials and equipment under IAEA safeguards, a feature provided under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Any transfer of nuclear material from a safeguarded facility to another location, however, would have to be declared to the agency, something bound to be increasingly unlikely given the proposed suspension of cooperation with the IAEA by Iran’s parliament.

After mulling over the attacks for a week, Grossi revisited the matter. The attacks on the facilities had caused severe, though “not total” damage. “Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there.” Tehran could, “in a matter of months,” have “a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium.” Iran still had the “industrial and technological” means to recommence the process.

Efforts to question the thoroughness of Operation Midnight Hammer did not sit well with the Trump administration. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt worked herself into a state on any cautionary reporting, treating it as a libellous blemish. “The leaking of this alleged report is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program,” she fumed in a statement. “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets.”

Hegseth similarly raged against the importance placed on the DIA report. In a press conference on June 26, he bemoaned the tendency of the press corps to “cheer against Trump so hard, it’s like in your DNA and in your blood”. The scribblers had to “cheer against the efficacy of these strikes” with “half-truths, spun information, leaked information”. Trump, for his part, returned to familiar ground, attacking any questioning narrative as “Fake News”. CNN, he seethed, had some of the dumbest anchors in the business. With malicious glee, he claimed knowledge of rumours that reporters from both CNN and The New York Times were going to be sacked for making up those “FAKE stories on the Iran Nuclear sites because they got it so wrong.”

A postmodern nonsense has descended on the damage assessments regarding Iran’s nuclear program, leaving the way clear for overremunerated soothsayers. But there was nothing postmodern in the incalculable damage done to the law of nations, a body of acknowledged rules rendered brittle and breakable before the rapacious legislators of the jungle.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced new restrictions on journalists’ access while inside the Pentagon complex in Arlington, Virginia, on May 23, 2025.

In a memo, Hegseth said journalists would now be required to have official approval and escorts from the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs to enter certain areas, including the offices of the secretary, his top aides and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those areas had previously been freely accessible to credentialed reporters.

Hegseth cited the protection of national security and classified national intelligence information as the justification for the changes. “While the Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally obligated to protect CNSI and sensitive information — the unauthorized disclosure of which could put the lives of U.S. Service members in danger.”

The Pentagon Press Association in a statement condemned the changes, saying it “is extremely concerned by the decision to restrict movement of accredited journalists within the Pentagon through non-secured, unclassified hallways.”

It noted that its members have “had access to non-secured, unclassified spaces in the Pentagon for decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, including in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks,” without any security issues arising.

“This decision eliminates the media’s freedom to freely access press officers for the military services who are specifically hired to respond to press queries,” the association added.

On January 31, the Defense Department had announced a new media “rotation” policy that removed major news outlets — including The New York Times and Politico — from their dedicated office space in the Pentagon and replaced them with primarily conservative outlets, such as One America News Network and Breitbart.

The White House has also sought to restrict press access by taking over the presidential press pool and attempting to ban the Associated Press from covering the president in retaliation for its editorial policy.

Since taking office, Hegseth has joined President Donald Trump and other members of his administration in taking steps to intimidate leakers and news outlets that have produced critical coverage.

The Defense Department did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

Musicians protesting against political leaders and government policies have a long and distinguished history in the United States. Bruce Springsteen, 75, one of the country’s most beloved singer-songwriters, lambasted President Donald Trump this week at a concert in Manchester, England, during the first leg of his “Land of Hope and Dreams” tour.

Here is a transcript of Springsteen’s remarks:

Introduction to Land of Hope and Dreams

Good Evening!

The America l’ve sung to you about for 50 years is real and regardless of its faults is a great country with a great people. So we’ll survive this moment. Now, I have hope, because I believe in the truth of what the great American writer James Baldwin said. He said, ‘In this world, there isn’t as much humanity as one would like, but there’s enough.’ Let’s pray.

In a statement, the White House lashed out at Springsteen saying that “the 77 million Americans that elected President Trump disagree with elitist and out-of-touch celebrities like Bruce Springsteen. Bruce is welcome to stay overseas while hardworking Americans enjoy a secure border and cooling inflation thanks to President Trump.”

On Friday, Mr. Trump responded on his social media platform, saying that the rocker is “just a pushy, obnoxious JERK, who fervently supported Crooked Joe Biden, a mentally incompetent FOOL, and our WORST EVER President, who came close to destroying our Country.”

He added: “Springsteen is ‘dumb as a rock,’ and couldn’t see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just ‘standard fare.’ Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”

Dating back to pre-Revolutionary War times, protest music has always had its day. “Yankee Doodle” was ordered played by the Marquis de Lafayette after the British surrender at Yorktown. The music of the abolition movement celebrated African musical traditions.

During the Great Depression Woody Guthrie sang about refugees forced of their land and migrating across the country. Billie Holiday singing Abel Meeropol’s 1939 anti-lynching song “Strange Fruit” was a catalyst for the civil rights movement. Paul Robeson sang about mistreated workers. Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Marvin Gaye and others crafted songs protesting, racism, social injustice, and the foolhardiness of the Viet Nam War.

In 2003, at a concert in London, The Chicks (then known as The Dixie Chicks) spoke out against George W. Bush and the Iraq War, triggering a backlash that had an enormous effect on its career. At the time, The Dixie Chicks were one of the most popular American country acts. After the statement was reported it triggered a backlash from American country listeners. The group was blacklisted by many country radio stations, received death threats and was criticized by other country musicians.

In addition to his tour, later this summer, Springsteen will release a new album collection that will include dozens of “never-before-heard” songs from previously unreleased records.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bill Berkowitz.

Pete Seeger

Folk musician

Banjo player

Singer of songs of unity

He sang songs of joy 

He sang for the unions

For the workers and the downtrodden. 

He sang songs for change

Civil Rights songs. Folk songs.

He sang for the people 

And he also served his country

In the US military—a corporal during World War 2

Fighting Hitler, the Nazis, and the Fascists

And when he came home, he founded the Weavers

A folk music quartet, which rocketed to the top of the charts.

They sang for the unions. 

They sang for social justice and progressive politics

Joseph McCarthy began his witch hunts in Washington.

Hundreds of actors, artists, and musicians were blacklisted across the country.

That included the Weavers. They called them subversives.

They were watched by the FBI.

And they folded.

McCarthy dragged Pete Seeger in to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

He refused to answer. 

But was found guilty of contempt of court.

He was banned from playing on television and over the radio.

He was banned from performing almost anywhere.

But he played on. 

Performing for kids.

Performing in festivals.

He taught people to play the banjo. 

He recorded instruction videos and song books. 

He worked as a music teacher in schools and summer camps.

He traveled from university to university across the country 

Singing despite the protests from conservatives 

Because of the blacklist.

They said he was Un-American.

But he was more American than anyone.

Reviving the songs of old 

Re-singing the music that rang from the porches of weatherbeaten homes across the hillsides of America.

He recorded folk album after album.

He helped to transform “We Shall Overcome” into a civil rights anthem. He sang it on the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. 

He helped to inspire the folk music revival of the 1950s and 1960s. 

And he continued to play and sing throughout his life. 

His music and his legacy plays on.

Pete Seeger was born on May 3, 1919. 

He died at the age of 94, in 2014.

This is episode 28 of Stories of Resistance — a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. You can also follow Michael’s reporting and support at patreon.com/mfox.

Written and produced by Michael Fox.

Resources:

Here is a great 2007 PBS documentary about Pete Seeger’s life. It’s called “The Power of Song”:

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Michael Fox.

Pete Seeger

Folk musician

Banjo player

Singer of songs of unity

He sang songs of joy 

He sang for the unions

For the workers and the downtrodden. 

He sang songs for change

Civil Rights songs. Folk songs.

He sang for the people 

And he also served his country

In the US military—a corporal during World War 2

Fighting Hitler, the Nazis, and the Fascists

And when he came home, he founded the Weavers

A folk music quartet, which rocketed to the top of the charts.

They sang for the unions. 

They sang for social justice and progressive politics

Joseph McCarthy began his witch hunts in Washington.

Hundreds of actors, artists, and musicians were blacklisted across the country.

That included the Weavers. They called them subversives.

They were watched by the FBI.

And they folded.

McCarthy dragged Pete Seeger in to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

He refused to answer. 

But was found guilty of contempt of court.

He was banned from playing on television and over the radio.

He was banned from performing almost anywhere.

But he played on. 

Performing for kids.

Performing in festivals.

He taught people to play the banjo. 

He recorded instruction videos and song books. 

He worked as a music teacher in schools and summer camps.

He traveled from university to university across the country 

Singing despite the protests from conservatives 

Because of the blacklist.

They said he was Un-American.

But he was more American than anyone.

Reviving the songs of old 

Re-singing the music that rang from the porches of weatherbeaten homes across the hillsides of America.

He recorded folk album after album.

He helped to transform “We Shall Overcome” into a civil rights anthem. He sang it on the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. 

He helped to inspire the folk music revival of the 1950s and 1960s. 

And he continued to play and sing throughout his life. 

His music and his legacy plays on.

Pete Seeger was born on May 3, 1919. 

He died at the age of 94, in 2014.

This is episode 28 of Stories of Resistance — a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. You can also follow Michael’s reporting and support at patreon.com/mfox.

Written and produced by Michael Fox.

Resources:

Here is a great 2007 PBS documentary about Pete Seeger’s life. It’s called “The Power of Song”:

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Michael Fox.

Shortly after President Donald Trump’s second term began, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth joined Trump in taking steps to intimidate leakers and news outlets that have covered him and his administration unfavorably. We’re documenting Hegseth’s efforts in this regularly updated report.

Read about how Trump’s appointees and allies in Congress are striving to chill reporting, revoke funding, censor critical coverage and more here.

This article was first published on March 21, 2025.

March 21, 2025 | Defense Department announces investigation into media leaks

---

March 21, 2025 | Defense Department announces investigation into media leaks

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office sent a memo on March 21, 2025, initiating an investigation into “recent unauthorized disclosures of national security information.”

“This investigation will commence immediately and culminate in a report to the Secretary of Defense,” wrote Joe Kasper, Hegseth’s chief of staff. “I expect to be informed immediately if this effort results in information identifying a party responsible for an unauthorized disclosure, and that such information will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement entity for criminal prosecution.”

The memo also noted that department employees will be subject to polygraph exams “in accordance with applicable law and policy.”

The memo came hours after Elon Musk, head of the new Department of Government Efficiency, posted on social media calling The New York Times’ reporting on the planned content of his briefing at the Pentagon “pure propaganda.”

“I look forward to the prosecutions of those at the Pentagon who are leaking maliciously false information to NYT,” Musk wrote. “They will be found.”

Musk’s meeting with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ultimately did not take place, Reuters reported.

A Times spokesperson told Reuters that leak investigations are “meant to chill communications between journalists and their sources and undermine the ability of a free press to bring out vital information that may otherwise be hidden.”

Back to Top

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/03/pete-hegseth-targets-news-outlets-leakers-as-defense-secretary/feed/ 0 523536 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/secrecy-and-virtue-signalling-another-view-of-signalgate/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/secrecy-and-virtue-signalling-another-view-of-signalgate/#respond Tue, 01 Apr 2025 08:33:29 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=157078 There has been a fascinating, near unanimous condemnation among the cognoscenti about the seemingly careless addition of Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic to the chat chain of Signal by US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. Condemnation of the error spans the spectrum from clownish to dangerous. There has been virtually nothing on the importance of […]

The post Secrecy and Virtue Signalling: Another View of Signalgate first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]> There has been a fascinating, near unanimous condemnation among the cognoscenti about the seemingly careless addition of Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic to the chat chain of Signal by US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. Condemnation of the error spans the spectrum from clownish to dangerous. There has been virtually nothing on the importance of such leaks of national security information and the importance they serve in informing the public about what those in power are really up to.

Rather than appreciate the fact that there was a journalist there to receive information on military operations that might raise a host of concerns (legitimate targeting and the laws of war come to mind), there was a chill of terror coursing through the commentariat and Congress that military secrets and strategy had been compromised. Goldberg himself initially disbelieved it. “I didn’t think it could be real.” He also professed that some messages would not be made public given the risks they posed, conceding that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s communications to the group “contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

This seemingly principled stance ignores the bread-and-butter importance of investigative reporting and activist publishing, which so often relies on classified material received via accident or design. Normally, the one receiving the message is condemned. In this case, Golberg objected to being the recipient, claiming moral high ground in reporting the security lapse. Certain messages of the “Houthi PC small group channel” were only published by The Atlantic to throw cold water on stubborn claims by the White House that classified details had not been shared.

The supposed diligence on Goldberg’s part to fuss about the cavalier attitude to national security shown by the Trump administration reveals the feeble compromise the Fourth Estate has reached with the national security state. Could it be that WikiLeaks was, like the ghost of Banquo, at this Signal’s feast? Last year’s conviction of the organisation’s founding publisher, Julian Assange, on one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information under the Espionage Act of 1917, or section 793(g) (Title 18, USC), might have exerted some force over Goldberg’s considerations. Having been added to the communication chain in error, the defence material could well have imperilled him, with First Amendment considerations on that subject untested.

As for what the messages revealed, along with the importance of their disclosure, things become clear. Waltz reveals that the killing of a Houthi official necessitated the destruction of a civilian building. “The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.” Vance replies: “Excellent.”

As Turse reminds us in The Intercept, this conforms to the practices all too frequently used when bombing the Houthis in Yemen. The United States offered extensive support to the Saudi-led bombing campaign against the Shia group, one that precipitated one of the world’s gravest humanitarian crises. That particular aerial campaign rarely heeded specific targeting, laying waste to vital infrastructure and health facilities. Anthropologist Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War project at Brown University, also noted in remarks to The Intercept that fifty-three people have perished in the latest US airstrikes, among them five children. “These are just the latest deaths in a long track record of US killing in Yemen, and the research shows that US airstrikes in many countries have a history of killing and traumatizing innocent civilians and wreaking havoc on people’s lives and livelihoods.”

The appearance of Hillary Clinton in the debate on Signalgate confirmed the importance of such leaks, and why they are treated with pathological loathing. “We’re all shocked – shocked!” she screeched in The New York Times. “What’s worse is that top Trump administration officials put our troops in jeopardy by sharing military plans on a commercial messaging app and unwittingly invited a journalist into the chat. That’s dangerous. And it’s just dumb.” As a person with a hatred of open publishing outlets such as WikiLeaks (her own careless side to security was exposed by the organisation’s publication of emails sent from a private server while she was Secretary of State), the mania is almost understandable.

Other countries, notably members of the Five Eyes alliance system, are also voicing concern that their valuable secrets are at risk if shared with the Trump administration. Again, the focus there is less on the accountability of officials than the cast iron virtues of secrecy. “When mistakes happen, and sensitive intelligence leaks, lessons must be learned to prevent that from recurring,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated gravely in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “It’s a serious, serious issue, and all lessons must be taken.”

Former chief of Canada’s intelligence agency, Richard Fadden, was even more explicit: “Canada needs to think about what this means in practical terms: is the United States prepared to protect our secrets, as we are bound to protect theirs?”

Signalgate jolted the national security state. Rather than being treated as a valuable revelation about the latest US bombing strategy in Yemen, the obsession has been on keeping a lid on such matters. For the sake of accountability and the public interest, let us hope that the lid on this administration’s activities remains insecure.

The post Secrecy and Virtue Signalling: Another View of Signalgate first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/secrecy-and-virtue-signalling-another-view-of-signalgate/feed/ 0 522922 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/pete-hegseth-gets-new-anti-islam-tattoo/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/pete-hegseth-gets-new-anti-islam-tattoo/#respond Tue, 01 Apr 2025 03:09:54 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=284ffe63c987154bb68030c51b8cc9ee
This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/pete-hegseth-gets-new-anti-islam-tattoo/feed/ 0 522829 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/31/the-real-outrage-in-yemen-3/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/31/the-real-outrage-in-yemen-3/#respond Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:38:08 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=157040 Members of the Fifteenth Street Meeting of Friends and the New York Catholic Worker gather for a weekly vigil against the bombing of Yemen in New York City on February 3, 2024 Since March 15, the United States has launched strikes on more than forty locations across Yemen in an ongoing attack against members of […]

The post The Real Outrage in Yemen first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]> Members of the Fifteenth Street Meeting of Friends and the New York Catholic Worker gather for a weekly vigil against the bombing of Yemen in New York City on February 3, 2024

Since March 15, the United States has launched strikes on more than forty locations across Yemen in an ongoing attack against members of the Houthi movement, which has carried out more than 100 attacks on shipping vessels linked to Israel and its allies since October 2023. The Houthis say they are acting in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and have recently resumed the campaign following the failed ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

The new round of U.S. airstrikes has damaged critical ports and roads which UNICEF describes as “lifelines for food and medicine,” and killed at least twenty-five civilians, including four children, in the first week alone. Of the thirty-eight recorded strikes, twenty-one hit non-military, civilian targets, including a medical storage facility, a medical center, a school, a wedding hall, residential areas, a cotton gin facility, a health office, Bedouin tents, and Al Eiman University. The Houthis claim that at least fifty-seven people have died in total.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and other high-level Trump Administration officials had discussed real-time planning around these strikes in a group chat on Signal, a commercial messaging app. During the past week, Congressional Democrats including U.S. Senator Schumer and U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries expressed outrage over the Trump Administration’s recklessness, with Jeffries saying that what has happened “shocks the conscience.”

President Trump commented that there was “no harm done” in the administration’s use of Signal chats, “because the attack was unbelievably successful.” But the Democrats appear more shocked and outraged by the disclosure of highly secret war plans over Signal than by the actual nature of the attacks, which have killed innocent people, including children.

In fact, U.S. elected officials have seldom commented on the agony Yemen’s children endure as they face starvation and disease. Nor has there been discussion of the inherent illegality of the United States’s bombing campaign against an impoverished country in defense of Israel amid its genocide of Palestinians.

As commentator Mohamad Bazzi writes in The Guardian, “Anyone interested in real accountability for U.S. policy-making should see this as a far bigger scandal than the one currently unfolding in Washington over the leaked Signal chat.”

*****On Saturday, March 29, participants in the Yemen vigil will distribute flyers with the headline “Yemen in the Crosshairs” that warn of an alarming buildup of U.S. Air Force B2 Spirit stealth bombers landing at the U.S. base on Diego Garcia, a tiny island in the Indian Ocean. According to the publication Army Recognition, two aircraft have already landed at Diego Garcia, and two others are currently en route, in a move that may indicate further strikes against Yemen. The B2 Spirit bombers are “uniquely capable of carrying the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound bomb designed to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets …. This unusual movement of stealth bombers may indicate preparations for potential strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen or serve as a deterrent message to Iran.”

The Yemen vigil flyer points out that multiple Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs can use their GPS precision guidance system to “layer in” multiple warheads on a precise location, with each “digging” more deeply than the one before it to achieve deeper penetration. “This is considered particularly critical to achieving U.S. and broader Western Bloc objectives of neutralizing the Ansarullah Coalition’s military strength,” reports Military Watch Magazine, “as key Yemeni military and industrial targets are fortified deeply underground.”

Despite the efforts of peace activists across the country, a child in Yemen dies every ten minutes from preventable causes—and the Democratic Representatives in the Senate and the House from New York don’t seem to care.

A version of this article first appeared on The Progressive.

The post The Real Outrage in Yemen first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kathy Kelly.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/31/the-real-outrage-in-yemen-3/feed/ 0 522644 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/02/15/trump-gives-peace-a-chance-in-ukraine/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/02/15/trump-gives-peace-a-chance-in-ukraine/#respond Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:28:27 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=155973 Photo: Daniel Reinhardt/AP As we approach the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a monumental shift is taking place that might just lead to the end of this calamitous war. This is not a breakthrough on the battlefield, but a stark reversal of the U.S. position from being the major supplier of weapons […]

The post Trump Gives Peace a Chance in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]>
Photo: Daniel Reinhardt/AP

As we approach the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a monumental shift is taking place that might just lead to the end of this calamitous war. This is not a breakthrough on the battlefield, but a stark reversal of the U.S. position from being the major supplier of weapons and funding to prolong the war to one of peacemaker.

Donald Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine if he was re-elected as president. On February 12th, he started to make good on that promise by holding a 90-minute call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Biden had refused to talk to since the war began. They agreed that they were ready to begin peace negotiations “immediately,” and Trump then called President Zelensky and spent an hour discussing the conditions for what Zelensky called a “lasting and reliable peace.”

At the same time, the new U.S. Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, unveiled Trump’s new policy in more detail at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, saying, “The bloodshed must stop. And this war must end.”

There are two parts to the new policy that Hegseth announced. First, he said that Trump “intends to end this war by diplomacy and bringing both Russia and Ukraine to the table.” Secondly, he said that the United States is handing off the prime responsibility for arming Ukraine and guaranteeing its future security to the European members of NATO.

Assigning Europe the role of security guarantor is a transparent move to shield the U.S. from ongoing responsibility for a war that it played a major role in provoking and prolonging by scuttling previous negotiations. If the Europeans will not accept their assigned role in Trump’s plan, or President Zelensky or Putin reject it, the United States may yet have to play a larger role in security guarantees for Ukraine than Trump or many Americans would like. Zelensky told the Guardian on February 11th that, for Ukraine, “Security guarantees without America are not real security guarantees.”

After blocking peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in April 2022, the Biden administration rejected peace negotiations over Ukraine for nearly three years. Biden insisted that Ukraine must recover all of its internationally recognized territory, including the Crimea and Donbass regions that separated from Ukraine after the U.S.-backed coup in Kyiv in 2014.

Hegseth opened the door to peace by clearly and honestly telling America’s European allies, “…we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.”

Spelling out the U.S. plan in more detail, Hegseth went on, “A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. This must not be Minsk 3.0. That said, the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.”

NATO membership for Ukraine has always been totally unacceptable to the Russians. Trump and Hegseth’s forthrightness in finally pulling the plug, after the U.S. has dangled NATO membership in front of successive Ukrainian governments since 2008, marks a critical recognition that neutrality offers the best chance for Ukraine to coexist with Russia and the West without being a battleground between them.

Trump and Hegseth expect Europe to assume prime responsibility for Ukraine, while the Pentagon will instead focus on Trump’s two main priorities: on the domestic front, deporting immigrants, and on the international front, confronting China. Hegseth justified this as “a division of labor that maximizes our comparative advantages in Europe and the Pacific respectively.”

Elaborating on the role the U.S. plan demands of its European allies, Hegseth explained,

If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission. And they should not be covered under Article 5. There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact. To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine… Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of NATO. As part of this Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine.

To say that U.S. forces will never fight alongside European forces in Ukraine, and that Article 5, the mutual defense commitment in the NATO Charter, will not apply to European forces in Ukraine, is to go a step farther than simply denying NATO membership to Ukraine, by carving out Ukraine as an exclusion zone where the NATO Charter no longer applies, even to NATO members.

While Trump plans to negotiate directly with Russia and Ukraine, the vulnerable position in which his plan would place European NATO members means that they, too, will want a significant say in the peace negotiations and probably demand a U.S. role in Ukraine’s security guarantees. So Trump’s effort to insulate the U.S. from the consequences of its actions in Ukraine may be a dead letter before he even sits down to negotiate with Russia and Ukraine.

Hegseth’s reference to the Minsk Accords highlights the similarities between Trump’s plans and those agreements in 2014 and 2015, which largely kept the peace in Eastern Ukraine from then until 2022. Western leaders have since admitted that they always intended to use the relative peace created by the Minsk Accords to build up Ukraine militarily, so that it could eventually recover Donetsk and Luhansk by force, instead of granting them the autonomous status agreed to in the Accords.

Russia will surely insist on provisions that prevent the West from using a new peace accord in the same way, and would be highly unlikely to agree to substantial Western military forces or bases in Ukraine as part of Ukraine’s security guarantees. President Putin has always insisted that a neutral Ukraine is essential to lasting peace.

There is, predictably, an element of “having their cake and eating it too” in Trump and Hegseth’s proposals. Even if the Europeans take over most of the responsibility for guaranteeing Ukraine’s future security, and the U.S. has no Article 5 obligation to support them, the United States would retain its substantial command and control position over Europe’s armed forces through NATO. Trump is still demanding that its European members increase their military spending to 5% of GDP, far more than the United States spends on its bloated, wasteful and defeated war machine.

Biden was ready to fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” as retired U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman said in March 2022, and to enrich U.S. weapons companies with rivers of Ukrainian blood. Is Trump now preparing to fight Russia to the last British, French, German or Polish soldier too if his peace plan fails?

Trump’s call with Putin and Hegseth’s concessions on NATO and Ukraine’s territorial integrity left many European leaders reeling. They complained that the U.S. was making concessions behind their backs, that these issues should have been left to the negotiating table, and that Ukraine should not be forced to give up on NATO membership.

European NATO members have legitimate concerns to work out with the new U.S. administration, but Trump and Hegseth are right to finally and honestly tell Ukraine that it will not become a NATO member, to dispel this tragic mirage and let it move on into a neutral and more peaceful future.

There has also been a backlash from Republican war hawks, while the Democrats, who have been united as the party of war when it comes to Ukraine, will likely try to sabotage Trump’s efforts. On the other hand, maybe a few brave Democrats will recognize this as a chance to reclaim their party’s lost heritage as the more dovish of America’s two legacy parties, and to provide desperately needed new progressive foreign policy leadership in Congress.

On both sides of the Atlantic, Trump’s peace initiative is a gamechanger and a new chance for peace that the United States and its allies should embrace, even as they work out their respective responsibilities to provide security guarantees for Ukraine. It is also a time for Europe to realize that it can’t just mimic U.S. foreign policy and expect U.S. protection in return. Europe’s difficult relationship with Trump’s America may lead to a new modus operandi and a re-evaluation (or maybe even the end?) of NATO.

Meanwhile, those of us anxious to see peace in Ukraine should applaud President Trump’s initiative but we should also highlight the glaring contradictions of a president who finds the killing in Ukraine unacceptable but fully supports the genocide in Palestine.

Given that most of the casualties in Ukraine are soldiers, while most of the maimed and killed in Palestine are civilians, including thousands of children, the compassionate, humanitarian case for peace is even stronger in Palestine than in Ukraine. So why is Trump committed to stopping the killing in Ukraine but not in Gaza? Is it because Trump is so wedded to Israel that he refuses to rein in its slaughter? Or is it just that Ukrainians and Russians are white and European, while Palestinians are not?

If Trump can reject the political arguments that have fueled three years of war in Ukraine and apply compassion and common sense to end that war, then he can surely do the same in the Middle East.

The post Trump Gives Peace a Chance in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/02/15/trump-gives-peace-a-chance-in-ukraine/feed/ 0 513896 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/pete-hegseths-extreme-christian-nationalist-beliefs/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/pete-hegseths-extreme-christian-nationalist-beliefs/#respond Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:24:30 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=926ae058803d584df661c0fdcc0ba21b
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/pete-hegseths-extreme-christian-nationalist-beliefs/feed/ 0 511241 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/christian-nationalist-at-the-pentagon-pete-hegseths-calvinist-sect-embraces-confederacy-crusades-2/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/christian-nationalist-at-the-pentagon-pete-hegseths-calvinist-sect-embraces-confederacy-crusades-2/#respond Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:51:17 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=8606f8bfd797987e46e56691409f32c8
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/christian-nationalist-at-the-pentagon-pete-hegseths-calvinist-sect-embraces-confederacy-crusades-2/feed/ 0 511231 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/christian-nationalist-at-the-pentagon-pete-hegseths-calvinist-sect-embraces-confederacy-crusades/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/christian-nationalist-at-the-pentagon-pete-hegseths-calvinist-sect-embraces-confederacy-crusades/#respond Mon, 27 Jan 2025 13:49:28 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=d8cc0820a371d469f2783996e69840be

The Senate has confirmed former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as Trump’s defense secretary by just one vote. Hegseth has “very clear” ties to extreme Christian nationalism, as well as a history of alleged sexual assault and abuse. Logan Davis, a reporter in Denver, Colorado, who grew up in the same classical Christian educational movement that Hegseth is raising his family in, explains the problematic ideology that shapes it. Hegseth has endorsed leaders in the community and their beliefs that the church possesses supremacy over worldly affairs, antebellum slavery was a “beneficent American institution” and the U.S.'s global war on terror is a modern-day iteration of the medieval Crusades. Davis says Hegseth's lack of qualifications for his new role means he will likely be “leaning on these controversial faith leaders in his life more than someone with adequate experience” would be — bringing this extremist Christian nationalism into the mainstream.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/27/christian-nationalist-at-the-pentagon-pete-hegseths-calvinist-sect-embraces-confederacy-crusades/feed/ 0 511227 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/military-veterans-disrupt-pete-hegseth-confirmation-hearing/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/military-veterans-disrupt-pete-hegseth-confirmation-hearing/#respond Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:37:05 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=32510f2739e218ff2a43a46e559d6f46
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/military-veterans-disrupt-pete-hegseth-confirmation-hearing/feed/ 0 509778 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/meet-the-military-vets-arrested-for-disrupting-pete-hegseths-senate-confirmation-hearing-2/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/meet-the-military-vets-arrested-for-disrupting-pete-hegseths-senate-confirmation-hearing-2/#respond Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:43:58 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=c92d1399f064fca5070c0c4c350af26a
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/meet-the-military-vets-arrested-for-disrupting-pete-hegseths-senate-confirmation-hearing-2/feed/ 0 509845 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/democrats-grill-pete-hegseth-on-rape-allegation-drunkenness-and-women-in-combat-2/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/democrats-grill-pete-hegseth-on-rape-allegation-drunkenness-and-women-in-combat-2/#respond Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:40:39 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=5f4c95a6d1bfc6e045a91be13eb2f58b
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/democrats-grill-pete-hegseth-on-rape-allegation-drunkenness-and-women-in-combat-2/feed/ 0 509862 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/meet-the-military-vets-arrested-for-disrupting-pete-hegseths-senate-confirmation-hearing/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/meet-the-military-vets-arrested-for-disrupting-pete-hegseths-senate-confirmation-hearing/#respond Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:28:19 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=a4c7618a95497543ea0568bed13b8f14

The Senate confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick to be defense secretary, was repeatedly disrupted Tuesday by protesters who denounced the nominee’s history of hateful remarks against women, LGBTQ people and others, as well as to demand an end to U.S. support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. We speak with two of those protesters, military veterans Josephine Guilbeau and Greg Stoker, who say they were motivated to speak out against the “war machine” that hurts people who serve in the military as well as people around the world who are victims of U.S. militarism. “They use us as pawns to go to these wars and ultimately go kill innocent people,” says Guilbeau.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/meet-the-military-vets-arrested-for-disrupting-pete-hegseths-senate-confirmation-hearing/feed/ 0 509773 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/democrats-grill-pete-hegseth-on-rape-allegation-drunkenness-and-women-in-combat/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/democrats-grill-pete-hegseth-on-rape-allegation-drunkenness-and-women-in-combat/#respond Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:13:04 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=42d4a61fef4b3ce203a47c099f959160

Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick to become defense secretary, appears to be moving toward confirmation after a contentious Senate hearing on Tuesday. He was grilled over his alleged history of sexual misconduct, reports of frequent public drunkenness at work, financial mismanagement at veterans’ organizations he led, and statements he has made disparaging women, LGBTQ people and others in the military. Hegseth’s confirmation can only be blocked if three or more Republicans join Democrats in opposing the former Fox News host, but so far the party appears aligned behind Trump’s nominee. Watch the highlights from Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearing.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/15/democrats-grill-pete-hegseth-on-rape-allegation-drunkenness-and-women-in-combat/feed/ 0 509836 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/14/white-nationalism-sexual-assault-corruption-pete-hegseth-faces-senate-confirmation/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/14/white-nationalism-sexual-assault-corruption-pete-hegseth-faces-senate-confirmation/#respond Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:45:36 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=04b61e6243af532187eb9d10cb595678
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/14/white-nationalism-sexual-assault-corruption-pete-hegseth-faces-senate-confirmation/feed/ 0 509740 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/14/white-nationalism-sexual-assault-corruption-trump-loyalist-pete-hegseth-faces-senate-confirmation/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/14/white-nationalism-sexual-assault-corruption-trump-loyalist-pete-hegseth-faces-senate-confirmation/#respond Tue, 14 Jan 2025 13:12:26 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=e4ec8a594b75605f720eed7f0db3dd35

The confirmation hearing for President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, former Fox News host and military veteran Pete Hegseth, begins today amid backlash over his history of sexual assault, misusing funds in his previous positions, and various violations committed while under the influence of alcohol. Hegseth was also one of 12 National Guard members removed as guards for President Biden’s 2021 inauguration over possible extremist ties. He has tattoos associated with the white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements, including what’s known as a Jerusalem cross, a symbol used by Christian nationalists. If Hegseth is confirmed, “the Trump administration would stand to gain a loyalist,” says reporter Alice Herman, who is covering Hegseth in The Guardian.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/01/14/white-nationalism-sexual-assault-corruption-trump-loyalist-pete-hegseth-faces-senate-confirmation/feed/ 0 509677 https://www.radiofree.org/2024/12/16/pete-hegseth-is-a-terrible-choice-for-defense-chief/ https://www.radiofree.org/2024/12/16/pete-hegseth-is-a-terrible-choice-for-defense-chief/#respond Mon, 16 Dec 2024 13:55:55 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=155409 The national organization Veterans For Peace, with chapters in over 100 US cities, is calling on US Senators to vote NO on Pete Hegseth for US Defense Secretary, should President-elect nominate him. Veterans For Peace is astounded that someone with the track record of Pete Hegseth would seriously be considered for the critically important role of […]

The post Pete Hegseth Is a Terrible Choice for Defense Chief first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]> The national organization Veterans For Peace, with chapters in over 100 US cities, is calling on US Senators to vote NO on Pete Hegseth for US Defense Secretary, should President-elect nominate him.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Veterans for Peace.

Concerns are mounting over Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon, Fox News host and military veteran Pete Hegseth. Hegseth is a vocal opponent of the military’s multiculturalism and decision to allow women to serve in combat, promises to purge the military of generals disloyal to Trump and sports tattoos connected with neo-Nazi and white nationalist movements. “Here’s a man who wrote a book declaring his intention to wage, not metaphorical, but actual war within the United States,” says Jeff Sharlet, an expert on the rise of far-right extremism in the United States. Sharlet explains how Hegseth and Mike Huckabee, Trump’s choice for U.S. ambassador to Israel, have Christian nationalist and Christian Zionist views that ultimately work to whip up animosity toward domestic enemies of the far right.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Image by Chad Madden.

I spotted Pete Hegseth’s latest book The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free, while I was shopping at my local Costco. Intrigued, I bought a copy. Published by Fox News Books, it shot to the top of the New York Times Best Seller List soon after publication in early June. His name was one I recognized as one of Fox’s talking heads, who has the ear of former President Donald J. Trump on veteran’s issues and pardoning war criminals.

The back flap of Hegseth’s book describes him as “a husband, father, patriot, and Christian.” He is a U.S. Army veteran. He was a guard at Guantanamo Bay and served in Iraq and Afghanistan. During his time in the National Guard he was deployed in Washington D.C. during the national uprising against racism that followed the police murder of George Floyd. Hegseth is also a former failed candidate for the Republican Party U.S. Senate from Minnesota, and he’s led several “veterans” groups, including the Koch brothers backed Veterans for Freedom.

The War on Warriors, like Hitler’s Mein Kampf or My Struggle, is a contrived nightmarish vision of society, where true “patriots” are persecuted by a twisted and evil political establishment motivated to sell out their country. He is also a shameless self-promoter and bloviates about his alleged martyrdom. To get a taste of Hegseth, here’s the opening lines of his book:

I joined the Army because I wanted to serve my country. Extremism attacked us on 9/11, and we went to war.

And, in 2021, I was deemed an “extremist’ by that very same Army.

Yes, you read that right.

Twenty years…and the military I loved, I fought for. I revered…spit me out. While I was writing this book, I separated from an Army that didn’t want me anymore. The feeling was mutual — I didn’t want this Army anymore either.

It’s not clear at all from Hegseth’s book or his many interviews how he was “spit” out of the National Guard or why. The implications was that he was charged with some breach of military discipline and/or court-martialed, but the facts don’t bear this out. I scoured his book, and thinking I must have missed it, I watched several of his interviews and monologues to get a clearer answer. And, I couldn’t find it.

Hegseth refers to an unnamed senior officer, who told him to “stand down,” that he wasn’t needed anymore. Whether this conversation or something like that ever took place is questionable, but it certainly is not being “spit out,” yet it’s important for his faux martyrdom. It wouldn’t be out of the question that he simply got bored with military life and decided life was easier sitting full time on the couch at Fox News. If Trump is elected president this November, Hegseth will probably be on the short list for Secretary of Veterans Affairs, which would be a disaster for veterans of any political stripe.

Die Hard

I’ve read many modern military autobiographies and biographies over the years, including Colin Powell’s My American Journey and Norman Schwartzkopf’s It Doesn’t Take a Hero. Biographies are almost always self-serving, usually concerned about preserving one’s place in history or an eye on a future political career, but you can sometimes also learn, as I did, something about the post-Vietnam era U.S. military. The only thing I learned from Pete Hegseth’s book is what an ugly and dangerous mind he possesses.

Hegseth’s wrath is directed at “woke” political elites and military leaders because of the very mild Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives adopted by the U.S. military over the last few years. His “book” is really one long political rant and a call to action. “Now is not the time to retreat,” Hegseth writes,” from our military. If we secede from our military branches — and service writ large — then we’re handing the keys of our Republic over to the very people who loathe the sort of men vital to defending us.”

Exhibiting a difficulty that American men of certain age have of distinguishing between reality and Hollywood movies, Hegseth writes,

Our “elites” are like the feckless drug-addled businessmen at Nakatomi Plaza, looking down on Bruce Willis’ John McClane in Die Hard. But there will come a day when they realize they need John McClane — that in fact their ability to live in peace and prosperity has always depended on guys like him being honorable, powerful, and deadly.

He rants on:

The military has long been a place for turning mere boys into fighting men not just teaching them honor and sacrifice but by channeling daring, building strength, and accumulating skills. The so-called elites directing the military aren’t just lowering standards and focusing on the wrong enemy; they are working to rid the military of this specific (essential) type of young patriot. They believe power is bad, merit is unfair, ideology is more important than industriousness, white people are yesterday and safety is better than risk-taking.

And, finally:

This book is a clarion call to charge ahead with everything we have into the breach. Retreating now means we will definitely lose. Charging ahead means we have a fighting chance.

The military is where our country needs — desperately — patriotic, faith-filled, and brave young Americans to step up and take the long view. At a basic level, do we really want only the woke “diverse” recruits that the Biden administration is curating to be the ones with the guns and guidons?

But more than that, we want those diverse recruits — pumped full of vaccines and even more poisonous ideologies — to be sharing a basic training bunk with sane Americans. If elite universities are where underprivileged kids learn how to hobnob with the elites, then the military should be where potential Antifa members learn what it really means to use force for just and honorable reasons. The American military is one of the great deradicalization machines for aimless young men — but only it is working correctly.

If sometimes, what Hegseth calls elites is hazy and confusing, he makes it very clear in other passages. “Marxists are our enemies,” he declares. And, he means using force to defeat his enemies. “Busy killing Islamists in shithole countries — and then betrayed by our leaders — our warriors have every reason to let America’s dynasty fade away. Leftists stole a lot from us, but we won’t let them take this. Time for round two — we won’t miss this war.”

Reading Hegseth’s long rants, I couldn’t help thinking that he accuses his enemies of what he is guilty of. One thing of the many things that we can say is the U.S. military has been a major source of far right radicalization for decades, most famously Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and a large number of those who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6th at the behest of President Donald Trump. Hegseth defended Trump’s January 6th coup attempt.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s order to hold a one day “stand-down” to combat extremism in the military in February 2021, is mocked by Hegseth as “drivel.”

Mein Kampf

I don’t believe Hegseth is a straight-up Nazi, but he is certainly a dangerous authoritarian and racist who should be kept away from positions of power. Reading over two hundred pages of his rants, I heard the echo of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. In the aftermath of the failed Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923, Adolf Hitler was arrested and charged with high treason. He spent several months awaiting trial in Landsberg Fortress. His conditions were pretty cushy.

During his time in Landsberg, Hitler penned his famous autobiography or long political rant, Mein Kampf or My Struggle. He originally wanted to call it “Four and a Half Years of Struggle and Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice.” But, Max Amann, the head of the Nazi publishing house nixed the idea and shortened the title. It was not a best seller upon release.

There have been libraries full of books written about Hitler and the Nazis. I reached for an old copy of William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, a liberal, pro-labor history of Hitler and the Nazis that was popular among American readers in the 1960s. There are in retrospect many shortcomings to the book, but he made a valid point,

“For whatever other accusations can be made against Hitler, no one can accuse him of not putting down in writing exactly the kind of Germany he intended to make if he ever came to power.”

We should take Pete Hegseth’s rantings just as seriously.

The post Pete Hegseth’s Mein Kampf appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Joe Allen.

In the solemn aftermath of the Parkland school massacre in 2018, charges were brought against school resource officer Scot Peterson, alleging that he had failed to confront the gunman. Had he been more directly confrontational, investigators concluded that some of the 17 lives lost on the day of the shooting could have been saved. Peterson was publicly shamed by onlooking officials, including then President Donald Trump who labeled him a coward. He was tried for negligence and perjury, but was found innocent of the charges brought against him.

It’s now clear that in 2021, had the parents of a deranged teen been more responsible, and had Oxford High School officials been more observant, the murder of four students and the injuries to six others would likely have been averted.

In 2022, 19 young students and 2 teachers were killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas by an 18-year-old gunman. After the massacre, it appeared obvious to investigators that proper protocol had not been followed. Had responders reacted with what was thought to be a previously established strategy, surely some lives would have been saved. Much of the blame for system breakdown fell upon Pete Arredondo, the school district police chief. Similar to the blame levied on Scot Peterson at Parkland, Arredondo received the brunt of public condemnation for what appeared to be his hesitant and indecisive action.

The violent shootings in our schools unfold in chaotic minutes. In their aftermath, investigators review the disasters in quiet settings void of gunshots, pressured by calendars rather than clocks. The Justice Department spent 11 months putting together a 600-page study showing how the tragedy at Robb Elementary School could better have been handled. With ample time, at comfortable desks, examiners were able to peruse every facet of the 90-minute ordeal from every possible angle. Like the conclusion made earlier by Columbine examiners, the Justice Department determined that a quicker, more forceful, and confrontational approach would most likely have saved some lives at Uvalde.

There were 886 school shootings (383 deaths, 805 injuries) between the years 2000 and 2021, and of course more shootings and casualties have occurred since then. Had each emergency been handled perfectly, some of those casualties would have been avoided. But in the heat of the moment, how often is chaos handled perfectly? And what if it is? How many fewer children will then die? A perfect response doesn’t ensure a no-casualty result, it simply means that perhaps fewer children will be killed or maimed compared to a less-than-perfect response.

It’s almost as if we are tilting at windmills when assigning blame for the tragedies that befall our schools. We spend days or even months examining police and faculty response during a school shooting to determine who screwed up the most. The blame is then piled on to responders like Peterson and Arredondo for their less-than-perfect reaction to chaos. Yes, if responders react perfectly, some lives might be saved, but the imperfect responders we tilt at are windmills and not the real foe. Attacking windmills provides the appearance of doing something rather than nothing, but if we truly wish to save children rather than merely projecting blame, the real foe needs to be confronted.

There are several recognized categories of murder and manslaughter: first degree murder, second degree murder, felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and so on. The various categories address intent and culpability. A shooter who enters a school and kills children and teachers with a gun will be charged (if still alive) with some form of murder. Likewise, someone who aids or abets a shooter will likely face charges.

The parents of Ethan Crumbley, the shooter at Oxford High School, have been charged with involuntary manslaughter because they irresponsibly provided his weapon and failed to recognize or react to their son’s warning signs. Some Oxford parents are also urging that criminal charges be brought against school officials for gross negligence. Obviously, the Crumbly parents should have possessed better judgment and acted more responsibly; obviously, Oxford school officials should have been more observant, but are they the real foe? Isn’t the real foe those who have made Oxford, Uvalde, Parkland, and all of our school massacres so statistically foreseeable, but nearly impossible to prevent? Isn’t the real foe those who knowingly perpetuate the conditions that ensure evermore school massacres in our future?

In the 8 years since Greg Abbott became governor of Texas, the state has suffered 7 mass shootings. Rather than proposing or supporting meaningful firearm restrictions that would make mass shootings less likely, Abbott has done just the opposite. The governor has pleased the NRA and its constituency by signing 22 bills that will reduce or eliminate gun restrictions in Texas. Greg Abbott didn’t sign the bills in a chaotic setting where his better judgment might have been impinged. He calmly signed his name in front of cameras rather than guns, and was fully aware of the ramifications. He knew that while his signatures would ensure NRA based political support, the signings would also make future mass shootings more likely. Perhaps in his mind he is able to portray himself as guilt-free; it’s only the crazed shooters who are responsible for killing school kids – how could anyone hold him responsible? He won’t be the one holding the gun that spews bullets; he’s only just making it available. Abbott does not yet know the names of all the children that will be shot due to his signing, but he will learn them by and by. When he does, the Governor will publicly grieve over the unfathomable tragedy and pompously pray for both the victims and their families.

Ethan Crumbley’s parents face involuntary manslaughter charges because they should have foreseen what would happen and did nothing to stop it. Governor Abbott can foresee what will happen due to his actions, but will face no charges. The mayhem that again unfolds will be down the road and not directly tied to his actions. It will take bad parenting or a lone crazed gunman enabled by the governor’s signature to come along and deliver the massacre. In its aftermath, an investigation will likely take place to determine if better police response would have saved some lives. The governor will probably demand it.

Governor Abbott and Texas are not lone wolves. 27 states have enacted permitless-carry laws that help proliferate the presence of guns in nearly all public places. 16 states have declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuary States” to block or restrain attempts at gun-control measures. Politicians all across the nation are pressured or supported by gun-rights groups such as The National Rifle Association (NRA), Gun Owners of America (GOA), The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). The persuasive force they wield over politicians comes not through membership dues alone; more than half of the NRA’s revenue comes directly from gun industry companies.

Not so long ago, through seductive advertising, the tobacco industry convinced nearly half of the adult U.S. population that smoking was both glamorous and healthy. Today, the gun industry promotes its product in much the same way: gun ownership is boldly attractive and a life-sustaining necessity (there’s a difference though; cigarettes are most apt to kill the user; guns are most apt to kill someone else). As Americans buy into the gun hype, their voting power adds to the industry’s persuasive power with law-makers and makes meaningful gun regulation less and less likely.

With every school massacre, the anguish and heartache are real to the parents and those most close to the victims, but for the rest of us … maybe not so much. The grieving masks are good for public show and self-exoneration, but hide our true priorities: the gun industry values money more than the lives of children; lawmakers value votes more than the lives of children; gun owners value the warm feeling of holding a deadly firearm more than the lives of children. Were it otherwise, they (and we) would do what needs to be done to curtail the endless carnage.

After a shooting, it’s convenient to challenge the windmills. We look for a Peterson, an Arredondo, or even a Crumbley on which to affix some blame. If only our police and law-enforcement officials had reacted to chaos like the heroes in a movie, a few more of our children would have been saved. If only the parenting had been perfect and school officials more observant, a shooting might have been averted (or maybe just delayed). If police, parents, and school officials always reacted perfectly when facing danger and uncertainty, it would be a good thing; some lives would be saved amidst the chaos. But the responders are never always perfect, they can’t save all the lives, and they are not the source of the killings.

It’s the guns; the proliferation of guns; the proliferation of guns designed to kill human beings. It’s the ease of obtaining and carrying a gun (even a gun specifically designed to kill a lot of humans in a short amount of time) that turns our schools and neighborhoods into killing fields. The gun industry promotes their deadly merchandise as if it were an attractive, patriotic, and life-enhancing necessity. Too many American citizens have found purpose in the hype. Too many American lawmakers have found careers through the hype. Years ago, when citizens and politicians challenged the tobacco industry, meaningful rules and regulations were incorporated that have actually prolonged the lives of millions of Americans. If we truly wish to minimize the senseless shooting deaths and injuries that now plague our nation, we need to convince our lawmakers that gun proliferation is a priority issue; they need to find that our continued support (vote) is tied to meaningful gun regulation. The power of an electoral vote is the only thing potentially more powerful than an industry’s financial and lobbying power. If it’s not wielded effectively, the gun industry and our politicians will continue to comfortably enable school and neighborhood massacres for nothing more than money and political security. If we surrender our votes to those beholding to the gun industry, we are just as guilty as Greg Abbott; if we cast our votes in support of the gun industry, we are just as responsible as the parents of Ethan Crumbley. Rather than seeing meaningful legislation from our lawmakers that could prevent a tragedy, we will continue doing studies after each rampage to determine if a more perfect law-enforcement response could have saved just a few more lives. The studies will serve their purpose. We’ll find someone else to blame for something, and nothing much will change.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Vern Loomis.

In the solemn aftermath of the Parkland school massacre in 2018, charges were brought against school resource officer Scot Peterson, alleging that he had failed to confront the gunman. Had he been more directly confrontational, investigators concluded that some of the 17 lives lost on the day of the shooting could have been saved. Peterson was publicly shamed by onlooking officials, including then President Donald Trump who labeled him a coward. He was tried for negligence and perjury, but was found innocent of the charges brought against him.

It’s now clear that in 2021, had the parents of a deranged teen been more responsible, and had Oxford High School officials been more observant, the murder of four students and the injuries to six others would likely have been averted.

In 2022, 19 young students and 2 teachers were killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas by an 18-year-old gunman. After the massacre, it appeared obvious to investigators that proper protocol had not been followed. Had responders reacted with what was thought to be a previously established strategy, surely some lives would have been saved. Much of the blame for system breakdown fell upon Pete Arredondo, the school district police chief. Similar to the blame levied on Scot Peterson at Parkland, Arredondo received the brunt of public condemnation for what appeared to be his hesitant and indecisive action.

The violent shootings in our schools unfold in chaotic minutes. In their aftermath, investigators review the disasters in quiet settings void of gunshots, pressured by calendars rather than clocks. The Justice Department spent 11 months putting together a 600-page study showing how the tragedy at Robb Elementary School could better have been handled. With ample time, at comfortable desks, examiners were able to peruse every facet of the 90-minute ordeal from every possible angle. Like the conclusion made earlier by Columbine examiners, the Justice Department determined that a quicker, more forceful, and confrontational approach would most likely have saved some lives at Uvalde.

There were 886 school shootings (383 deaths, 805 injuries) between the years 2000 and 2021, and of course more shootings and casualties have occurred since then. Had each emergency been handled perfectly, some of those casualties would have been avoided. But in the heat of the moment, how often is chaos handled perfectly? And what if it is? How many fewer children will then die? A perfect response doesn’t ensure a no-casualty result, it simply means that perhaps fewer children will be killed or maimed compared to a less-than-perfect response.

It’s almost as if we are tilting at windmills when assigning blame for the tragedies that befall our schools. We spend days or even months examining police and faculty response during a school shooting to determine who screwed up the most. The blame is then piled on to responders like Peterson and Arredondo for their less-than-perfect reaction to chaos. Yes, if responders react perfectly, some lives might be saved, but the imperfect responders we tilt at are windmills and not the real foe. Attacking windmills provides the appearance of doing something rather than nothing, but if we truly wish to save children rather than merely projecting blame, the real foe needs to be confronted.

There are several recognized categories of murder and manslaughter: first degree murder, second degree murder, felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and so on. The various categories address intent and culpability. A shooter who enters a school and kills children and teachers with a gun will be charged (if still alive) with some form of murder. Likewise, someone who aids or abets a shooter will likely face charges.

The parents of Ethan Crumbley, the shooter at Oxford High School, have been charged with involuntary manslaughter because they irresponsibly provided his weapon and failed to recognize or react to their son’s warning signs. Some Oxford parents are also urging that criminal charges be brought against school officials for gross negligence. Obviously, the Crumbly parents should have possessed better judgment and acted more responsibly; obviously, Oxford school officials should have been more observant, but are they the real foe? Isn’t the real foe those who have made Oxford, Uvalde, Parkland, and all of our school massacres so statistically foreseeable, but nearly impossible to prevent? Isn’t the real foe those who knowingly perpetuate the conditions that ensure evermore school massacres in our future?

In the 8 years since Greg Abbott became governor of Texas, the state has suffered 7 mass shootings. Rather than proposing or supporting meaningful firearm restrictions that would make mass shootings less likely, Abbott has done just the opposite. The governor has pleased the NRA and its constituency by signing 22 bills that will reduce or eliminate gun restrictions in Texas. Greg Abbott didn’t sign the bills in a chaotic setting where his better judgment might have been impinged. He calmly signed his name in front of cameras rather than guns, and was fully aware of the ramifications. He knew that while his signatures would ensure NRA based political support, the signings would also make future mass shootings more likely. Perhaps in his mind he is able to portray himself as guilt-free; it’s only the crazed shooters who are responsible for killing school kids – how could anyone hold him responsible? He won’t be the one holding the gun that spews bullets; he’s only just making it available. Abbott does not yet know the names of all the children that will be shot due to his signing, but he will learn them by and by. When he does, the Governor will publicly grieve over the unfathomable tragedy and pompously pray for both the victims and their families.

Ethan Crumbley’s parents face involuntary manslaughter charges because they should have foreseen what would happen and did nothing to stop it. Governor Abbott can foresee what will happen due to his actions, but will face no charges. The mayhem that again unfolds will be down the road and not directly tied to his actions. It will take bad parenting or a lone crazed gunman enabled by the governor’s signature to come along and deliver the massacre. In its aftermath, an investigation will likely take place to determine if better police response would have saved some lives. The governor will probably demand it.

Governor Abbott and Texas are not lone wolves. 27 states have enacted permitless-carry laws that help proliferate the presence of guns in nearly all public places. 16 states have declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuary States” to block or restrain attempts at gun-control measures. Politicians all across the nation are pressured or supported by gun-rights groups such as The National Rifle Association (NRA), Gun Owners of America (GOA), The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). The persuasive force they wield over politicians comes not through membership dues alone; more than half of the NRA’s revenue comes directly from gun industry companies.

Not so long ago, through seductive advertising, the tobacco industry convinced nearly half of the adult U.S. population that smoking was both glamorous and healthy. Today, the gun industry promotes its product in much the same way: gun ownership is boldly attractive and a life-sustaining necessity (there’s a difference though; cigarettes are most apt to kill the user; guns are most apt to kill someone else). As Americans buy into the gun hype, their voting power adds to the industry’s persuasive power with law-makers and makes meaningful gun regulation less and less likely.

With every school massacre, the anguish and heartache are real to the parents and those most close to the victims, but for the rest of us … maybe not so much. The grieving masks are good for public show and self-exoneration, but hide our true priorities: the gun industry values money more than the lives of children; lawmakers value votes more than the lives of children; gun owners value the warm feeling of holding a deadly firearm more than the lives of children. Were it otherwise, they (and we) would do what needs to be done to curtail the endless carnage.

After a shooting, it’s convenient to challenge the windmills. We look for a Peterson, an Arredondo, or even a Crumbley on which to affix some blame. If only our police and law-enforcement officials had reacted to chaos like the heroes in a movie, a few more of our children would have been saved. If only the parenting had been perfect and school officials more observant, a shooting might have been averted (or maybe just delayed). If police, parents, and school officials always reacted perfectly when facing danger and uncertainty, it would be a good thing; some lives would be saved amidst the chaos. But the responders are never always perfect, they can’t save all the lives, and they are not the source of the killings.

It’s the guns; the proliferation of guns; the proliferation of guns designed to kill human beings. It’s the ease of obtaining and carrying a gun (even a gun specifically designed to kill a lot of humans in a short amount of time) that turns our schools and neighborhoods into killing fields. The gun industry promotes their deadly merchandise as if it were an attractive, patriotic, and life-enhancing necessity. Too many American citizens have found purpose in the hype. Too many American lawmakers have found careers through the hype. Years ago, when citizens and politicians challenged the tobacco industry, meaningful rules and regulations were incorporated that have actually prolonged the lives of millions of Americans. If we truly wish to minimize the senseless shooting deaths and injuries that now plague our nation, we need to convince our lawmakers that gun proliferation is a priority issue; they need to find that our continued support (vote) is tied to meaningful gun regulation. The power of an electoral vote is the only thing potentially more powerful than an industry’s financial and lobbying power. If it’s not wielded effectively, the gun industry and our politicians will continue to comfortably enable school and neighborhood massacres for nothing more than money and political security. If we surrender our votes to those beholding to the gun industry, we are just as guilty as Greg Abbott; if we cast our votes in support of the gun industry, we are just as responsible as the parents of Ethan Crumbley. Rather than seeing meaningful legislation from our lawmakers that could prevent a tragedy, we will continue doing studies after each rampage to determine if a more perfect law-enforcement response could have saved just a few more lives. The studies will serve their purpose. We’ll find someone else to blame for something, and nothing much will change.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Vern Loomis.

Clean water and public health advocates in New York's Hudson Valley applauded Thursday as the energy technology company Holtec International announced it will not move ahead with plans to dump wastewater next month from the former Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, following intense pressure from local communities and state lawmakers.

The company had initially planned to complete its first discharge of wastewater from pools that were used to cool spent nuclear reactor fuel rods late this summer, but recently announced that in May it would discharge 45,000 gallons of the water into the Hudson River, which at least 100,000 people rely on for their drinking water.

The company ultimately plans to release one million gallons of wastewater into the river.

Holtec International said it was taking a "voluntary pause" in the plan to better explain the process of decommissioning the plant, which was shut down in 2021, to the local community and elected officials.

Local clean water group Riverkeeper expressed appreciation that Holtec "heard the concerns of public" and said advocates will continue pushing for an alternative to releasing the wastewater into the Hudson.

\u201c@Riverkeeper appreciates that Holtec heard the concerns of public. We are hopeful that state, federal & local partners can find a workable solution for the spent pool wastewater that avoids discharges to the Hudson. TY @SenSchumer @SenGillibrand @SenatorHarckham @AMDanaLevenberg\u201d

— Tracy M Brown (@Tracy M Brown) 1681428598

Riverkeeper and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) are among the groups that have raised concerns about the presence in the wastewater of the isotope tritium, which can be carcinogenic and is harmful to pregnant women and developing fetuses. Advocates have called on Holtec to store the water in tanks on the Indian Point site until a safe alternative disposal method can be found.

"There has been no prior disclosure of what pollutants or radioactive contaminants are in the wastewater or any public education on the environmental safety and public health risks associated with any potential discharges from the site," said local public health experts in a statement in January as PSR held the first of several public forums about the risks associated with Holtec's discharge plan.

The proposal has sparked outcry from local, state, and federal officials in New York in recent weeks. In March, state Sen. Pete Harckham (D-40) proposed legislation to ban any release of radioactive waste into the Hudson.

"I welcome Holtec postponing the planned release of radioactive wastewater into the Hudson River," said Harckham on Thursday.

\u201cI welcome Holtec postponing the planned release of radioactive wastewater into the Hudson River. This was the right decision to make: all the stakeholders deserve an opportunity to continue our dialogue with the company as it seeks a solution to stored waste at @Indian_Point.\u201d

— Senator Pete Harckham (@Senator Pete Harckham) 1681423582

State Assemblymember Dana Levenberg (D-95) expressed relief that Holtec's plan has been postponed for the time being and said she is as "committed as ever to ensuring that the needs of my constituents are respected throughout this process."

"My constituents are already overburdened with the negative environmental externalities left behind by industrial infrastructure, and we should not be treated like pawns in this process," said Levenberg earlier this month. "What we need is a partner who will work with us to facilitate a safe and just decommissioning of this plant, in a way that respects the surrounding communities. The people of my district have made it clear that this conversation should not be one-sided; Holtec should not be the only participant driving the schedule. What is efficient for Holtec may not be what is in the best interest of our communities and our natural resources."

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who joined Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in writing to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about Holtec's plan on April 6, said he was "relieved that Holtec has heeded our call and will put a stop to its hastily hatched plan to dump radioactive wastewater into the Hudson."

The state's Indian Point Decommissioning Oversight Board is scheduled to hold an online meeting regarding the wastewater on April 25, where community members and officials will be able to comment on the issue.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

After canceling nearly 17,000 flights around the Christmas holiday—the worst customer service meltdown in the history of the U.S. airline industry—Southwest announced this week that it is promoting several of its executives, a move that watchdogs decried as a slap in the face of the travelers impacted by the company's incompetence and greed.

In a press release, Southwest said it is elevating five executives across different departments at the company, including network operations control and communications. The announcement came just over a week after the Southwest pilots' union published a scathing letter calling the corporation's management a "headquarters-centric cult" that has "eroded our company from within."

While Southwest said the new leadership changes "represent phase two of the organizational structure work that began in September 2022," critics argued the decision to go ahead with the promotions following the holiday debacle shows a total disregard for customers and U.S. regulators, who have been accused of doing far too little to crack down on industry abuses.

"Southwest thought its executives deserved a promotion after leaving thousands of its consumers in the lurch in the middle of peak holiday season travel," Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power program at Accountable.US, said in a statement Tuesday. "That's the behavior of a company with no intention of changing course from management decisions that seek to enrich shareholders while leaving consumers holding the bag. We hope that Congress investigates their failures and holds their executives accountable."

Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote in response to the promotions: "They are just mocking Pete Buttigieg. And why shouldn't they?"

Buttigieg, the head of the U.S. Transportation Department, has faced growing backlash from airline watchdogs and members of his own party in recent days for failing to take decisive action in the lead-up to and in the wake of Southwest's mass cancellations, which pilots and flight attendants say were fueled by the company's refusal to invest in technological upgrades that could have helped the airline giant navigate bad weather and predictable holiday travel chaos.

In recent years, as flight crews pressed for changes to the company's antiquated technology, spent nearly $6 billion buying back its own stock.

"Pete Buttigieg chose to let nearly every domestic airline off scot-free after they were caught completely flat-footed earlier this year," said Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, referring to cancellations surrounding the July 4 holiday. "Despite rampant cancellations and widespread violation of federal law by giving travel vouchers instead of cash refunds, the only domestic airline to face any regulatory scrutiny was the small, politically weak Frontier."

"That is despite the fact that Frontier was responsible for far less of the industry-wide meltdown than major players like United or Southwest," Hauser continued. "Every other U.S.-based airline got off with a warning and promised to do better in the future. When you don't actually enforce the law, you lose credibility as a regulator. Our position is simple: when corporations violate federal law, they should be investigated and held accountable."

"When you don't actually enforce the law, you lose credibility as a regulator."

While the Transportation Department has said it is investigating the latest round of mass cancellations and acting on the flurry of refund complaints from Southwest customers whose travel plans were thrown into chaos, lawmakers and advocates argue the agency's actions thus far have fallen far short of what's needed to hold the company accountable and prevent future disasters.

"In light of the sheer magnitude of Southwest Airlines' most recent operational failures and the devastating impact these failures and other airline cancellations continue to have on American consumers, we believe much more needs to be done," 26 Democratic lawmakers wrote in a letter to Buttigieg last week.

"Refunds and other types of compensation policies quickly become meaningless if there's not a clear mechanism or platform for passenger redress. Ensuring passengers and airlines can effectively communicate with one another will allow passengers
to swiftly receive any owed compensation as well as any other helpful information a passenger may need after a canceled or significantly delayed flight," the lawmakers wrote. "Furthermore, the Department should make sure that airlines are able to maintain a reasonable level of operational capabilities in the event of extreme weather or other type of potential disruption. Of course, not all
disruptions can be controlled. But issuing rules and standards that could help limit or prevent future cancellations and delays arising from these initial disruptions will ultimately benefit consumers much more than any reimbursement policy ever could."

William J. McGee, a senior fellow for aviation at American Economic Liberties Project, wrote in an NBC News op-ed earlier this month that "America's commercial aviation system is broken, but so is the only regulatory agency allowed to oversee it."

"Consider what we've seen from the federal government since Covid hit," McGee wrote. "For starters, airlines withheld at least $10 billion in unpaid refunds and unused flight credits after the pandemic forced people not to fly in 2020 and beyond. In November, Secretary Pete Buttigieg finally imposed what he termed 'historic' fines. But only Frontier and five small foreign carriers were penalized."

"Then, the first half of 2022 had an unprecedented number of delayed and canceled flights, more than in all of 2021," he continued. "Despite warnings from lawmakers and groups like my organization, the American Economic Liberties Project, Buttigieg assured passengers in September that the airlines would address their scheduling problems. Unfortunately, he didn't use his authority under the Transportation Department's unfair and deceptive acts rule to investigate why tens of thousands of flights were scheduled and then paid for by consumers, only to be canceled."

"Worse," McGee added, "there have been no reported penalties for the cancellations. This lack of enforcement may have contributed to Southwest's Christmas meltdown, because it's unlikely Southwest and other airlines would have stranded so many passengers if they feared real consequences."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

He was in over his head, perhaps one of the unfortunates whose inadequacies become apparent when promoted a level beyond their capabilities – unfortunate for him, but way more unfortunate for the 19 children and 2 teachers killed in the Uvalde school massacre. Texas Department of Public Safety Director, Steve McCraw, described Pete Arredondo’s response to the school massacre as “an abject failure.” In a move that showed how truly serious Texans are in addressing gun violence, the 14 members of the Uvalde School Board unanimously voted to fire Arredondo, the school’s police chief.

It wasn’t just the school board, and it wasn’t just Texas – the whole country was enraged and disgusted with what was seen as Arredondo’s ill-prepared response (or lack of response) when a killer commandeered a classroom of children for one hour and 14 minutes on May 24, 2022. He was vilified in the country’s media for 3 months on an almost daily basis. The nation’s palpable sentiment was summed up by a child’s statement made to the Uvalde School Board just before the casting of their unanimous vote: “I have a message for Pete Arredondo and all the law enforcement that were there that day. Turn in your badge and step down. You don’t deserve to wear one.”

Pete Arredondo may well have deserved the ire directed his way – and we should all be thankful that he was there to receive it. If not for him, who else would there have been to blame? If not for him, upon whom would we have vented our righteous moral outrage?

Governor Abbot should be extra thankful. In 2019 Abbot signed 10 bills to ease Texas gun restrictions. In 2021 he signed 7 more bills to reduce restrictions even further. Abbot should be grateful that there was a convenient Arredondo to dump on. If not for him, who would there have been to decry? If not for him, to whom could he have diverted attention from the blood on his hands?

Abbot didn’t sponsor and sign all those permissive bills in the midst of unleashed pandemonium. There was no chaos unfolding or the sound of gunfire to befuddle his mind. He signed amidst the congratulatory sound of clicking cameras, calmly dismissive of the repercussions his signatures would bring. He signed for perceived political advantage, with full knowledge of what transpires when more guns are pushed into the hands of more people. Governor Abbot was willing to put the lives of small children and innocent adults at risk for his own personal gain – and the consequences did come. Real people were murdered because of his signatures, but another man’s ineptitude stole the spotlight. Thanks to Arredondo, “The Eyes of Texas” have had elsewhere to look.

Pete Arredondo messed up really bad. 19 children and 2 teachers died from the bullets of a deranged killer armed with an assault rifle. Had Arredondo reacted to the chaos in a more heroic and competent manner, some of those lives would surely have been saved. If in the bedlam, he had made all the right decisions and had issued perfect commands, perhaps only 10 children and one teacher would have been murdered … or maybe it would have been 8 children and 2 teachers … or maybe it would have been 12 children and no teachers. Who can really say? Whatever the case, at least some of those lives would have been saved … but not all of them.

However, if Governor Abbot had not promoted and signed the bills that so easily enabled a troubled 18-year-old boy to buy two assault rifles and 375 rounds of ammunition, it’s quite likely that all of the 19 children and each of their protective teachers would still be alive today … all of them, not just some of them.

So, where is the outrage? Why was there such visceral disgust aimed at Pete Arredondo, and so little at Greg Abbot? It was Abbot’s action that led to the massacre that Arredondo so poorly reacted to, but he’s not likely to lose his governorship. Why fire Pete Arredondo in August but reelect Greg Abbot in November? Will the 14-member Uvalde School Board that unanimously voted to remove their police chief be unanimous in voting to unseat their governor? Will Steve McCraw, the Texas Department of Public Safety Director who called Arredondo “an abject failure,” see the abject failure of his governor and vote to remove him? Probably not – amidst all the outrage that’s been aimed at Arredondo, Texans seem poised to reelect Abbot as their governor. Recent polls show him still enjoying a comfortable lead over challenger Beto O’Rourke, who has repeatedly called attention to Abbot’s hand in the Uvalde carnage. How is it even possible? How can Texans appear ready to reward and reelect the politician whose actions predictably precipitated the slaughter of their children?

Is it possible that it wasn’t actually real – that the outrage aimed at Arredondo was somewhat of a ruse? Did Texans (and the nation) vent on Pete Arredondo to deflect awareness of personal culpability? How else to explain it?

Overtly we cherish and celebrate our children, but all across the country we repeatedly elect representatives who boldly vow to defend and enhance the availability of weapons to an ever-widening population. We do it clearly knowing that more people will die – that more children will be murdered because of the people we strive to elect. We want them elected because, without ever quite saying it, we’d rather have our guns protected than our children. When the inevitable killings and the massacres take place, we then try to find a way to assure ourselves that it wasn’t because of us. When someone like Pete comes along, we can salvage some of our decency; we can rage and rage at how he let it happen – it was him, not us.

“I have a message for all the folks who have vented on Pete Arredondo but still plan to vote for Greg Abbot or any other gun proliferation advocate. Turn off your alligator tears and stop screaming. You don’t deserve the pathos.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Vern Loomis.