Today's Must-Read: But Don't Call It "Terrorism"

From Digby, this is something that Trump deserves to be branded with -- these are his supporters, who he has encouraged and parised as "patriots":

What would you say if you saw this in another country?

There is new and disturbing information in the alleged militia plot against the governor of Michigan.

The 14 men charged had far more violent plans than just a kidnapping, according to federal and state authorities.

New filings claim there was a Plan B the militiamen had drawn up, that involved a takeover of the Michigan capitol building by 200 combatants who would stage a week-long series of televised executions of public officials.

Actually, we've seen this before, on live television from the Middle East.

Read the whole thing, and hope that the Biden administration comes down hard on these "patriots" and others like them. (Can we repoen Alcatraz? Or maybe some coral atoll in the Pacific that's about to go under water.)

Birds of a Feather

And so forth. Actually, I think this is pretty funny:

President Trump's reelection bid received a vote of support Friday from an entity most in his party would reject: the Taliban. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told CBS News in a phone interview, "We hope he will win the election and wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan." The militant group expressed some concern about Mr. Trump's bout with the coronavirus. "When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better," another Taliban senior leader told CBS News.

The Trump camp's reaction is about what you'd expect:

Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said Saturday that they "reject" the Taliban support. "The Taliban should know that the president will always protect American interests by any means necessary," Murtaugh said.

"American interests" in this context being Trump's bank account. And don't forget -- he only likes white terrorists.

Via Joe.My.God.

"Far Left Agitators"? Sure, Jan

This is a surprise exactly how?

Three Nevada men with ties to a loose movement of right-wing extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas.

Federal prosecutors say the three white men with U.S. military experience are accused of conspiring to carry out a plan that began in April in conjunction with protests to reopen businesses closed because of the coronavirus.

More recently, they sought to capitalize on protests over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis after a white officer pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes even after he stopped moving and pleading for air, prosecutors said.

The three men were arrested Saturday on the way to a protest in downtown Las Vegas after filling gas cans at a parking lot and making Molotov cocktails in glass bottles, according to a copy of the criminal complaint obtained by The Associated Press.

It's worth reading the whole article. Trump and Barr's rhetoric notwithstanding, these are right-wingers. And they're terrorists, pure and simple.

Via Joe.My.God.

The Next Step

So, Trump is going to declare Antifa a terrorist organization:

Donald Trump has claimed that left-wing activists are responsible for the violent protests in Minneapolis and other cities, and declared his administration will move to designate the loose association of militant left-wing, anti-fascist demonstrators commonly known as “Antifa” as a terrorist organisation.

“The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organisation,” he said in a series of tweets on Sunday blaming violent outbursts and rioting at police brutality protests across America over the weekend on the group and other “Radical Left” elements.​

As usual, our acting president is right on target -- Antifa (which he mispronounced) is not an organization; it's a loose association of groups and individuals opposed to fascism. Such groups and individuals have included the U.S., the UK, France, the USSR, Frankllin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and, in the present day, Angela Merkel, the Democratic Party -- well, you get my drift.

There's also a matter of U.S. law, which only allows for designating foreign groups as terrorists.

And his butt boy, Bill Barr, is chiming right in:

“In many places it appears the violence is planned, organised, and driven by far left extremist groups and anarchic groups using Antifa-like tactics,” the attorney general said.

In Chicago, the mayor says there's no doubt that the riots, looting, and arson were organized. we just don't know who organized the mess -- but based on recent history, my guess is that it wasn't leftist groups. (If what they've discovered in Minnesota is any indication, look to Trump supporters and other right-wing and neo-fascist groups. Irony note: the spelling the "Boogaloo Bois" use for "boys" is old gay slang for a gay man.)

This is a key point (with thanks to commenter BeccaM at Joe.My.God.)

It is extremely common for authoritarian states to broadly expand the definition of an activist group so that anyone they oppose can be accused of being a member, and thus be arrested and surveiled according to their invented pretext. That is what they will try to do with antifa.

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) May 31, 2020

The comments at Joe.My.God. are worth reading -- a lot of information there.

The Bombs (Updated)

So far, bombs or "suspicious packages" have been sent to Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Debby Wasserman Schultz, Eric Holder, Kamala Harris, George Soros, Maxine Waters, CNN -- there may be one or two I've missed. (Here's a summary, with updates.) Trump's response to this domestic terrorism?

President Donald Trump Wednesday evening took no responsibility for his very personal attacks on top Democrats who were targets of assassination attempts just hours earlier. He did, however, call on the media to "to set a civil tone and stop the endless hostility," and to stop what he called "negative" and "false" attacks. . . .

"The media also has a responsibility to set a civil tone and stop the endless hostility and constant negative and oftentimes false attacks and stories," Trump told a Wisconsin audience at a campaign rally to bolster Republicans running for re-election. "They have to do it. They have to do it. They have got to stop. Bring people together. We are just 13 days away from a very, very important election, it is an election of monumental, if you look at it, monumental importance."

Because he's not responsible for anything -- except other people's accomplishments.

Update: Needless to say, it's a plot by the left:

Minutes after news broke of “potential explosive devices” being mailed to the homes of former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, along with CNN’s New York City studio, the dark corners of the conservative internet were declaring it a secret plot to gin up empathy for Democrats.

Cries that the bomb threats were merely a “false flag” operation were evident on Twitter and pro-Trump forums. Many of the personalities pushing the claim were fringe types. But not all of them.

Popular talk radio host Rush Limbaugh hinted that the attempted bombings were set-up by Democrats, saying they would serve a political “purpose.”

“It’s happening in October,” Limbaugh said. “There’s a reason for this.”

Similarly, right-wing radio host Michael Savage outright declared that “it’s a high probability that the whole thing is set up as a false flag to gain sympathy for the Democrats... and to get our minds off the hordes of illegal aliens approaching our southern border.”

I dunno -- Michael Savage is pretty fringe, if you ask me.

The Evolution of a Terrorist Organization

Specifically, the National Rifle Association. It's long -- almost 17 minutes -- but it's fascinating, sort of like watching a building collapse.

This was posted by commenter KnownDonorDad in the comments to this post.

USA Today reports:

The National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit this afternoon against the state to block a law that had just been signed by Gov. Rick Scott that prohibits gun sales to anyone between the ages of 18 and 21.

“We filed a lawsuit against the state for violating the constitutional rights of 18 to 21 year olds,” said Marion Hammer, lobbyist for the NRA in Florida. NRA lawyers in Tallahassee and Washington D.C. were working on the complaint this afternoon, and filed the complaint moments before the court’s deadline.

It'll be interesting to see how that works out. You know the NRA will go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Today's Must-Read: No Secrets

Between our president and our enemies, at least. Here's a really scary article by Howard Blum at Vanity Fair on Trump blowing the Israelis' cover.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, President Donald Trump, and Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak meeting in the Oval Office at the White House on May 10th, 2017.

By Alexander Shcherbak/TASS/Getty Images.

On a dark night at the tail end of last winter, just a month after the inauguration of the new American president, an evening when only a sickle moon hung in the Levantine sky, two Israeli Sikorsky CH-53 helicopters flew low across Jordan and then, staying under the radar, veered north toward the twisting ribbon of shadows that was the Euphrates River. On board, waiting with a professional stillness as they headed into the hostile heart of Syria, were Sayeret Matkal commandos, the Jewish state’s elite counterterrorism force, along with members of the technological unit of the Mossad, its foreign-espionage agency. Their target: an ISIS cell that was racing to get a deadly new weapon thought to have been devised by Ibrahim al-Asiri, the Saudi national who was al-Qaeda’s master bombmaker in Yemen.

It was a covert mission whose details were reconstructed for Vanity Fair by two experts on Israeli intelligence operations. It would lead to the unnerving discovery that ISIS terrorists were working on transforming laptop computers into bombs that could pass undetected through airport security. U.S. Homeland Security officials—quickly followed by British authorities—banned passengers traveling from an accusatory list of Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptops and other portable electronic devices larger than a cell phone on arriving planes. It would not be until four tense months later, as foreign airports began to comply with new, stringent American security directives, that the ban would be lifted on an airport-by-airport basis.

In the secretive corridors of the American espionage community, the Israeli mission was praised by knowledgeable officials as a casebook example of a valued ally’s hard-won field intelligence being put to good, arguably even lifesaving, use.

Yet this triumph would be overshadowed by an astonishing conversation in the Oval Office in May, when an intemperate President Trump revealed details about the classified mission to Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Sergey I. Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Along with the tempest of far-reaching geopolitical consequences that raged as a result of the president’s disclosure, fresh blood was spilled in his long-running combative relationship with the nation’s clandestine services. Israel—as well as America’s other allies—would rethink its willingness to share raw intelligence, and pretty much the entire Free World was left shaking its collective head in bewilderment as it wondered, not for the first time, what was going on with Trump and Russia. (In fact, Trump’s disturbing choice to hand over highly sensitive intelligence to the Russians is now a focus of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia, both before and after the election.) In the hand-wringing aftermath, the entire event became, as is so often the case with spy stories, a tale about trust and betrayal.

Since I'm feeling charitable this morning, I'll just note that I don't believe Trump was purposely undermining Israeli (and Western) intelligence efforts in the Middle East (although he's repeatedly shown that he has no love for the intelligence community). It's that he's a show off ("Looky what I got!"), pathologically insecure, completely ignorant of foreign affairs, has no concept of consequences -- that there even are such things -- and fairly stupid.

And he's managed to do incalculable damage to our intelligence efforts.

Read the whole thing. It's appalling.

Via Balloon Juice.

Yes, It's the Republicans

To amplify my response to Nikolaos here, I ran across this:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans consider the attack that led to loss of life in Charlottesville an act of "domestic terrorism," a view that spans partisan lines. But President Trump's response to Charlottesville finds more division.

He gets majority disapproval overall for his response to the events, while most Republicans approve. Republicans interviewed following Tuesday's press conference also feel Mr. Trump is assigning blame accurately in the matter, while Democrats and Independents, and the country overall, disagree.

Read the whole article -- they surveyed several questions around the events in Charlottesville, and the responses from Republicans are -- well, not reassuring.

Via Joe.My.God.

Today's Must-Read: Behind the Smoke and Chaos

This article from Salon, on one of Trump's policies that is very quietly being implemented full-speed-ahead-and-damn-the-torpedoes:

With all the hoopla over the current administration’s relationship with Russia and the health care Dumpster fire, we haven’t been paying as much attention to the Trump policy that seems to be going great guns: the deportation and detention of foreign nationals by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For all of President Trump’s failures on other matters, this one is succeeding briskly. That is, if you define success as ICE striking terror in immigrant communities all over the country.

On Monday Attorney General Jeff Sessions formally announced that the Trump administration is implementing its plan to use federal funds to crack down on “sanctuary cities” and states that choose to not comply with federal immigration laws. The Justice Department believes that local officials should be required to determine the immigration status of anyone they detain (or interact with), and if that person cannot provide proof of citizenship, he or she should be turned over to ICE. The plan calls for the federal government to withhold certain funds from any of the 200 different municipalities that have been designated as sanctuary cities.

Trump and Sessions are both hard-core demagogues on the issue of immigration, spreading fear and paranoia that undocumented immigrants are dangerous people who have contributed to a crime wave, despite lots of evidence to the contrary. Local officials in most of these cities, including the police, understand that this actually makes their jobs harder and their communities less safe, as many people will simply refuse to report crimes or bear witness for fear of being turned over to federal agents. Essentially, the federal government now has policies that threaten to turn America’s cities into the frightening dystopias that Trump already says they are. People, unsurprisingly, would prefer to have their communities prosperous and safe.

It's pretty depressing, in a TSA Unchained sort of way. This illustrates what I mean by that:

The New York Times reported last month that new orders from the Trump administration have granted ICE and the border patrol much more freedom to detain and deport people. These officials apparently felt very restrained by the rules in force during the Obama administration, which required them to focus their attention on undocumented immigrants with a record of serious felonies. Today they have the mandate to deport people even with minor infractions: As press secretary Sean Spicer put it, agents have been told to “take the shackles off.” A spokesman for ICE’s union told the Times that “morale amongst our agents and officers has increased exponentially since the signing of the orders.” The Times further noted:

Two officials in Washington said that the shift — and the new enthusiasm that has come with it — seems to have encouraged pro-Trump political comments and banter that struck the officials as brazen or gung-ho, like remarks about their jobs becoming “fun.” Those who take less of a hard line on unauthorized immigrants feel silenced, the officials said.

(Emphasis added.)

If that makes you wonder what kind of people are eager to become ICE agents -- well, it should.

Read it all.

(Via Digby, who, as it happens, is the author of the piece.)

From "Not Reported" to "Underreported" to ?

I daresay you've read about The Hairpiece's latest wild fantasy -- that are just oodles of terror attacks around the world that the press hasn't reported on because reasons. Washington Post, via Joe.My.God.:

Speaking to the U.S. Central Command on Monday, President Trump went off his prepared remarks to make a truly stunning claim: The media was intentionally covering up reports of terrorist attacks.

“You’ve seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe, it’s happening,” he said to the assembled military leaders. “It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.”

Of course, that got -- mmm, moderated:

In a press availability on Air Force One, Spicer tried to soften Trump’s comment. Terror attacks had been “under reported,” not “unreported.” He continued, according to the pool report:

“He felt members of the media don’t always cover some of those events to the extent that other events might get covered. Protests will get blown out of the water, and yet an attack or a foiled attack doesn’t necessarily get the same coverage. He’s doing what he can to protect this nation and protect our people. And that’s why I think sometimes the polls don’t reflect what you see on the media. You see a wide degree of support for the president’s policies to protect this country, to create jobs, to grow the economy. And yet a lot of those stories and success that he’s had – in a mere two and a half weeks in office – aren’t exactly covered to the degree to which they should be.”

And who gets to decide the degree to which they should be covered? Don't tell me -- let me guess!

As it happens, the White House has a list. A long list -- a yuuge list of terrorist attacks that were "not reported/underreported" by the media for probably nefarious reasons. And, funny thing about that list:

There’s a concept in interactions with the press called “working the refs.” The idea is that it’s worth paying attention to trying to shape the coverage you receive before you receive it by offering criticisms that hopefully push the media where you want. Trump’s point about the media not reporting on terror attacks wasn’t necessarily that he thought the media was burying stories — though it very well may have been. Spicer, at least, was smart enough to understand that this was an opportunity to get the media to run with a lengthy list of terror attacks that, he hoped, would reinforce Trump’s broader message that terror attacks were a constant threat that demanded a strong response. Spicer, in other words, hoped to work the refs. . . .

The list was rushed — “attacker” is misspelled repeatedly and there is incorrect information, such as the statement that multiple people were involved in the recent attack at Ohio State University. This wasn’t something that the White House was sitting on, waiting to raise as a legitimate critique of how the media approached an issue central to Trump’s presidency. It was, instead, an attempt to make lemonade.

(I have to admit to a certain amount of sympathy for Spicer: his job is to make an out of control idiot look good. That's gotta be stressful.)

As for the list itself:

The White House released on Monday a list of 78 terrorist attacks that the Trump administration claim were not sufficiently covered by the nation's press. The list, however, included some mass killings that were covered well enough to make their locales into symbols of anger and grief: Orlando and San Bernardino, Nice and Paris in France, and Brussels in Belgium.

Orlando didn't receive enough coverage? Excuse me?

And the list does not include the mass shooting at at African American church by Dylan Roof, or the Ottawa mosque shooting by Alexandre Bissonnette (a big fan of Donald Trump, as it happens).

Lemonade, indeed.

OK, I Admit It

I am completely burned out on Donald Trump. And I'm completely fed up with the massive press coverage of every stupid thing he says. My own take is that the press is so completely focused on Trump because they created him. I mean, come on: he was a flamboyant real estate developer from New York who used to show up in the gossip columns, when he showed up at all. Now suddenly he's the Republican nominee for President -- because he knows how to work the press. That's the only reason: he has no more in the way of policy proposals than the rest of the clown car, and mostly hasn't even bothered to pretend that he does. Mistermix at Balloon Juice has an interesting observation on the effect of this incestuous relationship:

I’m guessing you all would agree that if the Republican nominee was a little more presentable numbskull, we’d be treated to weekly nontroversies centered around some Clinton email, some minor DNC staffing move, or something Bill said. That’s not happening this year because Trump is feeding information into the election communication system with a goddam firehose. He occupies the entire bandwidth of that system, and then some. And, like any well-engineered communication system, this one is scaling to handle the load by ignoring the fainter signals (namely, everything about the Clinton campaign.) He’s even drowning out the Olympics.

It's all Trump, all the time -- which I think probably suits Trump just fine, thank you.

And about those "Second Amendment people" remarks: Somebody brought up this article from Rolling Stone in the comments somewhere, I think Joe.My.God., and it's very instructive:

But it's really irrelevant what Trump actually meant, because enough people will hear Trump's comments and think he's calling for people to take up arms against Clinton, her judges or both. Though most of the people hearing that call may claim he was joking, given what we know about people taking up arms in this country, there will undoubtedly be some people who think he was serious and consider the possibility.

In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism. This is an obscure and non-legal term that has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half, and it applies with precision here. Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable."

Remember Sarah Palin's map with targets over selected congressional districts? And Gabby Giffords got shot; she, fortunately, survived -- others around her did not. Think about that. Think about Tony Perkins' whole career, and the windrows of dead queer kids that have resulted. (I think Dan Savage was way too easy on Perkins.) Think about the teabaggers, the Bundys, and mass murderers who shoot up schoolrooms.

They've all been given permission by people like Donald Trump.

There. I've gotten that off my chest. Now I'm going to pray for rain to cool things down a bit -- it's been brutal here the past few days.

Nice: Reaction and Analysis

Tom Sullivan has a good summary of what happened in Nice, with special attention to a couple of reactions here. President Obama, being a presidential president, issued a statement that was pretty much expected, considering that at the time no one knew any whys or wherefores.

But:

Enter Donald Trump. Without knowing details about the attack, Trump wants to declare war. On whom, he doesn't say. On what basis, he doesn't know. A NATO country has been attacked, sure (by a lone individual as far as we know now). But Trump thinks NATO is obsolete and the U.S. pays too much for it. Others should pay. So with that for background, when Bill O'Reilly asked Trump if he would send in air and ground forces (somewhere) Trump said:

“I would, I would” when asked if he would seek a formal declaration of military action from the US Congress. “This is war,” Trump continued. “If you look at it, this is war. Coming from all different parts. And frankly it’s war, and we’re dealing with people without uniforms. In the old days, we would have uniforms. You would know who you’re fighting.”

But since Trump doesn't know who that is and can't force whoever it is to wear uniforms, what this situation absolutely requires is a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. And Trump is just the guy to do it. Count on him to try to make somebody else pay for it. In the end, that someone would be us.

That's right -- put them in uniforms (whoever they are) -- and then what? Start digging trenches?

And do note the repeated "War!!1!" mantra. We've been hearing that for fifteen years now, and you know what? It's bullshit. It's good for stirring up the rubes and that's all. We've already seen what good results we get by bombing civilians -- more terrorists.

Digby has a fairly thorough analysis of conditions in France that make it an epicenter, more or less, for terrorist attacks in Europe, and links to this article by Arthur Goldhammer that makes one important point:

Each such event pushes frightened citizens a little closer to surrendering to the impulse to embrace an authoritarian response. And, as it happens, Marine Le Pen has been offering just such a response for years now, insisting that draconian police measures are the only way to deal with the threat. She wants France to “take back control” of its borders, as the British have just voted to do with Brexit. . . .

Not that a Le Pen government would be any less helpless than a government of the center-right or center-left. Her authoritarian instincts would do nothing to lessen the threat—au contraire. But for too many people, I fear, electing Le Pen to speak loudly and carry a big stick will feel like “doing something rather than nothing”—and, in these circumstances, it is all too human to want to do something. We saw this in the United States after 9/11.

(Emphasis added.)

That's what Trump is offering, even though he's even less focused than the Bush administration after 9/11. (In my own opinion, we went after the right people first -- the Taliban. And then attacked Iraq? It didn't make any sense then and doesn't make any sense now -- unless you're Halliburton or a major oil company. And if you wonder where Trump got his "make them pay for it" mantra -- remember, the Iraq war was going to be paid for with Iraq's oil. Trump's not only a jackass, he's not even original.)

Back to Digby's comments. She makes the very good point, vis-a-vis France as an epicenter, that France has a very different history in regard to immigration and minorities than, say, the U.S. (We're a nation of immigrants. I like to make the point that, in reality, every human being who ever lived in America came of immigrant stock: Homo sapiens is not native to the Americas.)

France has a long colonial history in the Middle East, specifically in Syria and its experience in Algeria was particularly brutal. It has the largest Muslim population in Europe and French society has traditionally been somewhat culturally intolerant, insisting that newcomers strictly adapt to French mores rather than embracing diversity. All of this has unfortunately created a combustible mixture in a dangerous time.

So, you have a large group of culturally alienated immigrants, a political party that's promising to "do something" in the most authoritarian -- read "dictatorial" -- way possible, and a sizable chunk of the population who are willing to go along with it. You'd be forgiven for wondering whether you're in France or the US, except that we haven't managed to alienate our Muslim population -- although there are elements here that are trying very hard to do just that, along with every other minority (read "GOP") -- but we certainly do have the politicians who are willing to advocate dictatorial responses.

I think Goldhammer's point is right on the mark: we want someone to do something. The problem is, we're not willing to listen to the people who might do something that works.

Orlando: Reactions

President Obama:

Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder — a horrific massacre — of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families, who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city. Although it’s still early in the investigation, we know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate. And as Americans, we are united in grief, in outrage, and in resolve to defend our people.

I just finished a meeting with FBI Director Comey and my homeland security and national security advisors. The FBI is on the scene and leading the investigation, in partnership with local law enforcement. I’ve directed that the full resources of the federal government be made available for this investigation.

We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation. We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism. And I’ve directed that we must spare no effort to determine what — if any — inspiration or association this killer may have had with terrorist groups. What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred. Over the coming days, we’ll uncover why and how this happened, and we will go wherever the facts lead us.

This morning I spoke with my good friend, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, and I conveyed the condolences of the entire American people. This could have been any one of our communities. So I told Mayor Dyer that whatever help he and the people of Orlando need — they are going to get it. As a country, we will be there for the people of Orlando today, tomorrow and for all the days to come.

We also express our profound gratitude to all the police and first responders who rushed into harm’s way. Their courage and professionalism saved lives, and kept the carnage from being even worse. It’s the kind of sacrifice that our law enforcement professionals make every single day for all of us, and we can never thank them enough.

This is an especially heartbreaking day for all our friends — our fellow Americans — who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live. The place where they were attacked is more than a nightclub — it is a place of solidarity and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds, and to advocate for their civil rights.

So this is a sobering reminder that attacks on any American — regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation — is an attack on all of us and on the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country. And no act of hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us Americans.

Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.

In the coming hours and days, we’ll learn about the victims of this tragedy. Their names. Their faces. Who they were. The joy that they brought to families and to friends, and the difference that they made in this world. Say a prayer for them and say a prayer for their families — that God give them the strength to bear the unbearable. And that He give us all the strength to be there for them, and the strength and courage to change. We need to demonstrate that we are defined more — as a country — by the way they lived their lives than by the hate of the man who took them from us.

As we go together, we will draw inspiration from heroic and selfless acts — friends who helped friends, took care of each other and saved lives. In the face of hate and violence, we will love one another. We will not give in to fear or turn against each other. Instead, we will stand united, as Americans, to protect our people, and defend our nation, and to take action against those who threaten us.

May God bless the Americans we lost this morning. May He comfort their families. May God continue to watch over this country that we love. Thank you.

Via Box Turtle Bulletin, as is the following:

We condemn this monstrous attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured. The Muslim community joins our fellow Americans in repudiating anyone or any group that would claim to justify or excuse such an appalling act of violence.

— Rasha Mubarak, the Orlando regional coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

That one's important, because of this (via Joe.My.God.):

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed responsibility Sunday for a deadly nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 50 dead and 53 injured.

"The attack that targeted a nightclub for homosexuals in Orlando, Florida and that left more than 100 dead and wounded was carried out by an Islamic State fighter," ISIS said in a statement.

The organization offered no proof for the attacks.

There is a report that the shooter called 911 and claimed allegiance to ISIS before the attack, but I'm not buying any coordinated effort here until the FBI has gone over it thoroughly.

From Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin, National Center for Transgender Equality head Mara Keisling, and NAACP president Cornell Brooks:

Surveying all the coverage on the "national" sites, I noticed one glaring omission: my home town, which is one of the most gay-friendly places in the country. Well, Google is your friend. Some highlights, courtesy of CBS News:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel:

“Last night’s horrifying act of terrorism in Orlando was an attack on our most fundamental values as Americans. On behalf of the City of Chicago, Amy and I send our deepest condolences to the friends and family members of those who were lost. June is a time when all Chicagoans and all Americans proudly celebrate the contributions of our LGBT community. This horrendous violence will only deepen our resolve to continue building a society that values everyone, regardless of who they love. The thoughts and prayers of Chicago will remain with the victims of this attack as they seek comfort and courage in the days ahead.”

Archbishop Blase Cupich:

“Our prayers and hearts are with the victims of the mass shooting in Orlando, their families and our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

“We are grateful to the first responders and civilians who heroically put themselves in harm’s way, providing an enduring reminder of what compassion and bravery look like–even in the face of such horror and danger.

“In response to hatred, we are called to sow love. In response to violence, peace. And, in response to intolerance, tolerance.

“The people of the Archdiocese of Chicago stand with the victims and their loved ones, and reaffirm our commitment, with Pope Francis, to address the causes of such tragedy, including easy access to deadly weapons. We can no longer stand by and do nothing.”

Even our sports teams and athletes reacted.

There are statements from major political figures and others at the link. One thing they all have in common is the admission that this was directed at the gay community (even our Republican governor's statement makes the inference). But, if you look at some of the responses from major anti-gay politicians, you'll notice what's missing. (Aravosis labels them all "homophobes," but I won't go that far; I'll just note that these people are not known as friends of our community.) This one sent my irony meter to the repair shop:

 

You mean, like the Republican party platform?

That's about all I can handle right now. I'm really just numb about this. All I can think is "Where will it stop?"

Oh, and of course The Hairpiece reacted. I'm not going to post any of his belchings. The man's an ass.

Today in Stupid

I know, there's almost too much to choose from, but this story stuck out a little bit:

The lawsuit says many are either placed on what's called a Selectee List, which subjects them to extra scrutiny, or the more stringent No-Fly List, which prevents the traveler from flying.

One of the plaintiffs is a 4-year-old baby from California, listed in the lawsuit as "Baby Doe."

"He was 7 months old when his boarding pass was first stamped with the 'SSSS' designation, indicating that he had been designated as a 'known or suspected terrorist,'" said the lawsuit. "While passing through airport security, he was subjected to extensive searches, pat-downs and chemical testing."

"Every item in his mother's baby bag was searched, including every one of his diapers."

Remember that your basic TSA agent is not known for actually thinking -- remember the five-year-old handicapped boy who was forced to crawl through the security station without his crutches?

As for the list itself, it's become nothing more than a sick joke, as might have been expected, seeing as how it was first instituted by John Ashcroft when he was Dubyah's AG. According to the article, there are now over 1.5 million people on the list. I doubt there are 1.5 million terrorists in the whole world, but rationality is no longer part of our security establishment's repertoire.

OK -- the stories behind the lawsuit are bad enough, but the rationale -- well, I don't know whether to laugh or scream and throw things:

The FBI says on its website that "the TSC (Terrorist Screening Center) regularly conducts comprehensive and case-specific quality assurance reviews of its data to ensure the U.S. government’s substantive criteria for watch-listing are met and to ensure the records maintained in the Terrorist Screening Database are current, accurate, and thorough. The TSC also participates in redress procedures established by agencies that perform terrorist screening."

Can you say "bullshit"? I wonder how many of that 1.5 million are on the list because someone doing data entry can't spell?

Via RawStory.

And a foonote: more on our culture of paranoia.

About All Those Jihadists Infiltrating the US

A little perspective, via Digby:

More On Paris, Thoughtfully

Charles Pierce has this:

It is long past time for the oligarchies of the Gulf states to stop paying protection to the men in the suicide belts. Their societies are stunted and parasitic. The main job of the elites there is to find enough foreign workers to ensla…er…indenture to do all the real work. The example of Qatar and the interesting business plan through which that country is building the facilities for the 2022 World Cup is instructive here. Roughly the same labor-management relationship exists for the people who clean the hotel rooms and who serve the drinks. In Qatar, for people who come from elsewhere to work, passports have been known to disappear into thin air. These are the societies that profit from terrible and tangled web of causation and violence that played out on the streets of Paris. These are the people who buy their safety with the blood of innocents far away.

Needless to say, read the whole thing.

Paris

I'm generally offline in the afternoon and evening, so the attacks in Paris were a surprise this morning. This story from Hullabaloo seems to be the best summary of what happened:

France is in a state of shock this morning in the wake of a near-simultaneous rolling attacks at six different Paris locations Friday night by gunmen and suicide bombers. The situation is still fluid and details are coming in by the moment. More than 120 have been killed and dozens are in critical condition in hospitals. The latest word as I write this is that the Islamic State claims responsibility. That claim is unverified. The identity and nationality of the attackers as well as victims is still being investigated.

I really don't have anything more to say about this. Not enough information, and it hasn't quite sunk in yet.

Here are more details on the overall picture:

President François Hollande has closed the borders and as of this morning has essentially declared war on ISIS, which has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Joe Jervis at Joe.My.God. seems to be on top of this and is posting periodic updates.

Today In Disgusting People

Sure enough, in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack on the offices and staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdol, the assholes are out in full force.

Top of the list is Erick Erickson, editor of RedState (which should give you an idea of where his head's at), with this:

A publisher published something that offended. It mocked, it offended, and it showed the fallacy of a religion. It angered. So the terrorists decided they needed to publicly destroy and ruin the publisher in a way that would not only make that destruction a public spectacle, but do it so spectacularly that others would think twice before publishing or saying anything similar. The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender. So they demanded the Mayor of Atlanta fire the Chief of the Fire Department for daring to write that his first duty was to 'glory God' and that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage was a sin. And the terrorists won in Atlanta.

Erickson's account differs radically from other accounts -- I mean, aside from the outright lies -- and I think we can be excused for assuming that he's edited reality to suit his agenda.

The key issue is trying to link gays to terrorists over something that, by all reports, no gay organization or individual had anything to do with, aside from being outraged at Cochran's behavior. He's not the first to compare gays to terrorists -- maybe Nazis are a little old hat (or maybe he just admires Nazis too much to link them with gays). Just goes to show you -- as far as the "Christian" right is concerned, there is no bottom.

Next is perennial blowhard Bill Donohue, who is the Catholic League. Donohue, of course, is blaming the victims:

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction. Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses. While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them. Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, 'Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.' Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.

Frankly, if anything's ripe for ridicule, it's religion, especially the varieties espoused by conservative extremists like Donohue. It's nice, though, that he, unlike Erickson, at least made a pro forma condemnation of the murders before he started vilifying the victims.

Someone theorized in a comment thread on another blog that the bishops don't shut Donohue up because he's saying what they think. I think that's only part of the reason: it's also because no one listens to him anyway.

At any rate, how's that for politicizing a human tragedy -- a heinous act that springs from motivations shared by our two featured personalities.

Oh, and a footnote -- she only deserves a footnote because as far as I'm concerned, she's a has-been:

Food for Thought

While we're all appalled and/or disgusted by the revelations of NSA hijinks (is there anyone they haven't spied on?), I had a sobering thought -- this is just the top end of a trend that's been happening for a long time, and it's all of a piece: the increasingly interlocked nature of the Internet, with what seems to be a natural phenomenon: a few corporations starting to gobble up everything else so that you have one account for everything -- "for your convenience." (Google keeps trying to sign me into everything with my Google account, which I don't use -- I just created it because of a server glitch causing a site I needed to get into to reject my regular account.)

At any rate, let's start with something a little closer to home for most of us. (At least it used to be, but more on that in a minute.) Notice how militarized our police departments are getting? SWAT teams, assault rifles, body armor, the whole works. Here's the Tampa police department, from their official website:

The 12-ton Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) can drive through five feet of water and withstand winds up to 130 mph helping police operate under the most severe conditions. The carrier, nicknamed "high-top shoe" for its tall silhouette look, can be used for search and rescue during a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. The APC is bullet resistant, can hold 13 passengers and it is virtually unstoppable. On pavement, it can reach speeds of 60 mph. This one of a kind APC was purchased from the military and it was paid for with a Federal security grant.

It's worth going to the site just to see the pictures. Is this Tampa, or Baghdad?

The bottom line is that we're putting huge amounts of lethal force in the hands of people who overreact (remember Chicago, 1968? Imagine that with today's armaments), who make mistakes (and that story is by no means the worst in that vein), who stage full-scale raids on flimsy pretexts (and that story is not the only one about the authorities finding "probable cause" after the fact), and whose judgment is open to question (remember the pepper-spray incident at UC Davis? And to underscore my point, the campus police lieutenant who "pulled the trigger" as it were has filed for worker's comp.).

Which brings us to the surveillance state. The police are armed and ready, now they just need a target. Any target will do, and that's where NSA and its subsidiaries come in. The trend toward constant surveillance started a long time ago -- maybe with police radar to catch speeders. Then we went to cameras in high-crime areas. (They don't actually prevent any crime, as it turns out.) But now, with the advent of the Great War on Terror, there are not only a larger pool of suspects, but a ready-made excuse for watching them. This is choice:

The New York Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorism organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams, often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Designating an entire mosque as a terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen “terrorism enterprise investigations” into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like.

Many TEIs stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise.

Digby has a very good, must-read post on the effect of all this on us, the targets. Her summation:

The surveillance society naturally results in less creativity, less innovation, less dissent, less freedom. I know it sounds ridiculously hyperbolic, but this strikes me as a potentially huge social change that nobody's talking about. What kind of a world will it be when people no longer have an inner self, at least an inner self that has any possibility of expression without being revealed to everyone else. What happens when you lose control over your identity, your history, your ability to reinvent yourself and take second chances?

My reaction: Connect the dots: wages sinking, the 1%'s war on the middle class, constant surveillance, get out of jail free passes for the banks* and "energy" companies (not to mention their very sophisticated use of propaganda). Less dissent, less freedom? That's what they want.

* A footnote: ran across this post this morning. From Henry Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury during the financial collapse in 2008:

“There was such a total lack of awareness from the firms that paid big bonuses during this extraordinary time.”

That is what Henry M. Paulson Jr., former Treasury secretary, said last week. We were discussing the 2008 financial crisis in light of the approaching five-year anniversary of those white-knuckled days, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the government stepped in to bail out the American International Group and then the banking system….

"Lack of awareness?": Pot, meet kettle. Read on:

He said the hardest part of the bailouts for him was in the disconnect between the bailouts’ ugly image with the public and his faith that the bailouts would help keep the economy from collapsing.

“I understood that people were angry,” Mr. Paulson said. “They wanted to hear that those that made the mistakes were going to be held responsible. Then on the other side was stability. It’s hard to punish and save the banks at the same time.” He paused for a moment. “I was much more concerned with stability.”

I don't understand how that became an either/or proposition. It seems to me that reining in the bonuses and obscene compensation packages for those who caused the crisis might have contributed to public confidence. Maybe the DoJ going after them would have helped as well. But then, I'm not a economics guru, like Hank Paulson -- who, arguably, is one of the people who created the mess.

Draw your own conclusions.

Today's Must Read

From Digby, on Bradley Manning's sentence and government "priorities." In a nutshell:

For revealing army war crimes Pfc. Bradley Manning has already done far more time in prison than Lieutenant William Calley did for committing them. Yes, the government has made its point crystal clear.

Read the whole post. And then read this one.