How can we recognize our friends in the mixed-up world of Donald Trump?
You know you바카라re living in a looking-glass world when former Vice President Dick Cheney against one of Donald Trump바카라s executive orders. He바카라s a good example of how past adversaries of movements for peace and justice are lining up against our current adversary, the new president.
The United States, Cheney radio host Hugh Hewitt, should not exclude people from our territory on the basis of religion. That was just a few days after Trump had signed an executive order entitled 바카라Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.바카라 Such a move, said Cheney, 바카라goes against everything we stand for and believe in.바카라
In the same interview, Cheney revealed the origins of his personal affinity for Muslim refugees. His own ancestors, he said, arrived on this continent to escape religious persecution. 바카라They were Puritans,바카라 he explained, adding, 바카라There wasn바카라t anybody here then when they came.바카라 No one? It was a sparkling display of precisely the European-American solipsism that so deeply marked the Cheney years in power.
Refugees, he acknowledged, do represent 바카라a serious problem.바카라 To begin to solve it, however, 바카라You gotta go back and look at why they바카라re here. They바카라re here because of what바카라s happening in the Middle East.바카라
The refugees Cheney refers to aren바카라t 바카라here,바카라 of course, or what would be the point of Trump바카라s entrance ban? Otherwise, I바카라d have to agree with the former vice president: you do need to look at 바카라what바카라s happening바카라 but also -- something he didn바카라t mention -- what happened in the Middle East to explain their need for refuge. Refugees from Iraq and Syria (among other places) have indeed lost their homes and homelands by the , in significant part because of the very invasions and occupations that Cheney and his president, George W. Bush, launched in the Greater Middle East, radically destabilizing that part of the world.
The Enemy of My Enemy?
What should it mean for those of us hoping to resist the grim presidency of Donald Trump to find Dick Cheney, even momentarily and on a single issue, on our side? One thing it certainly can바카라t mean is that Cheney stands for the same 바카라everything바카라 that moved to rush to U.S. airports, demanding the release of visitors, immigrants, and green card holders detained under Trump바카라s new order. Although in the Muslim refugees of today he may indeed recognize a reflection of his Puritan ancestors, Cheney바카라s disagreement with Donald Trump does not, in fact, make him a friend of the cause of compassion, justice, or the rule of law.
Few of us who spent eight years opposing Bush and Cheney or who remember their record of , occupations, , black sites, and so much more are likely to imagine that his opposition to the ban on refugees makes him our friend. But that doesn바카라t mean that we can바카라t take some satisfaction from where he바카라s landed on this issue.
It바카라s been harder, however, for many of us to find clarity when it comes to certain of the other war hawks who, for their own reasons, don바카라t trust Trump.
It바카라s a trap most of us avoided last summer when 50 members of the national security establishment, including former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and one of George W. Bush바카라s CIA directors, Michael Hayden, an open letter warning the world that Trump lacked 바카라the character, values, and experience to be president.바카라 We recognized that the letter signers themselves lacked the 바카라character, values, and experience바카라 to comment. After all, in the Middle East and elsewhere, this bunch had helped to pave the way for Trump바카라s rise.
In recent months, as the Russian l hit and Trump바카라s with the CIA gained ever more media attention, that Agency has proven another matter. Here is a real danger to avoid: in our efforts to delegitimize Donald Trump, it바카라s important not to inadvertently legitimize an outfit that most of us have long opposed for its vicious campaigns around the world. Just because Donald Trump all but its operatives Nazis shouldn바카라t lead the rest of us to forget its long history of deceit or accept its pronouncements at face value because they happen to fit what we would like to believe.
When Barack Obama that there was convincing evidence Russia had used its hacking efforts to throw the U.S. election to Trump, the president-elect not surprisingly the claim 바카라ridiculous.바카라 But there바카라s also been a bit of sympathy for the CIA in some odd places. For example, long-time CIA critic and founder Heather Digby Parton (generally known as 바카라Digby바카라) at Salon that the CIA 바카라understandably바카라 felt there was something 바카라a tad unfair바카라 about the Trump transition team calling the Agency 바카라the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.바카라 After all, they were under a lot of pressure from the White House back then. As Digby wrote, 바카라It바카라s now known that Vice President Dick Cheney went out to [CIA headquarters in] Langley [Virginia] in order to personally twist arms and 바카라stovepipe바카라 the intelligence report on Iraq.바카라
That바카라s certainly true, but it바카라s also true that the CIA director of that moment, George Tenet, President Bush that there was a 바카라slam dunk case바카라 that Saddam Hussein had such weaponry. The fact is that the CIA caved in to pressure from top administration officials for the intel they so desperately wanted for the invasion they already knew they were going to launch in Iraq. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the agency바카라s integrity or political independence. An "independent" CIA is bad enough, but the CIA바카라s vulnerability to political pressure from the White House is another reason we should be cautious about using Agency pronouncements as an instrument against Donald Trump. That's the slippery terrain we find ourselves on now.
Digby is certainly no admirer of the CIA, and her article wasn바카라t primarily focused on the quality of its intelligence under Bush, but on a far more recent turf war between the Agency and the FBI. She rightly calls out FBI Director James Comey for his 11th hour intervention in the election, the way he to the (vanishingly tiny) possibility that the hard drive on the computer that Anthony Weiner shared with his wife, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, might have contained evidence of Clinton바카라s failure to protect State Department emails. Nevertheless, the reader is left to infer that -- at least when it comes to intelligence rather than clandestine operations -- the CIA바카라s pronouncements might prove a reliable instrument against Donald Trump, an urge that was relatively commonplace among opponents of the new president.
For example, the Atlantic, which has excellent reporting about CIA deceptions, a piece by Kelly Magsamen, who served on the National Security Council (NSC) under both Bush and Obama, expressing alarm at Trump바카라s plan to exclude the CIA director from his version of the NSC. (In fact, the new president on the matter almost immediately.) It's not surprising that Magsamen would have this view. For those of us who would like to dismantle the entire national security edifice, however, it would be shortsighted indeed to attack Trump by shoring up the reputation of an agency -- the CIA -- that, as former counterintelligence officer John Kiriakou has , the country and the world 바카라do not need.바카라 Kariakou, you may remember, was for discussing the CIA바카라s torture program with a journalist.
Support for America바카라s spooks has continued to resound in odd places. For example, there바카라s been much outrage expressed at President Trump바카라s bizarre behavior on a visit to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. In a performance that was indeed shocking, he used the occasion to complain about the way the media underestimated the size of the crowd at his inauguration, after which he asserted that God had stopped the rain during his Inaugural Address.
What many commentators found far more bizarre and disturbing, however, was that Trump gave his performance in front of a memorial wall commemorating CIA agents who had died on the job. Writing for the not-exactly-right-wing Huffington Post, Neil McCarthy that the wall honors 바카라un-named heroes who have died in our service.바카라 In a New Yorker article headlined 바카라Trump바카라s Vainglorious Affront to the CIA,바카라 former Washington Post diplomatic correspondent Robin Wright the new president for his lack of respect for the Agency바카라s martyrs. Trump, she suggested, should have followed the example of President Ronald Reagan, who on his first visit to the CIA told the assembled staff:
바카라The work you do each day is essential to the survival and to the spread of human freedom. You remain the eyes and ears of the free world. You are the 바카라trip wire바카라 over which totalitarian rule must stumble in their quest for global domination...바카라
While I would never applaud anyone바카라s untimely, violent death, the fact that Donald Trump (despite his ) has been feuding with the CIA shouldn바카라t erase that agency바카라s history or just what those agents died defending. Trump바카라s annoyance shouldn바카라t magically transform an agency responsible for decades of violent and bloody coups against democratic governments in places like , , the , and into an organization 바카라essential to the survival and spread of human freedom.바카라 Whatever pleasure we may take in Trump바카라s irritation, it doesn바카라t vindicate the of between 26,000 and 41,000 Vietnamese, many of then tortured to death, in the CIA바카라s notorious during the Vietnam War. It doesn바카라t erase the training in torture and repression its agents provided to dictatorships around the world. And it certainly doesn바카라t make the CIA바카라s use of terror and torture in its as part of the Bush administration바카라s 바카라war on terror바카라 any less horrific or illegal.
Nor does the CIA바카라s future look much more promising than its past. When it comes to torture, its new head Mike Pompeo has clearly wanted to have it both ways. During his confirmation hearing, he proved unwilling to call waterboarding and other 바카라enhanced interrogation바카라 methods torture, but did acknowledge that they are illegal under a 2015 law, which limits interrogation techniques to those described in the U.S. Army Field Manual.
There are two problems with reliance on that law. The present Field Manual a classified annex, which permits among other things repeated 12-hour bouts of sensory deprivation and solitary confinement for up to 30 days at a time. Both of these are forms of the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment prohibited by the U.N. Convention against Torture. In addition, the manual itself is up for revision in two years. A new version might provide very different guidance.
But it바카라s not clear that Pompeo is actually wedded to the manual anyway. As Human Rights Watch (HRW) , in his written testimony for his confirmation hearing he 바카라indicated that he would consult with CIA staff to determine whether the application of the Army Field Manual was an 바카라impediment바카라 to intelligence-gathering, and whether it needed to be rewritten.바카라 Note as well that Gina Haspel, Pompeo바카라s newly appointed deputy director at the Agency, is for her involvement in its black sites and torture practices in the Bush years (as well as the destruction of video tapes of waterboarding sessions -- evidence, that is, of those criminal activities).
Trump himself supports such torture practices. On January 25th, he ABC News that he still clings to his belief that torture 바카라works.바카라 His evidence? The testimony of 바카라people at the highest level of intelligence바카라 who 바카라as recently as twenty-four hours ago바카라 told him that it works 바카라absolutely.바카라 It seems likely one of those 바카라people바카라 was Gina Haspel, who has a good reason to cling to that same belief.
In reporting ABC바카라s interview with Trump, CNN, like most mainstream media, allowed itself to be distracted by the question of whether or not torture is an effective way of getting information from someone. It isn바카라t, as the Senate Intelligence Committee in its landmark 2014 report. However, the question really shouldn바카라t be whether torture 바카라works.바카라 The question should be: Is it either moral or legal? And Donald Trump notwithstanding, the answer in both cases is no.
Pompeo is also a big fan of NSA-style mass surveillance and has called for the reinstatement of the NSA바카라s massive secret collection of telephone, Internet, and social media metadata. The telephone data part of the program officially in November 2015 as a result of the USA Freedom Act, passed earlier that year. Under the new arrangement, metadata is held by the phone companies, rather than directly by the NSA, which now needs a FISA warrant to get access to those records. Internet and social media records are still directly available to the NSA, however.
But that바카라s not enough for Pompeo. Human Rights Watch points to a 2016 Wall Street Journal , in which Pompeo urged Congress to 바카라'pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata' -- that is, records of communications, such as their dates, parties, and durations -- 'and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'바카라
HRW observes that, in spite of 바카라repeated written and oral questions in the context of the hearing, Pompeo remained vague on what he meant by the potentially expansive and discriminatory term 바카라lifestyle information.바카라바카라 As one devoted to the lesbian 바카라lifestyle,바카라 I don바카라t find this particularly encouraging.
Fortunately for those of us who hope to see the national security state dismantled someday, as recent events have indicated, that edifice and its friends in both parties are not a seamless whole. There are runs and tears throughout its fabric, and part of our job is to help open those gaps wider -- always keeping in mind that while politics may make strange bedfellows, there are some people you don바카라t ever want to sleep with. Even in the Trump era, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, at least not when that enemy is the CIA.
Enemies of Enemies of Enemies
If the CIA is the enemy of my enemy, then Vladimir Putin바카라s government in Russia must be the enemy of the enemy of my enemy. Is it therefore my friend?
This is a complicated and delicate question. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has its doomsday clock forward to two-and-a-half minutes to midnight, 30 seconds closer to catastrophe.
In the shadow of nuclear war, who wouldn바카라t be eager to see tensions between Russia and the United States defused? At the same time, I become uncomfortable when some of my colleagues on the left appear to believe that any adversary of U.S. hegemony may represent a potential ally for us.
For example, the Nation바카라s Stephen Cohen, whose many years of writing on the Soviet Union served as an important corrective to the official narrative of the time, those who today are wary of Putin as 바카라enemies of détente.바카라 He points to a New York Times editorial whose descriptions "of Putin바카라s leadership over the years" were "so distorted they seemed more like Saturday Night Live바카라s ongoing parodies" and calls out Times columnist Paul Krugman바카라s "neo-McCarthyite baiting" of Trump for his admiration of Putin.
I can agree with Cohen that Krugman goes over the top when he the present administration as the 바카라Putin-Trump regime.바카라 But it바카라s a mistake to equate legitimate suspicion of Russia and Putin with the efforts of Senator Joe McCarthy to discredit the U.S. left (and liberals) during the Cold War. The Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union, and distrust of Vladimir Putin is not McCarthyism.
Cohen is certainly correct that Putin has good reason to be wary of what he calls "NATO바카라s highly provocative buildup on Russia바카라s Western border." But even if Russia quite rightly objects to the way NATO has moved east, it doesn바카라t prove that Putin바카라s government didn바카라t try to influence the U.S. election. Such things are hardly beyond the realm of possibility. After all, the United States has a of doing just that to countries around the world (as did the Soviet Union in its day).
That the Washington establishment opposes Russian challenges to the U.S. urge for global dominance doesn바카라t make Vladimir Putin any less an autocrat, or Russia under his rule any more a country to emulate. Indeed, on January 27th, the Russian parliament 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence. A week later, Putin signed the bill into law. Which way, I wonder, would Donald Trump go if similar legislation were on the table here?
What About Friends?
When the thieves who run our government fall out, we should be glad -- and find ways to drive the wedge deeper. When John McCain we approve of, like objecting to Trump바카라s executive order on immigration, we can agree with him, but notice as well that, in the next breath, he says he supports Trump바카라s 바카라commitment to rebuilding our바카라 (already vast and unprecedentedly powerful) military.
There바카라s a difference between people who find themselves sharing the same adversary and people who can be, to use an old-fashioned term, in solidarity with each other. Those of us who oppose U.S. military adventurism abroad and inequality, racism, and sexism at home need to remember who our friends are. The next few years must be a time of building broad coalitions and tightening the bonds among organizations and people who believe that, even now, a better world is still possible.
In the mixed-up looking-glass universe that is Trumplandia, we are going to need our friends more than ever. This is true domestically, which means, for instance, that tenants바카라 rights groups will need to keep jumping into struggles for immigrant rights (as is already in many places), and veterans바카라 organizations will need to fights to preserve Native land and water rights as in the struggle over the Dakota Access pipeline. It바카라s true on the international level, as well. We will need to build strong ties with people in Europe fighting the rise of the far right there, and to continue our solidarity with the victims of U.S. military actions around the world.
But it바카라s also true at the level of our individual lives. Now especially we need contact with the people we love to keep us strong and hopeful. Now is a good time to remind your friends that you love them, and that you will have their backs. It바카라s a time to march together, but also to eat together. To strategize and organize, but also to make each other laugh. It바카라s a time to remember who our adversaries are, but also to cherish our friends.
This piece first appeared on
(Rebecca Gordon, a , teaches in the philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of .)