Chris Hedges's Blog, page 57

Texas Governor to Reject New Refugees, First Under Trump

HOUSTON — Texas will no longer accept the resettlement of new refugees, becoming the first state known to do so under a recent Trump administration order, Gov. Greg Abbott said Friday.

Abbott’s announcement could have major implications for refugees coming to the United States. Texas has large refugee populations in several of its cities and has long been a leader in settling refugees, taking in more than any other state during the 2018 governmental fiscal year, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Related Articles


[image error]







GOP Governors Grapple With Whether to Accept Refugees



by








[image error]







American Barbarity on the Border



by Michael Nigro








[image error]







Trump’s Lies Destroy Immigrants’ Lives



by Bill Boyarsky

Since the 2002 fiscal year, Texas has resettled an estimated 88,300 refugees, second only to California, according to the Pew Research Center.

In a letter released Friday, Abbott wrote that Texas “has been left by Congress to deal with disproportionate migration issues resulting from a broken federal immigration system.” He added that Texas has done “more than its share.”

Abbott argued that the state and its non-profit organizations should instead focus on “those who are already here, including refugees, migrants, and the homeless — indeed, all Texans.”

It wasn’t clear how Abbott’s letter might affect any pending refugee cases.

Refugee groups sharply criticized the Republican governor. Ali al-Sudani, senior vice president of Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston, predicted that some refugees with longstanding plans to come to Texas would have flights rescheduled or delayed. Al-Sudani settled in Houston from Iraq in 2009 and now works to resettle other refugees.

“You can imagine the message that this decision will send to them and to their families,” al-Sudani said. “It’s very disappointing and very sad news, and honestly, this is not the Texas that I know.”

Texas Democratic Party spokesman Abhi Rahman also criticized Abbott, saying refugees “are not political pawns and bargaining chips to advance anti-immigrant policies.”

President Donald Trump announced in September that resettlement agencies must get written consent from state and local officials in any jurisdiction where they want to help resettle refugees beyond June 2020. Trump has already slashed the number of refugees allowed into the country for the 2020 fiscal year to a historic low of 18,000. About 30,000 refugees were resettled in the U.S. during the previous fiscal year.

Governors in 42 other states have said they will consent to allowing in more refugees, according to the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which works with local agencies throughout the U.S. to resettle refugees. The governors who haven’t chimed in are all Republicans and are from Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

Fierce debates have occurred in several parts of the country, including North Dakota and Tennessee, over whether to opt into refugee resettlement under the executive order. Many Republican governors have been caught between immigration hardliners and some Christian evangelicals who believe helping refugees is a moral obligation.

LIRS is also part of a lawsuit challenging the order. A federal judge on Wednesday heard arguments on a request by resettlement agencies to prevent the Trump administration from enforcing it.

Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, LIRS’ CEO, called Abbott’s decision “a devastating blow to a longstanding legacy of refugee resettlement in the state.” Local officials in Houston, Dallas, and other cities will not be able to take in refugees over the governor’s objection, she said.

“There are some refugee families who have waited years in desperation to reunite with their family who will no longer be able to do so in the state of Texas,” she said.

Abbott has tried to stop refugees before, declaring in 2015 that Texas would not welcome people from Syria following the deadly Paris attacks that November. At the time, the administration of former President Barack Obama continued to send refugees to Texas and other states led by Republican governors who were opposed to it.

Al-Sudani, of Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston, pointed out that even if refugees are resettled in a different state, they can travel freely within the U.S. and move wherever they choose.

“Literally you can take the bus the next day and come to Texas,” he said.

U.S. Dismisses Iraq Request to Work on a Troop Withdrawal Plan

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s caretaker prime minister asked Washington to work out a road map for an American troop withdrawal, but the U.S. State Department on Friday bluntly rejected the request, saying the two sides should instead talk about how to “recommit” to their partnership.

Thousands of anti-government protesters turned out in the capital and southern Iraq, many calling on both Iran and America to leave Iraq, reflecting their anger and frustration over the two rivals — both allies of Baghdad — trading blows on Iraqi soil.

The request from Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi pointed to his determination to push ahead with demands for U.S. troops to leave Iraq, stoked by the American drone strike on Jan. 3 that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. In a phone call Thursday night, he told U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that recent U.S. actions were unacceptable breaches of Iraqi sovereignty and a violation of their security agreements, his office said.

Related Articles


[image error]







Iraq Parliament Votes to Expel U.S. Military



by








[image error]







The Largest Protests in Iraqi History Are a Rejection of Bush



by Juan Cole








[image error]







The Folly of the Iraq War Has Never Been Clearer



by Maj. Danny Sjursen

He asked Pompeo to “send delegates to Iraq to prepare a mechanism” to carry out the Iraqi Parliament’s resolution on withdrawing foreign troops, according to the statement.

“The prime minister said American forces had entered Iraq and drones are flying in its airspace without permission from Iraqi authorities, and this was a violation of the bilateral agreements,” the statement added.

Abdul-Mahdi signaled he was standing by the push for U.S. forces to leave despite signs of de-escalation by Tehran and Washington after Iran retaliated for Soleimani’s death by firing missiles that hit two Iraqi bases where American troops are based but caused no casualties.

Iraqis feel furious and helpless at being caught in the middle of the fighting. Abdul-Mahdi has said he rejects all violations of Iraqi sovereignty, including both the Iranian and U.S. strikes.

The State Department flatly dismissed Abdul-Mahdi’s request, saying U.S. troops are crucial for the fight against the Islamic State group and it would not discuss removing them.

Pompeo indicated Friday the troops would remain, adding that the U.S. would continue its mission to help train Iraqi security forces and counter the Islamic State group.

“We are happy to continue the conversation with the Iraqis about what the right structure is,” Pompeo said at the White House during an unrelated appearance.

“Our mission set there is very clear. We’ve been there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS, to continue the counter-Daesh campaign,” he said, using alternate acronyms for the militant group.

“We’re going to continue that mission but, as times change and we get to a place where we can deliver upon what I believe and what the president believes is our right structure with fewer resources dedicated to that mission, we will do so,” Pompeo said.

He said a NATO team was at the State Department working on a plan “to get burden-sharing right in the region, as well, so that we can continue the important missions to protect and defend, and keep the American people safe” while reducing costs and burdens borne by the U.S.

Earlier in the day, Pompeo’s spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to “discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership – not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East.”

Iraqi lawmakers passed a resolution Sunday to oust U.S. troops, following the U.S. drone strike that killed Soleimani and senior Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis at Baghdad’s airport. The nonbinding vote put the responsibility on the government to formally request a withdrawal. Abdul-Mahdi urged lawmakers at the time to take “urgent measures” to ensure the removal of the troops.

In speaking to Pompeo, Abdul-Mahdi stopped short of requesting an immediate withdrawal, allowing time to draw up a strategy and timeline for departure.

In its initial readout of the call, the State Department made no mention of Abdul-Mahdi’s request on the troops. It said Pompeo, who initiated the call, reiterated the U.S. condemnation of the Iranian missile strikes and underscored that President Donald Trump “has said the United States will do whatever it takes to protect the American and Iraqi people and defend our collective interests.”

There are some 5,200 U.S. troops in Iraq assisting and providing training to Iraqi security counterparts to fight IS. An American pullout could deeply set back efforts to crush remnants of the group amid concerns of its resurgence during the political turmoil.

Both the U.S. and Iran have fought to defeat IS, and neither wants to see it stage a comeback.

IS gloated in its first comments on Soleimani’s slaying, saying his death “pleased the hearts of believers,” in an editorial in the group’s al-Nabaa online newspaper. It carried a photo of Soleimani and al-Muhandis, saying that “God brought their end at the hands of their allies.”

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Schenker said future talks between Baghdad and Washington were expected to focus on the nature of their strategic relationship,

“We provide assets that no other coalition ally can provide. … If the United States wasn’t in Iraq, it’s hard to imagine the coalition being in Iraq,” he told reporters in Dubai at the end of a visit to the region in which he met with Iraqi officials in the northern Kurdish region.

Schenker added that the U.S. and its partners have provided $5.4 billion to the Iraqi military in the last four years.

Ortagus said the U.S. and Iraqi governments need to talk about security as well as “our financial, economic and diplomatic partnership.” She did not elaborate.

Iraq is highly dependent on Iran sanctions waivers from Washington to continue importing Iranian gas to meet electricity demands, and the U.S. has consistently used this as leverage. The current waiver expires in February, and without a new one, Iraq could face severe financial penalties.

The demand for a troop withdrawal is not universal among Iraqis. Sunni and Kurdish lawmakers, who oppose the Parliament resolution, see the U.S. presence as a bulwark against domination by the majority Shiites and Iran. Kurdish security forces have benefited from U.S. training and aid.

Protesters criticized the ongoing crisis involving Iraq, the U.S. and Iran in demonstrations across the capital and in the southern provinces.

Thousands massed in Baghdad’s Tahrir square, the epicenter of the protest movement, and many chanted “Damn Iran and America!” Large demonstrations also were held in Basra, Dhi Qar, Najaf and Diwanieh provinces as the movement seeks to regain momentum after regional tensions overshadowed the uprising.

Amid the protests in Basra, Iraqi journalist Ahmed Abdul Samad was found dead in his car outside a police station from a gunshot wound to the head, according to a security official who requested anonymity in line with regulations. A photographer covering the protests was injured and is in critical condition.

Meanwhile, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urged rival political factions to unite and put private interests aside, saying they risked creating more unrest. The factions have yet to agree on a nominee to replace the outgoing Abdul-Mahdi, who resigned in December under pressure from the protesters.

“Everyone is required to think carefully about what this situation will lead to if there is no end to it,” he added.

___

Kullab reported from Beirut. Associated Press writer Joe Krauss in Dubai and Darlene Superville in Washington contributed.

U.S. Adds 145,000 Jobs; Unemployment Holds at 3.5%

WASHINGTON — U.S. employers added 145,000 jobs in December and the unemployment rate held steady at 3.5%, signaling that the job market remains strong at the start of 2020 even if hiring and wage gains have slowed somewhat more than a decade into an economic expansion.

Friday’s snapshot from the Labor Department showed hiring slipped from robust gains of 256,000 in November, which were given a boost by the end of a strike at General Motors. For the year, employers added an average of roughly 175,000 jobs per month, compared with about 223,250 per month in 2018.

Annual wage growth fell in December to 2.9%, down from an annualized average of 3.3% a year earlier, a possible sign that some slack remains in the labor market and that unemployment could fall even further from its current half-century low.

Related Articles


[image error]







The Fed Protects Gamblers at the Expense of the Economy



by Ellen Brown








[image error]







Robert Reich: The Trump Economy Is a Sham



by Robert Reich








[image error]







Corporate Media's Twisted Idea of a 'Strong Economy'



by

The picture of a slowly-but-steadily improving economy – plus low inflation – likely gives the Federal Reserve comfort in keeping interest rates low, which has been a boon to stock markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell a slight 0.34% in Friday afternoon trading, but it briefly climbed to a record-level of 29,000 in the morning.

“We’re starting 2020 in very good shape,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services. “We should see continued economic expansion throughout 2020 driven by consumers.”

The state of the job market has become a pivotal division between President Donald Trump and his Democratic challengers. Trump can campaign on the low unemployment rate and job growth as he seeks a second term. Democrats, seeking to oust him, will point to wages that have not taken off in a meaningful for many Americans coping with high costs for medical care and higher education.

This is the last jobs report before the Iowa caucus in February that will serve as a first step for choosing the Democratic presidential nominee.

The prospect of a stable job market, a pick-up in global growth, supportive central banks, an easing of trade tensions and U.S. economic growth of around 2% should be a positive for this year.

“We really have the wind at our backs going into 2020,” said Julia Pollak, a labor economist at the employment marketplace ZipRecruiter.

Yet job growth has failed so far to translate into substantially better hourly pay. There is the potential that wages jumped in January as many states adjusted their minimum wages.

Some businesses in competitive industries are already taking steps to prepare for wage competition this year. The Big Blue Swim School based in Chicago vies with day cares, learning centers and gyms for its instructors. The chain has five sites employing on average 30 people and plans to open five more schools this year and 17 in 2021. But it had to dramatically boost wages in order to attract staff for that expansion.

“We gave all of our front-line employees a 10% or 11% raise because of the fear we have about the wage pressures in the economy,” said CEO Chris Kenny. “We can’t meet our business goal without great staff.”

Irina Novoselsky, CEO of the jobs site CareerBuilder, said that more employers are offering non-wage benefits such as the chance to work remotely to potential workers and becoming less focused on educational credentials when hiring.

“The major fact that is pushing the trend is the labor shortage in America,” she said. “Companies are being forced to provide that flexibility.”

The U.S. economy added 2.1 million jobs last year, down from gains of nearly 2.7 million in 2018. Hiring may have slowed because the number of unemployed people seeking work has fallen by 540,000 people over the past year to 5.75 million. With fewer unemployed people hunting for jobs, there is a potential limit on job gains.

The steady hiring growth during the expansion has contributed to gains in consumer spending. Retail sales during the crucial holiday shopping improved 3.4% compared to the prior year, according to Mastercard SpendingPulse. This likely contributed to a surge of hiring in retail as that sector added 41,200 jobs in December.

The leisure and hospitality sector — which includes restaurants and hotels — added another 40,000 jobs. Health care and social assistance accounted 33,900 new jobs.

Still, the report suggests a lingering weakness in manufacturing.

Factories shed 12,000 jobs in December, after the end of the GM strike produced gains of 58,000 in November. Manufacturing companies added just 46,000 jobs in all of 2019.

Manufacturing struggled last year because of trade tensions between the United States and China coupled with slower global economic growth.

Safety problems at Boeing have also hurt orders for aircraft and parts and that could restrict hiring at factories in 2020. While the jobs report painted a healthy picture of the economy, the manufacturing sector took a blow Friday as the Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems announced layoffs for 2,800 workers in Kansas.

Pelosi: House Moving to Send Impeachment to Senate Next Week

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday the House will take steps next week to send articles of impeachment to the Senate ending Democrats’ blockade of President Donald Trump’s Senate trial.

In a letter to her Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said she was proud of their ”courage and patriotism” and warned that senators now have a choice as they consider the charges of abuse and obstruction against the president.

“In an impeachment trial, every Senator takes an oath to do ‘impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,” Pelosi wrote. “Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or the Constitution.”

Related Articles


[image error]







Mitch McConnell Backs Effort to Quash Impeachment Entirely



by








[image error]







Robert Reich: McConnell May Be Worse Than Trump



by Robert Reich








[image error]







McConnell Says He'll Start Impeachment Trial, Delay Decision on Witnesses



by

Pelosi has been in a standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that has consumed Capitol Hill and scrambled the political dynamics more than three weeks after the House impeached Trump.

She said she has asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

“I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further,” Pelosi wrote. She did not announce a date for the House vote.

The move eases for now the protracted showdown between Pelosi and McConnell over the rare impeachment trial, only the third in the nation’s history.

The president faces charges of abuse and obstruction over his actions toward Ukraine.

Transmittal of the documents and naming of House impeachment managers are the next steps needed to start the Senate trial.

Yet questions remain in the Senate on the scope and duration of the trial.

McConnell wants to launch a speedy trial without new witnesses but Democrats point to new evidence that has emerged as they press for fresh testimony.

Trump mocked Pelosi with his tweets Friday and derided her and other Democrats late Thursday in Toledo, his first rally of 2020.

The House impeached Trump in December on the charge that he abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine’s new leader to investigate Democrats, using as leverage $400 million in military assistance for the U.S. ally as it counters Russia at its border. Trump insists he did nothing wrong, but his defiance of the House Democrats’ investigation led to an additional charge of obstruction of Congress.

McConnell told GOP senators at a lunchtime meeting this week to expect the trial next week, according to two people familiar with his remarks. The people requested anonymity to discuss the private meeting.

He had signed on to a resolution from Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to change Senate rules to allow for the dismissal of articles of impeachment if the House doesn’t transmit them in 25 days. That now appear unlikely.

In the weeks since Trump was impeached, Democrats have focused on new evidence about Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals and they pushed the Senate to consider new testimony, including from former White House national security adviser John Bolton. Republicans are just as focused on a speedy trial with acquittal.

Republicans have the leverage, with a slim 53-47 Senate majority, as McConnell rebuffs the Democratic demands for testimony and documents. But Democrats are using the delay to sow public doubt about the fairness of the process as they try to peel off wavering GOP senators for the upcoming votes. It takes just 51 senators to set the rules.

“When we say fair trial, we mean facts, we mean witnesses, we mean documents,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., promising votes ahead. “Every single one of us, in this Senate, will have to have to take a stand. How do my Republican friends want the American people, their constituents, and history to remember them?”

Trump had weighed in from the White House suggesting that he, too, would like more witnesses at trial. They include former Vice President Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination now, and his son Hunter, as well as the government whistleblower whose complaint about the president’s pressure on Ukraine sparked the impeachment investigation.

On a July telephone call with Ukraine’s new president, Trump asked his counterpart to open an investigation into the Bidens while holding up military aid for Ukraine. A Ukrainian gas company had hired Hunter Biden when his father was vice president and the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

Trump suggested that his administration would continue to block Bolton or others from the administration from appearing before senators. Many of those officials have defied congressional subpoenas for their testimony.

“When we start allowing national security advisers to just go up and say whatever they want to say, we can’t do that,” Trump said Thursday during an event with building contractors. “So we have to protect presidential privilege for me, but for future presidents. That’s very important.”

Bolton, one of four witnesses that Democrats have requested, said this week that he would testify if subpoenaed.

McConnell has said from the start he is looking to model Trump’s trial on the last time the Senate convened as the court of impeachment, for President Bill Clinton in 1999. McConnell has said there will be “no haggling” with House Democrats over Senate procedures.

“There will be no unfair, new rule rule-book written solely for President Trump,” McConnell said Thursday.

The delay on impeachment has also upended the political calendar, with the weekslong trial now expected to bump into presidential nominating contests, which begin in early February. Several Democratic senators are running for the party’s nomination.

It’s still unclear who Pelosi will appoint as impeachment managers to prosecute the case in the Senate.

Nadler, D-N.Y., and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., will most likely lead the team.

What was more certain is that the group will be more diverse than the 1999 team, who were all male and white. Pelosi is expected to ensure the managers are diverse in gender and race, and also geographically.

__

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Darlene Superville and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report.

Boeing Papers Show Employees Slid 737 Max Problems Past FAA

Boeing employees raised doubts among themselves about the safety of the 737 Max, apparently tried to hide problems from federal regulators and ridiculed those responsible for designing and overseeing the jetliner, according to a batch of emails and texts released nearly a year after the aircraft was grounded over two catastrophic crashes.

The documents, made public Thursday by Boeing at the urging of Congress, are likely to fuel allegations the vaunted aircraft manufacturer put speed and cost savings ahead of safety in rolling out the Max. Boeing has been wracked by turmoil since the twin disasters and is still struggling to get the plane back in the air. Last month, it fired its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg.

In the internal messages, Boeing employees talked about misleading regulators about problems with the company’s flight simulators. which are used to develop aircraft and then train pilots on the new equipment. In one exchange, an employee told a colleague he or she wouldn’t let family members ride on a 737 Max. The colleague agreed.

Related Articles


[image error]







Why Boeing May Never Recover From Its 737 Debacle



by








[image error]







Ralph Nader: Boeing Is Playing Congress for Fools



by








[image error]







Boeing Values Profits Over Lives—by Design



by Sonali Kolhatkar

In a message chain from May 2018, an employee wrote: “I still haven’t been forgiven by God for covering up (what) I did last year.” It was not clear exactly what the cover-up involved. The documents contain redactions and are full of Boeing jargon. The employees’ names were removed.

Employees also groused about Boeing’s senior management, the company’s selection of low-cost suppliers, wasting money, and the Max.

“This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys,” one employee wrote.

In response, Boeing said that the conversations “raise questions about Boeing’s interactions with the FAA” in getting the simulators qualified. But it said the company is confident the machines work properly.

It said it is considering disciplinary action against some employees: “These communications do not reflect the company we are and need to be, and they are completely unacceptable.”

The Max has been grounded worldwide since March, after two crashes five months apart — one involving Indonesia’s Lion Air, the other an Ethiopian Airlines flight — killed 346 people. Investigators believe the crashes were caused when the jetliners’ brand-new automated flight-control software mistakenly pushed the planes’ noses down.

Boeing is still working to fix the flight-control software and other systems on the Max and persuade regulators to let it fly again. The work has taken much longer than Boeing expected, and it is unclear when the plane will return to the skies.

A lawmaker leading one of the congressional investigations into Boeing called the messages “incredibly damning.”

“They paint a deeply disturbing picture of the lengths Boeing was apparently willing to go to in order to evade scrutiny from regulators, flight crews and the flying public, even as its own employees were sounding alarms internally,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

DeFazio said the documents detail “some of the earliest and most fundamental errors in the decisions that went into the fatally flawed aircraft.”

In one email message, an employee who apparently is a test pilot wrote that he crashed the first few times he flew the Max in simulator testing. The email was written in May 2015, before the Max was certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to fly.

“You get decent at it after 3-4 tries, but the first few are ugly,” the employee wrote.

In a series of messages dated May 2018, after an airline requested Boeing set up simulator training for its pilots on the Max, an unidentified test pilot wrote that he would struggle to defend the simulators to the FAA the following week.

The emails add to the evidence that Boeing misled the FAA through the process to get the Max into the air and possibly during subsequent pilot training. Back in October, Boeing turned over messages in which a former senior test pilot, Mark Forkner, told a co-worker in 2016 that the MCAS flight-control system that would later be implicated in two deadly crashes was “egregious” and “running rampant” when he tested it in a flight simulator.

“So I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly),” wrote Forkner, then Boeing’s chief technical pilot for the 737.

The latest batch of internal Boeing documents was provided to the FAA and Congress last month.

An FAA spokesman said the agency found no new safety risks that have not already been identified as part of the FAA’s review of changes that Boeing is making to the plane. The spokesman, Lynn Lunsford, said the simulator mentioned in the documents has been checked three times in the last six months.

”Any potential safety deficiencies identified in the documents have been addressed,” he said in a statement.

The grounding of the Max will cost the company billions in compensation to families of passengers killed in the crashes and to airlines that canceled thousands of flights. Last month, the company decided to suspend production of the plane in mid-January, a decision that is rippling out through its vast network of suppliers.

The CEO was ousted after alienating regulators, Boeing’s airline customers and the crash victims’ families with his handling of the disaster and his overly optimistic predictions for when the plane might fly again.

___

Krisher reported from Detroit.

U.S. Blames Iran for Ukrainian Jetliner Downing, Pledges Probe

WASHINGTON — The U.S. promised “appropriate action” Friday in response to its assessment that an Iranian missile was responsible for downing a Ukrainian jetliner that crashed outside Tehran, as the Iranian government denied playing a role in the killing of all 176 people on board.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo became the highest-level U.S. official to directly pin the blame on Iran, after Canadian, Australian and British leaders announced similar intelligence conclusions Thursday. “We do believe it is likely that that plane was shot down by an Iranian missile,” he said.

Pompeo said an investigation would continue into the incident and that once it was complete he was “confident that we and the world will take appropriate action as a response.” Leaders said the plane appeared to have been unintentionally hit by a surface-to-air missile.

Related Articles


[image error]







Ukrainian Airplane Crashes Near Iran's Capital, Killing 176



by








[image error]







House Democrats Send Loud 'No War With Iran' Message to Trump



by








[image error]







The U.S. Alone Is to Blame for a War With Iran



by Maj. Danny Sjursen

Earlier Friday, Iran denied Western allegations that one of its own missiles downed the jetliner that crashed early Wednesday outside Tehran, hours after Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq to avenge the killing of its top general in an American airstrike last week.

“What is obvious for us, and what we can say with certainty, is that no missile hit the plane,” Ali Abedzadeh, head of Iran’s national aviation department, told a press conference.

“If they are really sure, they should come and show their findings to the world” in accordance with international standards, he added.

Hassan Rezaeifar, the head of the Iranian investigation team, said recovering data from the black box flight recorders could take more than a month and that the entire investigation could stretch into next year. He also said Iran may request help from international experts if it is not able to extract the flight recordings.

The ballistic missile attack on the bases in Iraq caused no casualties, raising hopes that the standoff over the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani would end relatively peacefully, though Iran has sent mixed signals over whether its retaliation is complete.

If the U.S. or Canada were to present incontrovertible evidence that the plane was shot down by Iran, even if unintentionally, it could have a dramatic impact on public opinion in Iran.

The Iranian public had rallied around the leadership after the killing of Soleimani last Friday, with hundreds of thousands joining the general’s funeral processions in several cities, in an unprecedented display of grief and unity.

But sentiments in Iran are still raw over the government’s crackdown on large-scale protests late last year sparked by an economic crisis exacerbated by U.S. sanctions. Several hundred protesters were reported to have been killed in the clampdown.

Those fissures could quickly break open again if Iranian authorities are seen to be responsible for the deaths of 176 people, mainly Iranians or dual Iranian-Canadian citizens. Iran still points to the accidental downing of an Iranian passenger jet by U.S. forces in 1988 — which killed all 290 people aboard — as proof of American hostility.

U.S., Canadian and British officials said Thursday it is “highly likely” that Iran shot down the Boeing 737, which crashed near Tehran early Wednesday. U.S. officials said the jetliner might have been mistakenly identified as a threat.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose country lost at least 63 citizens in the downing, said “we have intelligence from multiple sources including our allies and our own intelligence.”

“The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile,” he said.

The U.S. officials did not say what intelligence they had that pointed to an Iranian missile, believed to be fired by Russian Tor system, known to NATO as the SA-15. But they acknowledged the existence of satellites and other sensors in the region, as well as the likelihood of communication interceptions and other similar intelligence.

Western countries may hesitate to share information on such a strike because it comes from highly classified sources.

Videos verified by The Associated Press appear to show the final seconds of the the ill-fated airliner, which had just taken off from Iran early Wednesday.

In one video, a fast-moving light can be seen through the trees as someone films from the ground. The light appears to be the burning plane, which plummets to the earth as a huge fireball illuminates the landscape.

Someone off-camera says in Farsi: “The plane has caught fire. … In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful. God, please help us. Call the fire department!”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said “the missile theory is not ruled out, but it has not been confirmed yet.”

In a Facebook post, he reiterated his call “on all international partners” — the U.S., Britain and Canada in particular — to share data and evidence relevant to the crash. He also announced plans to discuss the investigation with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later on Friday.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko tweeted that he and the president met with U.S. Embassy officials Friday and obtained “important data” about the crash. The minister didn’t specify what kind of data it was, but said it would be “processed by our specialists.”

In an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham that aired late Thursday, Pompeo said commercial airliners need to know if it is safe to fly into and out of Tehran.

“If the international community needs to shut down that airport, so be it,” he said. “We need to get to the bottom of this very, very quickly.”

Germany’s Lufthansa airline said it and subsidiaries are canceling flights to and from Tehran for the next 10 days as a precautionary measure, citing the “unclear security situation for the airspace around Tehran airport.” Other airlines have been making changes to avoid Iranian airspace.

Britain’s Foreign Office has advised against all travel to Iran, and against all air travel to, from or within the country.

Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi as saying Iran “has invited both Ukraine and the Boeing company to participate in the investigations.” He later said a 10-member Canadian delegation was heading to Iran to assist victims’ families.

Iran had initially said it would not allow Boeing to take part in the probe, going against prevailing international norms on crash investigations. It later invited the U.S. accident-investigating agency to take part in the investigation.

The National Transportation Safety Board said late Thursday that it would “evaluate its level of participation,” but its role could be limited by U.S. sanctions on Iran. U.S. officials have also expressed concern about sending employees to Iran because of the heightened tensions.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Friday that his department would grant licenses to allow global investigators to travel to Iran and participate in the investigation.

Under rules set by a United Nations aviation organization, the NTSB is entitled to participate because the crash involved a Boeing 737-800 jet that was designed and built in the U.S.

The French air accident investigation agency, known by the French acronym BEA, is also taking part in the probe. The plane’s engine was designed by CFM International, a joint company between French group Safran and U.S. group GE Aviation.

A preliminary Iranian investigative report released Thursday said that the airliner pilots never made a radio call for help and that the burning plane was trying to turn back for the airport when it went down.

The Iranian report suggested that a sudden emergency struck the Boeing 737, operated by Ukrainian International Airlines, just minutes after taking off from Imam Khomeini International Airport early Wednesday.

Those findings are not inconsistent with the effect of a surface-to-air missile. Such missiles are designed to explode near aircraft, shredding them with shrapnel. There is no need to score a direct hit, and a stricken plane may look like it is turning back when in fact it is disintegrating.

Abedzadeh, the senior aviation official, said authorities have recovered two black box flight recorders, saying they are “damaged” but readable. They may shed further light on what caused the crash.

___

Krauss reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates and Karimi reported from Tehran. Associated Press writers Daria Litvinova in Moscow, Yuras Karmanau in Minsk, Belarus, Nadia Ahmed in London and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed.

Did Tucker Carlson Help Calm Trump on Iran?

NEW YORK — Here’s a point to ponder: To what extent is Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson responsible for President Donald Trump stepping away from a potential war with Iran?

From his prime-time perch on the top-rated cable network, Carlson has advocated restraint in dealing with Iran, and resisted cheerleading the Trump-ordered drone killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani.

Shortly after the story of Iran’s counter-attack broke on Tuesday, Carlson hosted a show that mixed coverage of the story as details became known, emphasizing early reports of a lack of American casualties, and interviews with experts on the Middle East. Some of those guests pointed out the dangers of spiraling escalation.

“I continue to believe the president doesn’t want a full-blown war,” Carlson said. “Some around him might, but I think most sober people don’t want that.”

Trump, who announced his decision not to retaliate against Iran’s missile strikes in a nationally televised address 14 hours later, told some close to him that he watched Carlson’s show, according to BuzzFeed News. He told confidants in recent days that Carlson’s strong advocacy not to escalate the situation in Iran played a role in his decision-making, two White House officials and Republicans close to the West Wing told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Trump keeps a close eye on how his base responds to policy decisions, feeling their beliefs are often reflected and influenced by Fox News hosts. His Twitter feed reflects how he keeps close tabs on Fox, and he tweeted a link to a Carlson piece on Monday night.

The president often consults with Fox News hosts off-air, including Carlson. Carlson was seen among the president’s entourage this past summer when he visited the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea. He conducted an interview with Trump that was later shown on Fox.

Following Trump’s announcement on Wednesday, Carlson said that “we’re back from the brink.” He played a clip of the president’s speech where he said that a pause in hostilities between Iran and the United States was a very good thing for the world.

“That’s a big claim but in this case it is not an overstatement,” Carlson said.

His show moved on to a new cause, in this case encouraging the U.S. to leave neighboring Iraq.

He was calm on Tuesday’s show, at a time there was breathless coverage elsewhere of the missile attack. A succession of guests threw cold water on the idea of further retaliation. Gil Barndollar of Defense Priorities suggested Americans were kidding themselves if they expected to incite a regime-change movement in Iran. With Kelley Vlahos, executive editor of The American Conservative magazine, they speculated on the role of Democrats and Trump staffers who didn’t have the president’s best interests in mind in advocating war with Iran. Trump was reminded that he was elected on a pledge to get Americans out of foreign entanglements.

A frequent Carlson guest, retired Army Col. Douglas MacGregor, said a war without public support could not succeed. He said further destabilization in the Middle East would have disastrous effects.

“If you destroy Iran, you will get ISIS times one hundred,” he said.

Fox News anchor Bret Baier came on Carlson’s show to suggest that the moment was Trump’s biggest test as a leader.

Carlson’s show contrasted with a more bellicose approach by the Fox personality who followed him on the air, Sean Hannity. Hannity, a more loyal Trump supporter, backed the attack that killed Soleimani. While Hannity didn’t advocate all-out war with Iran, he suggested that nation was about to be hit with the full force of the American military. “You don’t get to do what they did tonight,” Hannity said on Tuesday’s show.

A.J. Bauer, a New York University professor who is an expert on conservative media, said he could not judge what kind of impact Carlson’s program had on Trump’s decision. He noted that it was consistent with other times where Trump had resisted more extensive foreign entanglements.

Instead, Bauer found the different opinions expressed by Hannity and Carlson to exemplify how Fox must step carefully with an audience that reflects conflicting strains within the conservative movement, between a hawkish military approach and an “America first” attitude that resists overseas adventurism.

___

Associated Press White House correspondent Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.

House Democrats Send Loud ‘No War With Iran’ Message to Trump

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a non-binding War Powers Resolution that would prohibit President Donald Trump from taking further military action against Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

The resolution—officially House Concurrent Resolution 83—was passed 224-194, largely along party lines with just three Republicans and one Independent joining with Democrats in favor of the measure. While eight Democrats voted against the resolution, four others did not vote. Read the full roll call here.

“Today, the House exercised our constitutional duty,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) following the vote. “We reminded the occupant of the White House that the power to declare war resides with Congress.  Our message is loud and clear: #NoWarWithIran.”

Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), lead sponsor of the resolution, said it should serve to “make clear that if the president wants to take us to war, he must get authorization from Congress.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a statement, said that even as the resolution is non-binding—and must now pass the U.S. Senate—it still has “real teeth” because it serves as an official statement of the U.S. Congress.

Even as Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said earlier in the day the measure “has as much force of law as a New Year’s resolution,” Pelosi countered by saying the power vested in the resolution could not be “diminished by having the president veto it or not.”

In a statement, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, celebrated the resolution’s approval in the House and said, “The People do not want an endless war with Iran, they want diplomacy and de-escalation.”

Noting that the resolution may not ultimately prevent Trump from taking further belligerent actions, Pocan said more must be done to curb the worst instincts of the president and those Republicans backing his hawkish and reckless foreign policy.

Now, Pocan added, members of Congress should move to pass both legislation by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq and a bill by Rep. Ro Khanna—and co-sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Senate—that would prohibit any funding for a military attack on Iran.

“Congress has been silent for too long,” Pocan said. “It’s time we reclaim our Constitutional authority over military action from presidents intent on fight forever wars.”

Lee echoed Pocan in her post-vote remarks.

“The American people do not want another unnecessary war of choice in the Middle East, and this critical resolution helps put a check on the Trump Administration’s reckless and irrational military actions against Iran,” Lee said.

“Today we begin to reassert our constitutional duty, but we must go further to restore our duty in matters of war and peace,” she continued. “It’s critical that Congress continues this important work and take up my bill, H.R. 2456, to repeal the 2002 AUMF and Congressman Khanna’s bill to prohibit any funds for a war with Iran absent an explicit authorization. My 2002 AUMF amendment was included with bipartisan support in the House-passed FY2020 NDAA, but stripped by Senate Republicans from the final bill.”

Ahead of the vote, Khanna explained why it was so vital for lawmakers to do exactly that:

Generations from now, the world is going to look back at our government and wonder why we were so obsessed with military interventions across the globe. pic.twitter.com/9pzCluHZCd

— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) January 9, 2020

Passage in the House came as Americans took to the streets nationwide to participate in ‘No War With Iran’ demonstrations organized by progressive advocacy and anti-war groups who have demanded that Trump’s warmongering be put to an immediate halt.

CODEPINK is answering the nationwide call to mobilize for #PeaceWithIran in cities all across the U.S. TODAY.

Celebrate your constitutional right to assemble by taking to the streets with us! Join us at one of the 30+ events to say #NoWarWithIran >>> https://t.co/oXCNTDdcI7 pic.twitter.com/qOzddOVo9l

— CODEPINK (@codepink) January 9, 2020

Ahead of the marches this week, the advocacy group Indivisible, one of the coalition members, said it will be people in the streets and it will be voters in 2020 who remember where their lawmakers stood on the issue of war and peace.

“The anti-war majority of Americans will be paying close attention to what their members of Congress do,” the group declared, “not what they say.”

A New American Rebellion Has Been Sparked

The awful truth about the corporate and governmental power elites in our democratic society is that they really don’t like democracy at all. They prefer to rule by buying lawmakers, hiring lobbyists, running Orwellian PR campaigns, and relying on authoritarian police power to control people.

They pay lip service to our right to protest, but they mean we should send polite emails, letters, and phone calls to our congress critters — about as effective as screaming “stop it” at a category 5 hurricane. But Americans are innately rebellious, so ultimately they push back against the stupidity and avarice of elites.

Witness the 31 members of Greenpeace who, last fall, dared to exercise their First Amendment rights to assemble and speak out forcefully against the fossil fuel industry’s destruction of humanity’s living environment.

To be heard, these stalwarts amplified their voice with a creative direct-action protest: They teamed up to dangle 11 of their members from a massive 440-foot-high bridge spanning the Houston Ship Channel, the largest petrochemical waterway in the U.S.

The idea was to momentarily stop the 700,000 barrels of climate-altering oil that Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and others ship out under this one bridge every day, thus dramatizing the destructive scale of fossil fuel use. It worked. For some 18 hours, the activists stayed suspended and no tankers moved through the channel.

But the larger political message was that if just 11 inveterate democracy protesters can stall the Big Oil colossus, the great majority of people who want to stop climate destruction for good can do it by rising up in force. For posing that threat, the climbers face felony charges — but they’re undeterred.

As one of the bridge climbers put it: “I want to show people that we have power to pressure our politicians and change our system. We know there’s a better world out there, but we have to demand it.”

Female Journalists Still Bear the Brunt of Cyberattacks

About 10 years ago, I was forced to contend with a cyberstalker. He had written an online novel and posted excerpts on his blog that included threats to rape me and burn my house down. He hoped to kill not only me but my two young children. I still remember the shock I felt as I read his words. My fingers felt as if they had swollen to the size of sausages; I could hardly dial for help.

But I was one of the lucky ones. My cyberstalker was arrested, questioned and finally convicted. Not only did he do jail time, he was put under a restraining order forbidding him from contacting me or visiting my address.

Other women in the public sphere who have experienced cyberstalking have not been so fortunate.

Related Articles


[image error]







Trump Is Taking His War on Women Worldwide



by Ilana Novick








[image error]







In Kurdistan, Women Are Coming Into Their Own



by Julie Bindel

Maria Ressa, co-founder of Rappler, an online news agency in the Philippines, has lost count of the number of death and rape threats she has received since 2016, when her organization published an exposé revealing how supporters of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte spread social media propaganda to drown out opposition. After Duterte denounced Rappler, the social media campaign machine that had helped him get elected set Ressa in its sights. She has been arrested several times since, and been the subject of such hashtag campaigns as #BringhertotheSenate and #ArrestMariaRessa. She and other reporters have been called leeches, accused of treason and labeled an enemy of the people, and female journalists have been threatened with rape and death. At one point, Ressa was threatened 90 times in one hour.

Undaunted, she has continued her reporting. She has engaged extra security for her team, as well as counseling, and she is now represented by Amal Clooney and Caoilfhionn Gallagher, barristers at Doughty Street Chambers, a London law firm and Britain’s media freedom envoy.

“Maria Ressa is a courageous journalist who is being persecuted for reporting the news and standing up to human rights abuses. We will pursue all available legal remedies to vindicate her rights and defend press freedom and the rule of law in the Philippines,” Clooney said in a press statement.

Ressa’s case isn’t unusual. The need to engage online and use social media to amplify work means that reporters can be tracked and targeted relatively easily, at least online.

A 2015 report on the security of journalists, conducted by the International News Safety Institute, revealed a leap in news organizations and individual journalists being targeted over the last 10 years. Women face grossly sexualized threats online, including rape, graphic sexual imagery and other forms of violence. Evidence suggests that women of color, women of faith (Muslims and Jews in particular) and disabled women are even more likely to be attacked.

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) recently published a report on the effect of such threats on media freedom. It also explored how to counter them, which isn’t easy. The anonymity of internet users and the advent of trolling is one of the most insidious forms of the suppression of free speech online. But women with public voices need to stay online, both to maintain job security and because of the nature of their work. As social media has evolved and some platforms have become peer-to-peer broadcasters, consumers have found it easier to publish themselves and to access public figures such as journalists.

Becky Gardiner, who edited the OSCE report, as well as a report on online misogyny for The Guardian, says there is no single solution to the problem. “Lawyers will get fixated on the law, others argue that the law is good enough but it is difficult to prosecute, others [say] that we need to train the judiciary better. I think it’s also a cultural problem.”

Gardiner, who lectures on journalism at Goldsmiths, the University of London college, notes that her Guardian study demonstrated that minority ethnic journalists are targeted in particular: “Nonwhite people, Muslims and Jews get abused as well, and if you are a combination, that’s worse; probably the worst is to be a female Muslim. People who write about the experience of being refugees are also likely to get abuse online. The research I did for The Guardian was only designed to look at the abuse women got, but what rose to the top of the pile of ‘most abused’ was that all were nonwhite.”

The OSCE report backs up a 2013 survey conducted by the International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF), which documented attacks against female journalists. The report, titled “Violence and Harassment Against Women in the News Media,” provided a chilling international picture of the threats and risks faced by female reporters and laid out how the current landscape affects work capability. More recent research by the IWMF, in partnership with the organization TrollBusters, found that nearly two-thirds of female journalists polled had experienced online harassment.

In the 2013 survey, almost two‑thirds of the 149 female journalists polled experienced intimidation, threats or abuse related to their work. A quarter of the threats, including those to family and friends, took place in the digital sphere. The threats differed from those leveled at men, the majority of which focused on political and other differences of opinion.

Over a quarter of the women said the threats came from government, 15% from the police and 12% from lobbyists, story subjects and others. Forty-five percent were unable to identify the source of the threats.

But whomever the source, the object of such harassment is to silence women with public voices.

British Paralympian and parliamentarian Tanni Grey-Thompson, a wheelchair user, feels she is doubly targeted. She recently experienced what she calls a “sizeable pile-on by men” when she pushed back against being referred to in a professional meeting as a “girl.” She says male commenters accused her of lying, of making a fuss and being an “idiot.” It wasn’t an isolated occurrence. “I’ve received nasty comments based on me being a wheelchair user, but also because I’m female,” she says. “I think women … face enormous abuse on social media platforms, far more than many men face for saying the same thing. I think it is especially pertinent if women are discussing feminist issues. We are told to shut up, go back to the kitchen and wear dresses.

“This is at the lesser end; it becomes far worse,” she continues. Although she hasn’t experienced being threatened with rape, she notes that it can take a long time for internet providers to remove such threats. “Pictures sexualizing children seem to be in the same category,” she says. “A woman can ask a simple question or comment [and] they are reported and removed. It feels quite misogynistic.”

In the most recent OSCE report, the Dart Centre, which promotes ethical reporting on conflicts and tragedy, noted that differentiating between various forms of harassment may help explain the phenomenon. As the IWMF research showed, online abusers of journalists can have different motives. Some seek to prevent a journalist from pursuing a specific story, humiliate her for past reporting, or prevent her or a news organization from covering an entire beat. According to the Dart Centre, while online intimidation of female journalists may seem gender-based, the motives are “typically strategic self‑interest and/or political.” This aligns with what Ressa experienced—she suspects that the online abuse of her and her staff is being carried out by pro-Duterte factions in order to smear her name and champion his agenda. But in 2016, when Ressa asked Duterte whether he was aware of the vicious army of trolls who promote him, “He just said, ‘You know that I’m not online.’”

The abuse of female journalists is an international problem. During the 2019 lab on Online Harassment of Women Journalists, convened in Ethiopia by international partners including UNESCO and the World Wide Web Foundation, African women in media organizations detailed how they were targeted by online misogyny when they reported on a range of political issues, especially those dealing with women’s rights and gender-based violence. This is also true in countries where press freedom is prized.

Although the number of threats male and female journalists receive are similar, they are very different in nature. The Finnish Union of Journalists, which surveyed journalists in 2016, found that 14% of women polled reported being threatened with sexual violence. None of the male journalists polled reported such threats, although 5% of both men and women polled said that they had received death threats.

Organizations like IWMF are working to protect female journalists. IWMF has provided seed money for the nongovernmental organization TrollBusters,  established by Michelle Ferrier in 2015, years after her own case of racist harassment, when she realized that there had been little change in the social media culture. She had been a respected African American columnist for the Daytona Beach News-Journal in Florida. The hate mail started coming in 2005, two years after she began writing. “Before this world ends, there will be a race war,” one letter said. Another asked, “Have you played the race card Michelle this week?” Others were so insulting and threatening that Ferrier began to fear. She learned to how shoot a gun and sought police protection. Finally, she left her job and became a journalism professor.

TrollBusters works with digital partners to assemble evidence about how female journalists are threatened and harassed online, and suggests ways to counter it.

Ferrier says her organization is a “just-in-time rescue service for women journalists. We provide a hedge of protection around women so they can persist online and tell the story, and not become the story.”

According to Gardiner, who edited the OCSE report and was a former comment editor at The Guardian, “The approach of building networks is good. On The Guardian, before publishing certain pieces, we used to tip off two or three people beforehand and agree on a launch time. If you get in early [to the online comments] and set a positive narrative, then that is dominant and the writer doesn’t care so much if people also say horrible things in the thread.”

Business writer Heidi N. Moore affirms that when women tweet about politics and other fraught issues, unwelcome attention can result. “Political bot networks target women who tweet about politics in order to silence them,” she notes in a thread on Twitter. It is “a renewed and concerted effort to keep women out of digital political spaces.” She adds that online violence “is as real as a punch.”

Moore is right: Online trauma manifests itself in the body. I know that firsthand. I began researching misogynistic cyberstalking in 2014 and came across case after case in which a woman’s health had suffered in the aftermath of online hate, with studies showing that many of us exhibited signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Gardiner believes that media organizations can better manage the online world. “The web opened up this idea that everyone should have their say … [but] media organizations were unprepared for the explosion of people wanting to do it. Media companies did it for commercial reasons and wanted to show engagement and clicks, but didn’t do anything to listen to the responses. That made people angry. Those people who already felt that women have too much power directed that anger at women. And when their comment was ignored or deleted, that reinforced their misogyny.”

Danielle Citron, a Boston University law professor and author of “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace,” said in an email interview that she is ambivalent about the progress made since her book was published. “On the one hand, the threat seems to be growing,” she says. “Since the 2016 election, we have seen bigoted harassment rise, in part because even U.S. leaders have encouraged and normalized bigoted attacks on individuals and groups and because the smaller groups I watched (men’s rights folks on 4chan/8chan) have seemingly grown in number. On the other [hand], there is greater awareness … from dominant platforms that far more needs to be done.”

Citron notes that In 2014, only two or three states in the U.S. had laws against invasions of sexual privacy. Now, she says, 43 states and the District of Columbia criminalize nonconsensual porn and other invasions of sexual privacy. She also calls attention to the SHIELD Act proposed by California Rep. Jackie Speier, which seeks to address so-called “revenge porn.”

For months after my experience with cyberstalking, I was too shaken to venture online. My case had been picked up by the media, and I felt revictimized rather than supported by the coverage. Eleven years later, I’ve pretty much moved on. But in the back of my mind, every time I tweet, I am aware that, as a woman online, I have to be wary of being too controversial, lest I face more rape and death threats.

Yet for journalists, who are committed to freedom of expression, advocating for tough regulation on cyberabuse that could be seen as censorship is a tough thing to do. In the United Kingdom, the Law Commission, a quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organization that advises government on law reform, is weighing whether more needs to be done to protect women and minority groups from online abuse. Freedom of speech organizations are rightly wary about introducing laws that could be misused by vexatious litigants, creating a chilling environment.

Still, when half of the world’s population feels that it cannot take part freely in online spaces without being intimidated or even silenced, fresh thinking is needed to design programs that increase and protect women’s participation online.