Sunday, April 2, 2017

Why Republicans Can’t Find the Big Voter Fraud Conspiracy

If the last federal investigation is any guide, the answer is simple. It probably doesn¹t exist.

Go to Original
By Lisa rab



In the fall of 2002, just over a year after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft summoned a group of federal prosecutors to Washington. He had a new mission he wanted them to focus on: voter fraud. “Votes have been bought, voters intimidated and ballot boxes stuffed,” he told the attendees of the Justice Department’s inaugural Voting Integrity Symposium. “Voters have been duped into signing absentee ballots believing they were applications for public relief. And the residents of cemeteries have infamously shown up at the polls on Election Day.”

This might seem an unusually dark portrait of America’s electoral system, coming from the nation’s top prosecutor. But Ashcroft spoke from personal experience. In 2000, as a U.S. senator from Missouri, he lost his reelection bid to a dead man. His opponent, Democratic Governor Mel Carnahan, died in a plane crash three weeks before Election Day. It was too late to remove the governor’s name from the ballot, so his wife, Jean, announced she would serve his term. Mel Carnahan won by 49,000 votes. 

Ashcroft and his fellow Missouri Republicans were outraged. Skeptical that voters might simply have preferred any Carnahan to him, Ashcroft and other Republicans accused Democrats in St. Louis of trying to steal the election by keeping the polls open later than usual. They dubbed it a “major criminal enterprise.” That December, George W. Bush nominated the out-of-work Ashcroft to be his first attorney general.

Ashcroft didn’t mention any of this in his speech, but the subtext was hard to ignore. “There is nothing funny about winning an election with stolen votes,” he said. “All of us pay the price for voting fraud.” To combat this, he declared, the Justice Department had launched a new “voting access and integrity initiative.” This was not the kind of announcement that was grabbing headlines at the time. Much of the country’s attention was focused on the mounting discussion of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. But voter fraud was a preoccupation of conservatives, who had nursed a variety of conspiracy theories stemming from the disputed 2000 election that put Bush in office.

In the closest presidential race in a century, Bush had eked out just 271 electoral votes. His opponent, Al Gore, had taken the popular vote by 540,000 ballots. Many Republicans believed the popular vote had been stolen and voter fraud was to blame. They talked of fraudulent absentee ballots and ex-felons voting illegally in Florida. Scott Jennings, who worked with Karl Rove as the White House associate director of political affairs, told investigators from the Office of the Inspector General that “many Republicans believed that fraudulent registration by Democratic Party voters in New Mexico was a widespread problem and that it had cost President Bush the state in the 2000 presidential election.” (Gore won New Mexico by 366 votes.) Later, when Bush ran for reelection in 2004, Rove himself went on Fox News and told Sean Hannity he was concerned about voter fraud in Ohio and other battleground states. “There are multiple registrations on the rolls,” Rove said. “There are felons who are ineligible to vote who are registered on the rolls.”

Democrats, for their part, complained that voter fraud wasn’t the crime that needed investigating. It was voter suppression, like the purge of voter rolls in Florida, that they said had disproportionately targeted African-American voters. But Democrats weren’t in power, so they didn’t get to decide what the Justice Department would spend its time on.

Ashcroft commissioned the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys to make voting fraud a priority of their offices. Over the next four years, those prosecutors launched more than 300 investigations. But in the end, the government had little to show for it. On July 26, 2006, the day before Bush signed a renewal of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department released a fact sheet summarizing the Voting Integrity Initiative’s accomplishments. Federal prosecutors had charged 119 people with election crimes and convicted just 86. The worst examples were vote-buying schemes in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia that helped keep local politicians in power. Cases that had fixated GOP officials—like the “major criminal enterprise” in St. Louis—were not substantiated. Instead, most of the cases involved individuals who had cast a single ballot that they shouldn’t have, or hadn’t even voted at all but simply had registered improperly. Some of them went to prison. At least one person was deported. The targets that ended up getting the most attention weren’t the alleged fraudsters but the handful of U.S. attorneys who didn’t push hard enough for prosecutions and were forced to resign.

“It’s remarkable that all of the U.S. attorneys had a mandate and were given adequate resources to raise this to the top of the pile,” says David Becker, who was a trial attorney in the voting section of the Justice Department until 2005 and is now executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. “They all agree we found a handful of cases … and that was it.”

But that wasn’t it. Not by a long shot. Eleven years after the books were closed on Ashcroft’s probe, another voter fraud investigation is gearing up. Once again, it is being driven by a Republican president who is convinced that he was robbed of the popular vote by a massive conspiracy, larger perhaps than even Bush’s administration had contemplated. In late November, Donald Trump tweeted: “I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” In January, he told congressional leaders that 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally and cost him the popular vote. He didn’t stop there. Trump promised to form a commission, headed by Vice President Mike Pence, to investigate. In a March 22 interview with Time magazine, Trump said, “I think I will be proved right” about the 3 million illegal votes. He elaborated: “When I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong, in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly, and/or illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people. In fact I’m forming a committee on it.”

Pence has yet to launch his version of what Ashcroft attempted in 2002, and the very fact that the inquiry is not being run out of the Justice Department indicates that it might proceed very differently. But it wouldn’t be a waste of time for the former Indiana governor (who himself was accused of voter suppression in October) to spend some time studying what happened the last time a Republican administration went looking for a national web of illegal activity at the ballot box. If anything, the results of Pence’s commission might be even less spectacular than before. Elections experts say that’s because voter rolls are cleaner now than they were then, voting systems have been updated in many jurisdictions and stricter voter ID laws are in force. Yet, despite skepticism from high-ranking Republicans in Congress, some conservatives who were involved in the original investigation and who are pushing hardest for the new inquiry insist that the failure to prove widespread fraud is not evidence it doesn’t exist, only that the pursuit wasn’t aggressive enough. It’s a fixation that makes voting experts shake their heads.

“This has been done over and over again,” Becker says. “You don’t waste taxpayer resources without some evidence that an investigation is worthwhile. That’s called a fishing expedition.”

But that wasn’t it. Not by a long shot. Eleven years after the books were closed on Ashcroft’s probe, another voter fraud investigation is gearing up. Once again, it is being driven by a Republican president who is convinced that he was robbed of the popular vote by a massive conspiracy, larger perhaps than even Bush’s administration had contemplated. In late November, Donald Trump tweeted: “I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” In January, he told congressional leaders that 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally and cost him the popular vote. He didn’t stop there. Trump promised to form a commission, headed by Vice President Mike Pence, to investigate. In a March 22 interview with Time magazine, Trump said, “I think I will be proved right” about the 3 million illegal votes. He elaborated: “When I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong, in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly, and/or illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people. In fact I’m forming a committee on it.”

Pence has yet to launch his version of what Ashcroft attempted in 2002, and the very fact that the inquiry is not being run out of the Justice Department indicates that it might proceed very differently. But it wouldn’t be a waste of time for the former Indiana governor (who himself was accused of voter suppression in October) to spend some time studying what happened the last time a Republican administration went looking for a national web of illegal activity at the ballot box. If anything, the results of Pence’s commission might be even less spectacular than before. Elections experts say that’s because voter rolls are cleaner now than they were then, voting systems have been updated in many jurisdictions and stricter voter ID laws are in force. Yet, despite skepticism from high-ranking Republicans in Congress, some conservatives who were involved in the original investigation and who are pushing hardest for the new inquiry insist that the failure to prove widespread fraud is not evidence it doesn’t exist, only that the pursuit wasn’t aggressive enough. It’s a fixation that makes voting experts shake their heads.

“This has been done over and over again,” Becker says. “You don’t waste taxpayer resources without some evidence that an investigation is worthwhile. That’s called a fishing expedition.”

                                                        ***
One week before Ashcroft’s 2002 speech, the Justice Department sent an email to all 93 U.S. attorneys announcing the Voting Access and Integrity Initiative and urging them to work with local election officials to prosecute voter fraud. David Iglesias didn’t pay much attention to the first note. The lifelong Republican was a respected former Navy judge advocate; he was one of the defense attorneys in the court-martial case that inspired A Few Good Men. He had been the U.S. attorney in New Mexico for a year and had not encountered any credible allegations of election crimes, so he didn’t see a need to push it to the top of his office’s list.

But by the fall of 2004, as George W. Bush campaigned for reelection, the situation on the ground had changed. The Democratic county clerk in Albuquerque said she received about 3,000 voter registration forms that were inaccurate or incomplete. A group of New Mexico Republicans, led by a sheriff who also happened to be chair of the local Bush-Cheney reelection campaign committee, looked at the forms and held a news conference accusing groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now of submitting thousands of questionable forms. ACORN had been the subject of voter-fraud accusations in other states and was a favorite punching bag for conservatives. Rove, speaking to Hannity that fall, accused the group of collecting absentee ballots from Pennsylvania prisoners. “Here were a bunch of workers for a very highly partisan group carrying a bunch of prisoner ballots out of the prison illegally and attempting to vote them,” Rove said on Fox News in November 2004. (No one was able to determine what happened to those ballots, so no one was punished.)

New Mexico Republicans were clamoring for Iglesias to press charges. The examples they cited at the news conference seemed largely underwhelming—a woman who signed two registration forms with slightly different signatures, and a husband who signed his wife’s name on a registration form with her consent. But the sheriff had referred one case to Iglesias that seemed to have merit.

In the summer of 2004, a 13-year-old boy from Albuquerque received a voter registration card in the mail. His father reported it to the sheriff, who traced it to a forged application form. The ACORN worker who allegedly filled out the form had been paid to register people to vote—the more registration cards she collected, the more money she would earn. She had been fired three months earlier, but Republican leaders demanded Iglesias investigate. He didn’t balk. “I was a true believer,” he says now. “I genuinely believed, based on the coverage of the local media, that there were prosecutable cases.”

In September 2004, he convened a bipartisan task force, including the New Mexico secretary of state and the FBI, to investigate election fraud. He held a news conference and announced a toll-free number for people to phone in tips. Over the next year, the task force received more than 100 complaints—none of which were what you would call federal crimes. “Things like stealing yard signs, getting voter registration forms that you didn’t ask for,” Iglesias recalls.

By the fall of 2005, the case of the ACORN worker and the 13-year-old was the only one that appeared to have any promise at all. Iglesias discussed the evidence with the FBI and ran it by the voter fraud expert in the Justice Department’s Washington office. Iglesias knew that to win in federal court, he would have to prove the ACORN worker had intended to influence the outcome of an election. But the evidence indicated she was just doing it for the money. “I knew my ethical obligation was to not file weak cases,” he says. He declined to press charges.

But that was not the end of it. Over the next six months, Iglesias heard rumblings that the local Republican Party had lost confidence in him. 

Bush won New Mexico in 2004, but Republicans thought his margin of victory would have been larger if Iglesias had prosecuted voter fraud. Allen Weh, chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, emailed Rove, Rove's White House associate Jennings, and others in the administration to complain in August 2005. “David Iglesias has failed miserably in his duty to prosecute voter fraud,” Weh wrote. “To be perfectly candid, he was ‘missing in action’ during the last election, just as he was in the 2002 election cycle. I am advised his term expires, or is renewed, in October. It is respectfully requested that strong consideration be given to replacing him at this point.” But Iglesias kept his job, and he was even invited to speak at the Justice Department’s Voting Integrity Symposium that year.

As New Mexico Republicans complained behind Iglesias’ back, their counterparts in Washington state were busy pressuring U.S. Attorney John McKay to investigate that state’s highly contested 2004 governor’s race. After three recounts, Democrat Christine Gregoire beat Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes. Newspapers called it the closest gubernatorial race in American history. Rossi sued to have the results overturned, alleging that hundreds of felons had voted illegally and there were mistakes in the way ballots were counted. But the Republicans never discovered which candidate the felons voted for, so Superior Court Judge John Bridges could not determine whether they swayed the outcome of the election. He also found no evidence of voter fraud.

Neither could McKay. “I understood, of course, that with a margin of 129 votes, there are sure to be certain irregularities that will appear,” McKay says in the book Iglesias later wrote, In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration. “But was there a conspiracy to steal the election? Absolutely not.”

Meanwhile, back in Washington, D.C., longtime Justice Department lawyers watched the administration’s priorities shift from protecting civil rights to weeding out fraud. Leading the charge was Hans von Spakovsky, who was appointed in 2003 to oversee the voting section of the Civil Rights Division.

Von Spakovsky was a lawyer and popular figure in conservative circles who had long advocated for stricter voting laws. In 1997, he wrote an article for the Georgia Public Policy Foundation outlining ways to kick felons and dead people off voter lists. He thought people who failed to “vote at least once in a presidential cycle” should be purged from a state’s voter rolls unless they informed election officials that they had moved. He also wanted everyone to show a birth certificate or naturalization papers when they registered. Von Spakovsky eventually won a seat on the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections in Georgia, served as chairman of the Fulton County Republican Party, and become a volunteer observer for Bush during the 2000 Florida recount. In 2001, writing as a consultant, he said Congress should outlaw mail-in voter registration and states should require photo IDs at the polls. That year, he applied for a job in the Justice Department and helped draft the Help America Vote Act. 

The new law, passed in 2002, included a rule von Spakovsky had long pushed for—requiring people who registered by mail to provide some form of identification before they could vote. Democrats and civil rights group argued such ID requirements would make it harder for minorities and low-income people to cast ballots—meaning the bill would achieve the exact opposite of its title. The next year, von Spakovsky was promoted to oversee the DOJ’s voting section.

Attorneys in that section were responsible for protecting voting rights. This meant, among other things, enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (otherwise known as the motor-voter law), reviewing redistricting plans and making sure local election laws didn’t discriminate against minorities. Civil rights attorneys also observed elections, to make sure people were not unfairly turned away from the polls. Von Spakovsky wanted those election observers to report suspected fraud, and was disappointed when they refused. “They wouldn’t even report whatever information they got over to the criminal division,” he says now.

Asked whether he tried to get the department to focus more on voter fraud than it had in the past, von Spakovsky said, “I did, but they didn’t do very much about it.”

Von Spakovsky angered attorneys in the office when he approved a 2003 congressional redistricting plan in Texas, which was unusual because it was not pegged to a new Census count. Republicans had won control of both houses of the Texas state legislature the year before and wanted to use their power to redraw district lines. But some Justice Department attorneys worried the new plan would hurt minority voters. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that one of the new districts diluted Latino voting power, and those lines were redrawn.

Joe Rich, who was head of the voting section when von Spakovsky arrived, clashed frequently with his new boss. After working in the civil rights division for 36 years, he says Bush’s appointees were “the most hostile, political group of people” he had encountered. In 2005, Rich took a voluntary buyout from the department.

That December, Bush appointed von Spakovsky to fill a temporary vacancy on the Federal Elections Commission. But when von Spakovsky was up for a permanent seat in 2007, Rich and five other DOJ attorneys wrote a letter urging the Senate not to approve his appointment. “Mr. von Spakovsky played a major role in the implementation of practices which injected partisan political factors into decision-making on enforcement matters and into the hiring process,” they wrote. “Moreover, he was the point person for undermining the Civil Rights Division’s mandate to protect voting rights.”

The Senate listened, putting von Spakovsky’s nomination on hold for so long that he was never confirmed. He left the commission and joined the conservative Heritage Foundation, where he frequently writes articles defending Trump and railing against the dangers of voter fraud.

                                                          ***
Some U.S. Attorneys had better luck finding election crimes to prosecute than others, but they weren’t in the big cities like Los Angeles and New York, where Democrats typically rack up their biggest wins. In Appalachia, local politicians had a long tradition of paying constituents for their votes. In Wisconsin, felons voted before their civil rights had been restored. In Florida and Alaska, undocumented immigrants registered to vote when they received a card in the mail or at the DMV. This wasn’t the widespread identity fraud Republicans decried in news conferences, but it did send people to prison.

The feds convicted 27 people in vote-buying schemes in eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia. One Democratic county manager paid poor, handicapped and illiterate people to vote for him. He was still in office in 2004 when he was sentenced to just over two years in prison.

Other criminals included a sheriff, city police chief and a Circuit Court clerk in West Virginia. Prosecutors said the clerk, a Democrat, and his associates got precinct captains to pay people $20 to vote for a slate of preferred candidates in a May 2004 primary, with the goal of controlling county government. “This seems to be something that is just in the blood of people in southern West Virginia,” former West Virginia Secretary of State Ken Hechler told the Associated Press in 2005. “They’re always looking for ways to get away with this.”

The criminals weren’t all Democrats, though. In New Hampshire, the New England regional director of the Republican National Committee was sentenced to 10 months in prison for a scheme to jam the phone lines of Democratic phone banks during the 2002 election. Two others pleaded guilty in the scheme, including the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee.

Ten noncitizens were convicted of voting in southern Florida in elections held between 1998 and 2004. Many argued they didn’t understand or were confused about their ability to vote. One Jamaican native was a legal permanent resident who had applied for citizenship when he voted in the 2000 presidential election, and said he didn’t realize that was illegal.

In Wisconsin, U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic pressed charges against 13 felons who voted illegally in the 2004 general election, during which John Kerry carried the state by roughly 11,400 votes. Biskupic won seven convictions, not nearly enough to sway the results. And what he did find, Biskupic said, was not evidence of widespread fraud. One of the felons showed poll workers his Department of Correction ID card with the word “offender” printed on it, and he was still allowed to vote. His case was dismissed. It wasn’t the only thing to get dismissed.

                                                          ***
On Pearl Harbor Day 2006, David Iglesias received a text as he was headed home to Albuquerque from the airport in Baltimore. The message said to call the main Justice Department. “We’ve decided to go another way,” Mike Battle, director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, told him when he called. “We would like your resignation.”

Iglesias was stunned. “What’s going on, Mike?” he asked, in the first of many attempts to find out why he was losing his job. “I don’t know,” Battle responded, according to Iglesias’ book. “All I can tell you, David, is that this came from on high.”

That day in Seattle, McKay got a similarly cryptic call from Battle. Iglesias says they never found out why they were fired. It could’ve been their refusal to prosecute weak voter-fraud cases. Iglesias had also been pressured to speed up a corruption case against a local Democratic politician. Both situations angered New Mexico Republicans, who added it to the list of complaints they sent to Washington about him.

“I believe to this day that the governor’s race was the reason I was fired,” McKay said in In Justice. “It was seen as a stolen election by Republican groups in the state and eventually throughout the nation.”

Five other U.S. attorneys received Pearl Harbor Day phone calls. A congressional inquiry and Inspector General report revealed the White House had approved the firings. New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales three times between September 2005 and April 2006 to complain about Iglesias’ handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases. Weh, the GOP chairman from New Mexico, told reporters that he confronted Rove about Iglesias at a White House holiday party in 2006. “Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?” Weh asked.

“He’s gone,” Rove responded.

Over the next year, the unfolding scandal led to the resignation of Gonzales and Rove. A subsequent Inspector General investigation determined the attorney general firings were “fundamentally flawed” and arbitrary. Despite that embarrassing outcome, the drumbeat of Republican calls to combat voter fraud continued in many states.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach made voter fraud a central issue in his 2011 campaign. “Organizations that promote voter fraud have burrowed into every corner of our country,” his website said. “In Kansas, the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive.” Once in office, Kobach successfully pushed for a state law that requires voters to show proof of citizenship when they register.

Just four states required voters to show some form of identification at the polls in 2008. After Republicans took control of many state legislatures in 2010, that number more than doubled. Last fall, nine states required ID to vote. “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Mike Turzai, the leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, said before the 2012 election. Romney lost Pennsylvania by more than 309,000 votes.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker defended his state’s voter ID law in a 2014 debate, arguing it would prevent fraudulent votes. “It doesn’t matter if there’s one, 100 or 1,000,” he said. “Amongst us, who would be that one person who would like to have our vote canceled out by a vote that was cast illegally?”

                                                           ***
In 2012, the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States gave like-minded Republicans reason to cheer. Pew released a report declaring 24 million voter registration records were no longer valid and the nation’s registration systems needed a major upgrade. “Study: 1.8 million dead people still registered to vote,” read a National Public Radio headline when the report was first released. The findings gave ammunition to conservative groups like True the Vote, who were mobilizing volunteers around the country to analyze registration rolls and raise fears about voter fraud.

But Pew was not trying to scare people; it was trying to solve the problem. “There was no indication of fraud,” says David Becker, lead author of the Pew study. “It is a big leap from having an out-of-date record to intentionally attempting to cast a fraudulent ballot.” Along with the study, Pew launched a nonprofit, the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), and several red and blue states immediately signed up to join. The center compares voter registration data to information from DMVs, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Social Security Index, and allows states to share data to verify whether a voter has moved or died.

Much has changed in the five years since the report was released. Thirty-four states now offer online voter registration, and 20 are part of ERIC. Becker says it has helped correct about 5 million records and register 1 million to 2 million more voters. “The states have gone a long way toward correcting that administrative inefficiency in the system,” he says.

Meanwhile, the Pew study slipped into oblivion—until it was resurrected by the Trump campaign. In an October speech in Wisconsin, Trump claimed, “People that have died 10 years ago are still voting.” He went on to cite the Pew report, saying, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals, right now, are listed as voters.” Of course, the report never said 1.8 million dead people voted, only that they were listed on voter rolls five years ago.

At a news conference in late January, Sean Spicer got both the year and the findings of the Pew report wrong. “I think there's been studies," he said. “There's one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed 14 percent of people who voted were noncitizens.” (The report did not contain any findings about noncitizens.)

The Republican narrative of massive voter fraud persists despite evidence from the party’s own crackdown—what election law expert Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine professor, calls “a whole lot of nothing.” For many conservatives, fears about voting by felons, who they say lean Democratic, and ACORN registration drives have simply been replaced with concerns about undocumented immigrants. (ACORN shut down in 2010 after conservative activist James O’Keefe posed as a pimp and filmed a misleading video of ACORN employees supposedly advising him and a prostitute on how to get a mortgage. O’Keefe later paid a $100,000 settlement to one employee whose name he had smeared.)

Hans von Spakovsky, now head of the Election Law Reform initiative at the Heritage Foundation, is still a cheerleader for more restrictive voting laws. In February, he published a piece titled “Why Trump’s Probe of Voter Fraud is Long Overdue.” Asked whether he would be involved in the new administration, he said, “I have no idea. Nobody’s called me about it.”

But he has plenty of ideas to offer. “Voter fraud, to be able to detect it, you have to work at it,” he says. He thinks prosecutors should contact the chief voting registrar in their districts and ask for lists of people who are not citizens, or are registered in more than one state. And since voter registration lists are used to create jury pools, they should investigate everyone called for federal jury duty who is excused for being a noncitizen. “That’s just a very basic, easy step,” he says.

Becker disagrees. He points out that people could be lying about their citizenship to get out of jury duty, rather than risking deportation to register and vote. He also questions the reliance on registration lists as evidence of people casting ballots. In 2012, Republican Governor Rick Scott of Florida tried to purge undocumented immigrants from the voter rolls. He started with 180,000 names, but when county election supervisors cross-checked the information, they found the list to be filled with errors. Only 85 people were ultimately removed from the rolls.

“Just because someone can fill out a registration form doesn’t meant they get on a [voter] list, doesn’t mean they cast a ballot, doesn’t meant the ballot is counted,” Becker says. “There’s a variety of checks in place … that would easily prevent widespread fraud.”

Studies conducted by academics and secretaries of state have found noncitizen voting to be extremely rare. There are small-scale examples, such as the Texas city councilwoman who was sentenced to five years in prison for registering noncitizens to vote during a 2006 primary. But Lorraine Minnite, a public policy professor at Rutgers, studied the Justice Department’s voter fraud crackdown during the Bush years and found that only 14 noncitizens were convicted of voting between 2002 and 2005.

That hasn’t stopped Trump from making claims to the contrary. He seems to be relying on suspect sources. Five days after the November election, Gregg Phillips, a former Republican fundraiser from Alabama, made his first appearance in the debate. He tweeted: “We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.”

Phillips sits on the board of True the Vote and had created an app called VoteStand, which allows users to report suspected fraud. He later said his numbers were based on 189 million voting records. But he and his researchers refuse to release their report until they finish checking the data, which he admits may contain errors.

Trump didn’t wait to see the numbers. He tweeted on November 27 about the “millions of people who voted illegally” and reinforced that message when he spoke to congressional leaders two months later.

The lack of data supporting his claims troubles some conservatives, including one who used to decry illegal voting of a different sort. “There is no evidence whatsoever that 3 million to 5 million illegals voted in this election,” Rove said on Fox News in late January.

Yet Trump continues to stand by such claims. In late January, he tweeted that he was eagerly awaiting the results of Phillips’ analysis. “Look forward to seeing final results of VoteStand.” Trump tweeted. “Gregg Phillips and crew say at least 3,000,000 votes were illegal. We must do better!”

In early February, Trump fanned the flames, telling a group of senators he would’ve won in New Hampshire if “thousands” of voters had not been bused in from Massachusetts. New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu asked the White House to provide evidence to back up this allegation; none has appeared. But that hasn’t stopped Republican governors, including Sununu, from advocating for more restrictive voting laws in their states.

Pence has yet to publicly name anyone who will be on the voter fraud commission he’s supposed to lead. “Staff is continuing to work to put the framework together for this process,” Pence spokesman Marc Lotter told POLITICO on March 15. “We will let you know when we have additional updates on it.”

If Pence seeks assistance from the Justice Department, he’ll be working with an attorney general who has been accused of voter suppression. In 1985, when he was a U.S. attorney in Alabama, Jeff Sessions prosecuted three civil rights activists for voter fraud after they helped scores of black voters fill out absentee ballots. All three activists were acquitted. But there’s a chance Pence will choose to focus on cleaning up the voter rolls, instead of prosecuting voters. In an early February appearance on Fox News, the vice president said Trump is committed to “really looking into the errors and flaws in our voter logs—the possibility of wide-scale voter fraud that’s [taken] place in the country.”

It’s unclear what “possibilities” Pence might find. 

But if he cares to learn from Ashcroft’s mistakes, he might consult William Welch, the former chief of the public integrity section of the Justice Department’s criminal division. In 2008, Welch testified in front of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the results of Ashcroft’s ballot integrity initiative. The commissioners asked him about noncitizens voting, wondering how big a problem it really was. Welch’s answer made it sound like the Justice Department had learned nothing from six years of criminal investigations.

“I really cannot give you an estimate of either how small or how large it is,” Welch said. “It simply is an unquantifiable figure as far as we’re concerned.”

UN: Americans’ Right to Protest is in Grave Danger Under Trump

At least 19 U.S. states have introduced bills that attack the right to protest since Donald Trump's election as president

Go to Original



At least 19 U.S. states have introduced bills that attack the right to protest since Donald Trump's election as president, an "alarming and undemocratic" trend, U.N. human rights investigators said this week.

Maina Kiai and David Kaye, independent U.N. experts on freedom of peaceful assembly and expression respectively, are calling on lawmakers in the United States to stop the “alarming” trend of “undemocratic” anti-protest bills designed to criminalize or impede the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression.

"The trend also threatens to jeopardize one of the United States’ constitutional pillars: free speech," they said in a statement, calling for action to reverse such legislation.

“From the Black Lives Matter movement, to the environmental and Native American movements in opposition to the Dakota Access oil pipeline, and the Women’s Marches, individuals and organizations across society have mobilized in peaceful protests, as it is their right under international human rights law and US law,” Kiai and Kaye said.
  • The Arizona State Senate in February voted to expand racketeering laws to allow police to arrest anyone involved in a protest and seize their assets, treating demonstrators like organized criminals.
  • Portland, Oregon activists organizing against police killings of Black men, white nationalist politicians, and the countless systems of racism throughout our local, state, and federal governments are now considered “domestic terrorists” by Department of Homeland Security.
  • In January, North Dakota Republicans proposed legislation to legalize running over protesters if they are blocking roadways. (The legislation failed, for now.)
  • Missouri lawmakers want to make it illegal to wear a robe, mask or disguise (remarkably, a hoodie would count) to a protest.
  • In Minnesota, following the police shooting death of Philando Castile, protests caused part of a highway to shut down. Then, at the beginning of the state legislative session, Minnesota legislators drafted bills that would punish highway protestors with heavy fines and prison time and would make protesters liable for the policing costs of an entire protest if they individually were convicted of unlawful assembly or public nuisance.
  • Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.”
  • Lawmakers in North Carolina want to make it a crime to heckle lawmakers.
  • In Indiana, conservatives want to allow police to use “any means necessary” to remove activists from a roadway.
  • Colorado lawmakers are considering a big increase in penalties for environmental protesters. Activists who tamper with oil or gas equipment could be, under the measure, face felony charges and be punished with up to 18 months behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.
  • A bill before the Virginia state legislature would dramatically increase punishment for people who “unlawfully” assemble after “having been lawfully warned to disperse.” Those who do so could face a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
The experts took particular issue with the characterization in some bills of protests being “unlawful” or “violent”.

“There can be no such thing in law as a violent protest,” the experts said. “There are violent protesters, who should be dealt with individually and appropriately by law enforcement. One person’s decision to resort to violence does not strip other protesters of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. This right is not a collective right; it is held by each of us individually,” the experts stressed.

“Peaceful assembly,” they added, “is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and the government has no business imposing a general requirement that people get permission before exercising that right.”

The experts also emphasized that legislators should be mindful of the important role that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly has played in the history of American democracy and the fight for civil rights.

“We call on the US authorities, at the federal and state level, to refrain from enacting legislation that would impinge on the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and opinion,” they concluded.

Week ahead: The Big Four investment themes

Four big themes are likely to dominate the thinking of investors and traders in the coming week


Go to Original



1. Jumpy over Trump-Xi
US and Chinese presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet at one of Trump’s resort hotels in Florida next week. The talks will set the tone of the relationship between the world’s two biggest economies for the next few years and will reveal just how hard Trump is likely to play things with China on issues ranging from trade protectionism and currency manipulation to North Korea. Having been scuppered in his attempts to scrap Obamacare, Trump might see this as a good opportunity to show the American people some muscle flexing. He has already fired a few shots on Twitter, saying it will be a “very difficult” meeting and that the US “can no longer have massive trade deficits and job losses.”

2. Back To Basics

Major currency markets are in one of those downbeat moments where no clear trend prevails. The opening salvoes of Donald Trump’s presidency have not delivered the surge many predicted last year for the dollar. The belief in a steady reeling-in of European monetary stimulus that drove the euro higher in the past fortnight has also abated. No-one wants to back the pound through Brexit talks. And it would take a deeper and more longer-lasting correction in equities markets to build any faith in the yen. So possibly, we go back to the start and the higher US yields that fundamentally support the greenback. GDP on Thursday was strong, some Fed officials predict up to three more hikes and another solid non-farm payrolls read on Friday would have the market thinking about some clear signalling for another rise in June. Unless Donald says, or tweets, different…

3. Taper Test

The first stage of the European Central Bank’s slow withdrawal of monetary stimulus next week may throw into sharp relief the have- and have-nots in the bloc’s debt markets. Weaker, so-called peripheral states like Portugal and Italy are seen as most dependent on the trillions of euros the ECB has spent over the past few years to shore up growth and inflation. But some investors worry an era of rock-bottom rates has papered over the cracks for countries which have not delivered the structural reforms needed to put their economies on a steadier footing. When the ECB from Monday trims its monthly bond purchases from 80 billion to 60 billion euros, it will be a major test of confidence in these countries and how they can withstand a return to normal monetary conditions in the future.

4. Onto Q2

The first quarter began with a bang across global equity markets though Europe still lagged its developed market peers. Over the course of the three months, however, two things changed. Firstly, a steady stream of better economic data trumped the fuzzy risks about geopolitics drawing investors back into a stock market trading at valuation discounts to the others. Secondly, banks and mining stocks – the biggest beneficiaries of the reflation rally – gave way to tech, which ends Q1 as the best performing sector in Europe as well as the most expensive on a price-to-earnings basis. Global investor interest in Europe is stirring back to life and the hunt is on to seek out stocks and sectors that stand to benefit the most from a revival in economic growth, inflation and the brightest earnings outlook for the region in seven years.

Welcome to Emerson, the tiny Canadian border town where hundreds of refugees have fled from Trump's America

People are risking their lives in blizzards and sub-zero temperatures

Go to Original
By Andrew Buncombe



They cross at night, trudging for hours through the winter freeze over fields that stretch to the horizon. 
They come alone, in pairs, or in groups of 17, their breath clouding the dark air. There are old men and pregnant women, and a toddler being carried in the arms of its mother. All make the crossing in the hope of a better life.
Since the election of Donald Trump, the Canadian border town of Emerson has become the frontline in a new international immigration controversy. Fearful of being deported under the President’s crackdown on undocumented migrants, hundreds of people are crossing north to Canada, where the youthful and media savvy Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has sought to welcome them. 
In the first three months of 2017, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested 1,134 migrants – the same as for all of 2016. As spring arrives and the crossing becomes less perilous, that number is likely to rise.
“We’ve had four cross this week – a Somali, a Honduran, someone from El Salvador, and even an American,” said Frank Suderman, manager of the Maple Leaf Motel, located a hundred yards from the border. 
“It’s always at 2am or 5am. They knock on the door. You never know. We’ve always had people crossing, but never this many.”
The people of Emerson, population 650, say they have done all they can to help those crossing illegally. Some have provided hot coffee and meals, others are members of the town’s volunteer fire department, which turns out in all weathers to help people lost or stuck in a blizzard before handing them over to the immigration authorities.
Some, such as Mr Suderman, have washed blankets used by the emergency teams and which get covered in the thick, black fertile mud that has made the area one of Canada’s most important farming regions.
And in a province whose nickname is Friendly Manitoba, people are proud of a tradition of welcome and hospitality. Many have little time for Mr Trump and his actions.

At the same time, among some residents, frustration is growing. They say Mr Trudeau has offered almost no financial support to meet their humanitarian role, while others wish those entering the country would follow the official procedure.
“I just wish people would come here legally. We’ve been an open country,” said Johanne Kehler, who works as a cook in Emerson and lives in neighbouring Letellier. “If they came in legally, it would be better.”
Locals refer to what they say is a “legal loophole”. Under an agreement with the US, any migrant approaching an official Canadian border crossing will be turned back if they have already made a refugee claim in America. 
However, if they are able to set a foot on Canadian soil, they are allowed to stay and make a separate asylum claim. 
Emerson sits on the 49th parallel, a circle of latitude that for 2,175 miles designates the border between five US states and four Canadian provinces. Located on the Red River, and at the junction of North Dakota and Minnesota, the town has for more than 200 years been a border community, and dealt with everything that has come with such status.
While the border between the US and Canada is designated by marker posts, some more than a hundred years old, hardly any of it is fenced. Cattle, wildlife and people can walk straight across.
On the US side of the border, in both North Dakota and Minnesota, The Independent was able to follow country roads that led directly to the unfenced border, some located just a few hundred yards from the official crossing point. It would have been a simple thing to have hopped across.
“It was never really a problem. Normally, both countries have had respect, but that respect has gone out of the window,” said Doug Johnston, a town councillor and volunteer with the fire department, as he pointed out the town’s limits, where Canada ends and the US begins.
Mr Johnston said many in Emerson felt they were at the centre of an international push-and-pull, with Mr Trump doing the pushing and Mr Trudeau responsible for the pulling.
“I feel, yes, they are crossing illegally,” he said. “But when a mother and a child are coming in winter, it shows their desperation.”
Officials say the majority of those crossing are from Somalia and other African countries. More recently, people have been arriving from Latin America and Haiti.
“This has been going on forever,” said Jean-Nicolas Beuze, Canada representative of UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency. “But the numbers have increased since November.”

He declined to speculate that the election of Mr Trump was the reason for the increase. “It’s very hard to a have a long term view,” he said.
Those who work with migrants wish that people focussed on the individuals and the circumstances that led them to cross, rather than simple numbers.
Rita Chahal runs the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council in the provincial capital, Winnipeg. It provides emergency accommodation and legal advice to new arrivals. 
Since the recent increase in the number of migrants, Ms Chahal has been subjected to racist abuse on social media. The Council has had to employ security guards around the clock. It does not publicise the location of its accommodation centre.
Ms Chahal said it was only correct that people were concerned about the safety of Canada’s border and those entering. But she said there were effective professional organisations such as the police and immigration services, dealing with any threat. People were thoroughly screened before they were allowed to make an asylum claim.
She said she had urged the media to stop focussing on simply the number of people coming. “You have to have the human faces.”
Among those faces is Muhammad, a 30-year-old businessman and interpreter from Somalia, who entered the US illegally in December 2015, having left Mogadishu six months earlier. His journey involved travelling to the Bahamas where he paid $5,000 (£4,000) to a “coyote” to take him by boat to the south east of Florida.
He was arrested upon arrival, detained and ordered to be deported, then released as he sought to make a claim for asylum based on the lawless and frequently deadly nature of life in Somalia.
He said that on 22 January 2017, he learnt that around 100 Somalis had been deported as part of Mr Trump’s crackdown, and he decided to try and make it to Canada.
Sitting in a room in the NGO’s accommodation, asking that he not be fully identified or his face shown, Muhammad said he crossed into Emerson as part of a group of ten people on the night of 19 March.
Having paid for a ride to a town in North Dakota, he walked for more than an hour before the Canadian authorities picked them up.
“We were freezing. We could not feel our hands,” he said. Officials in Emerson had treated them “very nicely”, in stark contrast, he said, to how he was treated in the detention centre in the US.
“I was in detention and they just treat you like a criminal. I am not a criminal,” said Muhammad, whose wife, child and mother are still in Somalia. 
Asked if he thought Mr Trump had any insight about the situation in his country, where he said his family was recently threatened by the extremist group Al-Shabaab, he said the New York tycoon had talked of Somali pirates during the election campaign.

“During the campaign, he said he hates Muslims. He said Somalia was one of the countries he does not like. He is racist,” he said. “He talked about pirates – that is not everyone in the country.”
He said he hoped now to be able to attend college in Canada. If his claim for asylum is successful, he would like to sponsor his wife and child. He said he had been able to speak to them and let them know he had made it.
In Emerson, Jackie Reiner opened Little J’s Cafe six weeks ago in a room attached to a hotel. She and her partner named it for the nicknames given to their two children.
In the weeks the cafe has been open, it has been packed every morning with locals and outside contractors, drinking coffee and eating breakfast. On a recent morning, the room was full of conversation about the people crossing the border. There was a mixture of sympathy and concern.
Ms Reiner is one of the residents who has appeared frequently on  local television, outlining the situation – both local and much broader – in clear and precise terms.
“I feel for these people because they have nowhere to go,” she said. “They have no idea what they’re walking into – it’s minus 30C. They must be desperate at that point. There is no sane person who would put themselves through that otherwise.”
She believed the problem facing Emerson could be solved if the US and Canada spoke to each other. She pointed out that many countries in the world were struggling to deal with the problem of immigration. Why were they not pooling expertise and experience?
She said the issue motivating people such as Muhammad, and those just known by a number or the shorthand of a nationality, was not going to go away. Many were fleeing authoritarian regimes, or war zones.
“I would have grabbed my kids months ago and run, with the threats they are getting from Trump and other countries,” she said. “They don’t want to go back where they’re from. Trump is threatening they’re going to be deported: you run.”

The Impossibility of Being Trump Supporter on TV and Making Any Sense

Why talk shows are not the place to check in with the other side.

Go to Original
By Max Cea



If there’s one thing that Americans agree on it’s that we are living in a moment of great political polarization. The most common prescription is to venture outside of the bubble: follow some people you disagree with on Twitter; read what the other side is reading; if you live in Brooklyn, talk to your relatives from Kansas. This has especially been the mantra for liberals. Don’t assume every Trump supporter is a fool or a bigot, you elitist; try listening to one!
On television this usually becomes a Catch-22. There are intellectually diverse panels and cross-party interviews aplenty. But if you listen, you hear Trump’s backers spouting something really foolish and at the very least racially insensitive about, say, Trump not lying but speaking “Americanese” or about Trump’s birther claims having nothing to do with race.
The challenge for talk shows looking to give voice to Trump’s supporters is that defending the president on a nightly basis means seeing red where there is green — or seeing hundreds of thousands of people where there are none. Many of the most thoughtful conservatives left Train Trump back at the station — those remaining seem to be hanging on to the railing at the the back of the caboose, ready to jump.
This week, podcaster and former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett appeared on Brian Stelter’s “Reliable Sources” and criticized CNN’s Trump-supporting talking heads as “not intellectually honest people.” He added: “These are people building a brand, willing to say anything.” Beyond Lovett’s blanket critique, though, was a bigger point: that the form of these discussions is as much to blame as the characters. “Cable news speaks in a dead language” that is “inaccessible” and “alienating,” he said.  
Lovett, of course, has a stake in shifting attention from what people can see and hear to what they can only hear. He’s in the podcasting business. But the idea that the conversations in long-form interviews are more substantive and honest than the ones in short cable news segments is one that should find wide resonance.
To understand why, we went back to an interview between two ideologues from opposing sides of the aisle who claimed to be seeking something called commutuality and examined how it broke down.
On the March 24 episode of  “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Maher’s opening interview was with Matt Schlapp, who is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and a Donald Trump supporter. Maher thanked Schlapp for meeting him in hostile territory and then said, let’s “start with what we agree with. . . . I think we would agree, you’re not blind to why a lot of people are freaking out about [Trump], right?”
Schlapp was happy to begin in accord. He gave a simple, affirmative “no.” Afterward he would explain to me in a follow-up interview, “Something I tend to do in debates is try to find something to agree on. I’ll usually respond audibly, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘That’s right.’ Just to try to have a foundation and have a conversation.”
Maher’s show is taped live in front of a large studio audience, predominantly full of zealous liberal fans.  The format of the show resembles a dinner party; conversation is free-form, unbeholden to the language and structural constraints of cable. It’s a daunting show for anyone to appear on, but can be especially daunting for conservatives. “I’m used to being in very hostile environments to defend conservatism,” Schlapp said, referring to his regular appearances on MSNBC and CNN and his speaking engagements at college campuses. “I’m not quite used to doing it in front of a crowd like that. I was a little nervous, in all candor.”
Before the show begins, the “Real Time” producers work vigorously to ensure that guests have a positive experience and that the conversations are engaging. They implore the audience to treat the guests courteously. And they thoroughly prep first-time guests. “One of the things they talked to me about is they’re not interested in a shouting match,” Schlapp said. “They want to have a real conversation, and that was really appealing to me.”
But cordiality was not why Schlapp agreed to appear on “Real Time.” “My motivation in doing this is that I’m a conservative activist,” he said. “I want more people to realize that we’re thoughtful and that we have the right answers and that there’s a rationale to the positions we take. My hope is that I leave some small segment of the audience thinking, ‘Oh, I didn’t realize that’s what conservatives are about. That actually makes some sense.’”
 “Real Time” is first and foremost a comedy show. But it’s not lost on Maher or the show’s producers that many people stay informed through talk shows like theirs rather than through newspapers or radio broadcasts. “We feel a level of responsibility,” “Real Time” executive producer Scott Carter said during a phone conversation. “We think we would be irresponsible not to be representing the opinions of half the electorate. . . . I also think the democracy progresses and the species progresses when people with differing viewpoints get together. I think that’s a benefit to all.”
Schlapp is on the reasonable end of the Trump supporter spectrum. He comes off as authentic. He will acknowledge that Trump is “full of a little bit of bullshit” and will not claim to have seen people who don’t exist. So how can he justify the lying and the irresponsible behavior? Why does he support Trump?  
In Maher’s interview with Schlapp, it was hard to say. Maher was seeking common ground, but it was ground on his side of the divide. He did not ask “Why do you believe this?” so much as “How could you believe this?” Maher’s questions included, “Do you think [Trump] is a liar on a scale we haven’t seen before?”; “You would admit that he’s an egoist, right?” and, “What about a narcissist?”
Schlapp responded to what quickly became an interrogation with a mix of denial (“No. I think he ran against someone who was a liar on a scale we haven’t seen”), qualified agreement (“I think he has a healthy ego”) and evasion (“Everyone in politics is a narcissist”). In the 15-minute interview, the viewer learned that Schlapp thinks that Trump should be impeached if he commits treason and that he thinks the Republicans “can’t run around and just be against things.” Otherwise, the interview’s merit was as combat theater.
Afterward, Schlapp reflected that Maher’s questions were legitimate though tough. “The one thing that I did not appreciate is he tried to browbeat me into accepting his definitions,” he said. “I feel like when you’re being interviewed that that’s not fair — you’ve got the right to ask any question, but you’ve got to let me give the answer I want to give.”
To browbeat and battle is Maher’s modus operandi with conservative guests. But when a viewer changes the channel, what they see is rarely more illuminating. Panel discussions are sport. Rather than listen, it is natural for viewers to root for their side’s representative. And guests internalize this sense of competition. “When I do TV, I get myself into the mode of a machine gun, kind of spraying an answer with a certain rhythm,” Schlapp said. “It needs to be quick and to the point, don’t languish, sum up and get out. . . . You want to make good TV. TV is a business and it’s got to work or else they don’t want you back.”
And so it should be no surprise that the picture a liberal gets of Schlapp and his beliefs is more three-dimensional when the visual dimension is subtracted. To hear Schlapp on a podcast, such as CNN’s “Party People,” which is hosted by two conservatives who do not support Trump, is to gain real insight into the opposition. In the podcast, Schlapp acknowledges the problems he has with Trump and elaborates on why he’s able to look past those issues. He might come off as disillusioned, but he does not come off as a bigot or a blowhard.
Schlapp attributed the difference to the level of comfort a guest feels when participating in each medium. “I think everyone always feels more comfortable on a podcast,” Schlapp said. “You don’t feel comfortable when you’re on a TV set. You have makeup on, which is strange for a guy. You’re sitting up straight in your chair. And you’ve got wires hanging around everywhere.”
The result is that if television is combat, a long-form audio interview is diplomacy; it is more conducive to thoughtfulness. “It’s really annoying on podcasts or on long radio interviews, you get these moments where someone has asked a really good question and it stumps you,” Schlapp said. “It’s terrible because you’re like, ‘Wow! That’s a very revealing question and that makes me rethink some things.’ When that happens to you live, it’s a little bit unnerving. Where you’re used to being very glib and giving answers you’re used to giving, all of a sudden you can’t do it.”

Why It's So Hard to Understand That the Violence Your Country Exports Is Terrorism

Attribution bias is a familiar theme in the literature of modern psychology.

Go to Original
By Vijay Prashad


“I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes. It would spread a lively terror.”
—Winston Churchill, 1920, with regard to the uprising in Iraq.
London.
On 23 March 2017, Khalid Masood ploughed his car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge in London, stabbed a police officer with a knife, and then was shot dead. He killed four people in the rampage, which injured an additional forty people and disturbed the equanimity of a major Western city. Masood, who was born in Dartford (Kent, United Kingdom), had run afoul of the law for many years—mainly because of acts of violence and possession of weapons. The gap between the act of Masood and a common criminal is narrow.
Two months ago, the head of the Metropolitan Police said that “warning lights are flashing” over the rise of violent crime across England and Wales. The preferred weapon, said Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, was the common knife. Violent crime had risen by twenty-two percent, with the last quarter of 2016 registering 30,838 crimes committed with knives. Masood’s crime could well have been read alongside this data, as a serious problem of an increase in violence with knives as the weapon of choice.
Instead, the media and the British political class offered a sanctimonious lesson in civics. This was, said UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, “an attack on our democracy, the heart of our democracy.” UK Prime Minister Theresa May told the House of Commons that despite this attack, “we will move forward together, never giving in to terror. And never allowing the voices of hate and evil to drive us apart.” One newspaper suggested that Boris Johnson’s statement was “Churchillian.”
ISIS, which has been under serious threat in Iraq and Syria, has called upon people around the world to conduct acts of criminal violence in its name. There is no evidence yet that Masood acted on the instructions of ISIS or that he was following the ISIS edict to attack people in public areas in the West. What is known is that right after the attack, ISIS took credit for it, calling Masood its “soldier.” ISIS social media celebrated the attack. There is a form of delirium at work here—a group weakened now seeks to glorify itself by a pathetic attack by a man with a criminal record, using an old car and a knife.
Attribution bias is a familiar theme in the literature of modern psychology. It refers to the problem that occurs when people evaluate the actions of themselves or others based not on the facts but on attributions transferred from inherent biases. Fritz Heider, who first developed this theory in The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1958), suggested that attributions are made mostly to preserve one’s self-concept—namely one’s sense of self. Rather than evaluate one’s own behavior in a bad situation, one tends to blame others and to disregard the constraints that others operate under. This is typically considered to be a “self-serving bias”—the winner of an election says, “I won because the people voted for me,” whereas the loser says, “I lost because of voter fraud.”
Masood’s act has already been pinned on ISIS, and ISIS has already adopted him as one of its combatants. Both decisions are self-serving—the one to deny any native role for the production of Masood and the other to uplift a flagging insurgency. Masood’s own convulsions with racism, his own desire to seek glory above his miserable situation: these are not taken seriously. “Home-grown” terrorists have ‘home-grown’ problems. But the term ‘terrorist’ allows the “home-grown” person to be exported—as it were—to other countries, to defer blame to them—to ISIS, in this case.
Al-Mansoura
Three thousand miles southeast of London sits the town of al-Mansoura, near the city of Raqqa (Syria). Aerial bombardment by the United States in the area around Raqqa had pushed about fifty families to take shelter in the al-Badia school in the town. The US bombings had come to soften up ISIS positions in the towns around Raqqa as hundreds of US forces take their positions in its periphery. The US forces—and their allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces—have sought to seize a major dam on the Euphrates River at the town of Tabqah. This dam is essential to the water supply for Raqqa. The battle over Tabqah, one of the last remaining conduits into and out of Raqqa, will be essential before the US and its allies turns its firepower against ISIS’s “capital.”
On 22 March 2017, hours before Khalid Masood conducted his terror attack in London, US aircraft bombed the school. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, based in London, says that thirty-three civilians died in this bombing run. Hamoud Almousa of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently says that the number might be as high as 101 civilians. The day before, on 21 March, US aircraft bombed the town of Tabqah, hitting the Maysaloon school, a field hospital and homes on al-Synaa street—killing twenty civilians. A week before, US aircraft bombed the town of al-Jineh (near Aleppo), hitting a mosque and killing forty-six civilians. Col. John Thomas of the US Central Command said that the US aircraft did not hit a mosque. “We are going to look into any allegations of civilian casualties in relation to this strike,” he said. This statement always suggests that the Central Command knows that it hit civilians, but does not want to make a direct statement one way or another.
AirWars, a non-profit group that maintains a record of casualties from aerial bombardment, says that in March alone there have been over a thousand civilian non-combatant deaths in Iraq and Syria as a result of what it calls “Coalition actions”—with the US aircraft inflicting the bulk of the casualties. This considerable spike has led AirWars to suspend its investigation of Russian-inflicted casualties (fifty in March) and to divert its staff to look at those inflicted by the Coalition aircraft alone.
The Western media focused on the actions of Khalid Masood and remained silent on these deaths. Brief notes of this or that massacre appeared, but without the focus and intensity of the kind of coverage given to the attack by Masood. No front page story with a large picture, no “Breaking News” coverage on television with correspondents insisting that spokesperson for US Central Command give them more than pabulum. It is as if we live in two alternative universes—one, where terror confounds the population with moral indignation and two, where large deaths from jet fighters are treated as the necessary side-effects of war. One is terrorism; the other is an accident.
It does not feel accidental to the people of al-Mansoura or al-Jineh.
Binaries
I have spent decades thinking about the asymmetry of reactions to these sorts of incidents in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I have written about them, indignation as the mood of these essays. But this is spitting into the wind. It is futile on Facebook, for instance, to make the suggestion that the 2016 Karrada bombings in Baghdad (Iraq), which killed over 300 people, should have driven people to turn their profile pictures into Iraqi flags (as the world had done after the 2015 Paris attacks, when 137 people were killed). “Je Suis Charlie” is easy to write, but not #AmiAvijit. Eyes roll when these gestures are urged, whether through bewilderment at their meaning or exhaustion at their sanctimoniousness. After all, the eye-roll suggests, how could one compare a satirical French magazine with obscure Bangladeshi bloggers who have been hacked to death? It takes an immense act of will to push editors to run stories on tragedies that seem distant even from the places where they occur. All eyes focus on the latest attack in Molenbeek, but few turn with the same intensity to look at the tragedies in Beirut or in Cairo.
Over the years I have settled on some binaries that operate to blind thinking about violence in the world. Our days have become hallucinations, with violence always at the edge of consciousness. But violence is understood through these binaries in ways that befuddle those who believe in a universal humanity, those who believe—in concrete terms—that people in Kabul deserve empathy and sympathy as much as people in Berlin. In fact, the scale of the violence in Kabul is so much greater than in Berlin that you would imagine greater sympathy for those in far more distress. But actually the logic of these binaries moves consciousness in the opposite direction.
Eastern Malevolence / Western Benevolence
There is standard belief amongst reporters—for example—that Western actions are motivated by the highest values and are therefore benevolent. The loftiest values of our time—democracy and human rights—are sequestered inside the concept of the West. The East—bedraggled—is treated as a place without these values. It is bereft, a bad student. There is what Aimé Césaire calls “shy racism,” for it suggests that Easterners cannot be given the benefit of doubt when they act, or that Westerners could not also be malevolent in their objectives. The way this logic runs it is the Eastern bombing of Syria’s Aleppo, conducted by the Oriental despot Bashar al-Asad, that is inhumane, while it is the Western bombing of Iraq’s Mosul (250 to 370 civilians killed in the first week of March) that is humane. It would pierce the armor of Western self-regard to admit that its armed forces could—without sentiment of care—bomb mosques and schoolhouses.
What about Hitler? Is he not the epitome of Western malevolence? Hitler is the madman, much as white terrorists in the West are madmen. They do not define the society or the culture. No one asks after their attacks for Christianity to answer for their crimes or for Western Civilization to stand condemned. They are not compared to Hitler. The modern analogues of Hitler are always to be found in the East—Saddam, Bashar, Kim Jong-un—but not in the West.
It took some guts for the Indian politician Shashi Tharoor to remark that “Churchill was no better than Hitler” —a statement that has led to the routine objections from the British political class. US President Donald Trump insisted on returning his bust to the Oval Office, where he showed it with great aplomb to the UK Prime Minister Theresa May (she gave him a copy of a Churchill speech during her visit). It does not bother either Trump or May that Churchill was a racist, who believed that the “Aryan stock is bound to triumph.” Cliches are mobilized to defend him: he was a man of his time, when such ideas were commonplace. But such ideas were being vigorously challenged from the colonies and from within Britain. Hitler’s Endlösung was not of a different quality from Churchill’s Bengal Famine of 1943. Tharoor’s comparison of Churchill to Hitler will not stick. It will eventually be swept away. Far easier to see Hitler in Bashar al-Assad or in Kim Jong-un than in Churchill or George W. Bush. Hitler was Europe’s aberration, not—as Césaire pointed out—the logical culmination of colonial brutality.
State Legality / Non-State Illegality
States do not normally act outside the confines of international law. If they do, then it is in error. Or there are some states that are not proper states, but “rogue states” that do not behave according to the principles of civilization. Normal states, not rogue states, the logic of shy racism goes, never intentionally violate the laws of war and behave in a barbaric way. Their acts of murder are always unintentional because it would be too costly for them to intentionally murder civilians.
When the United Nations Human Rights Council wanted to investigate NATO’s 2011 bombing of Libya, based on UN Security Council resolution 1973, its Brussels headquarters stalled. NATO’s legal adviser, Peter Olson, wrote to the United Nations saying that NATO deserved immunity. “We would be concerned if NATO incidents were included in the commission’s report as on par with those which the commission may ultimately conclude did violate law or constitute crimes,” Olson wrote. What NATO would like, he concluded, was for the UN commission to “clearly state that NATO did not deliberately target civilians and did not commit war crimes in Libya.” In other words, without any investigation, the UN Human Rights Council should give NATO a certificate of high moral character.
If civilians are killed, then it is either entirely accidental or it is because the enemy has used them as human shields. Strange illogical statements emerge from the power centers of the West to befuddle criticism. US President Obama’s drone strike policy allowed his operators to strike at crowds of people who looked like enemies (the “signature strike”). If, later, the intelligence services determined that some of them were not indeed enemies then those civilians would be ‘posthumously exonerated’. But they would—of course—be dead, murdered by a state actor that is not seen to be rogue and that sees itself as abiding by international law.
Rogue states and rogue non-state actors do not abide by the protocols of the laws of war, and therefore they are the only ones who violate them intentionally. The violence of the rogue state and the rogue non-state actor is always worse than that of those who are deemed to be legitimate states and legitimate non-state actors. The nuclear weapons of India, Israel and Pakistan are acceptable, but Iran’s nuclear energy program is a grave threat to humanity. A ‘knife attack’ by a Palestinian child is horrendous and it is taken to define not only the Palestinian liberation movement, but Palestinian culture in general. The bombing of four young Palestinian boys on a Gaza beach is accidental and not definitive of either Israeli state action or of Israeli culture. This asymmetry of evaluation is fundamental to the ruling ideas of our time.
Violence to Heal / Violence to Hurt
When the US military conducted its massive bombing run against Iraq in March 2003 under the name “Shock and Awe,” it was considered to be in the service of human rights and security. But the language used by its architects was genocidal. Harlan K. Uliman, who developed the theory of “Shock and Awe,” said in 2003, “You take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In two, three, four, five days, they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted.” A Pentagon official said of the actual bombing runs, “There will not be a safe place in Baghdad. The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before.” Hundreds of cruise missiles rained on Baghdad. Eventually, after a decade of war and occupation, the violence of the war would claim at least a million Iraqi lives.
But yet, the language to define the war is muted. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said of the war that “from the [UN] charter point of view, it was illegal.” This should mean that US President George W. Bush and his coterie are war criminals. But his successor, US President Barack Obama refused to open an investigation and the world followed suit. Bush’s language about bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq became the anthem. If a million people died, so be it. It was all to heal Iraq, to free Iraq.
The violence of the Iraqi insurgency, on the other hand, was immediately considered to be violence intended to hurt, to create problems not only for the United States, but for Iraq itself. The violence of the West is prophylactic, while the violence of the East is destructive.
Precious Life / Disposable Life
When news broke of the failed US raid on the village of al-Jineh (Yemen), the Western media concentrated on the death of Ryan Owens who was a Seal Team 6 member. There was a great deal of discussion on his death and little mention of the civilians who were killed by Owens’ comrades in that raid. If they were mentioned it was as a number: twenty-eight or thirty. There were no names in the stories, no way to make these people into human beings. Nothing about Mohammad Khaled Orabi (age 14), Hasan Omar Orabi (age 10), Ahmad Nouri Issa (age 23), Mustapha Nashat Said al-Sheikh (age 23), Ali Mustapha (age 17), Abd al Rahman Hasim (age 17), and not even Nawar al-Awlaki (age 8) whose father and brother had been killed in earlier raids. No mention of the names of the forty-two Somali refugees gunned down by a Saudi helicopter gunship, a weapons system provided by the United States. To offer these names would be to give these people humanity.
When twenty thousand or more people died because an US-owned factory exploded in Bhopal, Michael Utidjian, medical director of American Cyanamid said in 1984, it is sad but needs to be seen in context. What is that context? Indians do not have the “North American philosophy of the importance of human life.” They do not mind when people die, it seems. They have a different standard of humanity. Their lives are disposable. They are not precious. Thirty-three dead here, forty-two dead there. Sad yes, but not tragic. Tragedy is only possible if one has the “North American philosophy of the importance of human life.”
Legible Narrative / Illegible Narrative
It would be an illogical narrative to suggest that Western generals want to raze cities. That is not their motivation. When the US flattened Fallujah (Iraq) in 2004, under the command of then Major General James Mattis of the 1st Marine Division, this was not the intent. That the use of Depleted Uranium led to cancer rates fourteen times higher than in Hiroshima (Japan) after the atom bomb was dropped there was incidental, not deliberative. It is impossible to imagine an American, for instance, being cruel in military strategy. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine a Syrian general, such as General Issam Zahreddine, being systematically vicious. It is not possible to see both as ferocious. It would be an illegible narrative if these two stories were set side by side. One is so obviously a better man (Mattis) than the other (Zahreddine). The character of the man of the West always surmounts the character of the man of the East.
Violent Shock
Who needs censorship when you have ideology? When anything outside the governing ideology tries to make an appearance it is dismissed as the rants of a conspiracy theorist or as “alt-facts.” Terrorism is terrorism and counter-terrorism is counter-terrorism. To break down the distinctions between them is a scandal against civilization itself. Of course al-Qa‘ida is bad and the US military is good! That is ipso facto, the essence of reality.
None of this is the blame of individual reporters or editors or indeed of individual readers of the press reportage. It is not something restricted to the West, for these attitudes are shared widely around the world. This is not a consequence of the impact of CNN or of BBC, but of much earlier, much deeper attitudes with deep roots from colonial times. It was an old colonial view that the violence of the imperial armies must have some Enlightenment logic behind them, whereas those of the darker world came motivated by messianism, tribalism, millenarianism or other illogical views of older times.
When in the 1950s the British violently crushed the aspirations of the Kenyans, sending thousands to concentration camps and killing—as the historian Caroline Elkins argues – a hundred thousand people, this was done for rational reasons. The Empire had to be protected. The uprising of the Mau Mau, which they were countering in Kenya, could not be allowed to succeed. Indeed, it could not succeed—the British suggested—because it was merely the eruption of older African instincts. Even the name of the group powerfully allowed the British to paint their insurgency in diabolical colors. The rebels called their outfit the Kenya Land and Freedom Army. The use of the words ‘land’ and ‘freedom’ suggested a link to the national liberation movements of that decolonization era. They also suggested a rational political platform, to distribute land to the colonized population in a free Kenya. The British insisted on calling them the Mau Mau—the name carrying for a British audience the full flavor of traditional Africa in its sound, the rhythm of a drum, the call from deep in the forest, the sly racism of the denial of the more traditional national liberation force. In the name Mau Mau appeared the forest and in it would dissolve the accusations of concentration camps and mass killings. It was not the British that did those killings, but the Mau Mau. Always the Mau Mau, never Lord Evelyn Baring who wrote that the British had to inflict “violent shock” against the Kenyans or else the British Empire would be defeated in Kenya.
From Lord Baring’s Violent Shock to George W. Bush’s Shock and Awe: this cannot be terrorism. It is the business of rational states. Terrorism is what the others do. Always.