person:john kelly

CDB_77 @cdb_77 11/06/2019

Call immigrant detention centers what they really are: concentration camps
https://www.latimes.com/resizer/lvH2QU3lV0yitEFGF7r1gfmGl4Y=/800x0/www.trbimg.com/img-5cfaa565/turbine/la-1559930211-dlv90xre9e-snap-image#.jpg
If you were paying close attention last week, you might have spotted a pattern in the news. Peeking out from behind the breathless coverage of the Trump family’s tuxedoed trip to London was a spate of deaths of immigrants in U.S. custody: Johana Medina Léon, a 25-year-old transgender asylum seeker; an unnamed 33-year-old Salvadoran man; and a 40-year-old woman from Honduras.
Photos from a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso showed people herded so tightly into cells that they had to stand on toilets to breathe. Memos surfaced by journalist Ken Klippenstein revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s failure to provide medical care was responsible for suicides and other deaths of detainees. These followed another report that showed that thousands of detainees are being brutally held in isolation cells just for being transgender or mentally ill.
Also last week, the Trump administration cut funding for classes, recreation and legal aid at detention centers holding minors — which were likened to “summer camps” by a senior ICE official last year. And there was the revelation that months after being torn from their parents’ arms, 37 children were locked in vans for up to 39 hours in the parking lot of a detention center outside Port Isabel, Texas. In the last year, at least seven migrant children have died in federal custody.
Preventing mass outrage at a system like this takes work. Certainly it helps that the news media covers these horrors intermittently rather than as snowballing proof of a racist, lawless administration. But most of all, authorities prevail when the places where people are being tortured and left to die stay hidden, misleadingly named and far from prying eyes.
There’s a name for that kind of system. They’re called concentration camps. You might balk at my use of the term. That’s good — it’s something to be balked at.
The goal of concentration camps has always been to be ignored. The German-Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt, who was imprisoned by the Gestapo and interned in a French camp, wrote a few years afterward about the different levels of concentration camps. Extermination camps were the most extreme; others were just about getting “undesirable elements … out of the way.” All had one thing in common: “The human masses sealed off in them are treated as if they no longer existed, as if what happened to them were no longer of interest to anybody, as if they were already dead.”
Euphemisms play a big role in that forgetting. The term “concentration camp” is itself a euphemism. It was invented by a Spanish official to paper over his relocation of millions of rural families into squalid garrison towns where they would starve during Cuba’s 1895 independence war. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered Japanese Americans into prisons during World War II, he initially called them concentration camps. Americans ended up using more benign names, like “Manzanar Relocation Center.”
Even the Nazis’ camps started out small, housing criminals, Communists and opponents of the regime. It took five years to begin the mass detention of Jews. It took eight, and the outbreak of a world war, for the first extermination camps to open. Even then, the Nazis had to keep lying to distract attention, claiming Jews were merely being resettled to remote work sites. That’s what the famous signs — Arbeit Macht Frei, or “Work Sets You Free” — were about.
Subterfuge doesn’t always work. A year ago, Americans accidentally became aware that the Trump administration had adopted (and lied about) a policy of ripping families apart at the border. The flurry of attention was thanks to the viral conflation of two separate but related stories: the family-separation order and bureaucrats’ admission that they’d been unable to locate thousands of migrant children who’d been placed with sponsors after crossing the border alone.
Trump shoved that easily down the memory hole. He dragged his heels a bit, then agreed to a new policy: throwing whole families into camps together. Political reporters posed irrelevant questions, like whether President Obama had been just as bad, and what it meant for the midterms. Then they moved on.
It is important to note that Trump’s aides have built this system of racist terror on something that has existed for a long time. Several camps opened under Obama, and as president he deported millions of people.
But Trump’s game is different. It certainly isn’t about negotiating immigration reform with Congress. Trump has made it clear that he wants to stifle all non-white immigration, period. His mass arrests, iceboxes and dog cages are part of an explicitly nationalist project to put the country under the control of the right kind of white people.
As a Republican National Committee report noted in 2013: “The nation’s demographic changes add to the urgency of recognizing how precarious our position has become.” The Trump administration’s attempt to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census was also just revealed to have been a plot to disadvantage political opponents and boost “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” all along.
That’s why this isn’t just a crisis facing immigrants. When a leader puts people in camps to stay in power, history shows that he doesn’t usually stop with the first group he detains.
There are now at least 48,000 people detained in ICE facilities, which a former official told BuzzFeed News “could swell indefinitely.” Customs and Border Protection officials apprehended more than 144,000 people on the Southwest border last month. (The New York Times dutifully reported this as evidence of a “dramatic surge in border crossings,” rather than what it was: The administration using its own surge of arrests to justify the rest of its policies.)
If we call them what they are — a growing system of American concentration camps — we will be more likely to give them the attention they deserve. We need to know their names: Port Isabel, Dilley, Adelanto, Hutto and on and on. With constant, unrelenting attention, it is possible we might alleviate the plight of the people inside, and stop the crisis from getting worse. Maybe people won’t be able to disappear so easily into the iceboxes. Maybe it will be harder for authorities to lie about children’s deaths.
Maybe Trump’s concentration camps will be the first thing we think of when we see him scowling on TV.
The only other option is to leave it up to those in power to decide what’s next. That’s a calculated risk. As Andrea Pitzer, author of “One Long Night,” one of the most comprehensive books on the history of concentration camps, recently noted: “Every country has said their camps are humane and will be different. Trump is instinctively an authoritarian. He’ll take them as far as he’s allowed to.”
▻https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-katz-immigrant-concentration-camps-20190609-story.html
#terminologie #vocabulaire #mots #camps #camps_de_concentration #centres_de_détention #détention_administrative #rétention #USA #Etats-Unis
#cpa_camps
CDB_77 @cdb_77
- CDB_77 @cdb_77 22/06/2019
  
  ‘Some Suburb of Hell’: America’s New Concentration Camp System
  https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-73862274.jpg
  On Monday, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to US border detention facilities as “concentration camps,” spurring a backlash in which critics accused her of demeaning the memory of those who died in the Holocaust. Debates raged over a label for what is happening along the southern border and grew louder as the week rolled on. But even this back-and-forth over naming the camps has been a recurrent feature in the mass detention of civilians ever since its inception, a history that long predates the Holocaust.
  At the heart of such policy is a question: What does a country owe desperate people whom it does not consider to be its citizens? The twentieth century posed this question to the world just as the shadow of global conflict threatened for the second time in less than three decades. The dominant response was silence, and the doctrine of absolute national sovereignty meant that what a state did to people under its control, within its borders, was nobody else’s business. After the harrowing toll of the Holocaust with the murder of millions, the world revisited its answer, deciding that perhaps something was owed to those in mortal danger. From the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians in 1949 to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the international community established humanitarian obligations toward the most vulnerable that apply, at least in theory, to all nations.
  The twenty-first century is unraveling that response. Countries are rejecting existing obligations and meeting asylum seekers with walls and fences, from detainees fleeing persecution who were sent by Australia to third-party detention in the brutal offshore camps of Manus and Nauru to razor-wire barriers blocking Syrian refugees from entering Hungary. While some nations, such as Germany, wrestle with how to integrate refugees into their labor force—more and more have become resistant to letting them in at all. The latest location of this unwinding is along the southern border of the United States.
  So far, American citizens have gotten only glimpses of the conditions in the border camps that have been opened in their name. In the month of May, Customs and Border Protection reported a total of 132,887 migrants who were apprehended or turned themselves in between ports of entry along the southwest border, an increase of 34 percent from April alone. Upon apprehension, these migrants are temporarily detained by Border Patrol, and once their claims are processed, they are either released or handed over to ICE for longer-term detention. Yet Border Patrol itself is currently holding about 15,000 people, nearly four times what government officials consider to be this enforcement arm’s detention capacity.
  On June 12, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Fort Sill, an Army post that hosted a World War II internment camp for detainees of Japanese descent, will now be repurposed to detain migrant children. In total, HHS reports that it is currently holding some 12,000 minors. Current law limits detention of minors to twenty days, though Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed expanding the court-ordered limit to 100 days. Since the post is on federal land, it will be exempt from state child welfare inspections.
  In addition to the total of detainees held by Border Patrol, an even higher number is detained at centers around the country by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency: on a typical day at the beginning of this month, ICE was detaining more than 52,500 migrants. The family separation policy outraged the public in the 2018, but despite legal challenges, it never fully ended. Less publicized have been the deaths of twenty-four adults in ICE custody since the beginning of the Trump administration; in addition, six children between the ages of two and sixteen have died in federal custody over the last several months. It’s not clear whether there have been other deaths that have gone unreported.
  https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-1136085170.jpg
  Conditions for detainees have not been improving. At the end of May, a Department of Homeland Security inspector general found nearly 900 migrants at a Texas shelter built for a capacity of 125 people. On June 11, a university professor spotted at least 100 men behind chain-link fences near the Paso del Norte Bridge in El Paso, Texas. Those detainees reported sitting outside for weeks in temperatures that soared above 100 degrees. Taylor Levy, an El Paso immigration lawyer, described going into one facility and finding “a suicidal four-year-old whose face was covered in bloody, self-inflicted scratches… Another young child had to be restrained by his mother because he kept running full-speed into metal lockers. He was covered in bruises.”
  If deciding what to do about the growing numbers of adults and children seeking refuge in the US relies on complex humanitarian policies and international laws, in which most Americans don’t take a deep interest, a simpler question also presents itself: What exactly are these camps that the Trump administration has opened, and where is this program of mass detention headed?
  Even with incomplete information about what’s happening along the border today and what the government plans for these camps, history points to some conclusions about their future. Mass detention without trial earned a new name and a specific identity at the end of the nineteenth century. The labels then adopted for the practice were “reconcentración” and “concentration camps”—places of forced relocation of civilians into detention on the basis of group identity.
  Other kinds of group detention had appeared much earlier in North American history. The US government drove Native Americans from their homelands into prescribed exile, with death and detention in transit camps along the way. Some Spanish mission systems in the Americas had accomplished similar ends by seizing land and pressing indigenous people into forced labor. During the 245 years when slavery was legal in the US, detention was one of its essential features.
  Concentration camps, however, don’t typically result from the theft of land, as happened with Native Americans, or owning human beings in a system of forced labor, as in the slave trade. Exile, theft, and forced labor can come later, but in the beginning, detention itself is usually the point of concentration camps. By the end of the nineteenth century, the mass production of barbed wire and machines guns made this kind of detention possible and practical in ways it never had been before.
  Under Spanish rule in 1896, the governor-general of Cuba instituted camps in order to clear rebel-held regions during an uprising, despite his predecessor’s written refusal “as the representative of a civilized nation, to be the first to give the example of cruelty and intransigence” that such detention would represent. After women and children began dying in vast numbers behind barbed wire because there had been little planning for shelter and even less for food, US President William McKinley made his call to war before Congress. He spoke against the policy of reconcentración, calling it warfare by uncivilized means. “It was extermination,” McKinley said. “The only peace it could beget was that of the wilderness and the grave.” Without full records, the Cuban death toll can only be estimated, but a consensus puts it in the neighborhood of 150,000, more than 10 percent of the island’s prewar population.
  Today, we remember the sinking of the USS Maine as the spark that ignited the Spanish-American War. But war correspondent George Kennan (cousin of the more famous diplomat) believed that “it was the suffering of the reconcentrados, more, perhaps, than any other one thing that brought about the intervention of the United States.” On April 25, 1898, Congress declared war. Two weeks later, US Marines landed at Fisherman’s Point on the windward side of the entrance to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. After a grim, week-long fight, the Marines took the hill. It became a naval base, and the United States has never left that patch of land.
  As part of the larger victory, the US inherited the Philippines. The world’s newest imperial power also inherited a rebellion. Following a massacre of American troops at Balangiga in September 1901, during the third year of the conflict, the US established its own concentration camp system. Detainees, mostly women and children, were forced into squalid conditions that one American soldier described in a letter to a US senator as “some suburb of hell.” In the space of only four months, more than 11,000 Filipinos are believed to have died in these noxious camps.
  Meanwhile, in southern Africa in 1900, the British had opened their own camps during their battle with descendants of Dutch settlers in the second Boer War. British soldiers filled tent cities with Boer women and children, and the military authorities called them refugee camps. Future Prime Minister David Lloyd George took offense at that name, noting in Parliament: “There is no greater delusion in the mind of any man than to apply the term ‘refugee’ to these camps. They are not refugee camps. They are camps of concentration.” Contemporary observers compared them to the Cuban camps, and criticized their deliberate cruelty. The Bishop of Hereford wrote to The Times of London in 1901, asking: “Are we reduced to such a depth of impotence that our Government can do nothing to stop such a holocaust of child-life?”
  https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-545966581.jpg
  Maggoty meat rations and polluted water supplies joined outbreaks of contagious diseases amid crowded and unhealthy conditions in the Boer camps. More than 27,000 detainees are thought to have died there, nearly 80 percent of them children. The British had opened camps for black Africans as well, in which at least 14,000 detainees died—the real number is probably much higher. Aside from protests made by some missionaries, the deaths of indigenous black Africans did not inspire much public outrage. Much of the history of the suffering in these camps has been lost.
  These early experiments with concentration camps took place on the periphery of imperial power, but accounts of them nevertheless made their way into newspapers and reports in many nations. As a result, the very idea of them came to be seen as barbaric. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the first camp systems had all been closed, and concentration camps had nearly vanished as an institution. Within months of the outbreak of World War I, though, they would be resurrected—this time rising not at the margins but in the centers of power. Between 1914 and 1918, camps were constructed on an unprecedented scale across six continents. In their time, these camps were commonly called concentration camps, though today they are often referred to by the more anodyne term “internment.”
  Those World War I detainees were, for the most part, foreigners—or, in legalese, aliens—and recent anti-immigration legislation in several countries had deliberately limited their rights. The Daily Mail denounced aliens left at liberty once they had registered with their local police department, demanding, “Does signing his name take the malice out of a man?” The Scottish Field was more direct, asking, “Do Germans have souls?” That these civilian detainees were no threat to Britain did not keep them from being demonized, shouted at, and spat upon as they were paraded past hostile crowds in cities like London.
  Though a small number of people were shot in riots in these camps, and hunger became a serious issue as the conflict dragged on, World War I internment would present a new, non-lethal face for the camps, normalizing detention. Even after the war, new camps sprang up from Spain to Hungary and Cuba, providing an improvised “solution” for everything from vagrancy to anxieties over the presence of Jewish foreigners.
  Some of these camps were clearly not safe for those interned. Local camps appeared in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921, after a white mob burned down a black neighborhood and detained African-American survivors. In Bolshevik Russia, the first concentration camps preceded the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922 and planted seeds for the brutal Gulag system that became official near the end of the USSR’s first decade. While some kinds of camps were understood to be harsher, after World War I their proliferation did not initially disturb public opinion. They had yet to take on their worst incarnations.
  In 1933, barely more than a month after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis’ first, impromptu camp opened in the town of Nohra in central Germany to hold political opponents. Detainees at Nohra were allowed to vote at a local precinct in the elections of March 5, 1933, resulting in a surge of Communist ballots in the tiny town. Locking up groups of civilians without trial had become accepted. Only the later realization of the horrors of the Nazi death camps would break the default assumption by governments and the public that concentration camps could and should be a simple way to manage populations seen as a threat.
  However, the staggering death toll of the Nazi extermination camp system—which was created mid-war and stood almost entirely separate from the concentration camps in existence since 1933—led to another result: a strange kind of erasure. In the decades that followed World War II, the term “concentration camp” came to stand only for Auschwitz and other extermination camps. It was no longer applied to the kind of extrajudicial detention it had denoted for generations. The many earlier camps that had made the rise of Auschwitz possible largely vanished from public memory.
  https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-51707546.jpg
  It is not necessary, however, to step back a full century in American history to find camps with links to what is happening on the US border today. Detention at Guantánamo began in the 1990s, when Haitian and Cuban immigrants whom the government wanted to keep out of the United States were housed there in waves over a four-year period—years before the “war on terror” and the US policy of rendition of suspected “enemy combatants” made Camps Delta, X-Ray, and Echo notorious. Tens of thousands of Haitians fleeing instability at home were picked up at sea and diverted to the Cuban base, to limit their legal right to apply for asylum. The court cases and battles over the suffering of those detainees ended up setting the stage for what Guantánamo would become after September 11, 2001.
  In one case, a federal court ruled that it did have jurisdiction over the base, but the government agreed to release the Haitians who were part of the lawsuit in exchange for keeping that ruling off the books. A ruling in a second case would assert that the courts did not have jurisdiction. Absent the prior case, the latter stood on its own as precedent. Leaving Guantánamo in this gray area made it an ideal site for extrajudicial detention and torture after the twin towers fell.
  This process of normalization, when a bad camp becomes much more dangerous, is not unusual. Today’s border camps are a crueler reflection of long-term policies—some challenged in court—that earlier presidents had enacted. Prior administrations own a share of the responsibility for today’s harsh practices, but the policies in place today are also accompanied by a shameless willingness to publicly target a vulnerable population in increasingly dangerous ways.
  I visited Guantánamo twice in 2015, sitting in the courtroom for pretrial hearings and touring the medical facility, the library, and all the old abandoned detention sites, as well as newly built ones, open to the media—from the kennel-style cages of Camp X-Ray rotting to ruin in the damp heat to the modern jailhouse facilities of Camp 6. Seeing all this in person made clear to me how vast the architecture of detention had become, how entrenched it was, and how hard it would be to close.
  Without a significant government effort to reverse direction, conditions in every camp system tend to deteriorate over time. Governments rarely make that kind of effort on behalf of people they are willing to lock up without trial in the first place. And history shows that legislatures do not close camps against the will of an executive.
  Just a few years ago there might have been more potential for change spurred by the judicial branch of our democracy, but this Supreme Court is inclined toward deference to executive power, even, it appears, if that power is abused. It seems unlikely this Court will intervene to end the new border camp system; indeed, the justices are far more likely to institutionalize it by half-measures, as happened with Guantánamo. The Korematsu case, in which the Supreme Court upheld Japanese-American internment (a ruling only rescinded last year), relied on the suppression of evidence by the solicitor general. Americans today can have little confidence that this administration would behave any more scrupulously when defending its detention policy.
  What kind of conditions can we expect to develop in these border camps? The longer a camp system stays open, the more likely it is that vital things will go wrong: detainees will contract contagious diseases and suffer from malnutrition and mental illness. We have already seen that current detention practices have resulted in children and adults succumbing to influenza, staph infections, and sepsis. The US is now poised to inflict harm on tens of thousands more, perhaps hundreds of thousands more.
  Along with such inevitable consequences, every significant camp system has introduced new horrors of its own, crises that were unforeseen when that system was opened. We have yet to discover what those will be for these American border camps. But they will happen. Every country thinks it can do detention better when it starts these projects. But no good way to conduct mass indefinite detention has yet been devised; the system always degrades.
  When, in 1940, Margarete Buber-Neumann was transferred from the Soviet Gulag at Karaganda to the camp for women at Ravensbrück (in an exchange enabled by the Nazi–Soviet Pact), she came from near-starvation conditions in the USSR and was amazed at the cleanliness and order of the Nazi camp. New arrivals were issued clothing, bedding, and silverware, and given fresh porridge, fruit, sausage, and jam to eat. Although the Nazi camps were already punitive, order-obsessed monstrosities, the wartime overcrowding that would soon overtake them had not yet made daily life a thing of constant suffering and squalor. The death camps were still two years away.
  The United States now has a vast and growing camp system. It is starting out with gruesome overcrowding and inadequate healthcare, and because of budget restrictions, has already taken steps to cut services to juvenile detainees. The US Office of Refugee Resettlement says that the mounting number of children arriving unaccompanied is forcing it to use military bases and other sites that it prefers to avoid, and that establishing these camps is a temporary measure. But without oversight from state child welfare inspectors, the possibilities for neglect and abuse are alarming. And without any knowledge of how many asylum-seekers are coming in the future, federal administrators are likely to find themselves boxed in to managing detention on military sites permanently.
  President Trump and senior White House adviser Stephen Miller appear to have purged the Department of Homeland Security of most internal opposition to their anti-immigrant policies. In doing so, that have removed even those sympathetic to the general approach taken by the White House, such as former Chief of Staff John Kelly and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, in order to escalate the militarization of the border and expand irregular detention in more systematic and punitive ways. This kind of power struggle or purge in the early years of a camp system is typical.
  The disbanding of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police, in February 1922 and the transfer of its commander, Felix Dzerzhinsky, to head up an agency with control over only two prisons offered a hint of an alternate future in which extrajudicial detention would not play a central role in the fledgling Soviet republic. But Dzerzhinsky managed to keep control over the “special camps” in his new position, paving the way for the emergence of a camp-centered police state. In pre-war Germany in the mid-1930s, Himmler’s struggle to consolidate power from rivals eventually led him to make camps central to Nazi strategy. When the hardliners win, as they appear to have in the US, conditions tend to worsen significantly.
  Is it possible this growth in the camp system will be temporary and the improvised border camps will soon close? In theory, yes. But the longer they remain open, the less likely they are to vanish. When I visited the camps for Rohingya Muslims a year before the large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing began, many observers appeared to be confusing the possible and the probable. It was possible that the party of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi would sweep into office in free elections and begin making changes. It was possible that full democracy would come to all the residents of Myanmar, even though the government had stripped the Rohingya of the last vestiges of their citizenship. These hopes proved to be misplaced. Once there are concentration camps, it is always probable that things will get worse.
  The Philippines, Japanese-American internment, Guantánamo… we can consider the fine points of how the current border camps evoke past US systems, and we can see how the arc of camp history reveals the likelihood that the suffering we’re currently inflicting will be multiplied exponentially. But we can also simply look at what we’re doing right now, shoving bodies into “dog pound”-style detention pens, “iceboxes,” and standing room-only spaces. We can look at young children in custody who have become suicidal. How much more historical awareness do we really need?
  https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-980378244.jpg
  ▻https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/06/21/some-suburb-of-hell-americas-new-concentration-camp-system
  
  CDB_77 @cdb_77
- CDB_77 @cdb_77 4/07/2019
  
  #Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez engage le bras de fer avec la politique migratoire de Donald Trump
  L’élue de New York a qualifié les camps de rétention pour migrants érigés à la frontière sud des Etats-Unis de « camps de concentration ».
  https://img.lemde.fr/2019/05/30/0/0/3380/2254/688/0/60/0/8eb63f4_25295452f75f465a8b11ca278494454c-25295452f75f465a8b11ca278494454c-0.jpg
  ▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/06/19/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-engage-le-bras-de-fer-avec-la-politique-migratoire-
  
  CDB_77 @cdb_77
Écrire un commentaire
CDB_77 @cdb_77 9/04/2019

#CBP terminates controversial $297 million #Accenture contract amid continued staffing struggles
#Customs_and_Border_Protection on Thursday ended its controversial $297 million hiring contract with Accenture, according to two senior DHS officials and an Accenture representative.
As of December, when CBP terminated part of its contract, the company had only completed processing 58 applicants and only 22 had made it onto the payroll about a year after the company was hired.
At the time, the 3,500 applicants that remained in the Accenture hiring pipeline were transferred to CBP’s own hiring center to complete the process.
CBP cut ties with Accenture on processing applicants a few months ago, it retained some services, including marketing, advertising and applicant support.
This week, the entire contract was terminated for “convenience,” government speak for agreeing to part ways without placing blame on Accenture.
While government hiring is “slow and onerous, it’s also part of being in the government” and that’s “something we have to accept and deal with as we go forward,” said one of the officials.
For its efforts, CBP paid Accenture around $19 million in start-up costs, and around $2 million for 58 people who got job offers, according to the officials.
Over the last couple of months, CBP explored how to modify the contract, but ultimately decided to completely stop work and return any remaining funds to taxpayers.
But it’s unclear how much money, if any, that will be.
In addition, to the funds already paid to Accenture, CBP has around $39 million left to “settle and close the books” with the company, an amount which has yet to be determined.
In November 2017, CBP awarded Accenture the contract to help meet the hiring demands of an executive order on border security that President Donald Trump signed during his first week in office. The administration directed CBP to hire an additional 7,500 agents and officers on top of its current hiring goals.
“We were in a situation where we needed to try something new” and “break the cycle of going backwards,” said a DHS official about why the agency started the contract.
Meanwhile, hiring remains difficult for the agency amid a surge of migrants at the southern border that is stretching CBP resources thin.
It “continues to be a very challenging environment,” said one official about hiring efforts this year.
In fact, one of the reasons that CBP didn’t need Accenture to process applicants, is because the agency didn’t receive as many applications as it initially planned for.
The agency has been focused on beating attrition and has been able to recently “beat it by a modest amount,” said the official. “Ultimately we would like to beat it by a heck of a lot, but we’re not there yet.”
▻https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/05/politics/cbp-terminate-hiring-contract-accenture/index.html
#frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #USA #Ests-Unis #complexe_militaro-industriel #business
CDB_77 @cdb_77
- CDB_77 @cdb_77 3/07/2019
  
  Border Profiteers
  https://48ic4g3gr5iyzszh237mlfcm-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/B46_OConnor_opener.jpg
  On a recent sunny spring afternoon in Texas, a couple hundred Border Patrol agents, Homeland Security officials, and salespeople from a wide array of defense and security contractors gathered at the Bandera Gun Club about an hour northwest of San Antonio to eat barbecue and shoot each other’s guns. The techies wore flip-flops; the veterans wore combat boots. Everyone had a good time. They were letting loose, having spent the last forty-eight hours cooped up in suits and ties back at San Antonio’s Henry B. Gonzalez convention center, mingling and schmoozing, hawking their wares, and listening to immigration officials rail about how those serving in enforcement agencies are not, under any circumstances, Nazis.
  These profiteers and bureaucrats of the immigration-industrial complex were fresh from the 2019 #Border_Security_Expo —essentially a trade show for state violence, where law enforcement officers and weapons manufacturers gather, per the Expo’s marketing materials, to “identify and address new and emerging border challenges and opportunities through technology, partnership, and innovation.” The previous two days of panels, speeches, and presentations had been informative, a major in the Argentine Special Forces told me at the gun range, but boring. He was glad to be outside, where handguns popped and automatic rifles spat around us. I emptied a pistol into a target while a man in a Three Percenter militia baseball hat told me that I was a “natural-born killer.” A drone buzzed overhead until, in a demonstration of a company’s new anti-drone technology, a device that looked like a rocket launcher and fired a sort of exploding net took it down. “This is music to me,” the Argentine major said.
  Perhaps it’s not surprising the Border Security Expo attendees were so eager to blow off steam. This year’s event found many of them in a defensive posture, given the waves of bad press they’d endured since President Trump’s inauguration, and especially since the disastrous implementation of his family separation policy, officially announced by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April of 2018, before being rescinded by Trump two-and-a-half months later. Throughout the Expo, in public events and in background roundtable conversations with reporters, officials from the various component parts of the Department of Homeland Security rolled out a series of carefully rehearsed talking points: Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) need more money, personnel, and technology; taking migrants to hospitals distracts CBP officers from their real mission; and the 1997 Flores court settlement, which prohibits immigration enforcement agencies from detaining migrant families with children for more than twenty days, is undermining the very sovereignty of the United States. “We want a secure border, we want an immigration system that has integrity,” Ronald Vitiello, then–acting head of ICE, said in a keynote address to the hundreds of people gathered in San Antonio. “We have a generous immigration system in this country, but it has to have integrity in order for us to continue to be so generous.”
  More of a technocrat than his thuggish predecessor Thomas Homan, Vitiello also spoke at length about using the “dark web” to take down smugglers and the importance of having the most up-to-date data-management technology. But he spoke most adamantly about needing “a fix” for the Flores settlement. “If you prosecute crimes and you give people consequences, you get less of it,” he said. “With Flores, there’s no consequence, and everybody knows that,” a senior ICE official echoed to reporters during a background conversation immediately following Vitiello’s keynote remarks. “That’s why you’re seeing so many family units. We cannot apply a consequence to a family unit, because we have to release them.”
  Meanwhile, around 550 miles to the west, in El Paso, hundreds of migrants, including children and families, were being held by CBP under a bridge, reportedly forced to sleep on the ground, with inadequate medical attention. “They treated us like we are animals,” one Honduran man told Texas Monthly. “I felt what they were trying to do was to hurt us psychologically, so we would understand that this is a lesson we were being taught, that we shouldn’t have crossed.” Less than a week after the holding pen beneath the bridge closed, Vitiello’s nomination to run ICE would be pulled amid a spate of firings across DHS; President Trump wanted to go “in a tougher direction.”
  Family Values
  On the second day of the Border Security Expo, in a speech over catered lunch, Scott Luck, deputy chief of Customs and Border Protection and a career Border Patrol agent, lamented that the influx of children and families at the border meant that resources were being diverted from traditional enforcement practices. “Every day, about 150 agents spend their shifts at hospitals and medical facilities with illegal aliens receiving treatment,” he said. “The annual salary cost for agents on hospital watch is more than $11.5 million. Budget analysts estimate that 13 percent of our operational budget—the budget that we use to buy equipment, to buy vehicles for our men and women—is now used for transportation, medical expenses, diapers, food, and other necessities to care for illegal aliens in Border Patrol custody.”
  As far as Luck was concerned, every dollar spent on food and diapers is one not spent on drones and weapons, and every hour an agent spends guarding a migrant in a hospital is an hour they don’t spend on the border. “It’s not what they signed up for. The mission they signed up for is to protect the United States border, to protect the communities in which they live and serve,” he told reporters after his speech. “The influx, the volume, the clutter that this creates is frustrating.” Vitiello applied an Orwellian inversion: “We’re not helping them as fast as we want to,” he said of migrant families apprehended at the border.
  Even when discussing the intimate needs of detained migrant families, the language border officials used to describe their remit throughout the Expo was explicitly militaristic: achieving “operational control,” Luck said, requires “impedance and denial” and “situational awareness.” He referred to technology as a “vital force multiplier.” He at least stopped short of endorsing the president’s framing that what is happening on the border constitutes an invasion, instead describing it as a “deluge.”
  According to the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, the U.S. immigrant population has continued to grow—although at a slower rate than it did before the 2007 recession, and undocumented people appear to make up a smaller proportion of the overall population. Regardless, in fiscal year 2018, both ICE and CBP stepped up their enforcement activities, arresting, apprehending, and deporting people at significantly higher rates than the previous year. More than three times as many family members were apprehended at the border last year than in 2017, the Pew Research Center reports, and in the first six months of FY 2019 alone there were 189,584 apprehensions of “family units”: more than half of all apprehensions at the border during that time, and more than the full-year total of apprehended families for any other year on record. While the overall numbers have not yet begun to approach those of the 1980s and 1990s, when apprehensions regularly exceeded one million per year, the demographics of who is arriving at the United States southern border are changing: fewer single men from Mexico and more children and families from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—in other words, an ever-wider range of desperate victims of drug gangs and American policies that have long supported corrupt regimes.
  This change has presented people like Luck with problems they insist are merely logistical: aging Border Patrol stations, he told us at the Expo, “are not luxurious in any way, and they were never intended to handle families and children.” The solution, according to Vitiello, is “continued capital investment” in those facilities, as well as the cars and trucks necessary to patrol the border region and transport those apprehended from CBP custody to ICE detention centers, the IT necessary to sift through vast amounts of data accumulated through untold surveillance methods, and all of “the systems by which we do our work.”
  Neither Vitiello nor Luck would consider whether those systems—wherein thousands of children, ostensibly under the federal government’s care, have been sexually abused and five, from December through May of this year, have died—ought to be questioned. Both laughed off calls from migrant justice organizers, activists, and politicians to abolish ICE. “The concept of the Department of Homeland Security—and ICE as an agency within it—was designed for us to learn the lessons from 9/11,” Vitiello said. “Those needs still exist in this society. We’re gonna do our part.” DHS officials have even considered holding migrant children at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to the New York Times, where a new $23 million “contingency mass migration complex” is being built. The complex, which is to be completed by the end of the year, will have a capacity of thirteen thousand.
  Violence is the Point
  The existence of ICE may be a consequence of 9/11, but the first sections of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border—originally to contain livestock—went up in 1909 through 1911. In 1945, in response to a shift in border crossings from Texas to California, the U.S. Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service recycled fencing wire and posts from internment camps in Crystal City, Texas, where more than a hundred thousand Japanese Americans had been imprisoned during World War II. “Although the INS could not erect a continuous line of fence along the border, they hoped that strategic placement of the fence would ‘compel persons seeking to enter the United States illegally to attempt to go around the ends of the fence,’” historian Kelly Lytle Hernández, quoting from government documents, writes in Migra! A History of the U.S. Border Patrol. “What lay at the end of the fences and canals were desert lands and mountains extremely dangerous to cross without guidance or sufficient water. The fences, therefore, discouraged illegal immigration by exposing undocumented border crossers to the dangers of daytime dehydration and nighttime hypothermia.”
  Apprehension and deportation tactics continued to escalate in the years following World War II—including Operation Wetback, the infamous (and heavily propagandized) mass-deportation campaign of 1954—but the modern, militarized border era was greatly boosted by Bill Clinton. It was during Clinton’s first administration that Border Patrol released its “Strategic Plan: 1994 and Beyond,” which introduced the idea of “prevention through deterrence,” a theory of border policing that built on the logic of the original wall and hinges upon increasing the “cost” of migration “to the point that many will consider it futile to continue to attempt illegal entry.” With the Strategic Plan, the agency was requesting more money, officers, and equipment in order to “enhance national security and safeguard our immigration heritage.”
  The plan also noted that “a strong interior enforcement posture works well for border control,” and in 1996, amid a flurry of legislation targeting people of color and the poor, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which empowered the federal government to deport more people more quickly and made it nearly impossible for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status. “Before 1996, internal enforcement activities had not played a very significant role in immigration enforcement,” the sociologists Douglas Massey and Karen A. Pren wrote in 2012. “Afterward these activities rose to levels not seen since the deportation campaigns of the Great Depression.” With the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2002, immigration was further securitized and criminalized, paving the way for an explosion in border policing technology that has further aligned the state with the defense and security industry. And at least one of Border Patrol’s “key assumptions,” explicitly stated in the 1994 strategy document, has borne out: “Violence will increase as effects of strategy are felt.”
  What this phrasing obscures, however, is that violence is the border strategy. In practice, what “prevention through deterrence” has meant is forcing migrants to cross the U.S.-Mexico border in the desert, putting already vulnerable people at even greater risk. Closing urban points of entry, for example, or making asylum-seekers wait indefinitely in Mexico while their claims are processed, pushes migrants into remote areas where there is a higher likelihood they will suffer injury and death, as in the case of seven-year-old Jakil Caal Maquin, who died of dehydration and shock after being taken into CBP custody in December. (A spokesperson for CBP, in an email response, deflected questions about whether the agency considers children dying in its custody a deterrent.) Maquin is one of many thousands who have died attempting to cross into the United States: the most conservative estimate comes from CBP itself, which has recovered the remains of 7,505 people from its southwest border sectors between 1998 and 2018. This figure accounts for neither those who die on the Mexican side of the border, nor those whose bodies remain lost to the desert.
  Draconian immigration policing causes migrants to resort to smugglers and traffickers, creating the conditions for their exploitation by cartels and other violent actors and increasing the likelihood that they will be kidnapped, coerced, or extorted. As a result, some migrants have sought the safety of collective action in the form of the “caravan” or “exodus,” which has then led the U.S. media and immigration enforcement agencies to justify further militarization of the border. Indeed, in his keynote address at the Expo, Luck described “the emerging prevalence of large groups of one hundred people or more” as “troubling and especially dangerous.” Later, a sales representative for the gun manufacturer Glock very confidently explained to me that this was because agents of al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, were embedded with the caravans.
  Branding the Border
  Unsurprisingly, caravans came up frequently at the Border Security Expo. (An ICE spokesperson would later decline to explain what specific threat they pose to national security, instead citing general statistics about the terrorist watchlist, “special interest aliens,” and “suspicious travel patterns.”) During his own keynote speech, Vitiello described how ICE, and specifically its subcomponent Homeland Security Investigations, had deployed surveillance and intelligence-gathering techniques to monitor the progress of caravans toward the border. “When these caravans have come, we’ve had trained, vetted individuals on the ground in those countries reporting in real time what they were seeing: who the organizers were, how they were being funded,” he said, before going on an astonishing tangent:
  That’s the kind of capability that also does amazing things to protecting brands, property rights, economic security. Think about it. If you start a company, introduce a product that’s innovative, there are people in the world who can take that, deconstruct it, and create their own version of it and sell it as yours. All the sweat that went into whatever that product was, to build your brand, they’ll take it away and slap it on some substandard product. It’s not good for consumers, it’s not good for public safety, and it’s certainly an economic drain on the country. That’s part of the mission.
  That the then–acting director of ICE, the germ-cell of fascism in the bourgeois American state, would admit that an important part of his agency’s mission is the protection of private property is a testament to the Trump administration’s commitment to saying the quiet part out loud.
  In fact, brands and private industry had pride of place at the Border Security Expo. A memorial ceremony for men and women of Border Patrol who have been killed in the line of duty was sponsored by Sava Solutions, an IT firm that has been awarded at least $482 million in federal contracts since 2008. Sava, whose president spent twenty-four years with the DEA and whose director of business development spent twenty with the FBI, was just one of the scores of firms in attendance at the Expo, each hoping to persuade the bureaucrats in charge of acquiring new gear for border security agencies that their drones, their facial recognition technology, their “smart” fences were the best of the bunch. Corporate sponsors included familiar names like Verizon and Motorola, and other less well-known ones, like Elbit Systems of America, a subsidiary of Israel’s largest private defense contractor, as well as a handful of IT firms with aggressive slogans like “Ever Vigilant” (CACI), “Securing the Future” (ManTech), and “Securing Your Tomorrow” (Unisys).
  The presence of these firms—and indeed the very existence of the Expo—underscores an important truth that anyone attempting to understand immigration politics must reckon with: border security is big business. The “homeland security and emergency management market,” driven by “increasing terrorist threats and biohazard attacks and occurrence of unpredictable natural disasters,” is projected to grow to more than $742 billion by 2023 from $557 billion in 2018, one financial analysis has found. In the coming decades, as more people are displaced by climate catastrophe and economic crises—estimates vary between 150 million and 1 billion by 2050—the industry dedicated to policing the vulnerable stands to profit enormously. By 2013, the United States was already spending more on federal immigration enforcement than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined, including the FBI and DEA; ICE’s budget has doubled since its inception in 2003, while CBP’s has nearly tripled. Between 1993 and 2018, the number of Border Patrol agents grew from 4,139 to 19,555. And year after year, Democrats and Republicans alike have been happy to fuel an ever more high-tech deportation machine. “Congress has given us a lot of money in technology,” Luck told reporters after his keynote speech. “They’ve given us over what we’ve asked for in technology!”
  “As all of this rhetoric around security has increased, so has the impetus to give them more weapons and more tools and more gadgets,” Jacinta Gonzalez, a senior campaign organizer with Mijente, a national network of migrant justice activists, told me. “That’s also where the profiteering comes in.” She continued: “Industries understand what’s good for business and adapt themselves to what they see is happening. If they see an administration coming into power that is pro-militarization, anti-immigrant, pro-police, anti-communities of color, then that’s going to shape where they put their money.”
  By way of example, Gonzalez pointed to Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, who spent $1.25 million supporting Trump’s 2016 election campaign and followed that up last year by donating $1 million to the Club for Growth—a far-right libertarian organization founded by Heritage Foundation fellow and one-time Federal Reserve Board prospect Stephen Moore—as well as about $350,000 to the Republican National Committee and other GOP groups. ICE has awarded Palantir, the $20 billion surveillance firm founded by Thiel, several contracts worth tens of millions of dollars to manage its data streams—a partnership the agency considers “mission critical,” according to documents reviewed by The Intercept. Palantir, in turn, runs on Amazon Web Services, the cloud computing service provided by the world’s most valuable public company, which is itself a key contractor in managing the Department of Homeland Security’s $6.8 billion IT portfolio.
  Meanwhile, former DHS secretary John Kelly, who was Trump’s chief of staff when the administration enacted its “zero-tolerance” border policy, has joined the board of Caliburn International—parent organization of the only for-profit company operating shelters for migrant children. “Border enforcement and immigration policy,” Caliburn reported in an SEC filing last year, “is driving significant growth.” As Harsha Walia writes in Undoing Border Imperialism, “the state and capitalism are again in mutual alliance.”
  Triumph of the Techno-Nativists
  At one point during the Expo, between speeches, I stopped by a booth for Network Integrity Systems, a security firm that had set up a demonstration of its Sentinel™ Perimeter Intrusion Detection System. A sales representative stuck out his hand and introduced himself, eager to explain how his employer’s fiber optic motion sensors could be used at the border, or—he paused to correct himself—“any kind of perimeter.” He invited me to step inside the space that his coworkers had built, starting to say “cage” but then correcting himself, again, to say “small enclosure.” (It was literally a cage.) If I could get out, climbing over the fencing, without triggering the alarm, I would win a $500 Amazon gift card. I did not succeed.
  Overwhelmingly, the vendors in attendance at the Expo were there to promote this kind of technology: not concrete and steel, but motion sensors, high-powered cameras, and drones. Customs and Border Patrol’s chief operating officer John Sanders—whose biography on the CBP website describes him as a “seasoned entrepreneur and innovator” who has “served on the Board of Directors for several leading providers of contraband detection, geospatial intelligence, and data analytics solutions”—concluded his address by bestowing on CBP the highest compliment he could muster: declaring the agency comparable “to any start-up.” Rhetoric like Sanders’s, ubiquitous at the Expo, renders the border both bureaucratic and boring: a problem to be solved with some algorithmic mixture of brutality and Big Data. The future of border security, as shaped by the material interests that benefit from border securitization, is not a wall of the sort imagined by President Trump, but a “smart” wall.
  High-ranking Democrats—leaders in the second party of capital—and Republicans from the border region have championed this compromise. During the 2018-2019 government shutdown, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson told reporters that Democrats would appropriate $5.7 billion for “border security,” so long as that did not include a wall of Trump’s description. “Walls are primitive. What we need to do is have border security,” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said in January. He later expanded to CNN: “I’ve said that we ought to have a smart wall. I defined that as a wall using drones to make it too high to get over, using x-ray equipment to make it too wide to get around, and using scanners to go deep enough not to be able to tunnel under it. To me, that would be a smart thing to do.”
  Even the social democratic vision of Senator Bernie Sanders stops short at the border. “If you open the borders, my God, there’s a lot of poverty in this world, and you’re going to have people from all over the world,” he told Iowa voters in early April, “and I don’t think that’s something that we can do at this point.” Over a week later, during a Fox News town hall with Pennsylvania voters, he recommitted: “We need border security. Of course we do. Who argues with that? That goes without saying.”
  To the extent that Trump’s rhetoric, his administration’s immigration policies, and the enforcement agencies’ practices have made the “border crisis” more visible than ever before, they’ve done so on terms that most Democrats and liberals fundamentally agree with: immigration must be controlled and policed; the border must be enforced. One need look no further than the high priest of sensible centrism, Thomas Friedman, whose major complaint about Trump’s immigration politics is that he is “wasting” the crisis—an allusion to Rahm Emanuel’s now-clichéd remark that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” (Frequently stripped of context, it is worth remembering that Emanuel made this comment in the throes of the 2008 financial meltdown, at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council, shortly following President Obama’s election.) “Regarding the border, the right place for Democrats to be is for a high wall with a big gate,” Friedman wrote in November of 2018. A few months later, a tour led by Border Patrol agents of the San Ysidro port of entry in San Diego left Friedman “more certain than ever that we have a real immigration crisis and that the solution is a high wall with a big gate—but a smart gate.”
  As reasonable as this might sound to anxious New York Times readers looking for what passes as humanitarian thinking in James Bennet’s opinion pages, the horror of Friedman’s logic eventually reveals itself when he considers who might pass through the big, smart gate in the high, high wall: “those who deserve asylum” and “a steady flow of legal, high-energy, and high-I.Q. immigrants.” Friedman’s tortured hypothetical shows us who he considers to be acceptable subjects of deportation and deprivation: the poor, the lazy, and the stupid. This is corporate-sponsored, state-sanctioned eugenics: the nativism of technocrats.
  The vision of a hermetically sealed border being sold, in different ways, by Trump and his allies, by Democrats, and by the Border Security Expo is in reality a selectively permeable one that strictly regulates the movement of migrant labor while allowing for the unimpeded flow of capital. Immigrants in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are caught between two factions of the capitalist class, each of which seek their immiseration: the citrus farmers, construction firms, and meat packing plants that benefit from an underclass of unorganized and impoverished workers, and the defense and security firms that keep them in a state of constant criminality and deportability.
  You could even argue that nobody in a position of power really wants a literal wall. Even before taking office, Trump himself knew he could only go so far. “We’re going to do a wall,” he said on the campaign trail in 2015. However: “We’re going to have a big, fat beautiful door on the wall.” In January 2019, speaking to the American Farm Bureau Association, Trump acknowledged the necessity of a mechanism allowing seasonal farmworkers from Mexico to cross the border, actually promising to loosen regulations on employers who rely on temporary migrant labor. “It’s going to be easier for them to get in than what they have to go through now,” he said, “I know a lot about the farming world.”
  At bottom, there is little material difference between this and what Friedman imagines to be the smarter, more humane approach. While establishment liberals would no doubt prefer that immigration enforcement be undertaken quietly, quickly, and efficiently, they have no categorical objection to the idea that noncitizens should enjoy fewer rights than citizens or be subject to different standards of due process (standards that are already applied in deeply inequitable fashion).
  As the smorgasbord of technologies and services so garishly on display at the Border Security Expo attests, maintaining the contradiction between citizens and noncitizens (or between the imperial core and the colonized periphery) requires an ever-expanding security apparatus, which itself becomes a source of ever-expanding profit. The border, shaped by centuries of bourgeois interests and the genocidal machinations of the settler-colonial nation-state, constantly generates fresh crises on which the immigration-industrial complex feeds. In other words, there is not a crisis at the border; the border is the crisis.
  CBP has recently allowed Anduril, a start-up founded by one of Peter Thiel’s mentees, Palmer Luckey, to begin testing its artificial intelligence-powered surveillance towers and drones in Texas and California. Sam Ecker, an Anduril engineer, expounded on the benefits of such technology at the Expo. “A tower doesn’t get tired. It doesn’t care about being in the middle of the desert or a river around the clock,” he told me. “We just let the computers do what they do best.”
  ▻https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/border-profiteers-oconnor
  
  CDB_77 @cdb_77
Écrire un commentaire
Philippe De Jonckheere @philippe_de_jonckheere CC BY 9/12/2018

3

3

Donald Trump, premier cigarettier à investir dans le cannabis
Marlboro sur la défensive après de nouvelles révélations sur l’enquête russe
Donald Trump l’implacable confesseur au chevet de Carlos Ghosn
Montonari Otsuru se sépare de son chef de cabinet John Kelly
Le Téléthon 2018 plutôt épargné au tirage au sort
Coupe du monde féminine de football : les Bleues terminent sur des promesses de dons en forte baisse.
Crise politique ouverte en Vendée sur le pacte de migration de l’ONU
En Belgique, les commerçants, ces « dommages collatéraux »
« Gilets jaunes », l’acte II de la « révolution de velours »
En Arménie, Julien Coupat relaxé du procès de Tarnac, interpellé à Paris.
La Corse du 8 décembre en photos
La mobilisation des « gilets jaunes » en vigilance rouge pour « vent violent »
#de_la_dyslexie_créative

Philippe De Jonckheere @philippe_de_jonckheere CC BY
- EricW @ericw CC BY-SA 9/12/2018
  
  Conclusion imparable.
  
  EricW @ericw CC BY-SA
Écrire un commentaire
unagi @unagi CC BY-NC 25/06/2018

1

1

Trumpism, Realized
To preserve the political and cultural preeminence of white Americans against a tide of demographic change, the administration has settled on a policy of systemic child abuse.
▻https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/child-separation/563252
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2018/06/GettyImages_500414662/lead_720_405.jpg?mod=1529501538
The policy’s cruelty is its purpose: By inflicting irreparable trauma on children and their families, the administration intends to persuade those looking to America for a better life to stay home. The barbarism of deliberately inflicting suffering on children as coercion, though, has forced the Trump administration and its allies in the conservative press to offer three contradictory defenses.
First, there’s the denial that the policy exists: Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen declared, “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”
Not so, the administration’s defenders in the media have insisted. The policy is both real and delightful. The conservative radio host Laura Ingraham called the uproar “hilarious,” adding sarcastically that “the U.S. is so inhumane to provide entertainment, sports, tutoring, medical, dental, four meals a day, and clean, decent housing for children whose parents irresponsibly tried to bring them across the border illegally.” She also described the facilities as “essentially summer camps.” On Fox News, the Breitbart editor Joel Pollak argued that the detention facilities offer children both basic necessities and the chance to receive an education. “This is a place where they really have the welfare of the kids at heart,” he said.
- #Kirstjen Nielsen
unagi @unagi CC BY-NC
- unagi @unagi CC BY-NC 25/06/2018
  
  Why The Face Of Family Separation Is A Whi
  
  te Woman.
  ▻https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-daniels-kirstjen-neilsen-family-separation_us_5b2a5774e4b05d
  https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5b2a58562200006a03eebff9.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale
  Nielsen is leaning into enforcing the “zero tolerance” policy of separating children from their families at the border.
  Family separation has been portrayed as a “women’s issue” in the media, with all four living former first ladies opposing it. The administration has deployed Nielson, along with White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, to defend it. Both women appeared at a press briefing on Monday and performed that job with gusto.
  Tempting though it is to assume that Nielsen and Sanders must, on some level, oppose this cruel policy, there’s no reason to believe they have more empathy by virtue of being women. In fact, it’s these kinds of assumptions about white women’s innocence and outsized empathy that have made them some of white supremacy’s most effective agents. To be sure, it is men like Trump, former DHS chief John Kelly, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House adviser Stephen Miller who are the architects of this policy ― but it has been left to Nielsen to implement their inhumane plan and to defend it to the public.
  White women like Nielsen (and Sanders) have always been part of making white supremacy seem more palatable and less like the brutal, repressive ideology it is. Historical examples abound, from white women who worked alongside male colonizers to the wives of slaveholders who punished the people their husbands owned, to the white women who packed the picnic lunches for and took the photos at the lynchings committed purportedly in their defense. White women have played active roles in advancing and protecting white supremacy.
  
  unagi @unagi CC BY-NC
Écrire un commentaire
Articles repérés par Hervé Le Crosnier @hlc CC BY 20/06/2018

1

1

Some of Trump’s Biggest Donors Are Profiting Big-Time on Immigration Detention Centers | Alternet
▻https://www.alternet.org/some-trumps-biggest-donors-are-profiting-big-time-immigration-detention-ce
https://www.alternet.org/sites/default/files/story_images/452666038.jpg
The giant retail stores being converted into detention centers and these large tent cities cropping up to house immigrants, where did they come from? As always, it is important to follow the money. This plan to lock-up asylum-seeking migrants may seem like it happened overnight, but it has been years in the making. Only weeks after Donald Trump put his filthy hand on Lincoln’s Bible and took the Oath of Office, this was the February 24, 2017, headline at CNN Money:
The actions Donald Trump, his sycophant Stephen Miller and Minister of White Supremacy Jeff Sessions are taking today are a huge payoff to the prison lobbyists and the border security industry that spent millions helping to get Donald Trump elected. Private for-profit prison executives were furious that President Obama decided to end the practice of using private prisons. They poured everything into Donald Trump and his campaign, maxing out $250,000 donations and even helping Trump raise $100 million in sketchy, secret money for his “inauguration committee.” And it paid off, as one of the first decisions from the Trump administration was to rescind Obama’s order to phase out private prisons.

They didn’t stop there. These groups have been spending lavishly at Trump’s private business as well. The Miami New Times noted the private prison company GEO Group was one of the newest big spenders at Trump’s Doral property in Florida.
In March of 2017, then Homeland Security chief John Kelly told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he was considering a plan to separate families and detain them.
“We have tremendous experience of dealing with unaccompanied minors,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” "We turn them over to (Health and Human Services) and they do a very, very good job of putting them in foster care or linking them up with parents or family members in the United States."
It didn’t take long for Kelly to publicly walk back that statement, denying he meant it would be a cruel, intentional warning or deterrent to others who might be thinking of seeking asylum in the U.S. But we can clearly see now, they’ve been plotting this for quite some time.
[UDPATE] Bloomberg reports a Texas non-profit got a nearly $500 million contract to take care of the immigrant kids.
The Trump administration plans to pay a Texas nonprofit nearly half a billion dollars this year to care for immigrant children who were detained crossing the U.S. border illegally, according to government data.

The nonprofit, Southwest Key Programs Inc., is to be paid more than $458 million in fiscal 2018, according to the data — the most among the organizations, government agencies and companies that run a detention and care system for immigrant children on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. Southwest Key has about a dozen facilities in Texas, including a site at a former WalMart Inc.store in Brownsville that has drawn attention from members of Congress and national news organizations.
#Capitalisme_carcéral #Prédation #Conflits_intérêt

Articles repérés par Hervé Le Crosnier @hlc CC BY

Écrire un commentaire
mad meg @mad_meg CC BY 26/05/2018

13

13

Les États-Unis séparent désormais les parents migrants de leurs enfants | Slate.fr
►http://www.slate.fr/story/162252/etats-unis-separent-parents-migrants-enfants
http://www.slate.fr/sites/default/files/styles/1060x523/public/000_14e93l.jpg
Avant l’élection de Donald Trump, les familles de migrants et demandeurs d’asiles qui étaient interpellées à la frontière mexicaine étaient détenus ensemble dans des centres de rétention, en attente de jugement. Mais les directives du gouvernement ont changé : maintenant, les parents et enfants sont détenus séparément, parfois dans des villes différentes, et même dans le cas d’enfants très jeunes.
Depuis plusieurs mois, des centaines de cas de séparations ont été rencensés par les associations de défense des droits civiques.
« Ce qui se passe ici est sans précédent. Ici en Arizona, nous avons vu plus de 200 cas de parents séparés de leurs enfants. Certains de ces enfants sont très jeunes, nous voyons régulièrement des enfants de deux ans, et la semaine dernière, il y avait un enfant de 53 semaines sans ses parents », expliquait Laura St. John de l’organisation The Florence Project, sur MSNBC.
L’association de défense des droits civiques ACLU a engagé une procédure légale contre cette pratique du gouvernement, qu’ils considèrent comme une violation de la Constitution des États-Unis.
Sur Twitter, le journaliste Chris Hayes a partagé des extraits de la plainte dans lesquels sont décrits plusieurs cas de séparation, comme celui de Miriam, venue du Honduras, qui dit avoir été séparée de son bébé de dix-huit mois et ne pas l’avoir vu pendant plus d’un mois. En mars, un procès de l’ACLU avait permis de réunifier une mère congolaise demandeuse d’asile avec sa fille de sept ans. Elles avaient été séparées pendant quatre mois.
La nouvelle approche, introduite par le ministère de la Justice, consiste à condamner les personnes qui ont traversé la frontière illégalement à des crimes, et non plus à des infractions civiles, comme c’était le cas auparavant. Les adultes sont donc placés en prison, et non en centre de rétention, alors que les enfants sont gérés par une autre entité administrative, qui détient habituellement les mineurs qui traversent seuls la frontière.
Interviewé par MSNBC, un avocat de l’ACLU a dit que c’était « la pire chose » qu’il avait vue en 25 ans de travail sur les droits des immigrés.
« Je parle à ces mères et elles décrivent leurs enfants qui hurlent "maman, maman, ne les laisse pas m’emmener". »
Il y a quelques jours, le chef de cabinet de la Maison Blanche John Kelly a défendu la pratique en disant qu’il s’agissait d’une dissuasion efficace et que les enfants seraient « placés dans des foyers ou autres ».
mad meg @mad_meg CC BY
- RastaPopoulos @rastapopoulos CC BY-NC 27/05/2018
  
  #vomi #inhumain
  
  RastaPopoulos @rastapopoulos CC BY-NC
- mad meg @mad_meg CC BY 27/05/2018
  
  Oui @intempestive & @rastapopoulos ca atteint un niveau de déguelasserie difficile à nommer. Ca relève de la #torture et du #crime_contre_l'humanité pour le coté massif et systématique
  
  mad meg @mad_meg CC BY
- mad meg @mad_meg CC BY 28/05/2018
  
  New York (États-Unis), de notre correspondant.- « Les fédéraux ont perdu, oui, perdu, 1 475 enfants migrants. » L’éditorial de The Arizona Republic a révolté les réseaux sociaux. Des Américains se sont pris en photo avec cette question : « Où sont les enfants ? » (#wherearethechildren), devenue en quelques jours un mot-clé populaire. « L’inhumanité doit cesser », explique Joaquín Castro, représentant démocrate du Texas, qui appelle à une manifestation cette semaine à San Antonio.
  À l’origine de cette indignation, l’information rapportée par The Arizona Republic est, de fait, assez spectaculaire. Le 26 avril, Steven Wagner, un responsable du Département de la santé américain chargé de la gestion des réfugiés, a annoncé au cours d’une audition au Sénat que ses services, alors qu’ils tentaient de prendre contact avec 7 635 mineurs placés chez des proches ou dans des familles d’accueil, se sont révélés « incapables de localiser 1 475 » d’entre eux, soit 19 % de l’échantillon contacté.
  9 mai 2018. Cette famille vient de franchir la frontière entre le Mexique et les États-Unis près de McAllen, Texas. © Reuters 9 mai 2018. Cette famille vient de franchir la frontière entre le Mexique et les États-Unis près de McAllen, Texas. © Reuters
  Il s’agit de mineurs non accompagnés, la plupart originaires du Honduras, du Guatemala et du Salvador, des pays d’Amérique centrale ravagés par les violences. Placés quelques semaines en foyer après avoir tenté de traverser la frontière avec les États-Unis via le Mexique, ils sont ensuite confiés par les autorités à des proches, des parents ou des familles d’accueil en attendant l’examen de leur dossier par les services de l’immigration.
  Les 1 500 enfants manquant à l’appel ne sont pas forcément aux mains de trafiquants, exploités à vil prix ou livrés à eux-mêmes. « On ne sait pas combien d’entre eux n’ont pas été localisés parce que eux ou leurs proches, qui peuvent très bien être leurs parents, sont partis sans laisser d’adresse pour réduire les risques d’être renvoyés dans leur pays », explique la journaliste Dara Lind, spécialiste des questions migratoires sur Vox.com.
  Mais l’incertitude qui pèse sur leur sort a de quoi inquiéter : plusieurs médias, comme Associated Press et la chaîne PBS, ont révélé des cas de violences sexuelles, de travail forcé ou de mauvais traitement.
  « Vous êtes la plus mauvaise famille d’accueil du monde. Vous ne savez même pas où ils sont », a lancé à Steven Wagner la sénatrice Heidi Heitkamp. L’accusation de l’élue démocrate tape juste, sauf que sous l’administration Obama, qui avait dû faire face à une explosion du nombre de mineurs non accompagnés, le suivi était tout aussi défaillant.
  En 2014, les procédures de vérification des familles d’accueil avaient même été allégées pour faciliter les placements, livrant les enfants à des dangers accrus. En 2016, le Sénat avait préconisé des mesures de suivi renforcées, qui n’ont jamais été mises en place, faute de ressources et de volonté politique : le département de la santé considère en effet qu’une fois placés, les mineurs ne sont plus de sa responsabilité…
  Il y a un mois, l’« aveu » de Steven Wagner devant le Sénat n’aurait ainsi pas fait beaucoup de bruit. Mais tout a changé depuis que le président Trump, frustré de ne pas voir avancer son projet de mur avec le Mexique, en colère contre sa propre directrice du Département de la sécurité intérieure (DHS), a autorisé des mesures d’une extrême sévérité contre l’immigration irrégulière.
  Au nom de la « tolérance zéro », Jeff Sessions, “attorney general” (l’équivalent du ministre de la justice), un dur de dur connu pour sa hargne contre les clandestins, a annoncé le 7 mai la poursuite systématique des étrangers qui « traversent la frontière de façon illégale », une façon de décourager les candidats à l’immigration – au rythme de 40 000 personnes « appréhendées » chaque mois, on voit mal comment les procureurs vont suivre. Il a surtout déclaré que les enfants « clandestins » seront désormais « séparés » de leurs parents. De quoi susciter l’indignation générale. Au vu de la façon dont les mineurs non accompagnés sont traités dans les familles d’accueil, cette annonce sonne comme une provocation.
  « Cette horreur est insupportable, a twitté Walter Schaub, ancien directeur sous Obama et Trump du Bureau pour l’éthique gouvernementale, une agence fédérale anticorruption. Décider d’arrêter encore plus d’enfants alors même qu’on sait déjà que ce qui leur arrive est une violation immorale des droits humains. »
  « C’est de la torture », commente l’ACLU, une grande organisation de défense des libertés publiques, qui a engagé une action en justice collective contre le gouvernement. « La pire chose que j’ai vue en vingt-cinq ans, dit Lee Gelernt, l’avocat de l’ACLU, interrogé sur la chaîne MSNBC. Ces mères vous racontent leurs enfants qui crient “maman ! maman !”, “ne les laisse pas m’emmener !”, des enfants de cinq ans, de six ans. On va traumatiser ces enfants pour toujours. »
  « Cette pratique viole les droits des demandeurs d’asile inscrits dans la Constitution », ajoute Eunice Lee, codirectrice du centre de recherche sur le genre et les réfugiés Hastings College of the Law à San Francisco (Californie).
  Reuters Reuters
  Fin avril, le New York Times, citant des données officielles, a révélé que cette pratique est en réalité d’ores et déjà en place. Entre octobre et avril, écrit le quotidien, 700 enfants, dont 100 tout-petits de moins de quatre ans, ont été privés de leurs parents. Le département de la santé refuse de dire combien de ces familles restent aujourd’hui éclatées.
  Au vu des positions de l’administration Trump, qui cherche à lutter contre l’immigration mais aussi à décourager par tous les moyens l’exercice du droit d’asile, cette politique n’est guère surprenante. Elle avait été évoquée quelques semaines après l’investiture de Donald Trump par John Kelly, alors directeur de la sécurité nationale. Aujourd’hui chef de cabinet de Donald Trump, Kelly a affirmé à la radio publique NPR que non seulement la séparation des familles n’est « pas cruelle », mais qu’elle est aussi un « puissant moyen de dissuasion » contre l’immigration.
  Pendant sa campagne, et depuis son entrée à la Maison Blanche, Donald Trump a promis de « stopper » l’immigration illégale. Il s’en est pris aux Mexicains « violeurs » et « criminels », aux « pays de merde », a taxé publiquement des immigrés d’« animaux ». Il a annoncé l’envoi de la garde nationale à la frontière et a attisé sa base en s’en prenant à une « caravane » de réfugiés d’Amérique centrale qui cherchaient à obtenir l’asile aux États-Unis.
  Depuis son arrivée à la Maison Blanche, son administration s’est employée à détricoter les dispositifs protégeant les jeunes migrants. Trump lui-même a estimé que les mineurs qui passent la frontière « ne sont pas tous innocents » et nourrissent la violence des gangs.
  « Les enfants seront pris en charge, placés dans des foyers ou autre », a promis John Kelly. En l’occurrence, le « ou autre » pourrait désigner des bases militaires. Selon le Washington Post, des enfants séparés de leurs familles pourraient être bientôt placés dans des centres de l’armée, au Texas ou dans l’Arkansas.
  
  mad meg @mad_meg CC BY
Écrire un commentaire
enuncombatdouteux @enuncombatdouteux CC BY-NC-ND 10/04/2018

1

1

Environnement : le bras armé de Trump, Scott Pruitt, sur la sellette
▻http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2018/04/10/environnement-le-bras-arme-de-trump-scott-pruitt-conteste-mais-pas-coule_528
Les dépenses du patron de l’EPA font scandale, mais il reste soutenu par le président. Et continue à détricoter méthodiquement les réglementations de l’ère Obama
http://img.lemde.fr/2018/04/10/0/0/3000/2000/534/0/60/0/ee5bdca_31845-1xfomd1.0lva.jpg

A Washington, le 6 avril, une affiche fait référence à l’affaire de location de l’appartement dans laquelle est impliqué Scott Pruitt, le directeur de l’Agence américaine pour l’environnement.
Cela aurait dû être un couronnement pour Scott Pruitt, l’administrateur de l’Agence de protection de l’environnement américaine (EPA). Mais les affaires ont tout gâché : le bras armé du président Donald Trump en matière d’environnement a dû faire ses annonces en catimini en raison des scandales qui le poursuivent pour avoir dépensé plus de 100 000 dollars (80 000 euros) en avion en première classe aux frais du contribuable américain, et loué son appartement de Washington à une amie mariée à un lobbyiste pétrolier au prix dérisoire de 50 dollars la nuit.
Il n’empêche, Scott Pruitt poursuit son travail de détricotage des régulations adoptées par Barack Obama. Mardi 3 avril, il a annoncé son intention de lever l’obligation pour les constructeurs automobiles américains de mettre sur le marché, d’ici à 2025, des automobiles consommant en moyenne 4,35 litres aux 100 kilomètres.
Avec des cours du pétrole bas et des routes souvent en mauvais état, l’heure n’est pas aux moteurs électriques (2 % du marché) et aux petites cylindrées, mais aux voitures de sport et autres pick-up, qui engloutissent du pétrole, surtout dans les terres républicaines du Midwest. « L’objectif des dernières années a été de faire faire aux constructeurs des voitures que les gens ne veulent pas acheter. Notre objectif devrait être de rendre plus efficientes les voitures que les gens achètent », a déclaré M. Pruitt.
Selon l’EPA, seuls 5 % des véhicules auraient respecté les futures normes en 2025, tandis que les pick-up devraient représenter à cette date 45 % du marché américain, bien plus que les 33 % prévus en 2012 lorsque fut instaurée la régulation. Pour les modèles 2016, onze des dix-sept constructeurs présents aux Etats-Unis ont vu l’empreinte carbone de leur véhicule se dégrader, les cancres étant General Motors et Ford. « C’était la bonne décision, et nous soutenons le gouvernement », a logiquement déclaré l’Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, organisation qui regroupe douze constructeurs internationaux qui opèrent aux Etats-Unis. Tandis que Volkswagen, encore sous le choc de ses tricheries sur le diesel, a salué « un meilleur alignement des régulations sur les conditions de marché ».
John Bozzella, président de l’Association of Global Automakers, qui représente les constructeurs japonais, coréens et quelques européens comme Ferrari, a été beaucoup plus mitigé : « Le marché mondial évolue vers un transport économe en carbone, et les Etats-Unis ont besoin de rester compétitifs », a-t-il déclaré dans un communiqué.
« Mythe des retours en arrière »
La décision est en contradiction avec le discours global de Donald Trump, qui se plaint que les Européens n’achètent pas de voitures américaines : l’affaire sera encore plus délicate si les règles sont assouplies excessivement et s’éloignent de la norme mondiale. Elle se heurte à la Californie, qui a le droit de fixer ses propres normes de pollution de l’air. Un privilège que M. Pruitt entend remettre en cause mais auquel l’Etat ne compte pas renoncer. Enfin, la décision de M. Pruitt n’est que le début d’un long processus réglementaire, qui risque d’être contesté en justice, d’autant que le rapport justifiant la décision de M. Pruitt a été expédié : 38 pages contre 1 217 pour celle prise sous l’administration Obama.
C’est là qu’on trouve la limite de la méthode Pruitt. Alors que ce républicain est sur le fil du rasoir – d’autres ministres de l’équipe Trump ont été limogés pour moins que cela, et le chef de cabinet de la Maison Blanche, John Kelly, a demandé sa tête à Donald Trump, sans succès pour l’instant –, Washington débat sur son bilan réel. Le New York Times, à la ligne éditoriale anti-Trump, voit en lui celui qui rêve de passer à la postérité comme « le plus grand éradicateur de régulation sur l’industrie américaine » tandis que Politico dénonce « le mythe des retours en arrière de l’Agence de protection de l’environnement américaine sous Scott Pruitt ».
En fait, les deux ont raison. Politiquement, l’impact de M. Pruitt est majeur. C’est lui qui a convaincu Donald Trump de sortir de l’accord de Paris sur le climat, même si cette mesure ne sera effective qu’en 2020. Cet ancien procureur de l’Oklahoma, climatosceptique lié aux lobbys pétrochimiques, est haï par la gauche, les organisations non gouvernementales et les fonctionnaires de son administration, dont il se défie : bureau insonorisé, service de sécurité draconien, intimidations professionnelles.
Chaque jour, M. Pruitt défraie la chronique, plus trumpien que Donald Trump. Il a lancé une remise en cause de la régulation de la pollution de l’eau, nommé des proches de l’industrie dans les comités scientifiques, cherche à assouplir toutes les contraintes. Bref, une immense dérégulation, qui aurait épargné un milliard de dollars au contribuable, selon son mentor, le sénateur républicain de l’Oklahoma James Inhofe.
Bon soldat
Mais bien souvent, comme le note Politico, M. Pruitt se contente de bloquer des mesures annoncées par Obama mais non mises en œuvre, tandis que l’application de ses mesures de déréglementation est lente. Faute de majorité solide au Sénat, M. Pruitt passe par voie réglementaire, ce qui l’expose à des contestations en justice : « Vous ne pouvez pas gouverner uniquement par communiqué de presse. Vous devez aussi faire le dur labeur qui consiste à développer une règle qui peut résister à la contestation en justice, même si cela n’est pas sexy », a déclaré à Politico David Hayes, un ancien des administrations Clinton et Obama.
Un moratoire sur les émissions de méthane des puits de pétrole a été suspendu par la justice fédérale, car la décision était jugée « non raisonnable » et « non autorisée ». Il a été condamné pour ne pas avoir publié des données sur l’ozone en temps voulu. Visiblement, M. Pruitt ne sait pas jusqu’où aller. Le Congrès n’a pas accepté de sabrer dans le budget de l’EPA, ce qui eût conduit à son quasi-démantèlement. A l’automne 2017, il a tenté d’organiser des débats publics sur le réchauffement climatique dans l’idée de décrédibiliser le consensus scientifique, avant d’être stoppé net par John Kelly, chef de cabinet de Donald Trump.
Le président apprécie l’engagement de Scott Pruitt, auquel on prête l’ambition de devenir sénateur ou gouverneur de l’Oklahoma, voire ministre de la justice ou encore président des Etats-Unis en 2024. Si M. Trump le garde, c’est aussi parce que, à l’approche des élections de mi-mandat, le locataire de la Maison Blanche aura le plus grand mal à faire valider par le Sénat, où la majorité n’est actuellement que d’une voix, un aussi bon soldat pour le remplacer. Le vent tournera-t-il ? M. Pruitt était lundi à la Maison Blanche pour la réunion de cabinet. Mais le bureau de l’éthique gouvernementale est saisi du dossier.
enuncombatdouteux @enuncombatdouteux CC BY-NC-ND
Écrire un commentaire
Nouvelles d’Orient @alaingresh 28/02/2018

2

2

Report says U.S. officials are concerned that Israel and others attempted to manipulate Kushner
Israel, China, the UAE and Mexico tried to sway Kushner to promote their interests, a report claims amid news that Trump’s son-in-law and adviser was stripped of his interim security clearance
Amir Tibon (Washington) Feb 28, 2018
WASHINGTON– Officials in the U.S. government and intelligence community are concerned that foreign governments, including the Israeli government, were trying to “manipulate” Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, according to a report published on Tuesday by the Washington Post. The report stated that officials from Israel, China, the UAE and Mexico had all discussed how they can use Kushner’s business interests to influence his foreign policy work in the White House.
According to the report, Trump’s National Security Adviser, General H.R. McMaster, “learned that Kushner had contacts with foreign officials that he did not coordinate through the National Security Council or officially report.” It also stated that “Officials in the White House were concerned that Kushner was ’naive and being tricked’ in conversations with foreign officials - some of whom said they wanted to deal only with Kushner directly and not more experienced personnel”.
Top secret downgrade
The report comes amidst tensions in the White House over the issue of Kushner’s access to top secret intelligence. Politico reported on Tuesday that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has decided to strip Kushner of his access to certain areas of sensitive intelligence, in light of the fact that Kushner has failed to obtain permanent security clearance from the U.S. intelligence community.
The Washington Post report concerning foreign governments’ alleged attempt to influence the senior White House aide could be seen as a possible explanation for Kushner’s difficulties in receiving his security clearance.
Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
Email* Sign up
A lawyer representing Kushner said in reply to the report: “We will not respond substantively to unnamed sources peddling second-hand hearsay with rank speculation that continue to leak inaccurate information.”
A spokesperson for the White said that General McMaster has “the highest regard” for Kushner and that both of them work closely together on foreign policy issues.
The Israeli Embassy in Washington refused to comment.
The report did not contain details about the alleged attempts by the foreign governments, including the Israeli government, to “manipulate” Kushner based on his business interests.
One of Kushner’s main areas of responsibility in the White House is leading the administration’s Middle East peace team, which is working on an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan.
- #Jared Kushner
- #Trump
Nouvelles d’Orient @alaingresh
- Dror@sinehebdo @sinehebdo 3/03/2018
  
  A mettre en perspective avec cet article :
  Les liens financiers entre le gendre de Trump et Israël
  Stefanie Schüler, RFI, le 8 janvier 2018
  ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/659440
  #Jared_Kushner #Donald_Trump #israel #corruption #collusion #manipulation
  
  Dror@sinehebdo @sinehebdo
Écrire un commentaire
Nouvelles d’Orient @alaingresh 16/01/2018

1

1

With Bannon banished from Trump World, pro-Israel hard-liners pin their hopes on Pence
Far-right U.S. Jewish Republicans believed the one-time Breitbart supremo had their back, but his fall from grace shifts their focus to the vice president and a very unlikely blast from the recent past
Allison Kaplan Sommer Jan 16, 2018
Few American Jews shed tears at the downfall of Steve Bannon, whose humiliation was made complete Tuesday when he stepped down from Breitbart News following his ugly estrangement from President Donald Trump – confirmed by the insulting new nickname of Sloppy Steve.
skip - Donald Trump tweet
The catalyst for his fate were his uncensored remarks in Michael Wolffs White House tell-all book, Fire and Fury, alienating Trump and then, fatally, the Mercers (Bannons arch-conservative financial backers who bankrolled both Breitbart and his endeavors to become a renegade Republican kingmaker.)
The vast majority of Americas overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic Jews viewed Bannon as either an anti-Semite or an anti-Semite enabler whose conspiratorial references to demonic global financiers awakened and emboldened white supremacists. His oft-quoted description of Breitbart as the platform for the alt-right white nationalist movement confirmed such views.
But for the minority of staunchly hard-line, pro-Israel Jews (and evangelical Christians) who support Israels settlement enterprise, oppose a Palestinian state and any form of territorial compromise, Bannon was an important force in the White House.
For this group, his out-of-the-box positions on Israel far outweighed any threats the views of the Trump-voting, alt-right fan base from which he drew his influence might pose.
Notably, it was Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America – who invited Bannon to address his organizations annual gala last November – who was the sole loyalist quoted as willing to speak up for Bannon in a lengthy Politico piece on Sunday. Klein said: If there is anyone, like Bannon, who is a strong supporter of Israel and a strong fighter against anti-Semitism and that person ends up having less influence on the administration, that is something that would sadden me.
In Fire and Fury, the extent to which Bannons position on Israel matched hard-liners like Klein was described in detail. The book not only revealed that Trumps then-strategic adviser planned to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on Day One after entering the White House, but, moreover, had an extreme and highly unorthodox approach to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Let Jordan take the West Bank, let Egypt take Gaza, says Bannon in the book. Let them deal with it. Or sink trying.
He then claimed that both GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were all in on his plans.
Taken as a whole, it is a depiction of an extreme right-wing cabal, one that could find its place on the right fringes of Likud, that has been guiding if not running [President Donald] Trumps Middle East policies, Haaretzs Chemi Shalev wrote. Shalev described it as an axis that dominated Trumps Middle East policies during his first year in office. It is an alliance that Netanyahu appears to have cultivated, with the assistance, or at the direction, of his Las Vegas benefactor, Adelson. All three operate under the premise ascribed to Bannon that the further right you were, the more correct you were on Israel.
This hard-line trio of influence presumably acted as a counterweight against the more pragmatic former military men in the White House – most prominently National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, but also former Secretary of Homeland Security and current Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly and Defense Secretary James Mattis – whom, along with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the far right privately scorn as Arabists who are soft on Israel. It was also a bulwark against Trumps fantasies of making the ultimate deal, which they believed were being cultivated by Bannons nemesis – Trumps son-in-law and aide, Jared Kushner.
Bannons banishment from the White House, and now his political self-immolation and disappearance from Trumps circle of influence, comes as a deep disappointment to those who embraced and celebrated his outlook and that of satellite foreign policy Bannonites like Sebastian Gorka.
Sad, tragic and disappointing, one pro-Trump Republican on the Jewish far right told me, asking not to be identified by name. Israels lost a really important voice.
With that sadness comes concern over the increased influence of the generals, as well as Javanka (Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump), on Middle East policy. The Jewish Trump supporter said he believes the presidents son-in-law has got his head in a very dark place when it comes to this peace thing. I think Jared is really wrong on this whole peace plan and can only do damage, he noted.
But the hard-liners are still hopeful, attributing their optimism that the Trump administration will avoid any Kushner-fueled peace attempts to three factors.
First, and most prominently, their hopes are pinned on Vice President Mike Pence – who will visit Israel on January 22-23 – and the evangelical Christian base he represents. Rejecting the portrayal of a sidelined Pence in Wolffs book, they call him a powerful player, particularly on Israel.
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, January 9, 2018. JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS
Clear evidence for this, they argue, lies in the fact that last months declaration of recognizing Jerusalem as Israels capital and the plan for an embassy move came after Bannon left the White House. It was Pence and the evangelicals – not Adelson, Netanyahu and Bannon – who ultimately got something done, and they are the ones who will have Israels back in the post-Bannon era.
Secondly, there are the Palestinians themselves, who called the Jerusalem declaration a kiss of death to the two-state solution.
Third, there is Trump himself. Much as the president is portrayed as an utterly transactional empty vessel, his Jewish supporters dont believe his views were artificially foisted on him by Bannon, but instead come from his own core beliefs. It was the president himself who wanted to move the embassy at the very beginning of his administration, they say, and it was Netanyahu himself who told Trump it would be better to wait.
skip - Conor Powell tweet
Return of the Mooch?
If there is now a vacuum in the conduit between the far-right Klein/Adelson crowd and the Trump White House, one figure is clearly eager to fill it. Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci is not only different from Bannon – as slick and public as Bannon is unkempt and secretive – but he is also Bannons nemesis.
In this July 2017 file photo, Anthony Scaramucci blows a kiss after answering questions during the press briefing.Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
Call it a coincidence, but on the same day Bannon departed from Breitbart, it was also announced that Scaramucci – who spent the day dancing on his grave – would be a keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas. The RJC confab is set for early February at Adelsons Venetian hotel and casino. In the past, ZOAs Klein has described Scaramucci as being supportive of Israel in the ZOA way, not in the mainstream Jewish way.
Scaramucci has made a point of cozying up to the Adelson-backed Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. It was at a Boteach Hanukkah party that Scaramucci reportedly took a verbal detour from recounting his trip to Israel to insult Bannon, allegedly calling the former Trump aide messianic and a loser, warning that Hell be a stalwart defender of Israel until hes not. Thats how this guy operates. Ive seen this guy operate. He was a stalwart defender of me until it became better for him not to be.
In the end, it was not his failure to defend Israel that proved to be Bannons undoing. It was his failure to defend Donald Trump.
Allison Kaplan Sommer
Haaretz Correspondent
Send me email alerts
Nouvelles d’Orient @alaingresh
- Loutre @loutre 16/01/2018
  
  ▻https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-with-bannon-banished-pro-israel-hard-liners-pin-their-hopes-on-pen
  
  Loutre @loutre
Écrire un commentaire
ninachani @ninachani CC BY 5/12/2017

D’un ouragan à l’autre, les Haïtiens chassés d’Amérique - Libération
▻http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2017/12/03/d-un-ouragan-a-l-autre-les-haitiens-chasses-d-amerique_1614174
http://md1.libe.com/photo/1077376-fearing-trump-deportation-haitians-head-to-canada-and-risk-dividing-their-families.jpg?modified_at=1512379947&picto=fb&ratio_x=191&ratio_y=100&width=600
Depuis 2010, ils bénéficiaient d’un statut protecteur aux Etats-Unis, mais sa remise en cause par Trump a provoqué une ruée vers le Canada. Récit de l’exclusion brutale de quelques milliers de personnes ayant fui leur pays en raison de catastrophes parfois climatiques, par un pays largement responsable du réchauffement.
Près de la ville de Lacolle, au Québec, à la frontière, au nord de l’Etat de New York, de grandes roulottes beiges et bleues ont fait leur apparition. Elles vont fournir un abri temporaire aux réfugiés - haïtiens pour beaucoup - qui fuient par vagues et à pied l’Amérique de Trump. A l’intérieur de ces abris chauffés et flambant neufs, des lits et douches prêts à dégeler les pieds et mains des marcheurs, tandis qu’auront lieu le traitement des dossiers et les contrôles de sécurité.
L’hiver dernier, après l’investiture de Donald Trump, le nombre des passages « irréguliers » à la frontière américano-canadienne a fortement augmenté. Plutôt que de se présenter aux postes-frontières - où ils se seraient probablement fait refouler étant donné l’accord transfrontalier controversé qui existe entre les deux pays - les migrants cherchent le salut en traversant les bois, en avançant à découvert, en franchissant les fossés. Depuis janvier, près de 17 000 d’entre eux ont été arrêtés par les autorités canadiennes. Ceux qui n’ont pas été repérés font leur demande d’asile une fois arrivés en lieu sûr, au Canada.
Ces traversées sont particulièrement dangereuses en hiver. Et l’hiver qui approche promet d’être glacial. L’an dernier, pendant les mois les plus froids, des rapports accablants ont signalé que, à l’arrivée des migrants au Canada, il a fallu amputer des orteils et des doigts gelés. Deux hommes, originaires du Ghana, ont perdu tous leurs doigts après être passés par la frontière longeant la province de Manitoba - l’un d’entre eux a déclaré aux journalistes qu’il s’estimait heureux d’avoir gardé un pouce.
« Jeter un os »
Il y a tout lieu de penser que ces périls ne freineront pas le courant migratoire vers les nouvelles roulottes des environs de Lacolle, alors même que la température devrait continuer de baisser. Pis encore, le flux de ces marcheurs alourdis de bagages pourrait s’intensifier dans les semaines et mois qui viennent.
La raison en est que l’administration Trump, lundi 20 novembre, a mis ses menaces à exécution, excluant plus de 50 000 Haïtiens d’un programme qui leur permettait de vivre et de travailler légalement aux Etats-Unis : dans vingt mois, ceux-ci n’auront plus aucune protection et risqueront d’être expulsés. L’administration a déjà annoncé qu’elle réserverait le même sort aux Nicaraguayens, suggérant, au passage, qu’elle pourrait en faire autant l’an prochain avec les Honduriens. En septembre, le bruit a couru que les Soudanais seraient aussi renvoyés dans leur pays. Le tour des Salvadoriens viendrait ensuite.
Le programme, appelé Temporary Protected Status ou TPS, (« statut de protection temporaire »), confère - le temps du retour à la normale - un statut juridique particulier aux ressortissants de certains pays frappés par les guerres ou les catastrophes naturelles.
Toutefois, ces personnes doivent être présentes sur le sol américain au moment des faits. Après le tremblement de terre dévastateur de 2010, Haïti a été ajouté par l’administration Obama à la liste des pays bénéficiaires du TPS.
Dans les années qui ont suivi, des milliers d’Haïtiens ont acquis ce statut et, avec lui, la liberté de faire leur vie aux Etats-Unis - en allant à l’université, en travaillant dans les services de santé, le bâtiment et l’hôtellerie, en payant des impôts et en donnant à leurs enfants, nés aux Etats-Unis, la nationalité américaine. Au total, plus de 300 000 personnes - originaires du Soudan, du Honduras, du Salvador, du Nicaragua, de Somalie et d’ailleurs - sont couvertes par le TPS. Comme l’a dit Sarah Pierce du Migration Policy Institute (l’institut de politique migratoire, basé à Washington), le programme a été conçu à l’origine comme un moyen de « jeter un os à un pays sinistré jusqu’à ce qu’il se remette sur pied ».
Pourtant, dans certains cas, comme celui de la Somalie déchirée par la guerre, le statut a été renouvelé tant de fois qu’il est resté effectif pendant vingt-six ans, transformant le statut en une sorte de programme précaire pour réfugiés de facto - utile aux ressortissants présents aux Etats-Unis depuis des décennies, mais sans aide pour les Somaliens fuyant aujourd’hui les violences ou les persécutions. Pendant sa campagne présidentielle, Trump a laissé entendre qu’il soutenait le programme, du moins en ce qui concerne les Haïtiens. Courtisant leur vote, il a dit à une foule du quartier Little Haïti de Miami : « Que vous votiez ou non pour moi, je veux être le meilleur de vos défenseurs, et je serai votre défenseur. »
Cela n’a pas duré. Dans le cadre de sa croisade anti-immigrés, l’administration Trump a rapidement commencé à qualifier le TPS d’escroquerie, de moyen détourné - utilisé par les étrangers - pour rester indéfiniment aux Etats-Unis (peu importe qu’un grand nombre des pays couverts par le statut soit toujours ravagés par la guerre et les catastrophes, peu importe qu’ils comptent, pour lentement se reconstruire, sur l’argent envoyé chez eux par les travailleurs TPS).
Tout a démarré dans les premiers mois de l’administration Trump. Pour commencer, James McCament, le directeur par intérim des Services américains de citoyenneté et d’immigration, a insisté pour que Haïti soit « exclu » du programme. Ensuite, une note du département de la Sécurité intérieure a suggéré que les Haïtiens « se préparent à quitter les Etats-Unis ». Enfin, en mai, John Kelly, alors secrétaire général du même département, a déclaré que les bénéficiaires haïtiens du TPS « devaient commencer à penser à retourner » en Haïti.
Du jour au lendemain, il n’y avait plus, pour des dizaines de milliers de personnes, qu’à choisir entre quatre options à hauts risques : rester en espérant que tout aille pour le mieux ; rejoindre l’économie souterraine ; rentrer en Haïti, où la vie est dangereuse et où l’épidémie de choléra fait encore des centaines de victimes chaque année ; ou marcher jusqu’à la frontière pour se rendre dans un pays dont le jeune Premier ministre a tenu des propos rassurants concernant l’accueil des réfugiés.
Depuis le mois de juin, beaucoup d’Haïtiens ont choisi cette dernière option. Cet été, 250 d’entre eux, chaque jour, ont passé la frontière. Ils ont fourré, dans une valise, ce qu’ils pensaient pouvoir porter, ont pris un avion ou un car pour Plattsburgh, New York, et sont montés dans un taxi qui les a menés en trente minutes jusqu’au bout de Roxham Road, près de Lacolle. Là, ils sont descendus du véhicule et ont commencé à marcher vers le fossé qui sépare l’Amérique de Donald Trump du Canada de Justin Trudeau.
« A la minute où je suis arrivée ici, j’ai eu l’impression que l’air que je respirais était différent. Ma douleur à l’épaule, si vive d’ordinaire, a subitement disparu. Je me suis demandé "qu’est-ce qui s’est passé ?" J’ai compris que ça venait de mon état de stress. » Agathe Saint-Preux, une femme d’une cinquantaine d’années, vêtue pudiquement d’une jupe mi-longue et d’un blazer noir, me racontait ce qu’elle avait ressenti en arrivant au Canada, après avoir passé douze ans à essayer d’obtenir un statut légal permanent aux Etats-Unis. C’était à la mi-octobre, et nous étions au milieu d’une salle comble, à la Maison d’Haïti de Montréal, là où la communauté haïtienne, enracinée dans la ville, aime à se retrouver. Des dizaines de migrants - qui avaient passé la frontière de manière « irrégulière » depuis les premières menaces anti-TPS - étaient venues partager leur expérience. Les histoires étaient variées, et beaucoup ont souhaité rester anonymes.
Il y a eu cette mère de trois enfants qui, alors qu’elle travaillait légalement à l’aéroport de New York, avait décidé que la seule manière de préserver sa famille était de tout laisser derrière elle et de traverser la frontière à Lacolle. Puis, cet homme qui avait mené, avec succès, une campagne électorale à la mairie d’une petite ville haïtienne, mais qui avait fui son île après avoir été « passé à tabac par trois voyous » d’une faction politique rivale. « Un miracle qu’il ait survécu », a renchéri une femme qui avait elle-même vécu trois ans aux Etats-Unis, mais s’était enfuie après avoir appris que, sous Trump, des amis à elle avaient été expulsés vers Haïti.
Un autre migrant, proche de la trentaine, a raconté qu’il avait vécu quinze ans aux Etats-Unis, était allé à l’université et avait travaillé sept ans : « J’ai été membre à part entière de l’économie de ce pays. J’ai payé des impôts. [Mais avec Trump], le stress aurait fini par me tuer. J’ai donc pris l’avion pour Plattsburgh, puis un taxi et j’ai traversé. »
« Trump a pris mon rêve »
Et nous avons entendu cette mère de six enfants, qui avait vécu huit ans à Miami. Elle avait mené de front un travail de nuit et des études d’infirmière, dormant aux arrêts de bus jusqu’au lever du jour - pour trouver un emploi l’autorisant à soigner les citoyens américains et à payer ses impôts au gouvernement. « On travaille comme des bêtes. Et puis, tout à coup, il nous dit : "Allez, dehors !" » m’a confié Manie Yanica Quetant, traduite pour l’occasion par un interprète créole. « Il », bien sûr, c’est Trump - ou « Chomp », comme ils ont l’habitude de prononcer son nom.
Pour la grande majorité des Haïtiens rassemblés ici, à la Maison, la route qu’ils avaient empruntée pour entrer aux Etats-Unis n’avait pas été la plus directe (celle qui, par bateau, relie Haïti à la Floride, mais que les garde-côtes surveillent activement depuis des décennies). A la recherche d’emplois et de politiques d’immigration plus accueillantes, ils n’avaient pas hésité à faire quelques détours : leur voyage les avait d’abord menés vers d’autres îles des Caraïbes, puis au Brésil, où la préparation de la Coupe du monde 2014 et celle des JO de 2016 avaient été autant de promesses d’emplois. Une fois ces opportunités passées, ils avaient remonté l’Amérique du Sud vers le nord et gagné l’Amérique centrale, pour atteindre la Californie. Plusieurs personnes de l’assemblée avaient traversé dix ou onze pays avant d’arriver à destination. Des années passées à courir et à se cacher, traqués par les autorités, dépouillés par les voleurs.
Rosemen François, une jeune femme qui avait égayé ses cheveux bouclés de mèches violettes, m’a raconté que ce qui s’était passé au Panama la hantait toujours : « En traversant une rivière, je suis tombée trois fois dans l’eau. A un moment donné, ma peau s’était tellement détachée de mes pieds que je ne pouvais même plus les sentir. Je n’oublierai jamais cette sensation. »
Réagissant au témoignage de Rosemen François, un homme, qui jusqu’alors était resté muet, a pris la parole : « Quand nous étions au Panama, nous devions dormir dans la forêt […]. Nous avons vu des gens mourir. Nous avons vu des femmes se faire violer. Nous avons passé six jours dans la forêt, au Panama, sans rien avoir à manger. Nous dormions sous la pluie. » Ce qu’il nous racontait faisait tragiquement écho au malheur de ces esclaves noirs qui, avant eux, fuyaient le sud des Etats-Unis. Un jour, en entendant des bruits, pensant devenir la proie des animaux sauvages, ils ont pris peur : « Nous nous sommes mis à courir. Et, en fuyant, nous avons tout perdu : nos affaires, nos bagages, tout. Mais nous gardions la foi. Nous avions toujours les Etats-Unis en tête. Nous pensions qu’à l’arrivée, ce serait le paradis. » Après tout, depuis le tremblement de terre, un programme particulier avait été mis en place - le fameux TPS -, qui reconnaissait la souffrance de leur pays et leur permettait de vivre et de travailler librement.
Pour beaucoup, comme l’a rappelé Rosemen François, tout n’a pas été si simple : « Quand je suis arrivée en Californie [il y a trois ans], j’ai pensé que c’était la fin du voyage. Au lieu de cela, j’ai été arrêtée et mise dans un centre de détention. Je ne pouvais pas voir la lumière du soleil ni faire la différence entre le jour et la nuit. J’y suis restée une semaine. Sans douche. Et la nourriture était immangeable. » Un jour, persuadée d’avoir été oubliée dans le trou noir de son cachot, elle s’est mise à hurler : « Et c’est ainsi que j’en suis sortie. » Ensuite, les choses se normalisant, elle a eu quelques années de répit. Elle a obtenu un permis de travail et a pu étudier. Mais l’été dernier, ses amis ont été expulsés et renvoyés en Haïti : « C’est à ce moment-là que j’ai décidé de me rendre au Canada. » Quand on lui a demandé pourquoi, elle a simplement répondu : « C’est Trump. Chomp… Chomp a pris mon rêve et l’a envoyé valser. »
Manie Yanica Quetant, l’infirmière de Miami, nous a décrit l’état de choc dans lequel l’avait mise la brusque nouvelle que les Haïtiens - qui grâce au TPS étaient arrivés à se sentir enfin en sécurité - allaient être de nouveau traqués : « Vous allumez la radio et vous entendez : "Hey, ils sont en train d’attraper les Haïtiens." » Alors, « vous comprenez que vous devez vous mettre à courir, mais vous avez du mal à respirer et vous ne savez pas dans quelle direction aller. » Le stress, nous a-t-elle dit, était insupportable : « Tu ne sais pas pourquoi ils veulent t’attraper et quand tu regardes autour de toi, tu ne sais pas ce que les gens pensent de toi, ni ce que tu dois faire. Tu n’as qu’une envie : arrêter de courir. »
Terre bénie
Pour ceux qui sont entrés aux Etats-Unis après l’élection de Trump, l’expérience a été plus extrême encore. Dieuliphète Derphin, un jeune homme qui avait fait le voyage en remontant par le Brésil, était arrivé juste avant son investiture. « J’ai été surpris de me faire arrêter et de passer six jours en centre de détention. Je me demandais : "Mais pourquoi traitent-ils les Noirs d’une manière inhumaine ? Pourquoi n’ai-je pas droit à une brosse à dents ? Comment se fait-il que je n’ai pas accès à l’eau ? Pourquoi nous font-ils cela ? Est-ce parce que nous sommes noirs ?" Après cela, je ne voulais plus rester aux Etats-Unis. Pas même une seconde. Et c’est ainsi que j’ai eu l’idée de me rendre au Canada ! » Il avait traversé la frontière en août, après seulement huit mois passés aux Etats-Unis.
Beaucoup dans l’assemblée ont eu, comme Agathe Saint-Preux, l’impression de « respirer un air différent » dès leur arrivée au Québec. Et Manie Yanica Quetant a soulevé une tempête d’applaudissements en disant à propos de Trump : « J’espère qu’il ne viendra jamais ici, parce que la terre canadienne est une terre bénie. » Et pourtant, il ne leur a pas fallu longtemps pour comprendre - passé le soulagement d’avoir échappé aux mesures expéditives de Trump - que la quête de sécurité et de stabilité était loin d’être achevée. Beaucoup d’Haïtiens sont venus au Canada parce qu’ils avaient entendu dire que le gouvernement de Trudeau les accueillerait à bras ouverts. Ils connaissaient son fameux tweet, envoyé le jour où, en Amérique, une vague de protestation s’était élevée contre le décret de Trump interdisant l’entrée des Etats-Unis aux ressortissants de sept pays à majorité musulmane : « A ceux qui fuient la persécution, la terreur et la guerre, sachez que le Canada vous accueillera indépendamment de votre foi. La diversité fait notre force. WelcomeToCanada. » Un des hommes présents a parlé de cela, et des messages similaires qui avaient déferlé du Nord, véhiculés sur toutes les ondes, et qu’il avait pris pour « un signe divin. Dieu montrait le chemin, et disait : "Venez au Canada." »
Ils ont malheureusement découvert que la situation était beaucoup plus complexe que prévu. Au cours des derniers mois, les autorités canadiennes ont découragé les immigrants en provenance des Etats-Unis - en particulier les Haïtiens - de tenter la traversée de la frontière, insistant sur le fait que, en dépit des tweets chaleureux et pleins de bonnes intentions, la politique d’immigration au Canada était restrictive et que des centaines d’Haïtiens avaient été expulsées depuis le mois de janvier. Selon Marjorie Villefranche, directrice de la Maison d’Haïti, sur les 60 Haïtiens qui, aujourd’hui, passent quotidiennement la frontière, 50 % obtiendront le statut de réfugiés, 25 % un statut alternatif, et 25 % seront vraisemblablement expulsés.
En outre, depuis 2004, le Canada et les Etats-Unis font partie du Safe Third Country Argument (« l’entente sur les tiers pays sûrs »), qui stipule que les demandeurs d’asile « doivent réclamer la protection accordée aux réfugiés dans le premier pays sûr dans lequel ils pénètrent ». Puisque les Etats-Unis sont un de ces pays sûrs, les Haïtiens qui s’y trouveraient, mais qui se rendraient à un poste-frontière canadien pour formuler une demande d’asile, seraient très probablement renvoyés.
En revanche, s’ils apparaissent, comme par magie au Canada, leur demande pourra être traitée. C’est la raison pour laquelle les Haïtiens, ainsi que des milliers d’autres immigrants fuyant l’hostilité croissante des Etats-Unis, ont traversé la frontière à pied, avec les risques qu’on sait. Comme l’a rappelé Manie Yanica Quetant, pour avoir une chance d’obtenir un statut légal au Canada, « vous devez enfreindre la loi - vous ne voulez pas le faire, ça vous déplaît, mais vous devez le faire ».
Entre les mailles du filet
Une femme dans l’assemblée a tenu à nous dire qu’avant de traverser, elle avait tenté d’entrer légalement par un poste-frontière. Comme elle avait été refoulée, l’information avait été portée à son dossier. Et à cause de cela, elle est la plus fragile du groupe d’un point de vue juridique : « Parce que j’ai été expulsée, je ne peux pas obtenir de permis de travail », nous a-t-elle dit. Une autre femme a secoué la tête : « C’est ce que tout le monde, ici, essaie d’éviter. »
Le Canada n’a pas non plus été un modèle d’antiracisme face à cette vague d’immigration. Les suprémacistes blancs ont manifesté aux postes-frontières de Lacolle et ont déployé une banderole anti-immigration à l’extérieur du Stade olympique de Montréal, transformé pour l’occasion en abri pour les réfugiés de Trump. Et à ce jour, les Haïtiens n’ont pas connu l’élan de générosité populaire auquel ont eu droit les réfugiés syriens.
Toutefois, beaucoup de Montréalais se sont mobilisés pour aider les Haïtiens, avec parfois une incroyable chaleur. « Nous voulons qu’ils se sentent ici chez eux », a déclaré Marjorie Villefranche en parlant de l’endroit où nous nous trouvions. La Maison d’Haïti a ouvert ses portes en 1972, lors de la précédente vague migratoire, pendant les années noires des dictatures Duvalier. L’an dernier, après des dizaines d’années passées au cœur de la vie haïtienne de Montréal, elle a déménagé - et a fêté l’événement - dans un bâtiment moderne et lumineux du quartier Saint-Michel. Derrière de grandes baies vitrées, qui donnent sur la rue, les membres de la communauté ont leur café pour se réunir et bavarder, et l’art haïtien, si plein de vitalité, orne tous les murs. Ce lieu est arrivé juste à temps pour faire face à la tempête Trump. Comme ce fut le cas après le séisme de 2010, des équipes de bénévoles aident aujourd’hui les nouveaux arrivants à remplir leurs formulaires de permis de travail temporaires. Les membres du personnel veillent, de leur côté, à inscrire les enfants à l’école, à leur fournir un uniforme et de jolis cahiers. Des cours de français sont proposés aux adultes, et des campagnes de collectes de vêtements, de meubles et de provisions en tout genre sont organisées.
Il y a surtout la présence d’autres Haïtiens qui, pour beaucoup, profitent, à Montréal, depuis des décennies, d’une vie confortable et prospère. Un réfugié de Trump nous a expliqué : « Ils nous disent : "N’ayez pas peur. Regardez, le soleil brille pour nous aujourd’hui. Donc, demain, il brillera pour vous aussi." » Philogene Gerda, une jeune mère de trois enfants qui a passé quinze jours au Stade olympique, a déclaré qu’à la Maison « on se sent comme chez soi, en particulier dans l’espace réservé aux femmes, les vendredis soirs, quand on peut venir avec ses enfants ».
Enfin, il y a l’action politique menée par le mouvement des droits des immigrés en vue de pousser le gouvernement Trudeau à se montrer à la hauteur de ses belles formules en faveur des réfugiés. Les roulottes chauffées à la frontière sont une aide, mais cela ne suffit pas. Des milliers de Canadiens ont réclamé par courrier que soit mis un terme à l’entente sur les tiers pays sûrs avec les Etats-Unis. D’autres campagnes sont menées afin que le traitement des demandes d’asile puisse être accéléré, et que les migrants ne soient pas, des années durant, victimes d’un vide juridique.
A la Maison d’Haïti, le sentiment qui domine, c’est la détermination. Après avoir remonté toute la longueur des Amériques pour trouver ici un peu de tranquillité, ils n’ont, littéralement, plus d’endroit où aller, plus de fuite possible vers le nord. Comme Dieuliphète Derphin me l’a confiée : « Nous sommes arrivés. C’est la fin de la route. […]. Nous devons vivre ici. Et être protégés ici. Voilà tout. Je ne veux plus retraverser cet enfer. »
Pour Marjorie Villefranche, cela s’impose d’autant plus depuis que le département de la Sécurité intérieure a annoncé, ce lundi 20 novembre, que 50 000 Haïtiens étaient désormais en sursis sur le territoire des Etats-Unis. « Nous attendons beaucoup de monde », m’a-t-elle dit. Mais elle espère que ceux qui prévoient de tenter une traversée à pied profiteront des vingt mois qui leur restent pour éviter l’hiver et ses dangers : « Ce n’est pas une bonne idée de traverser en hiver. C’est très dur. Quoi qu’il en soit, nous sommes prêts à les accueillir : les roulottes là-bas, et nous ici, à la Maison d’Haïti. »
Bien sûr, tous les Haïtiens confrontés à la perte de la protection que leur assurait leur statut ne choisiront pas l’option canadienne. Il y avait eu des craintes - étant donné les menaces de John Kelly en mai - que l’annonce du 20 novembre mettrait les gens au pied du mur dès le mois de janvier.
Les vingt mois de répit permettent d’espérer que, avant la fin du compte à rebours, au moins un des efforts déployés pour que la résidence légale permanente soit accordée porte ses fruits : par exemple, l’effort qui vise à ce que les migrants qui bénéficient du TPS depuis cinq ans ou plus obtiennent cette résidence, comme le réclame un projet de loi qui fait l’unanimité.
Toutefois, le scénario le plus probable, c’est que des dizaines de milliers d’Haïtiens vivant et travaillant légalement aux Etats-Unis resteront sur le territoire et passeront entre les mailles du filet. Comme le souligne Patricia Elizée, une avocate de Miami, qui défend les intérêts de ressortissants haïtiens, les Haïtiens « ne monteront pas tous sur un bateau pour rentrer chez eux. Ils opteront plutôt pour le marché noir ». Beaucoup continueront à travailler - mais alors, quand ils se plaindront d’un mauvais traitement, ils se mettront aussitôt en danger d’expulsion ou d’incarcération, une opportunité pour les prisons privées pour immigrés, dont les maisons mères se sont félicitées de l’élection de Trump.
Beaucoup d’Haïtiens n’envisagent le retour au pays qu’en dernier recours. Il est vrai, comme le souligne le département de la Sécurité intérieure des Etats-Unis, que le tremblement de terre en Haïti a déjà sept ans, et que le TPS est censé être temporaire. Mais ce tremblement de terre n’est pas l’alpha et l’oméga de l’état de désespérance dans lequel se trouve ce pays. La reconstruction, financée par l’étranger mais médiocre et gangrenée par la corruption, a préparé le terrain pour l’épidémie de choléra, et, l’année dernière, Haïti a été frappé par l’ouragan Matthew. Lorsque l’ouragan Irma, cette année, a été à deux doigts d’inonder l’île avec des pluies diluviennes, certains insulaires ont montré les signes d’un épuisement qui pourrait bientôt devenir banal, tant les épreuves et les crises, par leur fréquence, auront le visage d’une macabre normalité.
Outil humanitaire
Un résident de Port-au-Prince a déclaré à un journaliste : « On est inquiets, bien sûr, mais, de toute façon, on vit déjà au milieu d’un autre ouragan : l’ouragan de la misère. […]. Ils disent que je devrais protéger ma maison en la condamnant ? Mais avec quoi ? Du bois ? Qui va payer ? Où je vais trouver l’argent pour l’acheter ? Je n’ai même pas de toit en tôle ! Si les vents se lèvent, je ne peux faire qu’une chose : espérer survivre. »
D’un point de vue politique, les attaques de Trump contre le TPS sont assez déconcertantes. Car la population n’avait pas réclamé à cor et à cri l’expulsion des Haïtiens et des Centraméricains. Et la perte de ces travailleurs, dont le sérieux était apprécié, est une mauvaise nouvelle pour de nombreux employeurs (selon le syndicat Unite Here, Disney World emploie, à lui seul, environ 500 travailleurs haïtiens du TPS).
En outre, tout cela risque de porter préjudice aux républicains : si les bénéficiaires haïtiens du TPS ne peuvent pas voter, beaucoup de leurs amis et de membres de leur famille peuvent le faire. Et comme ils sont nombreux à vivre en Floride - un Etat clé qui connaît aussi un afflux de Portoricains mécontents de la façon dont ils ont été traités par les républicains (et qui peuvent voter une fois installés sur le territoire) - cette dernière mesure anti-immigrés pourrait bien avoir des conséquences aux prochaines élections.
Mais peut-être y a-t-il derrière tout ça une stratégie qui dépasse la seule question d’Haïti ou du Honduras, et qui concerne, plus largement, celle du réchauffement climatique. Car le TPS - qui fait de la « catastrophe environnementale » l’une des principales justifications de l’inscription d’un pays à ce programme - est actuellement l’outil le plus important dont dispose le gouvernement américain pour apporter un minimum d’aide aux innombrables personnes qui, dans le monde entier, sont déplacées en raison des crises liées au changement climatique et qui seront bientôt beaucoup plus nombreuses. Il n’est donc pas étonnant que l’entourage politique de Trump fasse tout ce qui est en son pouvoir pour s’en débarrasser.
Sur les dix pays actuellement couverts par le TPS, les catastrophes environnementales sont dites « cause principale » ou « facteur contributif majeur » dans sept d’entre eux.
A l’origine, ce programme était censé apporter une réponse, non pas au changement climatique, mais au déplacement des populations des pays en proie à la guerre civile. Mais à mesure que la planète s’est réchauffée, il est devenu le principal levier utilisé par les Etats-Unis pour aider les victimes des catastrophes naturelles en leur accordant des droits limités sur le sol américain. Et de fait, l’une des seules actions que les gouvernements des pays sinistrés peuvent entreprendre à l’issue d’une tempête ou d’une sécheresse dévastatrice est de faire pression pour que leurs citoyens soient couverts par le TPS - ou, dans d’autres pays riches, par des programmes analogues.
Jane McAdam, directrice du Centre Kaldor pour le droit international des réfugiés à l’université de Nouvelle-Galles du Sud, m’a dit que le TPS, quels que soient les problèmes qu’il pose, est « le mécanisme le plus efficace, voire le seul existant », dans le cadre de la législation américaine, pour accueillir les réfugiés climatiques : « Il offre au moins une sorte de protection temporaire. » C’est pourquoi, un certain nombre de spécialistes pensent qu’avec l’accélération du changement climatique, le TPS se révélera de plus en plus important.
Bien sûr, toutes les catastrophes inscrites au registre du TPS ne sont pas liées au changement climatique (les tremblements de terre en Haïti et au Népal). Mais d’autres catastrophes retenues comme donnant lieu à une inscription - ouragans, grandes inondations, sécheresses - sont précisément des phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes qui deviennent de plus en plus fréquents et dévastateurs à mesure que la planète se réchauffe.
Le Honduras et le Nicaragua, tous deux visés par l’administration Trump, ont reçu pour la première fois la protection du TPS après le passage de l’ouragan Mitch. La Somalie, à l’origine incluse dans le TPS en raison d’un conflit armé, a vu son statut prolongé sous la présidence Obama, au motif notamment d’une « grande inondation » et d’une « intense sécheresse » ayant des conséquences sanitaires sur l’eau et la nourriture. De même, le Yémen, d’abord inclus au programme pour cause de guerre, s’est vu récemment renouveler son statut après que des cyclones et des fortes pluies ont causé « pertes en vies humaines, blessés, inondation, coulées de boue, dommages aux infrastructures, pénuries de nourriture, d’eau, de médicaments et de carburant ».
Accorder à certains migrants originaires de ces pays le droit de vivre et de travailler aux Etats-Unis est une manière de reconnaître les droits fondamentaux de ceux qui, vivant dans des régions touchées par de soudaines crises environnementales, cherchent à vivre en sécurité.
En tant qu’outil humanitaire, le TPS est terriblement limité pour faire face aux catastrophes en série qui caractérisent notre époque. Même pour le nombre relativement restreint de personnes qui répondent aux exigences strictes de ce programme, il ne produit rien de moins qu’une insécurité permanente. Les bénéficiaires doivent renouveler leur statut tous les six à dix-huit mois, en payant chaque fois environ 500 dollars, et le TPS est temporaire par définition.
Il est aussi arbitraire : de nombreux pays frappés par des catastrophes majeures n’ont pas pu bénéficier du programme. Pis encore, celui-ci est uniquement conçu pour faire face à des catastrophes soudaines et de grande ampleur ; les effets climatiques les plus lents, comme la désertification, l’élévation du niveau de la mer et l’érosion des terres, sont plus difficiles à prendre en compte. Mais ce n’est pas tout : comme le souligne Koko Warner, une experte des migrations environnementales de l’université des Nations unies,« il est toujours supposé [avec le TPS] que les gens pourront retourner dans leur pays d’origine » une fois la catastrophe passée. Une telle hypothèse ne tient plus à une époque où les nations insulaires et les côtes sont clairement menacées de submersion.
L’hostilité de Trump, malgré toutes ces mises en garde, s’explique aisément : en dehors des mesures discrétionnaires, il n’existe rien d’autre que le TPS pour les migrants climatiques qui ont échoué sur le territoire des Etats-Unis. La convention de 1951, relative au statut des réfugiés, n’inclut ni les catastrophes environnementales ni les changements climatiques dans les conditions d’obtention du statut de réfugié. Ce qui compte, c’est le risque de persécution.
Ce vide béant du droit international est dénoncé par les gouvernements chaque fois qu’ils se réunissent pour s’attaquer aux défis croisés du dérèglement climatique. Ce fut encore le cas, très récemment, à Bonn, en Allemagne, à la conférence sur le climat (COP 23) organisée par les Nations unies du 6 au17 novembre. Beaucoup ont soutenu que la convention de 1951 devait être modifiée. Mais est-ce seulement la bonne solution ? A un moment où les gouvernements de tant de pays riches sont en train de renforcer le contrôle aux frontières, élargir l’accès de cette convention aux réfugiés climatiques pourrait non seulement échouer, mais aussi donner lieu à un accord nettement moins favorable aux migrants que celui qui existe déjà.
Donc le TPS est tout ce qui reste. Pourtant, quand l’administration Trump tire à boulets rouges sur le programme (en visant les Centraméricains, les Haïtiens, les Soudanais, et sans doute d’autres populations à venir), cela signifie que même ce faible outil est menacé. Et cette manœuvre s’inscrit dans un ensemble d’actions qui, simultanément, aggravent la crise climatique (en répondant favorablement aux souhaits les plus fous de l’industrie des combustibles fossiles), tout en éliminant les programmes conçus pour y faire face.
America First
En bref, il ne s’agit pas seulement de l’aversion de Trump pour les immigrés non blancs (bien qu’il soit aussi question de cela) : on assiste, vraisemblablement, à une forme particulièrement brutale d’adaptation au changement climatique. La logique en est assez simple : l’état-major de Trump sait très bien que les demandes de protection vont se multiplier dans les années à venir - il suffit de regarder l’ampleur inégalée des catastrophes qui ont eu lieu cet été, des inondations en Asie du Sud-Est et au Nigeria, jusqu’à l’exode qu’a connu Porto Rico, en passant par l’évacuation totale de Barbuda. Qu’ils nient publiquement la science ou non, les généraux qui entourent Trump sont conscients que les déplacements de population seront beaucoup plus nombreux à l’avenir. Si une catastrophe naturelle - comme le terrible tremblement de terre d’Haïti ou les ouragans qui ont suivi - provoque un élan de compassion hors normes, pourquoi pas la prochaine ? Et la suivante ? Du point de vue de l’« America First » de l’administration Trump, le TPS, en tant que précédent juridique, est tout simplement trop dangereux.
Alors qu’il est le seul programme d’immigration aux Etats-Unis donnant des droits aux migrants en cas de catastrophes environnementales, le TPS - par le sort qui l’attend - devrait être considéré comme un test grandeur nature permettant de voir comment le pays le plus riche du monde, et le plus grand émetteur de gaz à effet de serre, entend gérer les prochaines vagues de réfugiés climatiques. Jusqu’à ce jour, le message est clair : « Retournez dans l’enfer que nous avons créé ».
Naomi KLEIN Journaliste, essayiste et réalisatrice canadienne
Pendant que je lisais ce long article je me disais mais il est vraiment bien écrit et précis cet article. Et arrivée à la fin j’ai vu qu’il était écrit par Naomi Klein !
#immigration #états_unis #canada #haiti #TPS #québec #trump
- #Pis
- #États-Unis
- #Haiti
- #Nicaragua
- #Somalie
- #Donald Trump
- #Québec
ninachani @ninachani CC BY
Écrire un commentaire
mad meg @mad_meg CC BY 20/10/2017

2

2

Strange Company: The Year of the Witch
▻http://strangeco.blogspot.fr/2017/10/the-year-of-witch.html
The fame that has grown around the “Mary Celeste” mystery tends to obscure the fact that there have been other cases where a ship’s crew inexplicably disappeared. Similarly, the notoriety of the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 makes it easy to overlook the numerous “witch crazes” that blighted American colonial history. Hartford, Connecticut does not have the sinister reputation of Salem, but in 1662 and 1663, that town went through an episode—enshrined in history as “The Year of the Witch”—that easily rivals its more well-known counterpart.
The grim saga found its origin in a tragic, but hardly uncommon event—the death of a little girl, eight-year-old Elizabeth Kelly. The child had been suffering from a strange illness. The doctors were unable to diagnose her ailment, but her father, John Kelly, had no doubt what had killed his child. He was convinced that a neighbor, Judith Ayres, had put a spell on Elizabeth.
Goodwife Ayres had long been rumored to be a witch, and, it must be said, this reputation was largely of her own doing. If you go around telling your neighbors anecdotes about how you used to go out on dates with Satan, people will talk. On a more prosaic note, both Judith and her husband William were evidently quarrelsome, difficult people who were constantly rubbing everyone the wrong way. Plus, William had what modern-day police would call “form.” He had been arrested several times for theft and other misdemeanors.
Among those who had reason to dislike Judith Ayres was John Kelly. He claimed that one day, Judith happened to come across his daughter walking home from church. She followed Elizabeth into the Kelly kitchen, where she took some broth out of a pot boiling on the stove, and insisted the child eat it. No sooner had Elizabeth obeyed this odd command that she collapsed with agonizing stomach pains and became feverish. That night, Elizabeth awakened the household with screams of “Help me! Help me! Goody Ayres chokes me!” For the next five days, the girl suffered terribly. She moaned that Goody Ayres was choking her, pinching her, pricking her with pins, sitting on her stomach so that she feared her bowels would break. She begged her parents to have Ayres arrested. “Oh, father,” Elizabeth cried, “set on the great furnace and scald her! Get the broad axe and cut off her head. If you cannot give me a broad axe, get the narrow axe, and chop off her head!” Instead, for whatever reason, the Kellys hired Judith to nurse the child. Perhaps they hoped that being confronted with the girl’s torments would cause the “witch” to feel some pity and release Elizabeth from the “curse.”
Later that same day, after Judith had left, Elizabeth told her father that Ayres had said to her, “Betty, why do you speak so much against me? I will be even with you before I die, but if you will say no more of me, I will give you a fine lace for your dressing.”
If Judith thought this might placate the girl, she was very much mistaken. The very next day, Elizabeth died. Her last words were “Goody Ayres chokes me!”
After all this, it is not surprising that John Kelly insisted that Judith Ayres had murdered his child. An Inquest Committee was soon formed to investigate Elizabeth’s peculiar death. These men examined the little body. They noted that her arms were covered in bruises, which they took as confirmation that the “witch” had indeed attacked the child. Judith was brought in, as the committee wished to see if her presence had any effect on the corpse.
It did indeed. When Judith entered the room, “we saw upon the right cheek of the child’s face, a reddish tawny great spot, which covered a great part of the cheek, it being on the side next to Goodwife Ayres where she stood, this spot or blotch was not seen before the child was turned.” When a physician conducted an autopsy on Elizabeth, he ruled she had died of “preternatural causes.” All this was considered to be more than enough proof of Judith’s guilt, and she was promptly arrested for witchcraft. Just for good measure, her husband William was arraigned, as well.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jdjXgzYqLcE/WdK7hQtQufI/AAAAAAAAJqQ/CHx4z1BuHPcriVa1RoQsADb5H8qR6RfcgCLcBGAs/s320/year%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bwitch.JPG
Judith and William were subjected to that indispensable part of any good witch trial: the “water test.” The couple were bound hand to foot and tossed into a pond. If they floated, that was proof positive they were witches. If they sank, well, at least Judith and William would have the satisfaction of knowing that they would die vindicated.
To no one’s real surprise, the pair floated like a pair of corks. A ghastly death at the gallows awaited them.
Luckily for the Ayerses, there were a few people in town who had not come down with the prevailing hysteria. These supporters managed to arrange a jailbreak, and the couple fled to Rhode Island, leaving behind their two sons, ages five and eight. One wonders what sort of lives those boys went on to have.
Unfortunately, the departure of Judith and William did not signal the end of the Hartford witch panic. In truth, it was just getting started. Next to be victimized was another couple, Nathaniel and Rebecca Greensmith. Like the Ayerses, the Greensmiths were unpopular local figures. Rebecca was described as “lewd, ignorant, and considerably aged in years,” Nathaniel was a liar and a thief, and they both enjoyed squabbling with their neighbors.
Elizabeth Kelly’s “preternatural” death had inspired several other Hartford girls to declare that they, too, were being bewitched. The girls would gather at the meeting house, where fascinated townsfolk would watch them throw fits, make strange cries, and display all the usual signs of demonic torment. It was like a Girl Scout gathering from Hell. One of these girls, Ann Cole, declared that there was a whole coven of witches in Hartford, and one of the worst of the lot was Rebecca Greensmith. She claimed the witches were out to ruin her reputation, so that no man would ever want to marry her. (Why her love life would be of any interest to the coven was never explained.) A man named Robert Stern then added his two cents, stating that he had seen Rebecca and her fellow witches dancing around two large, sinister dark figures while cooking something evil-looking in a kettle. Rebecca was immediately tossed into jail to await her fate.
Ann Cole was the clear star of this Satanic show. Leading clergymen from all over the region came by to interview her—or, rather, to interview the group of devils that spoke “through” her. The chatty demons delighted in forcing Ann to speak unintelligibly, or with a heavy Dutch accent. Naturally, the demons also confirmed that Goodwife Greensmith was a witch.
When Rebecca was confronted with this testimony from the Dark Side, she readily, even eagerly, confessed to being in league with Satan. She was quoted as boasting that “the devil first appeared to her in the form of a deer or fawn, skipping about her, wherewith she was not much affrighted, and that by degrees he became very familiar, and at last would talk with her, moreover she said that the devil frequently had carnal knowledge of her body and that the witches had meetings at a place not far from her house and that some appeared in one shape, and others in another, and one came flying amongst them in the shape of a crow.”
Not content with tales of demonic sex and crow witches, Rebecca readily ratted out a number of local names as being part of her coven. Chief amongst the people she accused was her husband, Nathaniel. Rebecca noted that Nathaniel, despite being a small man, had great physical strength—too great to be anything other than supernatural. “When my husband hath told me of his great travail and labor, I wondered at it how he did it; this he did before I was married, and when I was married I asked him how he did it, and he answered me, he had help that I knew not of.”
Not convinced yet? Hold on, there’s more. Rebecca went on to say, “About three years ago, as I think it, my husband and I were in the woods several miles from home, and were looking for a sow that we lost, and I saw a creature, a red creature, following my husband, and when I came to him I asked him what it was that was with him, and he told me it was a fox...Another time when he and I drove our hogs into the woods beyond the pond that was to keep young cattle, several miles off, I went before the hogs to call them, and looking back I saw two creatures like dogs, one a little blacker than the other; they came after my husband pretty close to him, and one did seem to me to touch him.” When Rebecca asked Nathaniel what the creatures were, he again deadpanned, “foxes.” She added the suggestive words, “I was still afraid when I saw anything, because I heard so much of him before I married him.” She explained her readiness to condemn Nathaniel: “I speak all of this out of love to my husband’s soul, and it is much against my will that I am now necessitated to speak against my husband, I desire that the Lord would open his heart to own and speak the truth.”
I’m sure that was a great consolation to him.
Rebecca gave a full description of a typical night out with the girls witches: “I also testify, that I being in the woods at a meeting, there was with me Goody Seager, Goodwife Sanford and Goodwife Ayres. And at another time there was a meeting under a tree in the green by our house, and there was James Walkley, Peter Grant’s wife, Goodwife Ayers, and Henry Palmer’s wife, of Wethersfield, and Goody Seager; and there we danced and had a bottle of sack...It was in the night and something like a cat called me out to the meeting, and I was in Mr. Varlet’s orchard with Mrs. Judith Varlet, and she told me that she was much troubled with the marshal, Jonathan Gilbert, and cried; and she said if it lay in her power she would do him a mischief, or what hurt she could.”
Rebecca and Nathaniel spent the last month of their lives lodged in the jailer’s home while they waited execution. There is no record of how the couple spent their last few weeks together, but I can imagine Mr. Greensmith had much to say to his wife. The couple, along with another condemned witch, Mary Barnes, were hanged on January 25, 1663. On an unknown date somewhere around this time, another “witch,” Mary Sanford, also met the hangman. Increase Mather wrote triumphantly that “After the suspected witches were executed...Ann Cole was restored to health, and has continued well for many years.”
Ann’s subsequent history furnishes an interesting sequel to this story. After the Greensmiths were hanged, their farm was seized by the court. The home was sold to an Andrew Benton, who moved in with his wife and children. Shortly afterward, Mrs. Benton died. The young widower soon remarried...to none other than Ann Cole. She spent many years raising a large family of children and stepchildren under the roof built by the couple she had sent to the gallows.
I’d like to think it gave her an unpleasant dream or two, but I somehow doubt it.
[Note: In October 1993, the “Journal of the American Medical Society” published an article about the Hartford witch trials, focusing on the seminal event of the case, the death of Elizabeth Kelly. The autopsy of Kelly was described as “a bunch of screwups.” All the “preternatural” features of Kelly’s corpse were easily explained by the normal process of decomposition. Her death, it is now believed, was caused by a combination of pneumonia and sepsis. The latter ailment likely caused delirium, leading the girl to feverishly accuse Judith Ayres of tormenting her.]
mad meg @mad_meg CC BY
- mad meg @mad_meg CC BY 21/10/2017
  
  Merci pour ces infos. J’ai pas fini de lire cet article et la source sur lequel je l’ai trouvé n’est pas très fiable.
  J’en profit pour cc @mona
  
  mad meg @mad_meg CC BY
- François Isabel @fsoulabaille CC BY-NC-ND 21/10/2017
  
  oui, j’ai déploré aussi l’absence de sources de référence
  
  François Isabel @fsoulabaille CC BY-NC-ND
- Mona @mona 21/10/2017
  
  @mad_meg Merci!
  
  Mona @mona
- mad meg @mad_meg CC BY 21/10/2017
  
  My pleasure Mona.
  J’en profite pour mettre d’autres sources que j’ai pas encore lu là dessus :
  A CASE OF WITCHCRAFT IN HARTFORD.
  BY CHARLES J. HOADLY, LL. D.
  Published in the
  Connecticut Magazine
  November, 1899
  ▻http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ctahgp/history/witch.htm
  –---
  Before Salem
  ▻https://books.google.fr/books?id=hmwkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT258&lpg=PT258&dq=Ann+Cole+witch&source=bl&ot
  –—
  Witch-Hunting in Seventeenth-Century New England : A Documentary History 1638 ...
  ▻https://books.google.fr/books?id=EMDabpjdotYC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=Ann+Cole+witch&source=bl&ot
  –—
  Ca me fait pensé que sur les commentaires d’un article du e-monde.fr il y un mec qui comparait les révélations d’agressions sexuelles actuelle aux possédées de Loudun.
  ▻https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_des_d%C3%A9mons_de_Loudun
  –---
  Sur Rebecca Greensmith
  ▻http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2008/03/rebecca-greensmith.html
  –—
  un docu qui à pas l’air fantastique vu les extraits disponibles sur Imdb :
  ▻http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1365595
  –—
  Days to the Gallows : A Novel of the Hartford Witch Panic
  ▻https://www.amazon.com/Days-Gallows-Novel-Hartford-Witch/dp/1536978043
  
  mad meg @mad_meg CC BY
Écrire un commentaire
dedefensa [RSS] @dedefensa CC BY-NC-SA 22/09/2017

Un discours bien de son temps
▻http://www.dedefensa.org/article/un-discours-bien-de-son-temps
Un discours bien de son temps
Qui tient qui à la Maison-Blanche ? John Laughland commence son texte d’analyse du discours du président Trump par la phrase qui a fait fureur chez les tweeteurs, accompagnant les photos de cet auditeur parmi les officiels qui paraît effondré à l’audition du discours : « Nous sommes tous John Kelly. » Et il termine le paragraphe par cette question qu’il laisse sans réponse : « Le chef de cabinet du président américain ignorait-il ce que les plumes présidentielles avaient préparé ? »
En d’autres mots, sempiternelle question : qui contrôle le président Donald Trump ? Ou encore : quelqu’un contrôle-t-il le président Trump ? Cette question à double détente vaut d’être posé, puisqu’on nous dit tant que Kelly, l’un des trois généraux de l’administration (avec Mattis et McMaster), a (...)

dedefensa [RSS] @dedefensa CC BY-NC-SA
- Simplicissimus @simplicissimus 22/09/2017
  
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKGyVwoWkAMYGA2.jpg
  
  #facepalm de référence…
  
  Simplicissimus @simplicissimus
Écrire un commentaire
dedefensa [RSS] @dedefensa CC BY-NC-SA 3/09/2017

Kelly-Trump, chat et souris jouant “au plus malin”
▻http://www.dedefensa.org/article/kelly-trump-chat-et-souris-jouant-au-plus-malin
Kelly-Trump, chat et souris jouant “au plus malin”
L’étrange situation ne cesse de l’être toujours plus. On a vu comment, selon Mike Cernovich, le président Trump était “prisonnier à la Maison-Blanche” grâce aux soins qualifiés de son chef de cabinet, le général John Kelly qui fait partie du “groupe des généraux” (Kelly, McMaster, Mattis) dont nombre de commentateurs assurent que c’est ce groupe qui exerce le pouvoir effectif. Trois jours après l’article de Breitbart.News paraît un article dans le Washington Post décrivant comment Trump parvient à tromper la vigilance de son chef de cabinet. Dans cette situation d’emprisonnement, c’est une sorte de jeu du chat et de la souris où l’on se demande tellement qui et le chat et qui est la souris qu’on en revient au constat de la variante de “jouer au plus malin”. Cet (...)

dedefensa [RSS] @dedefensa CC BY-NC-SA

Écrire un commentaire
Simplicissimus @simplicissimus 17/08/2017

2

2

The federal government had a plan to combat #right-wing_violence. Trump axed it in June.
▻https://mic.com/articles/183869/the-federal-government-had-a-plan-to-combat-right-wing-violence-trump-axed-it-i
As outcry continues to mount over President Donald Trump’s latest round of comments about the domestic terrorist attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, an outstanding question for many Americans is one about policy: What, if anything, will the federal government do to help combat far-right white extremism?
The Obama Administration had implemented at least the beginnings of such a plan while in office but, in late June, Trump’s Department of Homeland Security eliminated a federal grant of $400,000 for Life After Hate, a nonprofit organization working to de-radicalize neo-Nazis and #white_supremacists.
The decision received only minimal attention at the time, but has now been thrust into the limelight as Trump’s comments on Tuesday raise renewed questions over how his administration will respond to the violence which directly led to one death and 19 injuries in Charlottesville over the weekend.
[…]
But shortly after Trump took office, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly ordered a review of the $10 million [DHS’ Countering Violent Extremism] CVE program, and in June, the Department canceled _Life After Hate’_s funding (along with another $866,687 grant to UNC-Chapel Hill researchers in order to develop a program to combat white supremacist propaganda online).
- #Donald Trump
Simplicissimus @simplicissimus
Écrire un commentaire
CDB_77 @cdb_77 5/05/2017

#Trump : The New Deportation Threat
During a visit to Detroit in March, John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, took some time to explain President Trump’s deportation plans to wary community leaders and immigrant advocates. After several tense meetings, he came out to speak to the press. “We’ve got to do something,” Kelly said, with a note of frustration. “We’re almost at a crisis right now because you have 11 million people in America that are below the radar. Most of them are not bad people to say the least. Some of them are. We’re after the ones, the worst of the worst, if you will. But I can’t ignore the law.”
▻http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/05/25/trump-the-new-deportation-threat
#USA #Etats-Unis #renvois #expulsions #migrations #asile #réfugiés

CDB_77 @cdb_77

Écrire un commentaire
CDB_77 @cdb_77 1/03/2017

Are U.S. Immigration Centers the Next #Abu_Ghraib?
By all accounts, Gen. John Kelly was a fine Marine. He served with Gen. James Mattis, now the secretary of defense, and was seen as being in the Mattis mold — a low-key, prudent, rigorous thinker. So it is with surprise that I see Mr. Kelly, in his new role as secretary of Homeland Security, presiding over a ham-handed crackdown on immigrants.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/27/opinion/28ricks/28ricks-master768.jpg

▻https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/are-us-immigration-centers-the-next-abu-ghraib.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&s
#murs #barrières_frontalières #barbelé #caricature #dessin_de_presse #détention_administrative #rétention #USA #Etats-Unis

CDB_77 @cdb_77

Écrire un commentaire
Rezo @rezo 9/02/2017

3

3

Undocumented Men
▻http://affordance.typepad.com/mon_weblog/2017/02/undocumented-men.html
À l’appui de la dérive totalitaire du régime de Donald Trump s’ajoute un autre élément : sa haine des sans-papiers, des « undocumented men » se construit en miroir de sa fascination pour les « overdocumented men », pour les hommes sur-documentés, ses surhommes à lui. Source : affordance.info

Rezo @rezo
- Dror@sinehebdo @sinehebdo 10/02/2017
  
  Et puis donc on vient d’apprendre que Donald Trump, par la voix de John Kelly son responsable à la sécurité intérieure, avait l’intention de passer à la vitesse supérieure concernant le formulaire ESTA en exigeant cette fois d’obtenir les mots de passe permettant d’accéder aux comptes des différents réseaux sociaux.
  Ce que israel fait depuis bien longtemps...
  #USA #Palestine
  
  Dror@sinehebdo @sinehebdo
- Dror@sinehebdo @sinehebdo 12/02/2017
  
  Echange croisé ici :
  ►https://seenthis.net/messages/569119
  #surveillance #réseaux_sociaux #mot_de_passe #frontières
  
  Dror@sinehebdo @sinehebdo
Écrire un commentaire