Friday, February 3, 2017

Israel Adds UK to the List of Israeli-controlled Countries

Israel Adds UK to the List of Israeli-controlled Countries
February 1, 2017 


Israel Adds UK to the List of Israeli-controlled Countries

Guest column by Philip Giraldi


"Taking Down" British Officials
Israel conspires against the Mother of Parliaments


UK Israel
A quite incredible story out of England has not received much media coverage in the United States. It concerns how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to “take down” parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It was also learned that the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). The story is interesting on several levels, particularly given the recent furor in the U.S. over allegations that Russia has been interfering in American politics.
By way of comparison, though no evidence has been provided to support the claim, Russia allegedly arranged for a hack into the Democratic National Committee server to obtain factual information potentially embarrassing to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The information was then made public and may have influenced how some Americans voted.
Compare that to what has been going on meanwhile in Britain, where an Israeli Embassy diplomat named Shai Masot, “an officer in the Israel Defense Forces and…serving as a senior political officer at the London Embassy,” was meeting with Maria Strizzolo, a senior British civil servant who was formerly chief of staff to Conservative parliamentarian and ardent Zionist Robert Halfon. Masot is certainly an intelligence officer under diplomatic cover. Masot and Strizzolo’s candid discussion, which was secretly recorded by al-Jazeera, related specifically to getting rid of Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan, regarded as a supporter of an independent Palestinian state.
To Masot’s additional query “Can I give you some MPs that I would suggest you would take down?” Strizzolo suggested “…if you look hard enough, I’m sure there is something that they’re trying to hide…a little scandal maybe.” Another alleged pro-Arab member of Parliament Crispin Blunt was also identified, with Strizzolo confirming that he was on a “hit list.”
It was also learned that Masot had been secretly subsidizing and advising two ostensibly independent groups, the parliamentary Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Masot did, however, express concern that Israel’s control over incoming parliamentarians was not quite what it used to be: “For years, every MP that joined the parliament joined the LFI. They’re not doing that any more in the Labour Party. CFI, they’re doing it automatically. All the 14 new MPs who got elected in the last elections did it automatically.”
Shai Masot also was working with friendly young British Jews, providing them with jobs at his embassy and then seeding them into positions in advocacy organizations where they continued to be paid secretly by him while promoting positions that would protect Israel from any criticism. One such group is Britain’s National Union of Students (NUS). Recently there has been somewhat of a furor over Shakira Martin, a vice president in the group, who accepted an all-expenses paid trip to Israel organized by the Union of Jewish Students, a pro-Israel organization which is among those receiving funding and guidance from the Israeli embassy in London. The al-Jazeera tape has also revealed that Richard Brooks, another NUS vice president, had been plotting with pro-Israel activists to remove elected NUS president Malia Bouattia, a supporter of Palestinian rights and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
It does not require much in the way of imagination to realize that the Masot meetings probably occur every day right out in the open in Washington, including Israeli officials and Congressmen as well as heads of political advocacy organizations and lobbies. The list of prominent politicians “taken down” by Israel is lengthy, and includes Cynthia McKinney, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William Fulbright, Roger Jepsen, and Pete McCloskey. And a similar situation prevails in the U.S. regarding human rights and politically liberal organizations that are ostensibly privately funded. As Jeff Blankfort has noted, they are frequently headed by American Jews who prove quite willing to criticize the United States but are generally reluctant to say anything bad about Israel. Whether they are actually directly or indirectly on the Israeli government payroll would be an interesting project for a good investigative journalist.
One might reasonably consider Israel’s interference in the democratic process in friendly countries like the U.K. and U.S. as much farther reaching and damaging than anything Moscow has done. Yet Russia is being excoriated by the U.S. and European media daily, investigated by Congress and sanctioned because of what are little more than unproven allegations. Israel has clearly done some things to interfere with local politics that are arguably much worse and the silence is deafening. So one should not be surprised by the toothless British reaction to the suggestion that its government officials might be removed by the clandestine activity of a foreign country: “The Israeli ambassador has apologized…the UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed.”
Britain under its new Prime Minister Theresa May has also been rolling over in response to Israel’s perceived interests almost as obsequiously as the U.S. Congress. After Secretary of State John Kerry described Israel’s government as “extreme right wing” on December 28th, May sprang to Tel Aviv’s defense, saying “we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally. We are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long.”
May’s rejoinder could have been written by Netanyahu, and maybe it was. Two weeks later, her government cited “reservations” over a French government sponsored mid-January Middle East peace conference and would not sign a joint statement calling for a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Netanyahu vociferously condemned the proceedings.
It all recalls Pat Buchanan’s description of the U.S. Congress as an Israeli occupied zone, which raised holy hell at the time even though Buchanan did not go far enough judging by what has been happening in Britain. Indeed, lobbying on behalf of Israel is a global phenomenon with organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) existing in various forms in a number of other countries. BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is an AIPAC clone located in London. It is well funded and politically powerful, working through its various “Friends of Israel” proxies. Americans might be surprised to learn that in Britain Jewish organizations uniquely are allowed to patrol heavily Jewish London neighborhoods in police-like uniforms while driving police type vehicles and there have been reports of their threatening Muslims who enter the areas.
Indeed, wherever one goes – Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States – there is a well-organized and funded mechanism in place ready, willing and able to go to war to protect Israel. Most of the organizations involved take at least some direction from officials in Tel Aviv. Many of them even cooperate fully with the Israeli government, its parastatal organizations and faux-NGOs like the lawfare center Shurat HaDin. Their goal is to spread propaganda and influence the public in their respective countries of residence to either hew to the line coming out of Tel Aviv or to confuse the narrative and stifle debate when potential Israeli crimes are being discussed.
Israel’s diaspora allies are backed up by a formidable government organized machine that spews out disinformation and muddies the waters whenever critics surface. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has a corps of paid “volunteers” who monitor websites worldwide and take remedial action and there is a similar group working out of the Prime Minister’s office. That is why any negative story appearing in the U.S. or Britain about Israel is immediately inundated with pro-Israel comments, many of which make exactly the same coordinated points while exhibiting the same somewhat less than perfect English. On sites like Yahoo they are actually able to suppress unwelcome comments by flooding the site with “Dislike” responses. If a comment receives a large number of dislikes, it is automatically blocked or removed.
The sayanim, local Jews in their countries of residence, are essential to this process, having been alerted by emails from the Israeli Foreign Ministry about what to do and say. The reality is that Israel has lost the war of public opinion based on its own actions, which are becoming more and more repressive and even inhumane and so are difficult to explain. That means that the narrative has to be shifted by Israel’s friends through subterfuge and the corruption of the information and political processes in each country. In some places the key media and political players who are engaged in the process can simply be bought. In other places like England they can be intimidated or pressured into taking positions that are neither in their own countries’ interests nor morally acceptable. In large countries like the United States, Britain and France a combination of friendly suasion and coercive elements often come together.
In some extreme cases the game Israel plays is brutal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently warned New Zealand that backing a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements would be a “declaration of war.” In all cases, the objective is the same: to repress completely, discourage or misrepresent any criticism of Israel and to block any initiatives that might be taken that would do damage either to the Israeli economy or to the country’s perceived standing in the world. In some countries including the U.S. and Britain, Israel’s advocates work their subversion of local institutions right out in the open and are highly successful in implementing policies that often remain largely hidden but that can be discerned as long as one knows what to look for.








Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The Left Is Self-Destructing — Paul Craig Roberts

The Left Is Self-Destructing — Paul Craig Roberts
January 30, 2017




The Left Is Self-Destructing

Paul Craig Roberts

The mindlessness is unbearable. Amnesty International tells us that we must “fight the Muslim ban” because Trump’s bigotry is wrecking lives. Anthony Dimaggio at CounterPunch says Trump should be impeached because his Islamophobia is a threat to the Constitution. This is not to single out these two as the mindlessness is everywhere among those whose worldview is defined by Identity Politics.

One might think that Amnesty International should be fighting against the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime wars that have produced the refugees by killing and displacing millions of Muslims. For example, the ongoing war that Obama inflicted on Yemen results in the death of one Yemeni child every 10 minutes, according to UNICEF. Where is Amnesty International?

Clearly America’s wars on Muslims wreck far more lives than Trump’s ban on immigrants. Why the focus on an immigration ban and not on wars that produce refugees? Is it because Obama is responsible for war and Trump for the ban? Is the liberal/progressive/left projecting Obama’s monstrous crimes onto Trump? Is it that we must hate Trump and not Obama?

Immigration is not a right protected by the US Constitution. Where was Dimaggio when in the name of “the war on terror” the Bush/Obama regime destroyed the civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution? If Dimaggio is an American citizen, he should try immigrating to the UK, Germany, or France and see how far he gets.

The easiest and surest way for the Trump administration to stop the refugee problem, not only for the US but also for Europe and the West in general, is to stop the wars against Muslim countries that his predecessors started. The enormous sums of money squandered on gratuitous wars could instead be given to the countries that the US and NATO have destroyed. The simplest way to end the refugee problem is to stop producing refugees. This should be the focus of Trump, Amnesty, and Dimaggio.

Is everyone too busy hating to do anything sensible?

It is very disturbing that the liberal/progressive/left prefers to oppose Trump than to oppose war. Indeed, they want a war on Trump. How does this differ from the Bush/Obama war on Muslims?

The liberal/progressive/left is demonstrating a mindless hatred of the American people and the President that the people chose. This mindless hatred can achieve nothing but the discrediting of an alternative voice and the opening of the future to the least attractive elements of the right-wing.

The liberal/progressive/left will end up discrediting all critics, thereby empowering those to whom the liberal/progressive/left are most opposed.


 Share246
The Left Is Self-Destructing — Paul Craig Roberts
January 30, 2017 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article
The Left Is Self-Destructing

Paul Craig Roberts

The mindlessness is unbearable. Amnesty International tells us that we must “fight the Muslim ban” because Trump’s bigotry is wrecking lives. Anthony Dimaggio at CounterPunch says Trump should be impeached because his Islamophobia is a threat to the Constitution. This is not to single out these two as the mindlessness is everywhere among those whose worldview is defined by Identity Politics.

One might think that Amnesty International should be fighting against the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime wars that have produced the refugees by killing and displacing millions of Muslims. For example, the ongoing war that Obama inflicted on Yemen results in the death of one Yemeni child every 10 minutes, according to UNICEF. Where is Amnesty International?

Clearly America’s wars on Muslims wreck far more lives than Trump’s ban on immigrants. Why the focus on an immigration ban and not on wars that produce refugees? Is it because Obama is responsible for war and Trump for the ban? Is the liberal/progressive/left projecting Obama’s monstrous crimes onto Trump? Is it that we must hate Trump and not Obama?

Immigration is not a right protected by the US Constitution. Where was Dimaggio when in the name of “the war on terror” the Bush/Obama regime destroyed the civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution? If Dimaggio is an American citizen, he should try immigrating to the UK, Germany, or France and see how far he gets.

The easiest and surest way for the Trump administration to stop the refugee problem, not only for the US but also for Europe and the West in general, is to stop the wars against Muslim countries that his predecessors started. The enormous sums of money squandered on gratuitous wars could instead be given to the countries that the US and NATO have destroyed. The simplest way to end the refugee problem is to stop producing refugees. This should be the focus of Trump, Amnesty, and Dimaggio.

Is everyone too busy hating to do anything sensible?

It is very disturbing that the liberal/progressive/left prefers to oppose Trump than to oppose war. Indeed, they want a war on Trump. How does this differ from the Bush/Obama war on Muslims?

The liberal/progressive/left is demonstrating a mindless hatred of the American people and the President that the people chose. This mindless hatred can achieve nothing but the discrediting of an alternative voice and the opening of the future to the least attractive elements of the right-wing.

The liberal/progressive/left will end up discrediting all critics, thereby empowering those to whom the liberal/progressive/left are most opposed.










Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The Left Is Self-Destructing — Paul Craig Roberts

The Left Is Self-Destructing — Paul Craig Roberts

January 30, 2017  



The Left Is Self-Destructing

Paul Craig Roberts

The mindlessness is unbearable. Amnesty International tells us that we must “fight the Muslim ban” because Trump’s bigotry is wrecking lives. Anthony Dimaggio at CounterPunch says Trump should be impeached because his Islamophobia is a threat to the Constitution. This is not to single out these two as the mindlessness is everywhere among those whose worldview is defined by Identity Politics.

One might think that Amnesty International should be fighting against the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime wars that have produced the refugees by killing and displacing millions of Muslims. For example, the ongoing war that Obama inflicted on Yemen results in the death of one Yemeni child every 10 minutes, according to UNICEF. Where is Amnesty International?

Clearly America’s wars on Muslims wreck far more lives than Trump’s ban on immigrants. Why the focus on an immigration ban and not on wars that produce refugees? Is it because Obama is responsible for war and Trump for the ban? Is the liberal/progressive/left projecting Obama’s monstrous crimes onto Trump? Is it that we must hate Trump and not Obama?

Immigration is not a right protected by the US Constitution. Where was Dimaggio when in the name of “the war on terror” the Bush/Obama regime destroyed the civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution? If Dimaggio is an American citizen, he should try immigrating to the UK, Germany, or France and see how far he gets.

The easiest and surest way for the Trump administration to stop the refugee problem, not only for the US but also for Europe and the West in general, is to stop the wars against Muslim countries that his predecessors started. The enormous sums of money squandered on gratuitous wars could instead be given to the countries that the US and NATO have destroyed. The simplest way to end the refugee problem is to stop producing refugees. This should be the focus of Trump, Amnesty, and Dimaggio.

Is everyone too busy hating to do anything sensible?

It is very disturbing that the liberal/progressive/left prefers to oppose Trump than to oppose war. Indeed, they want a war on Trump. How does this differ from the Bush/Obama war on Muslims?

The liberal/progressive/left is demonstrating a mindless hatred of the American people and the President that the people chose. This mindless hatred can achieve nothing but the discrediting of an alternative voice and the opening of the future to the least attractive elements of the right-wing.

The liberal/progressive/left will end up discrediting all critics, thereby empowering those to whom the liberal/progressive/left are most opposed.










Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.


Only Glass-Steagall Can Save the U.S. from Another Epic Crash Pam Martens

Only Glass-Steagall Can Save the U.S. from Another Epic Crash — Pam Martens
January 30, 2017 


Only Glass-Steagall Can Save the U.S. from Another Epic Crash

Pam Martens

Allowing the largest Wall Street banks to brazenly loot the public is now the official policy of Congress. Following the worst financial crash since the Great Depression in 2008, Congress and the Obama administration engaged in the greatest legislative hoax in history in passing the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. Rather than reforming the corrupt and dangerous practices of the biggest Wall Street banks, the Dodd-Frank legislation actually allowed the biggest banks to expand their global loan-sharking operations, engage in ever more brazen crimes, while giving their lapdog regulator, the Federal Reserve (whose derelict oversight had led to the 2008 crash) expanded supervisory powers.

That the legislation was a hoax on the public is no longer debatable. Here’s how we know:

The Vice Chairman for Supervision of the banks that President Obama was mandated to put in place at the Federal Reserve as part of Dodd-Frank legislation never got appointed. From Dodd-Frank’s passage in 2010 until he left the Oval Office in 2017, President Obama simply thumbed his nose at this mandate.

In February 2015, five years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Financial Research released a report showing that two of Wall Street’s biggest banks, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, pose the greatest interconnected risk to the U.S. financial system. In May of the same year, both banks admitted to criminal felony charges, for the first time in their century old existence, for rigging foreign currency markets.

The so-called Volcker Rule section of Dodd-Frank, which was to stop the banks from trading for their own accounts and force them to exit hedge funds and private equity funds, still has not been fully implemented. The biggest Wall Street banks are still allowed to operate Dark Pools. These are unregulated, quasi stock exchanges where the banks trade stocks, including their own and competitors’ bank stocks, in the dark.

The most important facet of Dodd-Frank, to force the Wall Street banks to “push out” their risky derivatives from their taxpayer insured, deposit-taking bank unit, was repealed by Citigroup in 2014 by effectively forcing an amendment onto the government’s must-pass spending bill in 2014.

The amount of derivatives held by the six largest Wall Street banks has been allowed by bank regulators to grow in actual size and in terms of concentration since those derivatives played a major role in blowing up Wall Street in 2008. On September 30, 2016, the six largest derivative banks held $211.7 trillion in derivatives versus $179.1 trillion on the same date in 2008. Citigroup, which imploded in 2008 from its irresponsible gambles in derivatives and subprime debt has gone from holding $38.2 trillion in notional derivatives (face amount) at the time of its crash in 2008 to $51.8 trillion today – an increase of 36 percent.

Citigroup has increased its high-risk footprint while simultaneously being charged with ever more brazen looting of the public. Its serial crimes against the public have ranged from charges and settlements over lying to its shareholders about the extent of its subprime mortgages to engaging in bank foreclosure fraud to rigging interest rate benchmarks and selling mortgages it knew to be toxic to investors.

Many of Citigroup’s charges of defrauding the public (as well as those made by regulators against other big Wall Street banks) have been for actions that occurred after the passage of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation – leaving no question that Congress realizes that Wall Street was never reformed.

Just two years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, JPMorgan Chase was caught with its hand in the cookie jar to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. It was using the insured deposits of its bank customers to make high risk derivatives bets in London. After an in depth investigation of this travesty, known as the London Whale scandal, the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing on March 15, 2013. Senator John McCain, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee at the time, made the following remarks at the opening of the hearing:

“This investigation into the so-called ‘Whale Trades’ at JPMorgan has revealed startling failures at an institution that touts itself as an expert in risk management and prides itself on its ‘fortress balance sheet.’  The investigation has also shed light on the complex and volatile world of synthetic credit derivatives.  In a matter of months, JPMorgan was able to vastly increase its exposure to risk while dodging oversight by federal regulators. The trades ultimately cost the bank billions of dollars and its shareholders value.

“These losses came to light not because of admirable risk management strategies at JPMorgan or because of effective oversight by diligent regulators. Instead, these losses came to light because they were so damaging that they shook the market, and so damning that they caught the attention of the press.  Following the revelation that these huge trades were coming from JPMorgan’s London Office, the bank’s losses continued to grow.  By the end of the year, the total losses stood at a staggering $6.2 billion dollars.”

The legitimate purpose of Wall Street investment banks is to function as efficient allocators of capital to grow new businesses and industries in America in order to keep the nation competitive and expand good jobs. But since the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 under decades of pressure from Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street’s biggest banks increasingly make their profits by targeting the financially unsophisticated. In what has become a highly efficient, wealth transfer mechanism, billions of dollars each month move from the pockets of those least able to protect themselves from financial abuse to the coffers of the one percent in America who sit in the executive offices of these banks.

Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, banks holding insured deposits were not allowed to be affiliated with Wall Street investment banks and brokerage firms — which have a long sordid history of stock frauds, abusing their customers, and blowing up. That protection was removed when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on November 12, 1999, the legislation that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. After protecting the nation for 66 years, it took just 9 years after its repeal for Wall Street to crash, taking down century old iconic names on Wall Street along with the U.S. economy and forcing the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of markets.

The Glass-Steagall Act served this country incredibly well for 66 years until its repeal. It worked because of its simplicity – and its threat of five years of jail time for those who violated its key provisions.

The provisions banning deposit-taking banks from being engaged in the securities business (Sections 16, 20 and 21) are elegant in their simplicity. Unlike Dodd-Frank, there are no 900 pages of rules to be studied and debated for a decade before enactment. The key provisions of those three sections all took effect one year after the enactment of the legislation in 1933.

Section 16 said that “The business of dealing in investment securities by the [banking] association shall be limited to purchasing and selling such securities without recourse, solely upon the order, and for the account of, customers, and in no case for its own account, and the association shall not underwrite any issue of securities.”

Section 20 mandated that “After one year from the date of the enactment of this Act, no member bank shall be affiliated in any manner described in section 2 (b) hereof with any corporation, association, business trust, or other similar organization engaged principally in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution at wholesale or retail or through syndicate participation of stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities.”

Section 21 reaffirmed the provisions of Sections 16 and 20,  noting: “(a) After the expiration of one year after the date of enactment of this Act it shall be unlawful— (1 ) For any person, firm, corporation, association, business trust, or other similar organization, engaged in the business of issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing, at wholesale or retail, or through syndicate participation, stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities, to engage at the same time to any extent whatever in the business of receiving deposits subject to check or to repayment upon presentation of a passbook, certificate of deposit, or other evidence of debt, or upon request of the depositor.”

The Dodd-Frank legislation was a complex maze of legal verbosity whose clear intent was not to reform Wall Street but to stall reform of Wall Street.

Both the Democratic and Republican Platforms of last year urged restoring the Glass-Steagall Act. The U.S. is left with only a small window of time to get that job done before Wall Street has completely looted the country and left the next generation with a dystopian society of Wall Street overlords.

Pam Martens is a former Wall Street veteran. She writes regularly on the corrupt nexus between Wall Street and Washington at www.WallStreetOnParade.com.









Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

The Justice System Is Criminal — Paul Craig Roberts

The Justice System Is Criminal — Paul Craig Roberts




The Justice System Is Criminal
Paul Craig Roberts
On January 23, 2017, I asked, “Are Americans Racists?” I pointed out examples where racist explanations prevail over empirical fact. I did not write that there is no racism in America. I said that racism is not the be-all and end-all explanation of American history and institutions. The point I made is that racist explanations are often inadequate and both work against racial harmony and blind us to more general and more serious problems.
Perhaps the worst of America’s failed institutions is the criminal justice system. The US has the largest prison population in the world, not only as a percentage of the population but also in absolute numbers. “Freedom and democracy” America has an absolute larger number of incarcerated citizens than “authoritarian” China, a country with four times the US population.
Many factors contribute to this result. One is the privatization of prisons, which has turned them into profit-making enterprises ever needful of more labor to exploit, which adds to the pressure for convictions. Another factor is the disregard of the protective features of law in order to more easily pursue demonized offender groups, such as the Mafia, child abusers, drug dealers and users, and “terrorists.” Lawrence M. Stratton and I describe the transformation of law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of the state in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
This transformation did not occur because of racism. It occurred because chasing after devils and convicting them became more important than justice. Today the criminal justice system is largely indifferent to a defendant’s guilt or innocence. This is a far worst problem than racism. It is the main reason that there are so many false convictions in the US and so many wrongfully convicted Americans in prison. Indeed, even the guilty are wrongfully convicted as it is easier to frame them than to convict them on the evidence.
To be clear: The primary reason for wrongful conviction is that the success indicator for police, prosecutor, and judge is conviction, not justice. Crimes are solved by wrongful convictions. High conviction rates boost the careers of prosecutors, and high profile convictions boost their political careers. The key to rapid and numerous convictions is the plea bargain. And plea bargains suit judges as they keep the court docket clear. Today 97% of felony cases are settled with a plea bargain. This means police evidence and a prosecutor’s case are tested only three times out of 100. When the evidence and case are tested in court, the test confronts a vast array of prosecutorial misconduct, such as suborned perjury and the withholding of exculpatory evidence. In America, everything is loaded against Justice.
In a plea bargain police do not have to present evidence, prosecutors do not have to bring a case, and judges do not have to pay attention to the case and be troubled by a growing backlog as trials consume days and weeks.
In a plea bargain the defendant, innocent or guilty, is told that he can plead to this or that offence, which carries a lighter sentence than the crime that allegedly has actually occurred and on which the defendant is arrested, or the defendant can go to trial where he will face more serious charges that carry much harsher penalties. As it has become routine for police to falsify evidence, for prosecutors to suborn perjury and withhold exculpatory evidence, for jurors naively to trust police and prosecutors, and for judges to look the other way, attorneys advise defendants to accept a plea deal. In other words, no one expects a fair trial or for real evidence to play a role in the outcome.
The short of it is that the pursuit of justice is not a feature of the American criminal justice system. Justice does not matter to the police, to the prosecutor, to the jury, to the judge, and often not to the hardened defense attorney who has witnessed so much injustice that he believes justice is a fairy tale.
The only exception to this is the justice introduced from outside the justice system by innocence projects and pro bono attorneys, such as Bryan Stevenson, director of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama.
In 2014 Stevenson published Just Mercy, a fascinating collection of case histories of wrongful convictions that he and his colleagues managed to have overturned. A book such as this benefits from a main case, and the one that Stevenson delivers is that of Walter McMillian. It required six years for Stevenson to overturn what must be the most obvious, blatant frameup of a completely innocent man in US history. There were a large number of witnesses who testified that they were with McMillian at a fish fry during the time that a murder for which McMillian was indicted and convicted took place. The only “evidence” against McMillian was the suborned perjury of a man who retracted his coerced testimony three times, once in the courtroom of Alabama Judge Thomas B. Norton, who simply ignored it.
McMillian is black, and the sheriff, prosecutor, judge, and jury that framed him are white. This fact, together with the fact that the ignored witnesses whose testimony cleared McMillian were black and McMillian’s sexual affair with a white woman in a small Alabama town, seem to convince Stevenson that McMillian was convicted because of racism.
Using Stevenson’s own account, I am going to show that many other factors in addition to racism played roles in McMillian’s wrongful conviction. Stevenson’s emphasis on a racist explanation of Alabama justice deflects attention from the fact that human corruption and evil go far beyond mere racism. McMillian was wrongfully convicted, because the justice system has no concern with justice. Letting the system off as merely racist doesn’t nearly go far enough. The problem is much worse.
McMillian was falsely convicted, (1) because sheriff John Tate was under community criticism for the failure to solve the murder case of a young woman and needed someone to arrest for the crime, (2) because Ralph Meyers gave false testimony against McMillian for confused reasons that did not work out for him, (3) because the local newspaper, as newspapers are wont to do, convicted McMillian in the press, which meant that the jury had to convict or be accused of letting off a murderer, and (4) because the judge, Robert E. Lee Key, not only is unworthy of his name but most certainly did not have the fortitude to run a fair trial when the only possible outcome for his career and reputation in the community was conviction. Neither did his successor, Thomas B. Norton, have fortitude for the same reasons.
I am convinced that all of these representatives of the justice system are racists, but they would have convicted McMillian for the same reasons if he had been white. If the justice system was concerned with justice, he would not have been convicted irrespective of race or gender.
What the emphasis on racism blinds us to is that the justice system is corrupt because justice does not play a role in it. Justice has to be brought into the system from outside by people such as Bryan Stevenson. And for people such as Stevenson to bring justice into the justice system, they must have a high tolerance for death threats and for witnessing justice fail again and again.
I want to emphasize that I am not being critical of Bryan Stevenson. He is very intelligent, overflowing with integrity, determination, ability and empathy for others. He has a moral conscience second to none. He is someone everyone would love to have as a friend and colleague. If Stevenson does not see what his own work reveals, that injustice prevails irrespective of race and gender, it is because he grew to maturity during a time when the victimization of identity politics is the prevailing explanation. Victimization has expanded to its limit: everyone is the victim of white heterosexual males. I wouldn’t be surprised if white heterosexual males have now been shown by identity politics to be the victims of themselves.
Stevenson describes the convictions of white women by white women. In the aftermath of hurricanes and tornadoes that wrecked coastal Alabama, Marsha Colbey gave premature birth to a stillborn son. She came to the attention of police because her busybody neighbor Debbie Cook had noticed the pregnancy but saw no child.
Colbey’s fate was sealed by the media craze set aflame by Andrea Yates and Susan Smith’s murders of their children. Media sensationalized the baseless suspicion surrounding Colbey and turned her into another “dangerous mother.” Forensic pathologist Kathleen Enstice testified without evidence that Colbey’s son had been born alive and had died by drowning. The state’s own expert witness, Dr. Dennis McNally, and the defense’s expert witness Dr. Werner Spitz testified that Colbey’s age alone placed her pregnancy at high risk for fetal death and that there was no scientific evidence that a crime had occurred.
Irresponsible media had communities and juries on the lookout for “dangerous moms” who should be put in prison, and they found one (along with many others) in Colbey. The trial judge permitted Colbey’s fate to be decided by jurors who stated that they could not honor the presumption of innocence in Colbey’s case. Other jurors said that they always believe the police and prosecutor. This failure of justice enabled Stevenson after years of effort to secure Colbey’s release. Clearly, Colbey’s wrongful conviction had nothing to do with racism. Identity politics would want to say she was convicted by misogynists, but Colbey was the victim of other women.
Justice is so absent in the criminal justice system that Victoria Banks in order to avoid capital punishment was coerced into a plea bargain carrying a 20-year sentence for murdering her child after her pregnancy despite the fact that there was no pregnancy and no child.Stevenson was able to win her release by establishing that she had had a tubal ligation five years prior to her alleged pregnancy, which made it biologically impossible for her to conceive and give birth to a child.
A woman whose tubes were tied, for which conclusive medical evidence existed, five years before she was accused of having just had a child that she murdered is forced into a plea bargain carrying 20 years in order to avoid the electric chair. Perhaps only Alabama could produce something this absurd, but this is a faithful picture of American “justice.”
Stevenson’s legal work for wrongfully convicted women brought him into contact with more horror. At Alabama’s Tutwiler prison for women, women prisoners were raped and made pregnant by prison guards. Stevenson reports: “Even when DNA testing confirmed that male officers were the fathers of these children, very little was done about it. Some officers who had received multiple sexual assault complaints were temporarily reassigned to other duties or other prisons, only to wind up back at Tutwiler, where they continued to prey on women.” In other words, rape is not a crime if you are a prison guard at a women’s prison.
This is a faithful picture of justice in America.
The justice system needs victims, and is focused on ruining people’s lives whether they deserve it or not. The more American lives ruined, the greater the success of the justice system.
There is a current case in Alabama of a US Marine honorably discharged who suffers from PTSD. To help out a family friend, who needed a car for work but could not obtain a loan, the Marine sold him a car of his own, which the family friend was to pay off monthly. When payments stopped, the former Marine inquired. Payments were promised, and the family friend offered his cell phone to be held until payments caught up, as an indication of his good faith to pay.
It turned out to be the wrong cell phone, not the debtor’s personal phone but a company-issued one. The company regarded it as a theft by the Marine, and the family friend had to report it to the police. The fact that it was all a misunderstanding has not caused the justice system to drop the case. Instead the prosecutor is demanding a misdemeanor plea. In other words, another person with something on his record who can be a suspect for the next burglary. As everyone in the case is white, injustice is occurring despite the absence of racism.
It is a paradox that child protection laws in the hands of police and prosecutors have become weapons with which to ruin children.
A father whose son is being ruined for life over nothing sent me the story with his permission to publish it as a warning to others about the heartlessness with which the justice system irresponsibly ruins even the immature young. This story again demonstrates that the function of American justice is not justice, but to ruin as many people as possible and as early in life as possible. The gratuitously ruined lives that the justice system achieves is the monument to the success of justice.
I decided not to publish it, not because I disbelieve it, but because the son has not been sentenced, and protestations of innocence in media, as Stevenson says, can prejudice authorities against the defendant, especially in Virginia where this miscarriage of justice took place. I do not want to expose the son to risk in the event that the father is wrong, as I suspect he is, in expecting publicity to elicit compassion and empathy that would moderate an unjust event.
Instead, I will tell the gist of the story, which illustrates the tyranny of good intentions. Child protection laws were passed by legislators ignorant of the unintended consequences. Consequently, the laws have done far more harm than good.
Let’s call the son Zach. Having just turned 18, he was visiting a young woman his age whose younger sister introduced him via social media to a 13 year old female who shared his interest in dragons and animation. The two never met. As their shared interest developed via the Internet, so did their friendship.
As the natural process that turns a girl into a woman progressed, the cyber relationship developed a romantic aspect. The girl/woman sent Zach five photographs of herself in her underwear.
Later the girl/woman developed emotional problems due to the impending divorce of her parents and was admitted to a mental health facility. At some point she confided her cyber relationship with Zach to a counselor. The “child protection” laws required the counselor to inform the police, who seized Zach’s computer and found chat logs and the five photos.
The consequence was that Zach was charged with 20 felony indictments carrying 350 years in prison. As they always are, the charges were vastly overstated. For example, the five photos sent to Zach of a torso in underwear (apparently the girl’s face was not shown) got Zach charged with distribution of child pornography.
No charges were filed by the parents of the girl. The charges were entirely the idea of the prosecutor’s office, and the 350 years produced a plea bargain to lesser offences. American criminal justice had secured another victim.
In the absurdity that is American law you can be guilty of “indecent liberties with a minor” without ever having seen the girl in person or ever having been close enough to touch. The advent of virtual reality and video screens means that crimes can have happened in virtual reality that did not happen in real reality.
In my days it was almost impossible to be guilty of indecent liberties with a minor, because the age of female sexual consent was 14. But as females sexually matured earlier, the age of sexual consent was irrationally pushed higher. Today the legal age that a male may have sex with a female is 18. In other words, the absurd American legal system pretends that women do not have sex until after they graduate from high school. Who can imagine college dorms full of virginal women?
When America had a livable legal system, law was based on the common ordinary behavior of people. This is known as the Common Law, the foundation of law in England and the United States.
Today the law is so uncommon as to be absurd. Yet absurdity is enforced with vengeance.
The video age means that crimes can be committed by looking at a video screen, and that is what happened to Zach. Neither his attorney nor the judge told Zach and his parents that his coerced plea meant that there was no appeal and that he was registered for life as a sex offender. Zach had committed a “violent sex offense” online! It was the girl who sent the photos, but the offense was Zach’s for having them on his computer.
We owe these crazed results that destroy our youth to “child advocates” who have pushed through in total ignorance of unintended consequences laws that criminalize the normal sexual exploration and testing that accompanies the teen-age years that begin with puberty. Child advocates think that when a kid enters puberty at age 12 or 13 nothing is supposed to happen until the kid is 18. Then at this magic age, everything illegal at 17 becomes legal. People who produce laws like this ruin people. Laws pushed by child advocates have broken up families and taken children from their homes and placed them in foster care where they are often abused. By providing a bounty to Child Protective Services for seizing children, the federal government provides an incentive for CPS to break up families on the slightest pretext.
And they enjoy the ruin that they inflict. When you read Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy, what you encounter are Americans who enjoy ruining other people. What Stevenson is revealing is not racism but evil unleashed. When the liberals destroyed religion as a moral restraint, they released evil. Evil is now everywhere in the West and seldom held accountable—Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Prison, the CIA Black Site torture prisons, women’s prisons where inmates, most of whom are wrongfully convicted, are routinely raped by guards, and American courtrooms in which sit judges whose function is to defend justice but who accept coerced pleas from innocents in order to save themselves work.
This is America, a country totally devoid of justice, a hapless country forced to suffer injustice except for those few cases that heroes such as Bryan Stevenson are able to overturn.
If only Americans in their so-called democracy had the power to make Bryan Stevenson Attorney General for life and give him the power to write and enforce the laws would justice return to America.
God help a country as totally devoid of justice as the United States of America.
It is important to understand that very few of these wrongful convictions are mistakes. They are done willfully, because the overriding incentive of the American criminal justice system is to produce convictions at all cost.
Police, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct seldom bear any cost. Just so you understand how “law’” completely protects the police, prosecutors and judges who routinely violate it, as Stevenson reports, “state and federal courts have persistently insulated prosecutors from accountability for egregious misconduct that results in innocent people being sent to death row.” In 2011 a Republican Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor cannot be held liable for misconduct in a criminal case, even if he intentionally and illegally withheld evidence of innocence.
In plain words, criminal actions against the innocent are now the legalized policy of the American criminal justice system.
Are the American people moved by these extraordinary injustices and their legalization by the Supreme Court of the United States? Are the Alabamans in the same county who egged on the frame-up of Walter McMillian ashamed of their willing complicity in a gratuitous act of injustice? Absolutely not. They reelected sheriff Tate, and he remains in office today.
In 2003 Illinois governor George Ryan, citing the unreliability of evidence on which capital punishment is based commuted the death sentences of all 167 people on death row. His reward was to be convicted on false corruption charges and sentenced to five years in prison. Ryan was convicted by the coerced testimony of Scott Fawell who received in exchange for his testimony reduced prison time for himself and his fiancee.
On the stand Fawell said that the prosecutor had his “head in a vise” and that he was testifying against Ryan to save his fiancee from a long prison sentence. He said his testimony against Ryan was “the most distasteful thing I’ve ever done.” That jurors believe such compromised witnesses is the reason defendants avoid jury trials.
This is the face of justice in America, a hapless country totally devoid of justice where law exists solely for the economic benefit of those whose careers rise with conviction rates, whether of the innocent or the guilty.
Law professors, such as Harvard’s Charles Fried, have shown their indifference to wrongful conviction. Fried came up with the argument that “finality” was more important than justice. Fried was annoyed by appeals. He argued that ending a case had its own importance and that at some point appeals based on fresh evidence had to be cut off even if it meant an innocent person was executed or spent life in prison.
Conservative legislators showed their indifference to wrongful conviction in 1994 when they took over Congress and promptly eliminated federal aid for legal representation of the wrongly convicted on death row. The conservatives were more comfortable with the deaths of innocents than with admitting the willful mistakes made by “law and order.”
The indifference of Americans to injustice has spread outside US borders. The Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes are responsible for millions of dead and displaced persons in 10 countries—Serbia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Ukraine, and Palestine. None of those responsible have expressed any remorse and neither have the American people.














Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.