Bolton, March For Our Lives, Cambridge Analytica

Trump’s New National Security Advisor John Bolton is a Threat to World Peace
Interview with Jim Lobe, journalist, founder and editor of Lobelog.com, conducted by Scott Harris

As Donald Trump continued to make major changes to the personnel in his administration, the firing of National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster last week created an opening for a critical position in the White House. That the president decided to fill that vacancy with the appointment of war hawk John Bolton, was not so surprising, but was nonetheless greeted with concern and dread in the U.S. and around the world.

Bolton, who served as George W. Bush’s United Nations ambassador, is well known for his role advocating for the disastrous 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq – and more recent calls for a military first strike against North Korea and a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Bolton, a regular commentator on Fox News, has long opposed the 2015 Obama administration-brokered international agreement with Iran that halted the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons program.

With CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s recent nomination to succeed fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Bolton scheduled to start his new job as National Security Advisor on April 9, there’s speculation that President Trump will decide to pull the U.S. out of the nuclear pact with Iran when he must decide whether or not to waive sanctions against Iran on May 12. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Jim Lobe, the former chief of the Washington, D.C. bureau of Inter Press Service and founder of the LobeLog.com. Here, he discusses John Bolton’s views on the use of military force, as well as the implications for future U.S. policy in Iran, Korea and elsewhere around the world.
.
JIM LOBE: John Bolton is a pretty unique character in that he’s kind of the hawk’s hawk. He even puts many neoconservatives somewhat on the defensive. He believes strongly in military solutions to political problems. He doesn’t like the idea of nation-building.

And unlike the neoconservatives, he really is not into promotion of democracy, which neoconservatives have always given a great deal of lip service to, while though sometimes there’s been a failure to back that up, particularly with respect to certain countries that they consider to be allied to the United States.

He’s very much of an “America First-er,” but he believes the U.S. military should be involved in the world and should be prepared to use force at all times. He’s way to the right – very much on the militarism scale, even though he took some considerable efforts to avoid military service during the Vietnam War.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Jim, it seems there’s an important date coming up in mid-May, where Donald Trump will be on the spot to decide whether to continue on observing the international nuclear agreement with Iran – or not. And he certainly sent many signals that he wants to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. What are the repercussions for that nuclear agreement with many other important nations around the world if the U.S. and the Trump administration does decide to pull out?

JIM LOBE: Well, I think it’s a little hard to predict. A great deal depends on the position taken by the major European powers – Britain, France and Germany – as well as the European Union itself. All of which are parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is the formal name of the nuclear deal. They were negotiating – that is, what is called the “EU three” – they were negotiating until last week on possible “fixes” to the JCPOA. And even then, it wasn’t clear that if they went through with those fixes that Iran itself wouldn’t walk away from the agreement, because by its nature, any “fixes” would violate what was agreed to in 2015, when the JCPOA was concluded.

What is likely, what I would personally hope, is that the nomination of both (Mike) Pompeo and the appointment of Bolton will actually make clear to all concerned that the United States is really not serious about fulfilling its commitments to the JCPOA. And that will stiffen their spines.

And if they show that they do have spines, that they’re willing to counteract any U.S. renunciation of the deal. And by counteract, i mean essentially encouraging their companies to invest in Iran or to sell to Iran – and indicating in no uncertain terms that if the United States does anything with respect to increasing military tensions or actually taking some form of action in the region against Iran, that Europe will not be with them.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Now the other very concerning policy issue that will be coming to a head quite soon is the planned summit between Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. We’re going to have John Bolton whispering in Donald Trump’s ear in the lead up to that summit, whenever it actually does occur. There is a lot of danger, is there not, in failing at that summit, which could lead to greater tensions than we’ve even had before in the last year and a half.

JIM LOBE: Yeah, I think that’s quite possible. I mean, Trump is uninformed, as we all know. Bolton denounced the idea of any negotiation with North Korea let alone a presidential summit with North Korea. I don’t think anybody knows what to expect. But I think Bolton will try to use this scheduled summit – if it does take place – to say, “Well, we extended our hand and we didn’t get everything we wanted. The North did not agree to denuclearize within a certain amount of time. So now we have to prepare for military action.”

And again, nobody knows how that’s going to turn out – because of course, North Korea, is actually nuclear arms state with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons far and wide.

I mean, the result of Bolton’s appointment is, if nothing else, our traditional allies – be they in western Europe or in northeast Asia, like Japan and South Korea – are going to distance themselves increasingly from Washington, even just because of Bolton and what he represents and how he’s acted in the past. They’re pretty frightened by the possible consequences.

Jim Lobe is former Washington, D.C. bureau chief of Inter Press service and founder of LobeLog.com.

Student-Led March for Our Lives Protests Demand Common Sense Gun Regulation Nationwide
Excerpts of speeches by students Tyler Monroe, Colby Trembley and teacher Katelyn Botsford Tucker at the Shelton, Connecticut March for Our Lives rally, recorded and produced by Melinda Tuhus

The March for Our Lives against gun violence drew hundreds of thousands of students and their supporters to Washington, D.C. on March 24 and to more than 800 sibling marches across the country, in big cities and small towns, as well as cities abroad.

The town of Shelton, Connecticut organized their own March For Our Lives rally, which drew about 600 people to Veterans Memorial Park on the banks of the Housatonic River. Shelton is just 15 miles away from Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 elementary school students and 6 educators were killed in a mass shooting on Dec. 14, 2012. The speakers in Shelton were mostly local high school students, along with one teacher, and staffers of two Connecticut members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

House members, and especially the state’s two senators, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, have been tireless in working for passage of modest gun safety measures in Congress without success until the Valentine’s Day massacre of 14 students and 3 staff at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. That tragic mass shooting paved the way for the passage of modest safety measures included in the FY2018 Appropriations bill which was co-sponsored by Sen. Murphy. Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus attended the Shelton rally and brings us excerpts of talks by two students and one teacher who spoke there. We first hear from Shelton High School senior Tyler Monroe.
.
TYLER MONROE: I am afraid to go to school every day because I am unsure if I will get out. Because conversations involving my education have introduced guns into the conversation much too often. Because when senior students paid for their caps and gowns this past Thursday, I was thinking about how many kids wouldn’t be alive to receive their diplomas.

I am afraid to go to school every day because I over-analyze the good-byes I say to my mother every morning. And as I walk up to the big brick building, I think over the lines I said in my mind, wondering if they were worthy of the last words she ever heard me speak. Weapons do not belong in a building where the sharpest things should be students’ minds.

I am afraid to go to school every day because of the plans my classmates and I have made. We hope to go into the military, or maybe we already sent our deposits into our colleges, and I wonder how many names on those attendance lists will not be called because those kids did not survive to see this year’s autumn.

And I should NOT be afraid to go to school every day because I do not know if I will survive. Students should not walk the halls worrying about the nearest exit in case the PA system announces there is an armed person in the building. Weapons do not belong in a building where the sharpest things should be students’ minds.

I should not be afraid to go to school every day because fear should not meddle with learning. The only worry that should ever exist in such an academic environment is anxiety over an upcoming test. The information we learn should not be skewed in our minds because we are too worried about the fate of our lives.(Applause)

And I should not be afraid to go to school every day because the path to graduation is so uncertain. Schools across the nation are wondering, which one will be next. And school is no place for the fear that my fellow students and I will not live to hear the dismissal bell ring.

Thank you.

TYLER MONROE: Good afternoon. My name is Katelyn Botsford Tucker and I am a social studies teacher and a mom. I am so glad to be speaking to you today, but I am saddened by the reason for this march and the marches taking place across the country. Thirty-two lives at Virginia Tech; one was a friend of mine. Twenty-six lives at Newtown. Seventeen lives at Stoneman Douglas. The Department of Defense reports that the number of children killed by gunfire in the U.S. since 2012 surpasses the total number of American soldiers killed overseas in combat since 9/11. Last week, 7,000 pairs of shoes were placed on the U.S. Capitol lawn to represent those lives.

KATELYN BOTSFORD TUCKER: Today, students across the country are making it clear that they won’t stand for inaction. They are making it clear that they want common sense gun legislation to make sure these tragedies stop. But it isn’t easy. Students like Julia and Tyler know this. All the students here need to know it too. It’s never easy. It’s never easy to speak out when you see something wrong in the world, but you have to, because democracy is not a spectator sport. Movements are made up of moments, and you should know that this moment is important in this movement. Did you ever think you would be part of a movement? Because you are.

You’ve organized, you’ve brought us all here, and you’ve made your voices heard. In my profession, we tell kids to believe in themselves. We tell kids to stand up for their beliefs. We tell kids to care about their community and the people in it. I’m standing here in awe of how well these students have listened. You started as a few, and you’ve grown into many, and I know this is only the beginning of what you can do. You’re proving that you’re up for the challenge. Because even when just two or three gather in the name of justice, there is hope. You are the hope for the future. Your voices will be heard, and you will make a difference.

COLBY TREMBLEY: Hello, my name is Colby Trembley, and I’m a junior from St. Joseph High School in Trumbull. Let’s arm our teachers with resources, not weapons. Let’s give them the tools they need to teach, not the tools to kill. It is a teacher’s job to educate, not to fight for their lives and the lives of their students.

So I ask all of you today, do not let this be the end of the conversation. We can be the generation that ends gun violence; we can be the generation that ends school shootings. This is our history. Thank you.

For more information on March for Our Lives, visit marchforourlives.com.

Cambridge Analytica Just the Tip of the Iceberg in Digital Privacy Crisis
Interview with Yasha Levine, investigative journalist and author of “Surveillance Valley”, conducted by Scott Harris

Cambridge Analytica, a London-based data analytics firm which worked on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, has been the subject of a blizzard of recent news stories following revelations that the company harvested 50 million Facebook user profiles and used that information to micro-target voters. The company is owned by right-wing billionaire Robert Mercer, and Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, was a founder who also served as vice president.

The company partnered with Aleksandr Kogan, a researcher at Cambridge University who designed a personality quiz app, which Cambridge Analytica paid 270,000 Facebook users to install on their profiles. Data from those who installed the app, and their network of Facebook friends, was later used to target voters with political advertisements on Trump’s behalf.

Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with investigative journalist Yasha Levine, author of the new book, “Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet.” Here, he examines the charges against Cambridge Analytica and what he believes is the more critical issue of giant social media companies’ unregulated collection of personal data that is used to make billions in profit.
.
YASHA LEVINE: No matter how scummy these guys at Cambridge Analytica are – and they are scummy, there’s no doubt about that. What the company does, taking data on people and using it to help shape and influence elections on behalf of some kind of client – usually a political campaign or a wealthy donor of some kind – what they do is no different than countless other political data-driven election companies do.

This is very normal in this day and age to use these kinds of techniques, these kind of psychological profiling, psychometrics, using data pulled from social media and using that data with other data they pull from third-party data brokers, from the candidates’ own donor lists that they compile.

The Democratic party, the Republican party, and various elements within those parties have their own company that do this kind of stuff. Charles Koch, for instance, lavishly funds – which is basically his own data-driven election influence outfit – called i360. As bad as Cambridge Analytica is, it’s just one of many players that are very similar. And it’s not even as big.

The kind of data that Cambridge Analytica can pull or had pulled on 50 million Americans pales in comparison to the kind of information that Facebook itself has on those people. You have to remember that Facebook is in the business of surveilling its users, compiling profiles on its users and then selling access to those users, to advertisers and to anyone who wants to buy ads on their network for the purpose of influencing their decisions. Influencing them to buy certain products. Or influencing them to vote for a certain candidate.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Tell us a bit of what we might not fully understand about the business model of Google, Facebook, any number of applications that we put on our smartphones, the games that we play. Our cell phones and the use of cell phones on a daily basis. What is going on with our unregulated collection of personal data by these companies, how it’s sold and what are the negative consequences beyond annoying ads that might appear as you’re browsing the Internet? What are some of the consequences you’re concerned about regarding this unregulated collection of our data?

YASHA LEVINE: Companies like Google, for instance. Google mediates a huge chunk of our digital life. So much of a percentage of the phone market if not more, is dominated by the Android mobile operating system. Seven out of 10 people who have a mobile phone carry Google in their pockets. And Google goes with them wherever they go.

And Google also mediates their phone calls – knows who’s calling you. It mediates your web browsing so it knows exactly the websites you go to, it knows what you’re searching for. A lot of people have Gmail. So they’re emailing everything. They’re emailing their friends, their colleagues, their business partners, or their doctor or their psychiatrist or their bank. All that data, all the attachments in your email are being scanned, are being monitored and are being used to create profiles on you that’s being constantly updated, down to extremely personal information between you and your doctor.

And Google can know things that you don’t put even into the box. The level of information, the intimacy of that information that companies like Google, but also Facebook, because Facebook can collect much of the same information as long as you have the Facebook app running on your phone. The level and intimacy then is just kind of stunning. Just think about that.

It’s very frightening to know that giant corporations like these can collect that information and there are no limits on what they can do with that information and what they can collect. There are no regulations, there are no laws that limit or direct in any way, the information that they collect on us. It’s stunning, but it’s true.

You don’t have to really think too hard about why this is troubling, while companies like Facebook and Google have been able to sell a progressive side of themselves, to cloak themselves in this “progressive” image that they are these companies that really only want the best for the world and are trying to make the world a better place.

The truth is, they are a giant, profit-seeking corporation like any other. They’re really no different than Koch industries or Philip-Morris or Exxon-Mobil in that the sense they are giant corporations that want to bend society and the political systems in which they exist to their will, to make more money.

I think in a democratic society, no one should have that kind of power over the democratic process.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Europe has recently moved to something they call GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation plan. Are there any similar moves here in the U.S. and what in your view, should that regulation consist of?

YASHA LEVINE: That’s a good question. I’ve been actually trying to understand what the GDPR – I don’t know if I can fully comment on that. But there are no moves in America, and the closest thing that’s happening now to regulate Silicon Valley and its for-profit surveillance business, which is the Honest Ads Act. It’s an important piece of legislation, I think, but it’s very limited in that it only applies to elections and election advertising.

But other than that, there’s really nothing. There are no limits on what Silicon Valley can collect, the information it can collect on you.

For more information, visit Yasha Levine’s website at Surveillancevalley.com.

This week’s summary of under-reported news
Compiled by Bob Nixon
An advancing Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan has triggered a wave of refugees who are fleeing the conflict. After four decades of war, over two million Afghans are internally displaced, and western humanitarian aid agencies are scrambling to address the growing crisis. (“Is the west winning Afghanistan? Tide of displaced persons suggests not,” Christian Science Monitor, March 14, 2018; “Responding to the plight of displaced and returning families,” Cordaid, Feb. 26, 2018)
President Donald Trump and the Koch brothers are backing new measures in Congress to expand the role of private providers at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans groups, who support the VA’s record on health care, are pushing back with assertions that privatization harms veterans who need integrated care. (“The VA is the closest thing we have to single-payer. Now Trump wants to privatize it,” In These Times, March 15, 2018; “If the Department of Veterans Affairs is sacked, the Koch brothers will rejoice,” The Guardian, March 20, 2018)
After years of legal wrangling, a U.S. grand jury has indicted a U.S. border patrol agent for second-degree murder for a shooting death on the Mexican side of the border. (“Bullets across the Border,” Christian Science Monitor, March 19, 2018)

---

Share This Episode