TBR News July 9, 2016
The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. July 9, 2016: “Returning from a long trip, we find our mailbox filled with interesting comments and several important contributions. The attached document is the most outstanding one. It runs to a total of 75 pages and we are publishing it in sections. A number of readers have expressed a desire to communicate with Dr. Harry von Johnston and we had someone search the Internet for a contact point. We were given a telephone number and told that this was a contact point and that it was found on the Internet. We have never met Dr. von Johnston and his postings are sent in via a European site. Here is the number: 706 782-4398. Read on!
Domestic Military Control in the United States
An important 2016 position paper
via Harry von Johnston, PhD
Domestic insurgencies date to the earliest forms of government and will continue to exist as long as the governed harbor grievances against authority that they believe cannot be resolved by peaceful means.
What is a domestic insurgency?
The Department of Defense (DOD) defines domestic insurgency as “an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.” Simply put, a domestic insurgency is a struggle between a non-ruling group and their ruling authority. Domestic insurgents use political resources, to include the increased use of the media and international opinion, as well as violence to destroy the political legitimacy of the ruling authority and build their own political legitimacy and power. Examples of this type of warfare range from the American Revolution to the previous situation in Iraq. The conflict itself can range from acts of terrorism to the more conventional use of the media to sway public opinion. Whatever form the insurgency takes, it serves an ideology or political goal.
Current motivating factors for potential domestic insurgency in America
Some of the motivating factors in the current politico/sociological situation are:
Massive and continuing unemployment in all levels of American business and industry. Only those who are technically proficient, i.e. in fields of computer science, are employable. Another point of contention is the huge influx of illegal foreign immigrants and the perception that these prevent Americans from obtaining work and also are perceived as draining the national welfare rolls. Also, a growing functional illiteracy in the American public, which has sharply diminished the reading of newspapers and increased the popularity of the Internet with its brief “sound bites.”
A growing public perception of both disinterest and corruption on the part of National and State legislators has caused massive disillusionment on the part of the people. The recent revelations that the American (and foreign) public is closely watched and spied upon by governmental organs at the behest of the President has created a very volatile and very negative attitude towards any and all official programs.
An insurgency is defined as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict. It is a protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken government control and legitimacy while increasing insurgent control. Political power is the central issue in an insurgency.
Each insurgency has its own unique characteristics based on its strategic objectives, its operational environment, available resources, operational method, and tactics For example, an insurgency may be based on mass mobilization through political action or the FOCO theory. Insurgencies frequently seek to overthrow the existing social order and reallocate power within the country.
The goal of an insurgency is to mobilize human and material resources in order to form an alternative to the state. This alternative is called the counterstate. The counterstate may have much of the infrastructure possessed by the state itself, but this must normally be hidden, since it is illegal. Thus the counterstate is often referred to by the term “clandestine infrastructure.” As the insurgents gain confidence and power, the clandestine infrastructure may become more open, as observed historically in communist regions during the Chinese Revolution, in South Vietnam after the North Vietnamese 1972 Easter Offensive, and in Colombia in the summer of 1998.
Successful mobilization provides active and passive support for the insurgency’s programs, operations, and goals. At the national level, mobilization grows out of dissatisfaction by some elite members with existing political, economic, or social conditions. At the regional level, members of an elite have become marginalized (that is, they have become psychologically alienated from the system), and have established links with followers by bringing them into the counterstate. At the local, district and province-levels, local movement representatives called the cadre address local grievances and do recruiting. The cadre gives credit to the insurgent movement for all local solutions. Loyalty to the insurgent movement is normally won through deeds but may occur through appeal to abstract principles. Promises to end hunger or eliminate poverty may appeal to a segment of the population, while appeals to eliminate a foreign presence or establish a government based on religious or political ideology may appeal to others. Nonetheless, these promises and appeals are associated with tangible solutions and deeds.
What are the root causes of a domestic insurgency?
For a domestic insurgency to flourish, a majority of the population must either support or remain indifferent to insurgent ideals and practices. There must be a powerful reason that drives a portion of the populace to armed opposition against the existing government. Grievances may have a number of causes, such the lack of economic opportunity, restrictions on basic liberties, government corruption, ethnic or religious tensions, excessivly large number of illegal immigrants, especially those from Central America who clog national welfare rolls and are perceived to take jobs from entry-level Americans,or an unassimilitable religious and ethnic minority such as the Muslims who are seen to harbor domestic terrorists. It is through this line of thought or ideal that insurgents attempt to mobilize the population.
Counterinsurgency
What is counterinsurgency?—DOD defines counterinsurgency as “those military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency. Also called “COIN” The United States government intends to use a wide breadth of national capabilitie to defeat any domestic insurgencies through a variety of means. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) use special teams to generate strategic objectives and assist the sitting government. The military will support those efforts by employing conventional forces, in combination with Special Operations Forces (SOF), in a variety of activities aimed at enhancing security and/or alleviating causes of unrest.
(to be continued)
The Müller Washington Journals 1948-1951
At the beginning of December, 1948, a German national arrived in Washington, D.C. to take up an important position with the newly-formed CIA. He was a specialist on almost every aspect of Soviet intelligence and had actively fought them, both in his native Bavaria where he was head of the political police in Munich and later in Berlin as head of Amt IV of the State Security Office, also known as the Gestapo.
His name was Heinrich Müller.
Even as a young man, Heini Müller had kept daily journals of his activities, journals that covered his military service as a pilot in the Imperial German air arm and an apprentice policeman in Munich. He continued these journals throughout the war and while employed by the top CIA leadership in Washington, continued his daily notations.
This work is a translation of his complete journals from December of 1948 through September of 1951.
When Heinrich Müller was hired by the CIA¹s station chief in Bern, Switzerland, James Kronthal in 1948, he had misgivings about working for his former enemies but pragmatism and the lure of large amounts of money won him over to what he considered to be merely an extension of his life-work against the agents of the Comintern. What he discovered after living and working in official Washington for four years was that the nation¹s capital was, in truth, what he once humorously claimed sounded like a cross between a zoo and a lunatic asylum. His journals, in addition to personal letters, various reports and other personal material, give a very clear, but not particularly flattering, view of the inmates of both the zoo and the asylum.
Müller moved, albeit very carefully, in the rarefied atmosphere of senior policy personnel, military leaders, heads of various intelligence agencies and the White House itself. He was a very observant, quick-witted person who took copious notes of what he saw. This was not a departure from his earlier habits because Heinrich Müller had always kept a journal, even when he was a lowly Bavarian police officer, and his comments about personalities and events in the Third Reich are just as pungent and entertaining as the ones he made while in America.
The reason for publishing this phase of his eventful life is that so many agencies in the United States and their supporters do not want to believe that a man of Müller¹s position could ever have been employed by their country in general or their agency in specific.
Sunday, 10. June, 1951.
Great consternation here about the defection of Guy Burgess and Donald MacLean who apparently fled to Moscow sometime after 26 May! I say “apparently” because both vanished from England on that date. Some suspect that they went off to the continent for a lover’s holiday but others have stronger suspicions that they have gone over to the Soviets. Philby is in a state about this because the Burgess business points directly to him and Harvey is shouting to all and sundry that he had indeed told everyone so. Of course he seemed to have missed a good deal but then he is usually so drunk I am constantly amazed that he doesn’t take one of the dozens of pistols he keeps in his office and start a shooting afternoon in the office!
He has discovered that someone is putting horns on him and is alternately ranting about what he will do to the traducer of his family honor and moaning about how his wife had betrayed him. I have kept a discreet distance from H. these days but have my spies watching him so that my name doesn’t come into it. It was probably not a good idea to respond to Libby’s importuning’s but then that is all over now and so what?
The Burgess matter is something else. Philby had told me about MacLean who was in a position to know everything about the U.S. actions in Korea and has obviously passed on his information to Moscow Center. Viktor and I discussed this and V. (who did not know about M & B) said that both of them were highly intelligent but very unstable people and that I, of all people, could not blame Russia for using their talents.
I said of course not and added that both of these men were alcoholics and obviously homosexual so I was not surprised. The latter feel put upon and made the butt of nasty jokes by normal men and in the end, take their revenge because they are rejected by society and mocked by them. The only way to prevent this is to make homosexuality acceptable by everyone and the stigma vanishes. Still, it is doubtful if this will happen at any time in the near future and certainly, the churches would be opposed to such goings on.
Sillitoe, head of British Intelligence, is due here tomorrow and will no doubt come up with all kinds of excuses and then decide how to prevent this from happening. It is my opinion that these two lost lambs were only part of a much larger ring of spies, all of whom are still in place. Hoover is to talk to S. but I have talked with the Colonel and pointed out that the U.S. simply cannot trust the British at all!!!! That does not go down will with the CIA who just love the British and tell them everything. East Coast snobbism in action, certainly.
I will be having lunch at the club with Philby on Wednesday or Thursday and we can discuss this then. He has proven to be of some considerable value to me and I don’t want him exposed at this point. Harvey is still going on about him and it would not be wise for me to interfere. There is no point gained in getting Harvey to become annoyed with me, especially considering the wife. We shall see.
Saturday, 16. June, 1951
From Hoover I learn that a considerable number of top communists are to be arrested within the week. Most are Russian Jews with a Negro or two thrown in for balance. These are the names, just for the record, and so we can check to see what we might have on them from my files:
Israel Amter
Marion Bachrach
Isidore Begun (Russian)
Alex Bittelman (Bittlemacher) (Russian)
George Charney (Russian)
Elizabeth Flynn
Betty Gannett (Yawschewski) (Polish)
Simon Gerson (Gershoeski)
Viktor Jerome (Issac Roman) (Polish)
Claudia Scholnick
Albert Lannon (Vetere)
Jakob Mindel (Russian)
Pettis Perry
Alexi Trachtenberg (Russian)
Laslo Toth (Hungarian)
William Weinstone (Weinstein) (Russian)
Earlier this evening, dinner with Bunny and one of her college friends. The conversation turned to Dulles and much fun was had by all. The friend knows the Dulles wife and Bunny has met Dulles at a social function and finds both of them appallingly stupid. After the friend, Marion, left about eight, Bunny and I had a drink and I told her a great deal about Dulles.
Dulles has a mistress, Mary Bancroft. She is about fifty now (Bancroft was born in 1903, ed.) and they have had an ongoing affair for ten years. Bancroft was married to a very stupid Swiss and as an American fluent in German; she was pressured into joining the OSS through her social friends. She had lived in Switzerland since 1934-35 and was slightly crazy. Her psychiatrist was (Carl, ed.) Jung who was very much to the left, politically, and hated Germans. Bancroft was recruited as an agent by a man named (Donald, ed.) Mayer who acted as a recruiter and head pimp for Dulles. He introduced Bancroft to Dulles in late 1942 and they began an affair. At that time, the great man was living alone on the Herrengasse in Bern and her husband was often gone on business.
The interesting part of all this is that the woman told absolutely everything to Jung. When we found out about this liaison, we had a former White Russian pose as a Soviet agent and approach Jung. The latter was very responsive and so everything Dulles told Bancroft went to Jung and from Jung to me! Marvelous how indiscreet people are when screwing. Eventually, we knew everything that the OSS was doing; all of their contacts and all of their activities. We were reading their reports to Washington long before Washington got them. Whenever a drop of OSS agents into German territory was set up, we knew about it well in advanced and bagged every single one of them. Some we turned and did a playback so that in the end, Dulles was totally confused. We turned Kolbe, whom Dulles now says was his greatest agent and God knows how many others fell into our net.
When the wife finally came to Switzerland, Dulles immediately told her about Bancroft and the three had quite a ménage à trois going. My impression of Dulles as a very stupid and self-important man has never changed. His reports to Washington were so filled with gross errors that we never bothered to shut him up. He did manage to supply us with some interesting material on the 20th July business. Someone told Dulles that Kronthal was a homosexual and Dulles had no idea at all what that constituted! Perhaps they put on a tableaux for him. One of our spies told me that Dulles left his shoes on during sex. There is a man who is totally dominated by women. Both Bancroft and his wife, Daisy (Clover, ed.) tells him what to do and when to do it.
Who knows? Maybe both of them put on leather underwear while beating him with whips. I told some of these anecdotes to Viktor who was fascinated by them. He, in turn, told me about Beria but then I already know about his nasty activities with little girls and boys. Rapes them and afterwards kills them and buries them in his garden.
Good fertilizer in the end. Another “great Georgian,” and a close worker with the other great one who reputedly likes men. (Stalin, ed.) When these people become famous or powerful, you would be amazed at how terrible they become. If Beria had stayed on his farm, he would probably confine himself to having sex with goats but now that he runs the terror apparatus in Russia, he can do as he pleases. This is a good argument for having laws and policemen but what are we to do when the guardians themselves are bestial and corrupt?
Dulles is not bestial; just stupid.
Later: Lunch at the club with Philby on Wednesday. I told him that I could do nothing about Harvey and to exercise some care. Libby has most certainly not cooled off and still likes to dance the mattress polka with me whenever she can. Tells me that the husband is too fat and too small to do her any good and as he is drunk most of the time, he is completely useless. He waddles around the house, drunk, naked and with a large gun strapped around his flabby midsection. The head doctors tell us that a man with a small penis loves to carry a big gun. Well, one can fire and the other can’t! Still, she is good for the circulation now that she stops biting me, and I learn about the Fat One’s activities. I told Hoover that I was having an affair with the wife (he absolutely hates Harvey!) and passed on some tid-bits to keep him happy. All is not well between husband and wife and perhaps they will leave for other mates. The wife thinks I will divorce my wife and marry her! Women love to delude themselves about men. An afternoon’s thumping in Gretna Green does not equate marriage.
Will Americans elect a ‘congenital liar’ president?
Hillary’s perfect running mate ‘would be the Cherokee lass Elizabeth Warren’
by Pat Buchanan
July 8, 2016
WND
Does Hillary Clinton possess the integrity and honesty to be president of the United States? Or are those quaint and irrelevant considerations in electing a head of state in 21st-century America?
These are the questions put on the table by the report from FBI Director James Comey on what his agents unearthed in their criminal investigation of the Clinton email scandal.
Clinton dodged an FBI recommendation that she be indicted for gross negligence in handling U.S. security secrets, a recommendation that would have aborted her campaign. But Director Comey dynamited the defense she has been offering the country.
Comey all but declared that Clinton lied when she said she had State Department approval for the email server in her home.
He all but declared that she lied when she said she had only one server, and that no classified or secret material was transmitted. He also implied that she lied when she said she had used only one device and had turned over all of her work-related emails to State. The FBI found “several thousand” more.
Clinton said her emails were stored in a secure area. This, too, was false. Hostile actors and hostile regimes, said Comey, had access to email systems of those with whom she communicated.
Comey said he found no criminal “intent” in what Clinton did.
Yet, he charged her with having been “extremely careless” with U.S. national security secrets, a phrase that seems synonymous with the gross negligence needed to indict and convict.
While recommending against prosecution, Comey added, “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequence. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Translation: Were Clinton still the secretary of state and were such recklessness with secrets to be discovered, she could have been forced to resign and stripped of her security clearance forever.
Yet if Clinton is elected president, our commander in chief for the next four years, and her confidantes Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, will all be individuals the FBI has found to be reckless and unreliable in the handling of national security secrets.
We will have security risks running the armed forces of the USA.
Nor is this the first time Clinton’s truthfulness has been called into question. Twenty years ago, she fabricated a tale about crossing a tarmac in Bosnia “under sniper fire,” and running with “our heads down.” Photos showed a peaceful arrival featuring a smiling little girl.
Family members of the dead heroes of Benghazi’s “13 Hours” say Clinton told them she would see to it that the creator of the anti-Islamic video that incited the mob that killed their sons would be run down, all the while knowing it had been a planned terrorist attack.
In 1996, the New York Times’ William Safire went over all of the statements Clinton had made in Whitewater and related scandals of Bill Clinton’s first term, compared them with subsequently revealed truth, and pronounced Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar.”
She has claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, and long contended she was named for famed mountaineer Edmund Hillary, who conquered Mount Everest. Only Sir Edmund climbed Everest when Hillary was 6 years old. The perfect running mate for this serial fabricator would be the Cherokee lass Elizabeth Warren.
Still, a question arises as to Comey’s motives in airing the findings of an FBI investigation. Normally, the bureau passes on the evidence it has found, along with its recommendation, to the Justice Department. And Justice decides whether to prosecute.
Instead, Comey called a press conference, documented the charge that Clinton was “extremely careless,” contradicted, point by point, the story she has told the public, then announced he was recommending against prosecution.
What was behind this extraordinary performance?
By urging no prosecution, but providing evidence for a verdict of criminal negligence in handing classified material, Comey was saying:
I am not recommending prosecution, because, to do that, would be to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, and virtually decide the election of 2016. And that is not my decision. That is your decision.
You, the American people, should decide, given all this evidence, if Clinton should be commander in chief. You decide if a public figure with a record of such recklessness and duplicity belongs in the Oval Office.
Comey was making the case against Clinton as the custodian of national security secrets with a credibility the GOP cannot match, while refusing to determine her fate by urging an indictment, and instead leaving her future in our hands.
And, ultimately, should not this decision rest with the people, and not the FBI?
If, knowing what we know of the congenital mendacity of Hillary Clinton, the nation chooses her as head of state and commander in chief, then that will tell us something about the America of 2016.
And it will tell us something about the supposed superiority of democracy over other forms of government.
Lawmakers rip TSA for growing allegations of misconduct
July 7, 2016
by Melanie Zanona
The Hill
Allegations of misconduct at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) continued to grow even after a watchdog report highlighted wrongdoing at the agency, according to an investigation led by congressional Republicans.
A report released by two House Homeland Security subcommittees on Thursday found that the number of misconduct claims filed against TSA employees rose by almost 29 percent from 2013 to 2015.
Those numbers increased despite a Government Accountability Office report in 2013 that highlighted misconduct at the TSA and found that the agency did not have proper procedures in place to address such claims.
The GOP’s joint investigation also discovered that even though the number of misconduct allegations grew, the TSA conducted fewer investigations into the claims and took fewer disciplinary actions against employees.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, blasted the agency’s inadequate response to reports of misconduct at a time when he said the aviation sector is experiencing the highest threat environment since 9/11.
“Terrorist groups remain obsessed with both attacking civil aviation and recruiting Westerners,” the Pennsylvania Republican said at a Thursday hearing. “The last thing the American people need to be concerned with are corrupt, insolent and unethical airport screeners.”
The hearing came two months after another committee heard testimony from several TSA whistleblowers who claimed that poor leadership and a culture of retaliation were making it harder for the agency to address security gaps.
The latest investigation from House Republicans found that there were 17,627 allegations of misconduct, or the equivalent of one complaint against one in every three TSA employees, in fiscal year 2015. There were workers with numerous complaints lodged against them: 1,270 employees had five or more misconduct allegations filed against them, according to the report.
The type of misconduct claims ranged from failing to follow instructions and ignoring security procedures to facilitating drug smuggling and sexually assaulting travelers.
“Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” Perry said.
TSA officials — who emphasized that the GOP report just highlights allegations — acknowledged that there are instances of wrongdoing at the agency but vowed to better analyze the data about misconduct claims in order to detect and mitigate trends.
“The department didn’t know much about the data until our team went in and started asking questions,” Perry said.
“As an engineer, I value data,” said Huban Gowadia, the TSA’s deputy administrator. “I do appreciate that data when carefully analyzed can help you shape the course of an organization.”
The Office of Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security said it is already taking steps to improve its whistleblower program, such as hiring specially trained investigators and expanding the claim review process.
“While we are confident that these changes will make us more effective, we also understand that it will take constant vigilance and dedicated effort to ensure that whistleblowers who have claims of retaliation are listened to and that their claims are fairly and independently investigated,” said Andrew Oosterbaan, assistant inspector general for investigations.
Officials also pointed out that the GOP’s report was based on data from a period before TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger stepped into the role.
Neffenger, who was tasked with overhauling the agency last summer after the majority of screeners failed to detect fake bombs and weapons in security tests, has already capped excessive bonuses, ended the practice of forced reassignments and retrained checkpoint screeners and senior management.
But while Republicans generally commended Neffenger’s efforts, they raised concern about whether the changes would be institutionalized as the next administration begins its term.
“TSA must be committed to reform. There cannot be lip service to what TSA is doing to address these findings,” Perry said. “There needs to be a significant and lasting reform, from the top to the bottom of the agency.”
US media trouncing Trump 24/7 proves democracy a charade
July 8, 2016
by Finian Cunningham
RT
Presidential hopeful Donald Trump is right: the ‘system is ‘rigged’. The media barrage against the billionaire demonstrates irrefutably how the power establishment, not the people, decides who sits in the White House.
Trump is increasingly assailed in the US media with alleged character flaws. The latest blast paints Trump as a total loose cannon who would launch World War III. In short, a “nuke nut”.
In the Pentagon-aligned Defense One journal, the property magnate is described as someone who cannot be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button. Trump would order nuclear strikes equivalent to 20,000 Hiroshima bombings as “easy as ordering a pizza”, claimed the opinion piece.
If that’s not an example of “project fear” then what is?
The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative.
Trump’s campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media’s antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey.
Like a giant screening process, the Trump candidacy and his supporters are being systematically disenfranchised. At this rate of attrition, by the time the election takes place in November the result will already have been all but formally decided – by the powers-that-be, not the popular will.
The past week provides a snapshot of the intensifying media barrage facing Trump. Major US media outlets have run prominent claims that Trump is a fan of the former brutal Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Those claims were based on a loose interpretation of what Trump said at a rally when he referred to Saddam’s strong-arm suppression of terrorism. He didn’t say he liked Saddam. In fact, called him a “bad guy”. But Trump said that the Iraqi dictator efficiently eliminated terrorists.
A second media meme to emerge was “Trump the anti-Semite”. This referred to an image his campaign team tweeted of Hillary Clinton as “the most corrupt candidate ever”. The words were emblazoned on a red, six-pointed star. Again, the mainstream media gave copious coverage to claims that the image was anti-Semitic because, allegedly, it was a Jewish ‘Star of David’.
Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape.
For what it’s worth, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon’s defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup.
In the same week that the alleged dictator-loving, anti-Semitic Trump hit newsstands, we then read about nuclear trigger-happy Donald.
Not only that but the Trump-risks-Armageddon article also refers to him being in the same company as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jung Un who, we are told, “also have their finger on the nuclear button”.
Under the headline, ‘How to slow Donald Trump from pushing the nuclear button’, a photograph shows the presidential contender with a raised thump in a downward motion. The answer being begged is: Don’t vote for this guy – unless you want to incinerate the planet!
This is scare-tactics to the extreme thrown in for good measure along with slander and demonization. And all pumped up to maximum volume by the US corporate media, all owned by just six conglomerates.
Trump is having to now spend more of his time explaining what he is alleged to have said or did not say, instead of being allowed to level criticisms at his Democrat rival or to advance whatever political program he intends to deliver as president.
The accusation that Trump is a threat to US national security is all the more ironic given that this week Hillary Clinton was labelled as “extremely careless” by the head of the FBI over her dissemination of state secrets through her insecure private email account.
Many legal experts and former US government officials maintain that Clinton’s breach of classified information is deserving of criminal prosecution – an outcome that would debar her from contesting the presidential election.
Why the FBI should have determined that there is no case for prosecution even though more than 100 classified documents were circulated by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) has raised public heckles of “double standards”.
The controversy has been compounded by the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch also declaring that no charges will be pressed and the case is closed – a week after she met with Hillary’s husband, Bill, on board her plane for a hush-hush chat.
Trump makes a valid point that Clinton’s abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer.
Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged. Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification.
Trump’s reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family’s fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don.
American politics has long been derided as a “dog and pony show”, whereby powerful lobbies buy the pageant outcome. Trump’s own participation in the election is only possible because he is a multi-billionaire who is able to fund a political campaign.
That said, however, the New York businessman has garnered a sizable popular following from his maverick attacks on the rotten Washington establishment.
But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population.
Clinton has emerged as the candidate-of-choice for the establishment, and the race to the White House is being nobbled – like never before.
US democracy a race? More like a knacker’s yard.
Dallas police find explosive materials in shooter’s home as US reacts to police deaths
Investigators have discovered resources for making explosives in the home of the man who shot five police officers in Dallas. Rallies have been held across the US and President Obama is due to visit the city next week.
July 9, 2016
DW
US authorities released more information on Friday about Micah Xavier Johnson, the gunman who shot five police officers dead and wounded seven more in Dallas on Thursday. Police said they found bomb-making materials as well as more guns and ammunition in Johnson’s home in a Dallas suburb.
Mayor Mike Rawlings also confirmed that investigators believe Johnson was acting alone.
Johnson open fired during a peaceful protest against police brutality in the wake of the deaths of two unarmed black men at the hands of officers earlier in the week. Philando Castile’s death in Minnesota sparked nationwide outrage as his girlfriend live-streamed an officer shooting him as he reached for his driver’s license. Alton Sterling was killed outside a shop in Louisiana.
Use of remote bomb begs questions
Johnson was eventually killed by a remotely-delivered bomb after hours of standoff and failed negotiations with officers. Dallas Police Chief David Brown said Johnson had told negotiators that he wanted to kill white police in retaliation for the deaths of innocent African Americans.
The use of the bomb robot, thus far unprecedented, has not been without criticism amidst rising fears of the militarization of municipal police forces in the US.
“We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was,” Brown said.
“Other options would have exposed officers to grave danger,” he said, without elaborating as to why other strategies were not used.
Johnson was identified on Friday as an army veteran who served one tour in Afghanistan from late 2013 to mid-2014. He wore a protective vest and used an AR-15 rifle, a weapon that has been used in mass shootings in the US.
Politicians and public figures expressed the need for solidarity across racial lines and between officers and civilians. Attorney General Loretta Lynch urged activists like the Black Lives Matter movement not to give up their peaceful protests, saying that they should not be deterred “by those who use your lawful actions as a cover for their heinous violence.”
Similar attacks in 3 US states
Possible copycat attacks were also reported in three other US states on Friday. Officials said a man in Georgia called the emergency services to report a break-in, then ambushed police when they arrived. Both the suspect and an officer were wounded and taken to hospital, but were expected to survive.
In Tennessee, a man who was arrested after allegedly shooting at random passing cars and police on the highway told authorities he was fed up with violence against African Americans. Another incident occurred in Missouri, when a driver shot an officer at a traffic stop after his back was turned. The officer remained in critical condition, police said.
Rallies and vigils
Thousands of people marched in Atlanta, Georgia to protest the shootings of black citizens by white police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana. Protesters held signs and chanted “hands up, don’t shoot.”
An interfaith service was held in Boston to pray for an end to racially tinged violence. There were also rallies in Arkansas, Los Angeles, Omaha, Pittsburgh, Denver, Washington DC and in London, England where hundreds of people took part in a Black Lives Matter protest on Friday.
Obama visit
President Barack Obama has cut short his European tour to Poland and Spain and is to return to Washington on Sunday night. He is due to visit Dallas at the request of Mayor Mike Rawlings early next week.
Obama has aligned himself with civil rights protesters and others calling attention to racial disparities in the justice system.
Obama ordered flags flown at half-staff in honor of the Dallas victims and he spoke by phone to Rawlings, Dallas Police Chief David Brown and Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Friday. He offered his condolences and federal support to the local officials, the White House said.
Using a Bomb Robot to Kill a Suspect Is an Unprecedented Shift in Policing
July 8, 2016
by Jason Koebler and Brian Anderson
Motherboard.vice
Authorities in Dallas used a “bomb robot” to kill one of multiple suspects in a sniping spree that left five police officers dead on Thursday, an unprecedented act in the history of American policing that raises concerns about due process and the use of remotely triggered lethal force by law enforcement.
The robot was used after an hours-long standoff to kill Micah Johnson, who police believe “did some of the shooting,” according to Dallas Police Chief David Brown.
Brown told reporters Friday that prior to using the robot, Dallas police exchanged gunfire with Johnson on the second floor of a parking garage.
“We saw no other option than to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension to detonate where the suspect was,” Brown said. “Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger.”
Brown raises an obvious question that the US military has grappled with: If a shooter is holed up in a building, who do you send, a person or a bot?
Details about the specific model of robot used and whether the “device” Brown referred to was a bomb belonging to the Dallas Police Department, the suspect’s own device, or something used to trigger a bomb placed by the suspect are still unavailable, and Dallas Police did not respond to a Motherboard request for comment. Brown said “the suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb.”
Three other suspects in the shooting spree, which took place during a demonstration against police killings and left seven wounded, are currently in custody.
Brown’s description is consistent with a controlled explosion, a wartime bomb disposal tactic in which a robot drops a charge near a suspected explosive.
The sort of ground robots used in those scenarios—and now the one that played out in Dallas—are not autonomous, and are usually used strictly for bomb disposal. These devices have been weaponized, however, as seen with US military bomb bots fitted with machine guns. (The military says the guns are for shooting suspected explosive devices.) In the United States, Remotec bomb disposal robots used by law enforcement have been outfitted with guns that are designed to detonate bombs in a controlled manner.
Peter W. Singer, an expert in military technology and robot warfare at the New America Foundation, tweeted that this is the first known incident of a domestic police force using a robot to kill a suspect. Singer tweeted that in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers have strapped claymore mines to the $8,000 MARCbot using duct tape to turn them into jury-rigged killing devices. Singer says all indications are that the Dallas Police Department did something similar in this case—it improvised to turn a surveillance robot into a killing machine.
Improvised device or not, the concerns here mirror a debate that’s been going on for a few years now: Should law enforcement have access to armed drones, or, for that matter, weaponized robots? In 2013 Kentucky Senator Rand Paul staged a 13-hour filibuster that was focused entirely on concerns about the use of armed drones on US soil. Last year, North Dakota became the first state to legalize nonlethal, weaponized drones for its police officers.
“When domestic law enforcement officers can use force from a distance, it may become too easy for them to do so, and the inevitable result will be that these weapons are over-used,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a blog post while North Dakota was considering that bill. “When officers are not physically present, their perception of a situation and their judgment about when to apply force is more likely to be flawed, non-targets are more likely to be injured, and excessive amounts of force are more likely to be applied.”
Stanley also noted that drones and other remote weapons would “increase the militarization of the police.”
The ability for police to remotely kill suspects raises due process concerns. If a shooter is holed up and alone, can they be qualified as an imminent threat to life? Are there clear protocols about when a robot can be used to engage a suspect versus when a human needs to engage him or her? When can the use of lethal force be administered remotely?
Brian Castner, a Motherboard contributor and former US military explosive ordnance disposal technician, said the incident in Dallas “makes him queasy.” Castner, who served two tours in Iraq defusing roadside bombs, said he was involved in a similar case there, when a bomb disposal robot was used to deliver an explosive and kill someone. “We eventually did it and I’m still not sure it was the right call.”
One Simple Change to the Law Could Make Prosecuting Killer Cops Easier
July 7, 2016
by Zaid Jilani
The Intercept
Graphic video illustrating gruesome police killings of African-American men in Louisiana and Minnesota has set off promises of a federal investigation, at least in the former case, but many are skeptical that it will lead to any prosecutions.
Police involved in even these high-profile cases of abuse have rarely faced successful indictments, let alone prosecutions.
However, at the federal level, a simple change to the law would make it more likely that abusive cops face punishment for their behavior.
Currently, police abuse is subject largely to one federal statute enacted in 1866: Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 242, which punishes anyone who “willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
The problem is that the statute “has nothing to do on its face with police officers or police violence,” said former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights William Yeomans. “It’s about deprivation of rights. So what you’re actually proving in these cases is that the officer acted with the intent to [deny the victim rights].”
This willfulness standard makes it difficult to prosecute police officers. “The government has to show beyond a reasonable doubt the officer acted with willful attempt to deny the victim a right,” he said.
“The officer had to intend to use more force than was reasonably necessary,” he noted. “Most of these cases are situations where officers are reacting quickly to something, so it can be very difficult to sort out what appeared to be reasonable to the officer at the time.”
In other words, you’d have to prove to a jury what was going on inside of a police officer’s mind at the time — a high bar.
He suggested a solution. Congress could lower the intent standard to “something like if the officer acted with reckless disregard.” That way, “you don’t have to actually show that the officer intended to use more force than was necessary. … If the officer recklessly used more force than was necessary, he could then be prosecuted.”
Many in Congress have expressed their regret over cases of police abuse and police killings, but this simple change from willfulness to recklessness would make it easier for the federal government to actually prosecute them.
When Israeli soldiers kill Palestinians, even a smoking gun doesn’t lead to indictments
Mustafa Tamimi was killed when he was shot in the face with a gas canister in a 2012 protest. A year later, Rushdi Tamimi was shot in the belly with live fire. No one ever faced charges. A closer look at the two cases reveals that putting soldiers to trial is the exception, not the rule.
July 7, 2016
by Chaim Levinson
Haaretz
An in-depth study of two incidents in which Palestinian protesters were shot and killed during demonstrations in the West Bank shows that the level of evidence required to indict an Israel Defense Forces soldier is substantially higher than that demanded when Palestinians are investigated.
Furthermore, the heavy media coverage given to the prosecution of Sgt. Elor Azaria – the Israeli soldier standing trial for manslaughter after shooting a subdued Palestinian assailant in March – is extremely rare, even though his actions are not.
Of the 739 complaints filed by the Israeli nonprofit B’Tselem concerning death, injury or beatings of Palestinians since 2000, only 25 resulted in prosecutions (less than 4 percent). And these charges were usually for the smallest possible violations, such as negligent use of a weapon.
Haaretz has obtained access to the IDF’s correspondence with the human rights group (which represented the families) concerning two high-profile cases – the deaths of Mustafa Tamimi and Rushdi Tamimi (no relation) – which were closed without any indictments being filed. The relevant documents and correspondence are classic examples of the manner in which the military advocate general conducts investigations into Palestinian fatalities.
Mustafa Tamimi’s death occurred in December 2011, in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh. Following prayer services at the mosque, the local residents gathered in the village square, where their usual Friday ritual commenced. They attempted to march toward their farmland, which had been expropriated “for military purposes” and upon which the settlement of Neve Tzuf was established. The army deployed in order to prevent them from exiting the village. The two sides confronted each other. Initially there were songs, followed by curses, and then someone threw a stone at the soldiers. They responded with tear gas and the marchers dispersed. The stone throwers remained.
For hours, the two sides played cat and mouse, one side throwing stones, the other firing tear gas. This is the norm in the village every Friday.
However, things didn’t follow the usual script on December 9. Photos taken by Haim Schwartzenberg documented what happened at 14:26: An army jeep with soldiers from the Kfir Brigade inside was on a stone-strewn road outside the village. Two Palestinians wielding stones approached them, one with his face covered and the other wearing a gas mask. A stone was thrown and the back door of the jeep opened just a fraction. A tear-gas canister was fired from the jeep and hit the Palestinian wearing the gas mask in the head. The jeep moved away as the man fell to the ground, bleeding profusely.
The wounded man was Mustafa, a 28-year-old from the village. Soon, many of the marchers gathered around him, photographing his smashed head from all angles. He was quickly put into a Palestinian taxi, which took him to a nearby checkpoint.
“I opened the taxi door,” recounted a paramedic later, “and saw him unconscious, breathing with a rattle. The whole right side of his face under the eyes was ripped.”
Tamimi was taken to Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, where doctors commended the treatment provided by the female paramedic. However, he died the next morning. A slingshot was found in his pocket.
Rushdi Tamimi’s death took place a year later, on November 17, 2012. The West Bank was seething as Operation Pillar of Defense raged in Gaza. There were incidents on the terraces lying between Nabi Saleh and the adjacent road, which links settlements in the Binyamin regional council and Israel’s center. A reserves’ military unit was summoned to protect the road.
Video footage documented soldiers running toward Rushdi Tamimi, who was lying on the ground. The soldiers surrounded him and moved those present back. He was taken to hospital with a bullet in his stomach, but died two days later. A military inquiry found that a “mistake” had occurred, contravening the army’s values.
For 90 minutes, the army had fired all the tear gas at its disposal, until it ran out. A medic was sent to get more, but in the meantime soldiers switched to using live ammunition, firing 80 bullets at demonstrators until the lethal one hit Rushdi Tamimi. In a highly exceptional move, the company commander was dismissed after the incident.
‘No way of explaining it’
The investigation of Mustafa Tamimi’s death was supposed to be a simple case, leading to a straightforward indictment. Gas canisters are defined by the IDF as nonlethal weapons. Tear gas is unpleasant, but it doesn’t kill people. Anyone not suffering from asthma or a heart condition recovers within minutes after being exposed to it.
Being hit by a canister, however, can be lethal. Army regulations specify that canisters must be fired from a distance of at least 30 meters (nearly 100 feet) and not be aimed at a person. They should be pointed upward, so that the canister lands at the feet of demonstrators, not hitting their bodies.
The soldier who fired the tear-gas canister is called Sgt. Aviram (Haaretz has his full name), who was the deputy company commander’s radio operator. At the inquiry, Aviram said the soldiers had entered the village with a bulldozer, under orders from the deputy battalion commander to clear a rock barrier on the road. When this was removed, they turned back. One of the soldiers testified that the deputy commanding officer was more aggressive than the battalion commander, who only wanted them to proceed 30 meters into the village.
Aviram and the other soldiers in the jeep testified that they were backing up and turning around in order to exit the village, with the jeep doors open. They were hit by two stones, one of which hit Aviram in the chest. He asked the driver to stop and opened fire.
But the video footage shows that the identical testimony of all the soldiers is false. The doors were closed while they were turning around, were slightly opened to allow the shooting of the canister, and then closed. No stone seemingly penetrated the jeep.
The brigade commander in the area, Col. Saar Tzur, also noted that the gunshots were unnecessary, since the task had been completed and the force was moving away.
The main question at the inquiry was whether Aviram saw Mustafa Tamimi approaching the jeep. Aviram said he didn’t see anything and that he directed his fire upward.
“I looked through the crack. The driver turned around and I asked him to stop so I could fire toward the terraces. I looked to determine that no one was close by and fired two or three canisters,” Aviram said in his testimony.
So how did the canister hit Tamimi – who was only meters away – in the face? Aviram said he had no way of explaining how this happened. When shown photos documenting the incident, he changed his version and claimed that he had fired directly, not upward.
In order to prove the scientific aspect of the issue, investigators requested two professional opinions. One came from Lt. Col. Yoav, the head of the ballistics department in the Ordnance Corps. He stated in his report: “It is impossible that the victim was hit by someone firing at a 45- to 90-degree angle. My statement is unequivocal, based on my familiarity with this weapon, the ammunition and its ballistic behavior, as well as the photos I saw of the incident, which documented the conditions in relation to distances and elevations.”
The second opinion was from Lt. Col. N., from Military Intelligence, who is an expert in deciphering aerial photographs. He also stated that indirect fire was impossible: “The angle of the rifle barrel at the time of firing was zero or even lower.”
- attempted to reconstruct the incident on-site, but was interrupted when stones were thrown. Ultimately, his testimony was favorable to the shooter: The firing was direct, but Mustafa was approaching the jeep in a manner in which he could not be seen – in other words, the canister was not aimed at him, Mustafa moved toward it.
However, Schwartzenberg’s photos seem to show the opposite. Mustafa Tamimi was standing still when the jeep stopped, his knees bent as he prepared to throw a stone at the vehicle. He didn’t move when the door opened. He was directly across from the door facing Aviram. N. conducted some experiments to establish fields of vision, in order to find out what Aviram could see. The photos show that the opening of the jeep door was sufficiently wide so that people standing in front of it could be seen.
The file against Aviram and the others in the jeep was closed in December 2013. B’Tselem appealed in February 2015, but the military advocate general rejected their appeal a year later. The revision of a firing angle from 90 degrees to 0 degrees was defined as a “correction … it’s certainly possible that Sgt. Aviram didn’t remember the exact angle.”
As for the possibility that the deceased entered the line of fire within a fraction of a second of Aviram pulling the trigger – implying that he wasn’t observed at that point – Chief Military Prosecutor Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas wrote, “This is an uncommon likelihood, but it’s possible, giving reasonable doubt in the matter.”
‘Soldiers’ lives were in danger’
In the case of Rushdi Tamimi, the vigorous operational investigation conducted by the army fizzled out when it passed into the hands of Military Police investigators.
Shooting at stone-throwing demonstrators from this distance is contrary to the rules of engagement. “They came within meters of our forces,” company commander Yisrael testified. “I felt my soldiers’ lives were in danger. We were worried about a lynching or an abduction. I asked permission to use live fire, but received no answer from battalion headquarters. My operator was hit by two large stones and another soldier was hit in the leg from a range of five meters. I realized that if we didn’t open fire we’d be stoned and a soldier might be abducted. I and another soldier opened fire.” Other soldiers testified that they didn’t aim at anyone specifically.
In May 2014, the military advocate general decided to close the file for two reasons: First, under the circumstances, no one could disregard the risk to the soldiers’ lives. Second, in the absence of a bullet, the identity of the soldier who fired the lethal shot could not be determined.
Asked to respond to the two incidents and the army’s approach to investigating such cases, the IDF spokesman said: “The law enforcement system in the IDF operates independently, professionally and precisely. Each case is judged on its own merits, based on evidence that was gathered and according to legal criteria. This is done for cases dealing with operational activity, including these two incidents.
“The Military Police investigation of the circumstances that led to the death of Mustafa Tamimi on December 9, 2011, was thorough and comprehensive. Testimonies were collected from soldiers and civilians, and a reconstruction of the incident was conducted. Video footage and photographs documenting the shooting were collected and expert opinions obtained.
“The soldier who fired the tear-gas canister said he followed the regulations in response to extensive stone throwing, without seeing anyone in his line of fire. An expert opinion determined that Mustafa was moving toward the jeep while throwing stones, and entered the line of fire without the shooter being able to see him. The evidence suggests that the firing followed guidelines and regulations, and the file was closed without taking any action against the soldier.
“The evidence collected in the investigation of the circumstances leading to the death by gunshot of Rushdi Tamimi on November 19, 2012, shows he was taking part in a particularly violent demonstration, which included extensive throwing of rocks from a short range at soldiers and civilians. The soldiers fired into the air and took further action following procedures for the arrest of a suspect, firing at the legs of a demonstrator who was trying to hurl a large rock at one of them. The soldiers didn’t see [Rushdi Tamimi] or others getting hit, and when trying to administer medical aid they didn’t see a bullet wound. There was no way of obtaining the bullet that was extricated from his body, or an explanation of the medical complication that led to his death.
“Examining the evidence showed that, in light of the operational circumstances on the ground, the soldiers dispersing the demonstration did not act in a way that warrants taking legal action against them. There were some professional flaws in the actions of the commanding officer, but these were unrelated to Tamimi’s death. The officer was disciplined after the incident.”
NATO Unity, Tested by Russia, Shows Some Cracks
July 8, 2016
by Mark Landler and David E. Sanger
New York Times
WARSAW — President Obama and European leaders tried to project a united front at a NATO summit meeting on Friday, with Mr. Obama dismissing as “hyperbole” any fear that Britain’s vote to leave the European Union would unravel the broader trans-Atlantic security alliance.
But lurking beneath a veneer of unity was growing evidence in Warsaw of fissures within Europe that go beyond its highly visible split with Britain. Most revolve around the question of whether to deter or placate Russia as it continues to prowl unpredictably to the alliance’s east.
From NATO’s economic sanctions to pressure Russia to the alliance’s military exercises meant to deter it, Germany, France and Italy are showing signs of wavering from the hard-line stance they adopted after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia annexed Crimea two years ago.
Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy recently took part in the St. Petersburg Forum, a Davos-like conference convened by Mr. Putin that had been shunned by most European leaders. President François Hollande of France has talked about the need to engage Russia. The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, criticized a major military exercise in Poland last month for provoking the Russians. He called it “saber-rattling.”
“Putin is testing all these countries, and he is dividing some of them,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former United States ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Mr. Burns, who just completed a trip to Europe, said, “I was struck by the divisions within Europe’s leadership about how to respond to these challenges.”
The argument over how clearly to signal a more muscular alliance — one that is prepared to push back if Mr. Putin overreaches or is ready to strike back if Russia attacks a former Soviet state now part of the alliance — was visible at the meeting in many forms.
When the Obama administration published a list on Friday of 17 NATO and other military exercises the United States had taken part in — including the one in Poland — it placed them under the rubric “U.S. Assurance and Deterrence Efforts in Support of NATO Allies.”
Until the annexation of Crimea, members of the alliance rarely used the word deterrence in speaking about Russia. The Russians often came to meetings like this one as part of a “NATO-Russia Council” that was meant to bleach all sense of confrontation out of the relationship.
Before the summit meeting, NATO agreed to make cyberspace a new domain of conflict, alongside ground, air, sea and outer-space operations. This was intended as a warning to the Russians, officials said, about the use of hybrid methods of disruption, including the cyberattacks in the last decade have struck Estonia, Georgia and, most recently, Ukraine’s electric power grid.
Perhaps the most notable indicator of the argument over whether to openly deter Russia or to tone down any potential provocations centers on nuclear weapons, once the keystone of the alliance’s ability to hold Russia at bay.
For the first few years of the Obama administration, there was debate inside the alliance about whether to rid Europe of the B-61, a nuclear weapon that was stored on the Continent and could be carried by numerous NATO aircraft.
Nowadays, said Thomas O. Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, “the voices previously calling for withdrawal have become much more quiet.”
Moreover, the NATO Review, a magazine published by the alliance, recently suggested that nuclear weapons once again had to move back to the center of the alliance’s defense plans. “The forces involved in the nuclear mission should be exercised openly and regularly, without undermining their specific nature,” said the magazine, which the alliance said did not necessarily reflect its official position. “Such exercises should involve not only nuclear-weapon states,” it continued, “but other non-nuclear allies.”
To keep the Russians guessing, the article said that “exercises should not point at any specific nuclear thresholds” that might signal to the Russians what it would take to provoke a nuclear response.
It is hard to imagine the Germans, in particular, signing up for that strategy. But the Obama administration has promoted the improvement and retention of some kinds of nuclear weapons, even while vowing to reduce their numbers.
Politics play a part in Europe’s changing views. Mr. Steinmeier is a leader of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, and his criticism of the military exercise in Poland was calculated partly to distinguish his center-left party from the conservative Christian Democrats of Chancellor Angela Merkel before elections next year.
In a speech to the German Parliament on Thursday, Ms. Merkel reiterated the traditional message of supporting deterrence by NATO nations and pursuing dialogue with Moscow. She stressed that the alliance’s former Soviet bloc members were “most profoundly disturbed” by Russia’s recent actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine and on Russia’s western borders.
Still, she insisted that robust deterrence and dialogue were “inseparably connected” and praised not just the conservative defense minister, Ursula von der Leyen, but also Mr. Steinmeier.
Over the last two years, Germany has played a more active global role, diplomatically and militarily. It recently increased its military spending to just over 37 billion euros ($41 billion) this year. Yet that is still far below the target set at the last NATO summit meeting in Wales.
Mr. Obama, after meeting in the morning with leaders of the European Union, tried to play down fears that Britain’s exit would weaken European resolve. He acknowledged that the “Brexit” vote had “led some to suggest that the entire edifice of European security and prosperity is crumbling.”
But he added, “Let me just say that as is often the case in moments of changes, that this hyperbole is misplaced.”
The president expressed confidence that Britain and Europe would be able negotiate an amicable separation. And he said Britain’s eventual exit need not curtail the sanctions that the United States and Europe had imposed on Mr. Putin’s government.
Donald Tusk, a former Polish prime minister who is the president of the European Union, echoed that message and pledged that other union members would not follow Britain’s lead.
“Brexit, as sad and meaningful as it is, is just an incident and not the beginning of a process,” he said. “To all our opponents on the inside and out who are hoping for a sequel to Brexit, I want to say loud and clear, you won’t see on the screen the words ‘to be continued.’”
But even if Britain were to be the lone departure, some analysts said its absence would be disproportionately felt.
“Britain played the role of the tough guy in the European Union,” Mr. Burns said. “If they do exit, we will have lost the most experienced and toughest-minded partner on issues like sanctions on Russia.”