Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览汤姆·恩格哈特(Tom Engelhardt)档案
丽贝卡·戈登(Rebecca Gordon):昨天,今天和明天的美国战争罪行

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

What a scam! Noam Scheiber and Patricia Cohen described it 这样 在头版 “纽约时报” report on how a small group of incredibly wealthy Americans funded their way into another tax universe: “Operating largely out of public view — in tax court, through arcane legislative provisions and in private negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service — the wealthy have used their influence to steadily whittle away at the government’s ability to tax them. The effect has been to create a kind of private tax system, catering to only several thousand Americans.”

Yes, you read that correctly: tiny numbers of Americans live on a different tax planet from the rest of us. They’ve paid for the privilege, of course, and increasingly for the political class that oversees how our country runs. They’ve insulated themselves in a largely tax-free zone that ensures their “equality” before the law (such as it is) and your deepening inequality before the same — and before them. Their actions have garnered them the ultimate in impunity. In this election season in a country of more than 300 million people, for instance, a mere 158 families (and the companies they control) are putting their (largely tax-free) dollars where our mouths once were. By October, they had provided almost half the money thus far raised by presidential candidates in a move meant to ensure that American democracy becomes their system, their creature. (“Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s 美国公民 decision five years ago.”)

My dictionary defines “impunity” simply enough as “exemption from punishment, penalty, or harm.” That’s a striking trait for those who lord it over us. In the most incarcerated nation on Earth, with 接近25% of the globe’s prison population, there are seemingly 没有酒吧 strong enough to hold our economic elites or, for that matter, their national security brethren.

立即订购

The U.S. national security state, like the billionaire class, has grown ever richer and become ever more entrenched in these years, while similarly extracting itself from what was once the American political and legal system. Its officials now exist in a world of 保密 in which, in the name of our “safety,” ever fewer of their acts are open to our scrutiny. They inhabit what can only be thought of as a 无犯罪区. No act they commit, no matter how extralegal or illegal, will evidently ever land them in a court of law. They have, in essence, total impunity. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about the CIA’s 大规模, extralegal 操作绑架 “terror suspects” (often enough, as it turned out, 无辜的平民) and deliver them to the 酷刑室 of brutal allies or to a system of “黑场” off the coast of normal justice. 说谎 对国会, 黑客 congressional computers, and 暗杀 American citizens have all been green-lighted. No one was ever punished. When necessary, in the secret corridors of power, officials of the national security state simply mobilize lawyers to 重新诠释 the law of the land to their taste.

When it comes to impunity, their record has been the equal of anything the billionaire class has done. And none of it was more impressive, in its own way, than the use of obviously illegal methods of torture, euphemistically termed “enhanced interrogation techniques,” against helpless prisoners in a secret global prison system, as TomDispatch 定期 Rebecca Gordon reminds us today. You want war crimes? Post-9/11, Washington could have sported the logo: War Crimes “R” Us. If you want to understand what this sort of impunity means in terms of the politics of 2016, then read on.

  • 美国重温黑暗面
    候选人竞争承诺最多的酷刑和屠杀
    丽贝卡·戈登(Rebecca Gordon)•7年2016月3,000日•XNUMX个单词
(从重新发布 TomDispatch 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 对外政策 •标签: 拷打 
隐藏3条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Maybe it’s not the Jews, African Americans, Mexicans, White People, Feminists, Progressives, Conservatives, Millennials, Boomers, Gays, Communists, Muslims, Russians, etc. who are the problem. Maybe it’s the .01%. The .01% and the elected Democrats and Republicans who take their money. The ruling class.

    • 回复: @Drapetomaniac
  2. @WorkingClass

    Maybe it’s the emotionally driven idiot voter who gives the ruling class its power.

    Funny, with monarchies the public knew it was essentially powerless, now they’re still powerless but most believe they’re in control because they vote.

    • 同意: Orville H. Larson
  3. Rehmat 说:

    7年2014月XNUMX日,罗伯特·W·麦瑞(Robert W. Merry)提名了五位最差的美国总统(按升序排列):詹姆斯·布坎南,富兰克林·皮尔斯,威尔逊,GW布什和米勒德·菲尔莫尔。

    For readers who never heard of Robert W. Merry, it’s suffice to say that he is political editor of ‘The National Interest’, a ZioConservative website and author of three books. His articles are widely published in pro-Israel media; New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Atlantic, NPR, etc. So, you see, he is not a regular jerk.

    Historically, the great majority of the 44 American Presidents have been involved in wars and regime change without declaring wars or being threatened by its victims. In my lifetime, the US Presidents who committed war crimes against Muslim nations, include Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush (father), Bill Clinton, George Bush (son) and Barack Obama.

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/01/20/911-and-americas-five-worst-presidents/

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Tom Engelhardt评论
个人方面 古典文学
二十一世纪美国八项杰出的(愚蠢的)成就
安全国的保密狂热将如何创造您
单一超级大国时代的妄想思维