The Corporate American Media Distortion of the ICJ Israel Genocide Case

 Today's blog appeared originally in Counterpunch.

Corporate American media distorted and dismissed the South African genocide case brought against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).  It did so both prior to the decision by the ICJ and afterward.

The Israeli-Hamas conflict is a tragedy on many scores.  But for many, the Israeli response was unwarranted, leading some to argue that perhaps it was a violation of the 1948 Treaty Against Genocide, of which Israel is a signatory.  South Africa filed a complaint with the ICJ alleging this claim, asking for both a ruling that Israel’s actions do amount to genocide and a preliminary decision demanding Israel halt any actions that might constitute such action.

Immediately much of mainstream American corporate media dismissed the complaint.  Bret Stephens of the New  York Times  labeled the genocide charge against Israel as “moral obscenity.”  Ruth Marcus  of the Washington Post described the ICJ preliminary ruling as a “perversion of justice.”   The Economist argued that the term genocide is being “misused” here.  The Los Angeles Times banned reporters who signed a letter condemning Israel’s action from covering the story in part, because they demanded that terms like genocide and apartheid be used in the coverage.  The Wall Street Journal described the case against Israel as “moral inversion.” For much of the mainstream corporate media, the South African case was simply a political stunt and the ICJ should dismiss the complaint.

Yet the ICJ did rule.  It did not dismiss the genocide complaint. Instead, it declared in part that: “In view of the fundamental values sought to be protected by the Genocide Convention, the Court considers that the plausible rights in question in these proceedings, namely the right of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III of the Genocide Convention.”   The ICJ also ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention,” including the killing of members of the Palestinians.

Yet for much of the mainstream American media, the story was not that there were plausible genocide violations on the part of Israel, but that instead the ICJ did not issue  a full order to it to halt all conflict.  The ICJ decision was twisted in its reporting.  While the ICJ did not say stop all military action because there might be some legitimate self-defense actions under international law, it did say stop all acts that might amount to genocide.  Effectively this might be all the actions Israel is engaged in.  Contrary to most  American media reports, this was a major loss for Israel.

So why the bias and skewed reporting?  Some will quickly jump to pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian biases in the American corporate media.  Perhaps, but this is a simplistic answer.  The real answer is in at least three other forces.

One, is the tendency of the corporate media to heavily rely on the same official US government sources for its information and reporting.  There is an almost government-media industrial complex that forges a consensus, especially when it comes to foreign policy and national affairs.  This complex includes  Washington foreign policy think tanks, professors at prestigious universities, and government officials who form the foreign policy establishment and consensus.  This consensus reflects a bias that more often than not has led to major US foreign policy mistakes. The corporate media turns to them for  their news and reporting, reinforcing a tunnel vision when it comes to debate and discussion on foreign policy issues.

Two, the excessive media concentration in the hands of fewer and fewer for profit corporations excludes a diversity of opinions and alternative voices.  The corporate media reports what the Washington consensus is, excluding alternative and international voices or perspectives.  Not surprisingly, while US media accounts downplayed the ICJ litigation, much of the media across the world and outside the US gave it serious credence.

Three, and perhaps the most important, this bias is what is most profitable.  The days are long since gone when American journalism lived up to its ethos of reporting the news fairly and impartially, reflecting the truth. Instead of publishing “all the news that fit to print,” it may be more accurate to say it publishes “all the news that’s profitable to print.”  The readership of the corporate media lives in its news bubble and biases. Instead of challenging their beliefs,  the corporate media panders to it for profit.

Simply put, it was not profitable or in the interest of the corporate media to fairly report the ICJ genocide case. The biases were deeply imbued in the structure of the mainstream corporate media and a Washington foreign policy consensus that has repeatedly tilted the news.

What I Could do With $44 Billion (and It Would not be Buying Twitter)

My latest from Counterpunch. 

Elon Musk added a new toy to his collection with the $44 billion purchase of Twitter.  I am sure he will be happy with his new toy. He has already fired senior management, thousands of others are expected to be ousted or stiffed.  Already reports are that new racist messages are being sent. It appears to be a victory for capitalism and free speech.  Wall Street should be happy.

With all the worry about what will happen to Twitter and whether it was worth it for Musk to buy it there is another question simply being ignored in the mainstream press–Why should anyone be allowed to be worth what Musk is and why should he be able to drop $44 billion to buy anything, let alone Twitter?

Capitalism is amazing.  It has produced unprecedented wealth in the world.  It is the story of the wealth of nations, of the occasional person who rises from nothing to become rich.  It has brought forth technological innovations never seen before.  It has transformed peoples’ lives in countless ways.

Yet it has also given us the serious gaps in inequality both with the US and across what used to be called the North and South or First and Third Worlds.  It has given us pollution, global warming, colonialism, and reinforced and transformed racism and sexism.  For free marketers it is all about freedom and creative destruction, for its critics it has done little, especially in recent times, to address poverty, disease, and the quality of life for billions of people across the planet.

Musk is a living embodiment of Ayn Rand’s John Gault.  To many he is a hero because of  Tesla and the coming electric car. Or he is a hero because of SpaceX and the race to Mars.   Or simply he is a hero because he shows the power of capitalism to produce wealth for its own sake.  Yet we have to remember that he is worth so much because he exploited so many workers.  He is not the self-made person many assume–he was born rich and used his privileges to enrich himself.  Now he is super rich and can use his power not with great social responsibility, but in a way that caters to his whims and desires.

Musk is more powerful than a nation state.  His musing about how to settle the Russian war against Ukraine to the former’s advantage is more than simply idle thoughts. Rumors that Star Link–the satellite service Musk owns–were manipulated and blacked out the Ukrainian army at one point show the power he could exert over matters of war and peace and national sovereignty.

But let’s put the $44 billion in perspective. How large is that amount?  If Musk were a state, his $44 billion would make him the 86th largest GDP in the world.  His purchase of Twitter would be slightly larger than the $41 billion GDP of Serbia, yet just shy of the $47 billion of Lithuania.  His expenditure to buy Twitter is larger than the total GDP of the 31 poorest nations in the world.

This $44 billion is almost three times as large as the total amount of military aid the US has given to Ukraine since Russia invaded.   It represents about half the equivalent of total global aid to  Ukraine since the war started.

But what if we are not talking about military aid?  World Program USA estimates that it would take $40 billion to end world hunger and feed the most hungry for a year.  The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates it would take $50 billion to reach 70% vaccination level for the entire planet.  According to the World Health Organization, “At a potential cost of about $5 per dose, including its distribution, it would cost around $325 million to administer each year across ten African countries with a high incidence of malaria.”

The World Bank estimates it would cost $150 billion to provide potable water to all who need it. Closer to home, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness in America and the remaining $24 billion of the purchase price of Twitter could feed all the hungry 60 million Americans who visited food shelves last year.

There are countless other things that could have been better funded or spent on globally or in the US that could have helped millions of people.  While governments and societies as a whole should be responsible for doing this, Elon Musk had a choice and an opportunity to prove capitalism  can do something good.  He opted not to do that. Remember that the next time someone praises his genius.

Why Donald Trump should not be allowed to pardon Michael Cohen, his friends, or family members

Today's blog originally appeared in Counterpunch.


Donald Trump is perfectly within his constitutional authority to pardon his attorney Michael Cohen,
even before he is accused or convicted or a crime, as the president recently mused. Trump was also within his authority when he pardoned Scooter Libby, as well as ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio.  And Trump might be within his authority to pardon his children and many others in his administration, and there is little anyone can do about it.  And that is the problem.  The concept of unlimited discretion of the president to issue pardons and reprieves is clearly inconsistent with the concept of limited government and checks and balances and the courts need to rethink the constitutional doctrine that allows for such unchecked authority.

 The historical roots of presidential pardoning power are sourced in British monarchical power.  At one time British kings and queens had unlimited political power, subject to no checks and balances.  “Rex non potest peccare”–“The king could do no wrong”–was the legal theory that gave monarchs not just unimpeachable political power to command, but also the capacity to forgive and pardon.  To paraphrase The Merchant of Venice, the quality of mercy could be strained, as determined by the king.

 Yet the idea of unchecked monarchical power in England ended if not with the Magna Charta in 1215, it did so with the adoption of the English Bill of Rights in 1689 and the Glorious Revolution in 1688-89.  Kingly power was subject to limits and, as British philosopher John Locke would argue in his Two Treatises on Government, legitimate governments and authority are subject to limits defined by the rights and consent of the people.  No government official, including a king, should be given unlimited and unchecked authority.

 Locke is considered America’s philosopher; he heavily influenced the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson.  In writing the Declaration of Independence, the famous second paragraph that begins with “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is homage to Locke.  So to is the opening words of the Constitution–“We the people”–and even the Bill of Rights.  All of these documents speak to the idea of a government of limited powers and authority, that no one person is above the law, and that the very idea of American constitutionalism is one where there are no inherent and unlimited powers vested in anyone person, office, or body.  The constitutional framers fear of kings and unbridled abuse of power and discretion is the reason for separation of powers and checks and balances.

 However some kingly like powers seemed to work their way into the Constitution. Article II, Section  2 grants that “The President . . . shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  During the Constitutional Convention and debates surrounding its ratification critics feared that the power would be abused and that it needed to be checked, including perhaps by the Senate.  These calls were rejected, and as Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist number 74: The “prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.” But it is not clear that all the Framers intended the pardoning power to be unchecked at all.  The debates at the Constitutional convention demonstrated many concerned with granting presidents unlimited power, others seeming to assume that presidents would excise appropriate discretion in its use.  Unfortunately the courts have not agreed to such checks.

 In Ex parte Garland (71 U.S. 333, 1867) the Supreme Court said of the pardoning power that the
 "power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions." The pardoning power scope is so broad that it even allowed President Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon before he had been indicted for any crimes.

 President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon was controversial, and some say it was the reason why Gerald Ford eventually lost a very close presidential race to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Since this pardon, other presidents have used their powers to pardon for political reasons. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan pardoned two FBI agents convicted for authorizing illegal searches of property of antiwar protestors in 1973. In 1992 President George Bush pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger and other individuals associated with the Iran-Contra Affair during the Reagan administration, and in 2001 President Bill Clinton pardoned Patty Hearst, a kidnaped heiress turned member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, and Marc Rich, who had been indicted on charges of making illegal oil deals and tax evasion. The latter pardon was considered controversial because Rich’s wife was a significant political donor to Clinton campaigns. George W. Bush issued very few pardons and Barack Obama issued 212 complete pardons and another 1,715 commutations of sentences.  While all these pardons met constitutional muster, no  doubt some could be considered abuses of presidential power.

 Presidents do have a constitutional power to pardon and mercy is something they should be allowed to show, using the pardon as a way to correct injustices.  Yet pardons should not be beyond  constitutional limits and review.  Already there are some limits to the pardoning power.  Trump cannot use it to escape impeachment, or to protect himself from any civil law suits such as for sexual harassment.  Nor can he issue pardons for violations of state criminal laws.  Moreover, presidents who abuse their pardoning power might not get reelected–as in the case of Gerald Ford–or be subject to impeachment as Harvard law professor Noah Feldman contends.  But these checks are insufficient, and if the dicta in Garland is taken seriously then nothing would prevent presidents from pardoning themselves, relatives, political allies, and friends.  A constitutional morality that takes rights seriously and also believes that no one should   profit from their own wrong or stand beyond accountability should not allow for unchecked presidential pardoning power.  Presidents are not kings, they do and should not have inherent and unlimited authority to do anything, including pardon.

 The Supreme Court got it wrong in Garland and it is time for the Supreme Court to overturn that precedent.  That decision and dicta are a relic from a different era and legal system.  If the American Revolution and Constitution stand for anything it is that no one is above the law.  Granting presidents unchecked pardoning power, especially in how Trump might use it with Cohen, is inconsistent with separation of powers and checks and balances in that it undermines the ability of the judiciary to act and hold people responsible for contempt.  Unlike kings at one time, we do not presume that presidents can do no wrong and instead the logic of the Constitution is premised on the notion that–as James Madison said in Federalist number 51, that “Men are not angels"–and that there should be limits on all uses of power. Over time the Supreme Court has issued numerous decisions limiting presidential powers, and the same needs to occur with the pardoning power.