Systematic Global Treachery and Betrayal
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 9 Mar 2020
9 Mar 2020 – In the Light of Donald Trump’s Condemnation of Traitors and Pardoning of the Convicted
Julian Assange: traitor, hero, spy, terrorist?
Identification of Donald Trump as a “traitor”
Checklist of traitors identified by Donald Trump
Controversy with regard to any identification of “traitor”
Global treachery and betrayal — crimes against future generations?
Much is currently made of betrayal, treachery, espionage and terrorism. Together treachery and betrayal are framed as evidence of treason by traitors. Espionage is deplored when undertaken by others against a particular nation and may well be seen as the work of traitors. On the other hand the widespread espionage by one nation on another, or by one corporation on another, is otherwise considered a surprisingly normal feature of a competitive society.
Terrorism is framed as an ultimate consequence of treason and betrayal. It is however problematic in that many of those labelled as terrorists may later be redefined and welcomed as leaders of their countries or political faction — with the classic examples of Jomo Kenyatta, Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe, and George Washington. Terrorism is in itself only problematically defined — notably to exclude the perspective of those who experience terror, as in the case of bullying, harassment and domestic violence (Varieties of Terrorism extended to the experience of the terrorized, 2004).
This complex of definitions is necessarily relevant to how an “enemy” is defined. An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason. An enemy is then a person who engages in treachery or terrorism.
Less evident is whether those engaging in espionage are to be understood as enemies, especially when they may themselves be simultaneously spied upon — and highly honoured in the countries they serve. That “everyone does it”, seemingly does not make everyone an enemy — although possibly to be considered a potential enemy. A degree of betrayal is seemingly a feature of intergroup relations — or potentially so. Overt disagreement may be understood as justifying recognition as an enemy, as with the foreign policy principle favoured by the USA: You’re either with us, or against us (Bush: ‘You Are Either With Us, Or With the Terrorists’, Voice of America, 21 September 2011).
The USA, in the person of Donald Trump, is highly volatile in defining its current enemies, whether within the USA or elsewhere (James Petras, America’s Enemies: who’s on the list?, Global Research, 24 November 2017). The latter distinguished high priroity external enemies (Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Syria), middle priority enemies (Cuba, Lebanon, Yemen), and low priority enemies (Bolivia, Nicaragua). The status can vary rapidly, notably as opportunity presents itself for the purpose of media declarations.
For Donald Trump the range of internal enemies can also vary:
- Trump brings in loyalists and attacks enemies as post-impeachment drama escalatest (The Washington Post, 13 February 2020)
- Trump lambastes his critics as he moves to target perceived enemies over impeachment (The Washington Post, 6 February 2020)
- Trump Reportedly Compiling Nixonian ‘Enemies List’ as He Seeks Revenge for Impeachment (Common Dreams, 4 February 2020)
- Ja’han Jones: Market Tumbles After Donald Trump Calls Fed Chair ‘Enemy,’ Compares Him To Chinese Leader (Huff Post, 24 August 2019)
- Amber Philips: Trump is flailing to blame someone, anyone, for an economy he is increasingly anxious about (The Washington Post, 23 August 2019)
Then there is the question of whether Trump himself is to be considered an “enemy of the USA”. Does the process of impeachment of Donald Trump imply that he is so considered by Democrats? Does the failure of that process imply that he is not to be so considered — and that those making the accusation are indeed to be considered in that light? Is it a feature of American politics that all competitors for any position are to be recognized as enemies — until it is necessary for everyone else to submit to the victor with an oath of fealty, however they may think otherwise?
Any focus on Donald Trump in the following argument is however simplistic and irresponsible — however readily he may lend himself to such comments. Donald Trump is the duly elected President of the USA — elected by the American People according to well-defined electoral procedures. It is currently irrelevant whether those procedures are in any way in question. They have yet to be revised — if that is feasible and desired by the American People. Trump is therefore the legitimate representative of the American People and is variously acclamed and recognized as the leader of the world’s greatest superpower.
That point is made in a separate exercise of the unprecedented media coverage of Donald Trump — by replacing “Donald Trump” by the American people” in a range of examples of articles in the media (Who to Blame: “Donald Trump” or the “American People”? Let’s get real clear on any responsibility for imminent global disaster, 2019). Failure of such recognition frames the question of who is weaseling out of any responsibility? Plausible deniability? Culpable deniability? Scapegoating?
Tags: Justice, Trump, USA
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.