http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/snowden-was-naive-but-he-acted-in-the-public-interest

After a long, slow evolution of thought, I have reluctantly concluded that former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden should be granted a presidential pardon.

This has nothing to do with Oliver Stone’s movie about him, released this weekend, which I have not seen and know little about. Instead it reflects the complex competing considerations about, and implications of, his actions, as well as a genuine appreciation for the very real downsides of pardoning him.

I don’t naively view Mr Snowden as a hero, and I understand the serious negative consequences of both his own actions and a potential pardon.

His supporters and detractors both tend to paint a simplistic picture in which he is cast as either an icon of liberty or a dangerous traitor. In fact, there are powerful arguments both for and against his public disclosures of official secrets.

When his exposé first became public, I was appalled at the unconstitutional and illegal mass surveillance he revealed. But, I thought, it isn’t, and cannot be, up to any individual to decide when and if the law should be broken and government secrets exposed.

Mr Snowden’s revelations surely had some very negative, as well as some very positive, consequences. They might have helped criminals and terrorists evade surveillance, and they have complicated – or even compromised – legitimate intelligence activities.

It’s hard to be certain, but there was almost certainly a cost, and possibly a hefty one.

Yet Mr Snowden unquestionably exposed excessive and abusive mass surveillance and violations of the privacy of millions.

Moreover, officials routinely lied to the public about the extent of mass surveillance. Just weeks before the Snowden revelations, and as he was overseeing these vast programmes, director of national intelligence James Clapper insisted in congressional testimony that the government was “not wittingly” collecting mass data on private communications.

Court rulings, new legislation and other reforms resulting from Mr Snowden’s revelations – especially regarding the misuse of the Patriot Act and section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which were misinterpreted as authorising mass data collection of private communications – have provided crucial restorations of citizens’ rights.

These vital reforms, not to mention the indispensable debate about mass surveillance, that area direct consequences of his actions strongly suggest that the indisputable public benefits from Mr Snowden’s actions significantly outweigh the probable harm, which is hard to gauge.

Indeed, the far greater breach of public trust was on the part of the US government itself.

But if Mr Snowden is pardoned, could that send the message to any national security official that they are entitled to unilaterally determine what can and should be made public, provided they think the stakes are high enough?

The US government has legitimate secrets, and a pardon might be misconstrued as implying it is acceptable for officials to decide personally to reveal them. It’s therefore crucial that any pardon of him is presented as utterly exceptional.

A Snowden pardon could indeed have a range of negative effects on the culture and atmosphere within the US intelligence community. But that may be part of the price American society must pay for the unacceptable excesses he exposed and helped stop.

It is therefore the government, not Mr Snowden, that must bear primary responsibility for those costs.

The US constitution gives the president the authority to pardon because sometimes circumstances dictate that punishment, even for real criminal offences, is inappropriate, unnecessary, undeserved or not in the public interest.

Despite the probable downsides of both Mr Snowden’s actions and a pardon, this seems almost a textbook example of when such a pardon is appropriate.

His technically illegal actions did overwhelmingly more good than harm to the public interest. Without them, massive and abusive surveillance programmes would probably have continued and might well have intensified.

WikiLeaks, and especially its founder Julian Assange, which are grossly irresponsible and, I would argue, primarily a tool of the Kremlin, really represent the negative caricature of Mr Snowden painted by his detractors.

Yet Mr Snowden isn’t a hero or a martyr either, as his champions frequently suggest. Instead he is a deeply flawed man who seems to have fudged the truth on occasion and who not only broke the law but was, in many ways, reckless.

But the level of official malfeasance he exposed, and the “public service” – as former US attorney general Eric Holder put it – he performed through his revelations were of an infinitely greater magnitude.

It would be bizarre to regard the overall effect of an action as, on balance, invaluable, yet still want the responsible party to be mercilessly punished.

Mr Snowden needn’t be put on a postage stamp. His conduct has involved too many ethical and legal shortcomings for him to be celebrated.

However, given the overall context and consequences of his actions, he doesn’t belong in prison either. The only reasonable outcome now is a presidential pardon for Snowden.

http://www.agsiw.org/jasta-a-pandoras-box-for-u-s-defense-and-diplomacy/

The recent adoption by overwhelming majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) is a grave threat – not only to U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, which is the primary target of the legislation – but also for conducting U.S. foreign policy generally and, potentially, to the effectiveness, safety, and security of U.S. officials around the world. The act, which would lift the customary international convention of sovereign immunity, preventing governments and their officials from being sued in other countries for their official conduct, seeks to allow the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue foreign governments and officials – in this case, those of Saudi Arabia – who some continue to suspect were complicit in those attacks.

There can be no questioning the legitimacy of the demands for justice for the victims of terrorism anywhere in the world. However, the impact of lifting sovereign immunity by the United States on U.S. officials and military officers serving around the world could be extreme. While U.S. courts would soberly deal with the claims of the 9/11 families against foreign governments and their officials for terrorist attacks committed against American citizens on U.S. territory, the floodgates around the world would be opened against the country’s own representatives.

Following a major drone strike, a significant covert operation, or military action that leads to loss of life, even if that is restricted to legitimate combatants and other lawful military targets, U.S. officials deemed responsible could be subjected to endless prosecution and lawsuits.

The convention of sovereign immunity protects the United States, as well as its officials and military officers, as much as it does any other country in the world. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine another country more vulnerable to an endless series of legal challenges, litigation, lawsuits, and prosecution – many frivolous, but some possibly even appropriate under the domestic law that may apply in a given country – than the world’s sole remaining superpower.

It may be practically impossible for parties based overseas to recover financial damages from the U.S. government or its officials based on such lawsuits. However, the thinking behind JASTA, apparently, is that foreign assets in the United States could be seized pursuant to rulings against foreign defendants. There are some states that will not have access to U.S. assets. But there are many that, at least theoretically, might.

Would they dare? Under the current circumstances, surely not. But if the United States set the example, why wouldn’t they? And what would we say if they did? That we may do it, but they cannot?

U.S. President Barack Obama has vowed to veto JASTA as a major threat to the country’s ability to conduct its foreign policy without constantly considering the international legal implications of every action the United States takes, and without every civilian or military official considering his or her own potential legal liabilities before obeying any instructions to take action in the national interest.

White House officials claim that many members of Congress have privately agreed with the president’s concerns about the impact on U.S. defense and diplomacy if the country takes the lead in scrapping the principle of sovereign immunity, and opening the door to prosecutions against the U.S. government and its officials. All Americans should hope this is true, and that wisdom will prevail in the event of any vote to override the expected presidential veto.

However, given the continued emotional resonance of the 9/11 attacks, felt by all with this week’s 15th anniversary, there is a danger that enough members of the House and Senate would vote to override a presidential veto in order to avoid having to explain to their constituents why they “denied justice” to the 9/11 families. The great political problem for JASTA is that justice for the 9/11 families is a simple and easy to understand proposition, and one that is impossible to oppose. But the problem with the law is not merely that it would cause additional strains with a crucial ally in the Middle East on whom we depend in the struggle against terrorist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and al-Qaeda and in curtailing the pernicious influence of Iran and its allies such as Hezbollah, though it certainly would do that.

The biggest problem with JASTA is the potential havoc it probably would wreak on the United States’ ability to conduct its foreign policy without fear that its officials will be hauled before a judge to defend themselves on a regular basis. When considering this legislation, the public, and members of Congress, tend to think and speak merely in terms of providing a guarantee that foreign officials implicated in the death of innocent Americans will be held to account in upright and fair-minded U.S. courts. It’s much harder to get people to imagine all of the prosecutions and lawsuits that await the U.S. government and its representatives the world over if the United States takes the lead in trashing the principle of sovereign immunity that has protected this country, in many ways above all others, for so long.

And the fallout wouldn’t necessarily be restricted to U.S. officials being accused of terrorism regarding intelligence or military activities. Once the principle of sovereign immunity is lifted, governments and their officials are potentially liable for violating allegedly breaking any law another jurisdiction determines has been violated.

There’s a familiar metaphor that sums up what JASTA really means for U.S. defense and diplomacy: it’s a Pandora’s Box that looks attractive at first glance but opens up a series of endless nightmares. If Congress does override the promised presidential veto, Americans will surely regret it for decades to come.

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/republicans-expect-a-clinton-win-and-are-already-lining-up-to-attack

The polls are tightening, which was almost inevitable given the extreme partisan polarisation in American politics. But the electoral college map remains clear and looks poised to repeat the party breakdown of 2012. So, it’s going to take a remarkable turnaround – probably requiring a dramatic and largely imponderable event such as an unprecedented “October surprise” or a totally unexpected performance by either party in the presidential debates – to allow Donald Trump to beat Hillary Clinton in November.

What’s most fascinating is not the likely outcome, which seems set to deliver the White House to Mrs Clinton. Far more interesting, and troubling, is what awaits her after inauguration.

The probable Clinton presidency is already in the crosshairs being set up by Republicans across the board. If elected, she is likely to become the target of massive and unending accusations, investigations, official inquiries, committees, special prosecutors and, if possible, even an impeachment. Signs are everywhere, unmistakable and alarming that Republicans are openly building the infrastructure for the most paralysing gridlock in recent American history.

For that, they need only retain control of the House of Representatives, and they are at least as likely to do so as Mrs Clinton is to become president.

Democrats need the same kind of political miracle to take control of the House as it would take for Mr Trump to win the presidency. Neither is on the cards.

The bigger question is the Senate, which is poised on a razor’s edge. Assuming Mrs Clinton becomes president, Democrats would need four new Senate seats for a functional majority with her vice president, Tim Kaine, serving as tiebreaker, or five for an outright majority.

Odds for both parties in the Senate now appear about 50-50. A Democratic Senate majority would allow Mrs Clinton to at least secure her cabinet and other senior appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, without Republican obstruction.

But if Republicans retain control of the Senate, she can look forward to nasty fights on virtually everything she tries to do, with the possible exception of basic expenditure or job-creation programmes. Much beyond that will be utterly paralysed, including, if the Republican lawmakers can manage it, foreign as well as domestic policy.

If Democrats get four new Senate seats, Mrs Clinton could secure her appointments and be practically safe from conviction in the Senate if whe were impeached by the House (the lust, though hardly the grounds, for which is already clear). But her legislative agenda would be all but dead in the water.

For lack of better ideas, Republicans have long-cultivated being an obstructionist party. Their bitterness about the massive 2008 loss to Barack Obama sharpened this inclination to a keen edge. They are familiar and comfortable with being an obstructionist force in government, saying no to virtually everything, and practising the dark art of creating gridlock and rationalising its virtues.

Mr Obama came into office as a constitutional scholar with an instinctive mistrust of arbitrary executive authority and a strong inclination to build compromise and consensus. But his two terms increasingly turned him into one of the most expansive practitioners of executive orders in the country’s history, largely because he found that without using presidential authority to bypass a Republican Congress, he simply couldn’t get much done.

Most Republicans may not like Mr Obama much. But many despise Mrs Clinton at a very different personal and visceral level.

So while Republicans refined their techniques of obstructionism over the past eight years, the prospect of Mrs Clinton in the White House is already turning many minds towards more serious forms of attack.

Leading the prep work is house oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who is pursuing a relentless campaign regarding Mrs Clinton’s emails and devices used during her tenure as secretary of state. To bolster his position to harass her now and into the future, he is also calling on Mr Trump to release his tax returns.

One can hardly imagine a Clinton presidency not haunted by endless investigations based on ancient, more recent and yet-to- be discovered alleged scandals.

From ancient allegations concerning Vince Foster, Travelgate and Whitewater to newer ones about Benghazi and her emails, and on a raft of new accusations as yet unarticulated, the attack will surely be instantaneous and relentless.

Mrs Clinton and her husband Bill have been under intense scrutiny for decades, and have made many mistakes, errors of judgment and worse, providing an endless series of targets, some real but most imaginary, for her would-be persecutors.

So, while Mrs Clinton will probably win, it’s almost certain that her presidency will be among the most troubled in history and that she will be relentlessly pursued by Republicans whose only remaining defence is a vicious and relentless attack. They are lining up, cleaning and aiming their ample cannon at her already.

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/trumps-mexican-moment-leaves-a-sour-taste-behind

Mexican culture may be remarkably attuned to pain and loss, but last week delivered a pair of especially brutal blows. One came from Mexico’s own incompetent young president, while the other was delivered by the old specter that haunts the land of the Day of the Dead: Santa Muerte herself, the exterminating angel.

On August 28, she swooped down on one of Mexico’s most popular, influential and important artists, the 66-year old singer-songwriter Juan Gabriel. He was not only a beloved performer and composer of songs that help make up the national soundtrack. He was also a repository and transmitter of Mexico’s history of popular music.

One of his most significant, and frequently overlooked, achievements was the 1996 recording Las Tres Señoras. Gabriel persuaded three of Mexico’s greatest singers — Lola Beltran, Amalia Mendoza and Lucha Villa, by then all old ladies — to come out of retirement and sing together for the first time, along with an array of male superstars.

They belted out patriotic and sentimental compositions by Gabriel that drew on a range of traditions, celebrating and summarizing Mexican popular culture. The opening and closing, both called “Oberatura Mexicana,” define the spirit of rancheras and other key Mexican genres — complete with fireworks, and nationally distinctive cat-calls and whopping cockerel-crows from the men.

It’s histrionic, operatic, preposterous, joyous, and, like its true subject which is Mexican popular music itself, ultimately magnificent. At the final crescendo pauses, “JuanGa” himself, his voice cracking with pride, shouts out, “Viva Mexico!” Anyone listening who remains unmoved is simply soulless.

JuanGa preserved and promoted the best in Mexican culture, but also boldly and effectively challenged some of what’s worst. His flamboyant persona itself indicted deep-seated patriarchal and homophobic attitudes. Asked if he was gay in an interview, his impeccable response was, “They say you shouldn’t ask about what’s completely obvious.”

Mexicans were reeling from this sudden and massive loss when their hapless president, Enrique Peña Nieto, made the inexplicable blunder of inviting Donald Trump — without doubt the preeminent living promoter of anti-Mexican bigotry — to a respectful meeting that left the struggling Republican nominee looking almost presidential.

While adopting a relatively obsequious tone, Mr Trump basked in the unearned quasi-diplomatic legitimacy. That evening, however, he returned to a rally in Arizona that proved little more than hate-fest against immigrants and, especially, Mexicans.

Mr Trump laid out a blood-curdling program on immigration that would turn the United States into a brutal police state. Hundreds of thousands would be jailed awaiting mass deportation. Police would comb the landscape looking for anyone they suspect of being “illegal,” or simply dislike. Families would be ripped apart and young people expelled from the only country they have ever known.

The America he described was a Kafkaesque nightmare patrolled by fugitive-hunting goon squads, and with intensive state surveillance to support mass incarcerations and mass deportations. He proposed creating a vast and barely-accountable authoritarian apparatus to ferret out and expel hard-working, peaceful, productive, and otherwise law-abiding and blameless people, and inevitably abuse countless more in the process. His America would be utterly, and hideously, unrecognizable.

Mr Trump’s caricature of undocumented workers as vicious criminals preying on innocent Americans is not only false, it is a complete inversion of reality — citizens are, in fact, far more likely to commit crimes. But fear and hate, not facts, are his métier.

Mr Trump’s weird mindset of dominance and subordination — both sadomasochistic and Manichean — makes him oscillate between a meek and servile tone, as in Mexico, and an angry and vicious one, as in Arizona. Mexicans and Muslims are his favorite targets. Especially Mexicans.

America’s most notorious racists cheered his immigration speech the loudest, correctly hearing their own voices speaking through him.

About half of Mr Trump’s pathetic “Hispanic advisory council” resigned in disgust, with one former member saying he felt like a “prop” and another calling it “a scam.”

One of the last “Latinos for Trump” left standing, Marco Gutierrez, provided a perfect grace note by grimly warning the United States could soon have “taco trucks on every corner.” Americans, who have long preferred salsa to ketchup, responded with a mighty “Yum!”

Mr Trump’s fire-breathing performance further alienated Republican leaders, including their National Committee, who are already appalled by his irresponsibility. New campaign rhetoric from embattled Republican candidates like Paul Ryan and John McCain clearly implies they fully expect him to lose and asks for voter support in order to prevent complete Democratic rule.

His poll numbers may be improving, but Mr Trump still needs a miracle to secure 270 electoral college votes and win in November. Now Mexico, of all countries, gives him his only really “presidential” moment. He did his best to squander it at a bizarre, dystopian, white nationalist jamboree. But the trip was still a huge success for him.

While grieving for one of their most uplifting cultural icons, aghast Mexicans watched their own bumbling president inexplicably throwing Mr Trump this invaluable political lifeline. Though his incorrigible self-destructiveness prompted Mr Trump to try to cast it aside, qué pena, carnal!

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/how-a-movie-with-many-meanings-stakes-its-claim-among-the-greats

David Lynch’s 2001 American surrealist masterpiece, Mulholland Drive, was recently named best film of the 21st century in a BBC survey of 177 film critics from 36 countries. But despite its increasing acclaim, Mulholland Drive remains widely misunderstood.

It is still often regarded as muddled, even by many who acknowledge the painterly composition of each frame, technical mastery and deft use of sound. Far from being an incoherent “mood piece” reliant on atmospherics, it is in fact structured with clockwork-like precision.

Mulholland Drive’s narrative can be confusing not because its deliberately disjointed storylines resist reassembly into a clear plot. Instead — like a toy which can turn into a robot, a car, or an aircraft — Mulholland Drive’s component parts can be successfully reassembled as telling a number of different stories depending on how they are linked together and which aspects are privileged.

The film is a mystery/thriller that toys with our need for meaning. It invites, or rather forces, viewers to become detectives, uncovering these meanings in a maze of clues, and thereby interrogates the essence of cinematic desire.

At its core an aspiring actress apparently hires a hitman to murder her estranged girlfriend after she has been humiliated at a party at which this ex announces that she will marry a famous director. Like its main influences, the Wizard of Oz and Vertigo, Mulholland Drive is told through two storylines that refract and inform each other with actors playing various characters that may or may not be the same.

The first narrative is often misunderstood as a “dream,” but probably better understood as utopian (at least for the character “Betty” played by Naomi Watts), while the second arc (ironically more non-linear), is usually misconstrued as “reality” but probably better conceptualized as dystopian.

However, from the perspective of the film director character, played by Justin Theroux, this utopian-dystopian dichotomy is precisely reversed. For him the first storyline is a nightmare and the second a wish-fulfillment fantasy. He is uniquely the same character in both storylines, providing a crucial reference point for interpretation.

Lynch further confuses viewers with a particularly tricky red herring. In the two main storylines, Watts and Laura Harring both play characters who, although very different in personality, look similar. Viewers are invited to assume these characters are therefore essentially the same people.

However Watts’ character Diane is probably better compared to Harring’s mysterious and beautiful brunette Rita. The temptation to see Betty and Diane as essentially versions of the same personality because both are played by Watts is another ruse.

Here’s an example of how the two parts of Mulholland Drive can inform each other.

In the first storyline, two mafiosi order the director to cast a lead actress of their choice, introducing the film’s haunting catchphrase, “this is the girl.” One gangster then disgustedly spits out coffee, while the other screams “help me!”

This initially appears inexplicable. But the second storyline offers an unexpected context and interpretation. Diane experiences the engagement party as theatrically staged to maximize her humiliation. As her heartbreak, rage and existential nausea reach a fever pitch, she looks down at some coffee she is trying to choke back.

The mug’s design features a circle flanked by two squiggles, spelling out “SOS” (the universal cry for help at sea). As her tears flow, Diane looks up, only to see the actor who played the gangster who spat out coffee.

The mobsters’ extraordinary behavior – including their extreme aggression against Diane’s hated rival, Adam — can thus be read backwards as a codified enactment of her psychological affect at the moment she decided to murder her former lover (she later tells the hitman, “this is the girl.”)

The nature of all these scenes is determined by which character’s perspective is privileged. Confronting the mobsters is a disaster for Adam, but he is triumphant at the party scene that provokes murderous outrage in Diane – and vice versa.

Lynch’s architectural achievement is even more extraordinary since most of the first storyline was filmed as a pilot for a television series that was rejected, while the rest of the scenes, including the entire second storyline, were shot more than a year later, after the whole project was reconceptualized as a totally different standalone film.

Such a production history could excuse the kind of narrative incoherence many falsely associate with Mulholland Drive, and which actually does belong to Lynch’s next film, Inland Empire (which he shot without a script). Yet, somehow, in Mulholland Drive Lynch crafted a uniquely complex, flexible cinematic structure whose component parts can be read with or against each other to produce some strikingly different, yet fully-functional, narratives.

Lynch famously never comments on the substance in his films. With Mulholland Drive, that silence is particularly effective since the viewer can play with its different parts like a child working with a pile of Legos.

No other film of the 21st, and arguably even the 20th, centuries requires or rewards this level of audience engagement.

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/why-donald-trump-wont-win-the-us-election

The American presidential election is over. Republican candidate Donald Trump has virtually no hope of winning. Barring the most extreme and implausible of unforeseen circumstances, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

Conventional wisdom holds that it is ridiculous, and perhaps even dangerous, to say any such thing. The primary objection is that with 11 weeks to go, too many things can suddenly transform the political landscape for any categorical statements at this stage. Moreover, it’s added, debates and other strategic opportunities will provide Mr Trump with several chances to correct his image and potentially overtake Mrs Clinton.

If one were focusing strictly on the popular vote this is plausible, although there would still be a strong basis for concluding the election is all but over. By this stage, polls are prescriptive and rarely so wildly incorrect as to produce a Trump victory. Virtually every poll shows Mrs Clinton with commanding leads nationally, in all the key battleground states, and even in several traditionally solid Republican ones.

A combination of factors might, just possibly, swing the aggregate national popular vote in Mr Trump’s direction. But that’s not how American presidential elections are decided. They are based on an electoral college system largely structured by a winner-take-all arrangement. If a given state gets 12 electoral college votes based on its population, then whichever candidate wins that state, no matter how narrowly, gets all 12 of those votes.

This means that national popular vote majorities are not decisive. The question is who can get to 270 electoral college votes winning state-by-state. The electoral college map has been shifting in recent years in favour of the Democrats. Moreover, Mr Trump’s bizarre campaign has hurt him where he needs to win most: key battleground states.

The arithmetic is clear and devastating for him. Both campaigns quietly agree Mr Trump will need to win a clean sweep of all four crucial battleground states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina. Both agree that if he drops even one, he will certainly lose.

Mrs Clinton has clear or commanding leads in all four of these states, and, astonishingly, is running even with Mr Trump in several traditionally solid Republican states, including Georgia and South Carolina. He is not receiving the same support from white males that Mitt Romney did four years ago (indeed it seems to be slipping), and is faring disastrously with minorities and women.

It is scarcely possible to imagine that he can win all four of these states without exception, given the apparent state of the election a mere 11 weeks away (and some potentially significant absentee voting begins in late September). If Mrs Clinton had to win all four of these states, her campaign would, quite properly, be extremely nervous. Still, she could pull it off, and certainly has a much better chance to do so than he does.

But it is a very heavy lift for any candidate to sweep all four key battleground states. For Mr Trump, he will have to do it charging wildly from behind, with what everyone agrees is an insufficient ground game at the local level, campaign staff at every level, public messaging strategy, and with the profound distrust of a large majority of the public.

The reality for Mr Trump gets even more grim the closer one looks at the map. Even if he did somehow manage to sweep all four key battleground states, Mrs Clinton would still have a few paths to victory, however difficult. There are many ways for her to cobble together 270 electoral college votes. It is Mr Trump who has only one viable route: this virtually unimaginable clean sweep of battleground states.

With his campaign now being run by the de facto leader of the fringe “alt-right” cult, Stephen Bannon of the notorious Breitbart.com website – and with America’s leading racists exulting that their movement has “taken over the Republican Party” through the Trump candidacy – it’s almost impossible to imagine how the unprecedented turnaround and come-from-behind victory that he will need might unfold without a dramatic and extremely implausible “October surprise”.

Meanwhile, Mrs Clinton’s campaign seems to be growing stronger. Yet given the radical political polarisation between and homogenisation within the two American parties, it’s unlikely that she can achieve an old-fashioned, two-thirds majority landslide in the manner of Franklin D Roosevelt, Lyndon B Johnson or Richard M Nixon. Those days are gone.

Pundits hedge to avoid possible embarrassment. The media needs the illusion of a competitive race to maintain interest. Therefore, few are willing to state the virtually incontrovertible truth this clearly: Mr Trump now requires not a minor political miracle to win, but an unprecedented and virtually unimaginable one. It’s over.

No wonder there’s so much speculation that he is really preparing to join with Mr Bannon and another close ally, disgraced former Fox News chief Roger Ailes (recently ousted for sexual harassment), to found a new right-wing extremist media empire. Since Mr Trump is now almost certain to lose, the self-styled “king of debt” might as well try to monetise the debacle.

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/republicans-wonder-what-they-can-do-about-trump

Over the past week the presidential campaign of Donald Trump imploded, seriously calling into question the future of the Republican Party. As he sinks ever further behind Hillary Clinton both nationally and in key battleground states, Mr Trump is becoming increasingly shameless, aggressive and, apparently, unhinged.

For all the talk of a campaign “reset,” he has demonstrated in both word and deed that he isn’t interested in any moderation. At times he insisted that he is on the path to victory. At other moments, though, he seemed to acknowledge he may well lose, and appeared remarkably comfortable with the prospect of a “nice long vacation” instead.

Last week Mr Trump intensified his already outrageous rhetoric, apparently calling on gun owners to assassinate either Mrs Clinton or any judges she might appoint. (He later absurdly claimed he was just urging political mobilisation).

He ridiculously claimed that president Barack Obama and Mrs Clinton founded ISIL. He rebuked a radio host who tried to assist him by saying he must mean they created the political environment in which the terrorist group emerged. No, Mr Trump insisted, Mr Obama literally founded ISIL. He later claimed he was just kidding, but no one can explain what the joke is supposed to be and no one is laughing.

And, with staggering irresponsibility, he keeps insisting the election will be rigged against him.

Although the election isn’t until November and the political landscape can change overnight, Mr Trump’s candidacy really does seem doomed. One noted Republican said only a video of Mrs Clinton drowning puppies while surrounded by terrorists chanting “death to America” could give him a fighting chance. Another wrote that he would have been much better off if he had done nothing since his convention, and, although he won’t, if he just did and said nothing for a week he might take the lead.

The American political conversation is now focused on why Mr Trump is behaving in such a patently self-destructive manner. It not only defies conventional wisdom, it defies rationality.

Theories abound. The notion, which I have publicly embraced since last autumn, that Mr Trump has serious emotional or mental issues has recently gained currency among both Republicans and Democrats. But while he appears to have a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder, this explanation is insufficient and dangerous.

Most victims of mental illness or personality disorders don’t promote violence or spread misogyny, bigotry and racism. So, this doesn’t explain Mr Trump’s most alarming behaviour and might stigmatise decent people with mental illnesses. Yet emotional instability does help explain his apparent lack of self-control, so it can’t be completely ignored either.

Some, including people who know him well, speculate that Mr Trump never expected to get this far, and, consciously or not, understands he is unsuited and ill-prepared for the presidency, and doesn’t actually want to win.

Others suggest he is indeed trying to win, and is genuinely convinced that the aggressive and outlandish outbursts that won him the nomination can also secure him the White House.

Another explanation is that he really doesn’t care whether he wins but is simply revelling in the publicity, fun and endless attention. In this view, the Trump campaign is just a giant ego trip without any actual political agenda.

Finally, some argue that Mr Trump lacks the political skill and imagination to do anything differently. Understanding that he is therefore likely to lose, he’s deliberately whipping his followers into a frenzy of righteous rage in preparation for an angry, and perhaps violent, response to a defeat in November. The charitable version of this analysis is that he’s building a “movement” far beyond the election or even the Republican Party. The uncharitable one holds that he’s consciously and cynically laying the groundwork for civil unrest.

Facing potential Trump-induced congressional defeats, on top of probably losing the presidency, Republican leaders are sinking into a morass for which they are largely responsible. While the New York Daily News and others have demanded the party dump him as their candidate, there’s no mechanism to do that. Over 70 senior Republicans signed a letter urging Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus to “suspend” funding for the Trump campaign and focus on congressional races instead. But the hapless Mr Priebus whined that this would be premature.

Despite a steady drip of high-level Republican defectors denouncing Mr Trump, with many also endorsing Mrs Clinton, most elected Republicans still officially back him. They typically cite concerns over Supreme Court appointments, although even conservative commentators such as George Will have noted it’s ridiculous to claim to be defending the constitution by supporting someone who obviously neither knows nor cares anything about it.

Although it’s only August, it really does seem that the Trump campaign will require an extraordinary and imponderable intervention – for example an “October surprise” release of particularly damning hacked Clinton emails – to regain any serious prospect of victory. The remaining questions, then, are how much damage will the Republican Party and its congressional candidates suffer, and how can it rebuild itself after this unprecedented, but entirely self-inflicted, calamity.

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/the-unknown-muslim-who-has-kept-america-safe

A Muslim American is the person “most responsible for keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks,” wrote former CIA acting director Michael J Morell in the New York Times last week. Mr Morell was referring to “Roger”, an American convert to Islam (he cannot be identified because he still works for the agency) who headed the CIA’s counterterrorism centre for almost 10 years.

The extraordinary fact that American counterterrorism efforts were led by a Muslim for most of the past decade is unknown to most Americans, including Muslims. Yet it upends almost all stereotypes, even most positive perceptions, about the relationship between Muslim Americans and the dangers of, and responses to, terrorism.

The past two weeks has demonstrated the urgent need to shatter these assumptions with such underappreciated and, for some, counterintuitive facts. Mr Morell was explaining his opposition to the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, who has built his campaign of hate around fear of minorities, particularly Mexicans and Muslims.

It is ironically appropriate that one of the greatest crises of his fraught campaign has been Mr Trump’s confrontation with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of a heroic American soldier killed in Iraq.

Mr Khan spoke in support of Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, and criticised Mr Trump’s bigoted policies and pronouncements.

Rather than allowing Mr Khan’s comments to quickly fade from attention, Mr Trump went on a bizarre rampage of ethnic and religious scapegoating against the couple.

He began by suggesting Mrs Khan was not allowed to speak at the convention because she is a supposedly oppressed Muslim woman (she later explained she was too grief-stricken to publicly discuss her son’s death).

Mr Trump ultimately couldn’t restrain himself and, seemingly inevitably, accused Mr Khan of sympathy for terrorism. Citing his supposed future effectiveness in combating terrorists, Mr Trump said: “I think that’s what bothered Mr Khan more than anything else.”

One of Mr Trump’s key supporters, the veteran political dirty trickster Roger Stone, accused Mr Khan of being an anti-American extremist and “Muslim Brotherhood agent”. Trump campaign officials promoted an article, written by two well-documented frauds and crackpots, that suggested their heroic son, Capt Humayun Khan, was actually planning a terrorist attack against the very American troops he gave his life protecting.

In fact, the Khans’ hideous experience at the hands of Mr Trump and his supporters is not only familiar, it’s quite universal. Virtually everyone from the Muslim American community, myself included, who has come to the least public attention since September 11, 2001 – regardless of their actual religious or political beliefs or activities (including sacrificing their life for the country) – has been subjected to precisely the same accusations levelled at the Khan family.

Each and every noted Muslim American, as far as I can tell without any exception at all, has been publicly accused of being a religious extremist, supporter of terrorism and practitioner of “taqqiya” (which is supposed to signify religiously permitted, or even mandatory, lying).

The “taqqiya” myth is the crucial Islamophobic trope, because it allows anyone and everyone – no matter what they really believe, or have said and done, without exception – to be smeared as a crypto-radical. This gem of paranoia allows for no exemptions or escape, and twists all contrary evidence into reinforcement (“See how clever they are?” etc. )

Were his existence more widely known and discussed, as it certainly should be, “Roger” himself would definitely be subjected to all of these accusations. Indeed, every national counterterrorism setback or policy failure would be reinscribed as evidence of his ineluctable treachery.

For all its ugliness the Khan controversy has definite positive aspects. It revealed not only how tenacious and vicious American Islamophobia is, but also the extent to which it remains a fringe phenomenon.

In some ways Mr Trump has undeniably brought Islamophobia closer to the mainstream. But, less obviously, he may have simultaneously tainted it with his own prodigious unpopularity, as recent polling data indicating a sudden and significant recent improvement in American perceptions of Islam and Muslims suggests.

The controversy reminded their fellow citizens that Muslim Americans serve, and die, in the military, and demonstrated the ugliness of religious bigotry. It’s an argument Mr Trump and his fellow hate-mongers simply could not win, and has therefore been a net plus for Muslim Americans.

It has helped normalise Muslims in American society. Their compatriots, including Republicans, clearly not only sided with the Khans, many identified with them as well.

There is a danger of creating an unfair and unworkable “good Muslim” standard that stigmatises ordinary, unremarkable citizens or establishes an implicit test of loyalty. Nonetheless, the Khan affair demonstrates why it’s imperative to celebrate Muslim American contributions, including to security.

Unknown, unnamed and unappreciated, “Roger” should be exhibit A in the rebuttal to Islamophobia. Almost no one’s heard of him, but every single American, Mr Trump included, needs to discover and digest the fact that for most of the past 10 years, the CIA’s counterterrorism efforts were ably and effectively led by a Muslim.