Mediaboss Marketing

Richard Nixon waves goodbye from the steps of his helicopter as he leaves the White House following a farewell address to his staff on Aug. 9, 1974.

There are striking parallels between Watergate and Russias intrusion in our election. In 1972, President Nixons reelection campaign broke into the DNC offices at the Watergate Hotel and wiretapped its phones, hoping to facilitate Nixons victory. In 2016, Russia hacked e-mails from the DNC and the Clinton campaign to help elect President Trump. Now, as then, at issue is whether a president and those closest to him colluded to attack our institutions.

For many, Watergate evokes nostalgia, proof our system works. But in the trenches it was brutal. So I asked William Cohen to assess the current inquiry in light of his central role in Nixons impeachment.

Advertisement

Cohen became a three-term senator from Maine, then secretary of defense. But in 1973 he was 32, a freshman GOP congressman. While he laughingly casts himself as a rookie in hardball politics, his rookie mistake was having principles.

A lawyer, Cohen revered the rule of law. To his peers astonishment, he requested a spot on the Judiciary Committee, a political briar patch bristling with thorny issues like abortion and prayer in school. This proved a fateful choice the House Judiciary Committee is where impeachment begins.

Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:

Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.

As Cohen settled into office, dogged investigative reporting surfaced increasing evidence of a White House cover-up forcing Nixon to allow Attorney General Richardson to appoint a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, to conduct an independent investigation. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee uncovered the existence of White House tapes that might demonstrate Nixons complicity in the Watergate burglary and wiretaps.

Why is Trump rejecting a bipartisan proposal for a congressional investigation into Russian election-related hacking?

Cox subpoenaed the tapes. In the notorious Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon, to Cohens astonishment, ordered Richardson, whom Cohen knew and admired, to fire Cox. After Richardson and his deputy resigned in protest, Cox was removed.

Democrats argued that Nixon had no right to replace him. But Cohen perceived that a political stalemate could stymie the investigation. Eschewing party loyalty, he argued in The Washington Post that the inquiry would continue only were Leon Jaworski, Nixons new appointee, allowed to succeed Cox. Reversing its prior position, the Post adopted Cohens argument, and Jaworski took office.

Advertisement

Lawyer-like, Cohen began absorbing the evidence against Nixon. In closed hearings, several committee Democrats started yielding time for Cohen to interrogate witnesses, further antagonizing Republicans. Pressure mounted. Nixon visited his district to rally support; at a meeting with GOP members of the Judiciary Committee, including Cohen, Nixon admonished: I may be a sonofabitch, but Im your sonofabitch. Still, when Nixon provided redacted transcripts instead of producing the tapes, Cohen inquired, How in the world did we go from the Federalist papers to edited transcripts?

In themselves, the transcripts indicated illegal maneuvering by Nixon. Jaworski sought to enforce Coxs subpoena, and the House authorized the Judiciary Committee to investigate the grounds for impeachment.

The committees Democratic chair, Peter Rodino, resolved to demand the tapes. Committee Republicans opposed him; two Democrats wanted to pursue impeachment forthwith. Once again Cohen broke ranks, providing Rodino with a one-vote majority.

His recompense was death threats some explicit, one involving a bomb. Constituents sent thousands of hostile letters. A fatalist by nature, Cohen wrote off his political future. Then the Supreme Court compelled Nixon to produce the tapes.

Cohen began comparing them with the transcripts a damning exercise. A small bipartisan group of committee members formed, centered on moderate Republicans like Cohen, struggling to draft articles of impeachment on which they could agree. His bipartisan colleagues asked Cohen to publicly defend two key articles, obstruction of justice and abuse of power, by laying out the specifics against Nixon.

Throughout this difficult work, the group kept faith with each other. After a televised debate which riveted millions of Americans, the committee including six of 17 Republicans voted out three articles.

A bitter impeachment loomed. Then another tape emerged, confirming Nixons involvement in the cover-up. Nixon resigned; the country escaped further trauma and Cohens career survived.

So how, 43 years later, does this experience illuminate the inquiry into possible collusion between Russia and Trumps campaign?

Watergate featured two strokes of luck the tapes themselves, and Nixons decision not to destroy them. But Cohen cites deeper and more sobering differences.

In his view, Russias intrusion in our election is more of an existential threat to our democracy than Nixon was. The power to impeach Nixon existed within our system; we cannot keep a foreign power from distorting our democracy. Thus it is all the more imperative to know whether they colluded with our president.

But while the stakes are greater, our will is not.

Rodino strove to run a scrupulous and bipartisan investigation, free from leaks that would undermine its credibility. By contrast, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, became embroiled in a web of leaks and lies orchestrated by Trumps White House.

During Watergate, Cohen was joined by moderate Republicans who placed country over partisan politics. Todays politics are viciously polarized, moderate Republicans virtually extinct.

Then, as now, the presidents supporters cast any inquiry as an effort to reverse an election. Striking today is the indifference of most Republican officeholders and voters to Russias attack on our election in particular, the House Republicans and their leaders. Protected by partisan cover, Trumps Justice Department is unlikely to appoint an independent special prosecutor free from political influence.

Finally, there is Americas burgeoning indifference to an objective search for facts. As Cohen puts it, There are no accepted truths any longer. It will be a long time, he fears, until we restore our common values with respect to truth and honesty.

Like William Cohen during Watergate, we can but try.

Read more here:
Echoes of Watergate in Russia's attack on US democracy - The Boston Globe

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Vice President Mike Pence has made an unannounced visit to the Demilitarized Zone separating South and North Korea. Speaking at the border, Pence warned that the era of strategic patience with North Korea is over and that all options are on the table.

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Just in the past two weeks, the world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president in actions taken in Syria and Afghanistan. North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.

AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Pences visit comes at a time when tension between the United States and North Korea is quickly ratcheting up. Last week, NBC News reported the Trump administration is prepared to launch a preemptive attack on North Korea if it proceeds towards a nuclear weapons test. Hours before Pence arrived in South Korea, North Korea attempted to test launch a new ballistic missile, but the test failed as the missile blew up almost immediately.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Its unclear if the U.S. had any role in the missiles failure. According to The New York Times, the U.S. has a covert program to sabotage North Koreas missile program using cyber and electronic strikes. During his trip to North Korea, Pence also announced the U.S. would move ahead with deploying the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea, despite opposition by China. This comes as China is urging the United States and North Korea to de-escalate the conflict.

LU KANG: [translated] We have reiterated many times that the situation on the peninsula is highly sensitive, complex and risky. We have always insisted that parties concerned should exercise restraint and refrain from mutual provocation and stimulating moves, and should dedicate themselves to efforts that will help reduce the current tension on the peninsula, so as to create the necessary conditions for them to come back to the table and resolve the Korean Peninsula issue in a peaceful way.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about North Korea, were joined by two guests. In Chicago, Bruce Cumings, professor of history at University of Chicago. His recent piece for The Nation headlined "This Is Whats Really Behind North Koreas Nuclear Provocations." Hes the author of several books on Korea, including Koreas Place in the Sun: A Modern History and North Korea: Another Country. And joining us by Democracy Now! video stream, Christine Hong, associate professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, executive board member of the Korea Policy Institute. Shes spent time in North Korea, including a visit to the country as part of a North American peace delegation.

Professor Hong, lets begin with you. The significance of whats taken place in the last few days, starting with today, the surprise visit of Vice President Pence to the Demilitarized Zone?

CHRISTINE HONG: You know, I think what were witness to is a kind of revisionism, both with Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Tillerson. Theyve made comments that Obamas policy of strategic patience is a thing of the past. And I think that that fundamentally misconstrues what the nature of strategic patience was. You know, as you mentioned in your opening description, Obama waged a campaign of cyberwarfare against North Korea. And so, you know, far from being a kind of kinder, gentler or even softer policy toward North Korea, Obamas policy toward North Korea was, in point of fact, one of warfare.

The other thing that I would mention with regard to this is, even the possibility of military action against North Korea, a military option, if you will, thatsthat wasit would be inconceivable, if the Obama administration hadnt made the militarization of the larger Asia-Pacific region one of its topmost foreign policy objectives. And under the Obama strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. concentrated its naval forces to a tune of 60 percentto 40 percent in the Atlanticin the Pacific region.

And so, you know, right now we have the situation in which the [Trump] administration is stating that all options are on the table. And I would want to remind your listeners and viewers that the United States performs the largest war games in the world with its South Korean ally twice annually. And in the course of performing these military exercises, it actually rehearses a number of things. It rehearses the decapitation of the North Korean leadership, the invasion and occupation of North Korea, and it also performs a nuclear first strike against North Korea with dummy munitions. And so, we have as one of the possibilities a nucleara preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea. That is the nature of the unhinged foreign policy that were seeing on the part of the Trump administration.

I would also say that even though North Korea and Kim Jong-un serves as a convenient foil, a kind of bad guy for U.S. foreign policy within the larger Asia-Pacific region, we have plenty of reason to be frightened of Donald Trumps America-first foreign policy, which doesnt serve Americans, much less anyone else around the world.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Bruce Cumings, professor of history at the University of Chicago, you have raised the issue that the media treats everyevery crisis with Korea separate and apart from the previous crises that have occurred. Could you talk about that?

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, thats right. Its not only that, but each crisis is treated as if it has really no background. The fact is that American nuclear intimidation of North Korea goes back to the Korean War. After the Korean War, in 1958, we installed hundreds of nuclear weapons in the south, the first country to bring nuclear weapons onto the peninsula. And North Korea has, essentially, since the late 1950s, had to find a way to deter the U.S. from using those weapons. For decades, they built underground. They have something like 15,000 underground facilities of a national security nature. But it was inevitable that when threatened with nuclear weaponsand Chris is right: President Obama threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons many times by sending B-2 bombers over the south, dropping dummy bombs on islands and so on. It was just inevitable that North Korea would seek a deterrent.

And what is, to me, so insane about thisparticularly this last weekend, when somebody purposely leaked to NBC that the U.S. was considering a preemptive strike, but whats so terrible about it is that you essentially get a standoff, with North Korea having nuclear weapons, the U.S. having nuclear weapons, but North Korea not being able to use them anywhere without being turned into a charcoal briquette. That was General Colin Powells reference to what would happen if North Korea launched a nuclear weapon in anger. So, somehow, I think the Trump administration quite purposely ratcheted up the tension. A week ago it was talk of assassinating Kim Jong-un; this weekend, talk of a preventive strike. I dont think Vice President Pence is right that what President Trump has done shows strength and resolve. Its one of the easiest things to fling 59 cruise missiles into Syria. Apparently, the military has wanted to test this MOAB, "Mother of All Bombs," for some time, and it went ahead and did it. Its not clear what the outcome of either strike is. And it seems that Mr. Trump, who ran on an anti-interventionist platform, is actually enjoying the toys that the military can provide to him, and perhaps using them in Korea, which would be a complete disaster.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Bruce Cumings, I wanted to ask you again about the historical record here. A lot of people forget the severe crises that have occurred between the United States and North Korea over the years. Back in 1968, for example, Korea seized the Pueblo, which was a surveillance ship right off its shores, and held more than 80 U.S. sailors prisoner for a year, before the United States apologized as part of a settlement. And a year later, in 1969, North Korea shot down a U.S. surveillance aircraft, where more than 30, I think, U.S. Air Force members were killed in thatin that incident. So theres been a historical brinksmanship situation between the United States and North Korea, especially with the U.S. constantly, as Christine Hong said, displaying aggressive military actions and surveillance over North Korea.

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, thats right. I actually was in Seoul when thatwhen the Pueblo was seized in January of 1968. I was in the Peace Corps at that time. That created an enormous crisis. Lyndon Johnson wanted to hit North Korea in retaliation, but was informed that our bombers in South Korean bases, our bases in South Korea, only had nuclear weapons.

But I think the crisis that most clearly resembles the one over the weekend, or the one were in the middle of now, is in June 1994, when Bill Clinton nearly launched a preemptive strike at the Yongbyon plutonium facility. You may remember that former President Jimmy Carter flew to Pyongyang, had a discussion with Kim Il-sung, and out of that came an 8-year freeze on all of North Koreas plutonium.

So, an easy way to solve this problem would be to revive direct talks with North Korea, normalize relations with North Korea, assure them that we dont plan to attack them, and, just through those means, bring down the really terrible tension that existed over the weekend.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, during his trip to South Korea, Vice President Pence announced the U.S. would move ahead with deploying the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea, despite opposition by China.

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: We will continue to deploy the THAAD missile defense system as a defensive measure, called for by the alliance and for the alliance. We will continue to evolve a comprehensive set of capabilities to ensure the security of South Korea. And as our secretary of defense made clear here in South Korea not long ago, we will defeat any attack, and we will meet any use of conventional or nuclear weapons with an overwhelming and effective response.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you could talk about this, Professor Cumings, as well as the failed missile launch this weekend of North Korea, what its about, and their parade, where they had these two hugeits not clear what was in them. Was it intercontinental ballistic missiles, or meant toyou to believe that? Talk about each of these.

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, the THAAD installation is completely political. The THAAD antimissile system does nothing to stop North Korean ICBMs. Its for short- and medium-range missiles. Furthermore, its not clear that it works. Anyway, South Korea has been under threat from North Koreas short- and medium-range missiles for decades. Its political in the sense that they shoehorned it in there before the May 9th election, when a progressive named Moon Jae-in may well become president and return to a policy of engagement with North Korea. And there will be a lot of estrangement between Seoul and Washington and the Trump administration if that election comes out as most people predict.

The missile launch on Sunday morning apparently was a failure, but it hasnt been reported what kind of a missile it was. David Sanger of The New York Times has been writing several articles, very interesting ones, about the U.S. using cyberwarfare against North Korea. And it might be that they succeeded in sabotaging that launch. But, of course, by doing that, youre playing with fire, because the North Koreans are capable of their own cyberwarfare. In 2014, they took down 70 percent of Sonys computers in response to a film about killing Kim Jong-un.

And as for the parade, I mean, its just the same thing they do every AprilApril 15th. We pay taxes. They honor the founder of the country, Kim Il-sung. And they parade both the latest military hardware, and they like to fool foreign experts by bringing these big tubes out, where they may or may not have an ICBM inside. So that was just classic North Korean showmanship.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And, Christine Hong, Id like to ask you about the role of China. President Trump is now alluding to the fact that China is supposedly cooperating with the United States in trying to bring, according to the president, North Korea under control. Your sense of what are the options and what is the policy of China right now?

CHRISTINE HONG: Well, I think that we should all be mystified that successive U.S. administrations in the post-Cold War period have attempted to outsource their North Korea policy to China, as though the United States and China maintain the same strategic interests within the larger Asia-Pacific region. You know, Bruce wrote a piece, which you mentioned in the opening, in The Nation, and he pointed out that North Korea recently timed one of its missile tests to coincide with Trumps dinner with the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, and that this missile was figuratively aimed at Mar-a-Lago. More recently, Donald Trump also responded in kind. So its not simply his tweets that we have to attend to. Its these like dumb shows that hes putting on during dinner. He was having a mealmany people reported thisof dry-aged steak and chocolate cake with Xi Jinping. And, you know, over this beautiful piece of chocolate cake, as he described it, he let Xi Jinping know that he had struck Syria with approximately 60 Tomahawk missiles. And, you know, I can only imagine that this must have been indigestion-inducing, indeed. And, you know, the message seems to be pretty straightforward. The message is, you know, "China, you either rein in North Korea, or the United States will take unilateral action."

But I think that theres a deeper subtext to this, as well. And it goes to the question of THAAD. You know, there isnttheres no way that China and the United States are going to see eye to eye on the controversial deployment of THAAD, which China understands as encroaching upon its sovereignty and enabling the United States to peer, in terms of surveillance, into its territory. Even a CIA official, a former CIA official, Bruce Klingner, whos a Heritage Foundation North Korea watcher, he basically stated that China regards THAAD as a dagger thats aimed at the heart of China. And so, you know, basically, what you have is the United States attempting to get China to rein in North Korea, but the fact of the matter is, is if you even look back to the previous administration, the Obama administration, every single weapon sales, every single acceleration of the THAAD missile defense system into the Asia-Pacific, every single amplified and ratcheted-up war game with various different regional allies was justified in the name of a dangerous and unpredictable nuclear North Korea. But China understood full well what was happening, which was the encirclement of China. So North Korea has served as a very convenient ideological ruse for the U.S. military-industrial complex, when the real target is China.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Bruce Cumings, we just have 30 seconds. The national security adviser, McMaster, General McMaster, said the problem is coming to a head. And then you have Pence talking about the bombings of Afghanistan and Syria, clearly suggesting this was a message for North Korea. But you say that direct talks could happen. How could they happen?

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, China is trying to get the U.S. and North Korea back to the table. They sponsored six-party talks for a number of years during the Bush administration. I think thats probably their preferred venue. But the fact is, you know, four countries there dont really count. The two that count are North Korea and the U.S. talking to each other. And as I said earlier, direct talks have shown North Korea willing to completely freeze their nuclear program. So, its certainly worth a try. Its a lot better than rattling sabers and making empty threats. Were not going to attack North Korea, because it might set off the second Korean War, which would be just catastrophic for the region.

AMY GOODMAN: Bruce Cumings, we want to thank you for being with us, professor of history at University of Chicago. Well link to your piece in The Nation, "This Is Whats Really Behind North Koreas Nuclear Provocations." And we want to thank Christine Hong for joining us, associate professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, executive board member of Korea Policy Institute.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we look at Arkansas and the number of people who are set to be executed because a execution cocktail is set to expire. Stay with us.

See the rest here:
Advocates Urge Trump to De-escalate with North Korea, Not Ratchet Up Threats & Military Aggression - Democracy Now!

Police cleared a pro-democracy protest site next to Wat Benjamabophit in Dusit district Monday and took its leader into custody.

Kampee: 'Nation demands democracy'

Around 50 people joined the gathering at the site Monday morning. The group was led by Sr Gp Capt Kampee Kampeerayanon, secretary-general of the Thai People Sovereignty Party.

The demonstrators called for a return to democracy and setting up a people's council to take part in the country's administration.

A team of police along with army and city law enforcement officers went to the site to quash the demonstration.

Sr Gp Capt Kampee said he was leading people who want freedom and liberty and the right to seek justice.

Following the 1932 Siamese Revolution in which Thailand changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one, the country has struggled to introduce a true democracy; but now the nation is demanding it, Sr Gp Capt Kampee said.

A people's council should be created so people from all sectors of society can have a say in the country's administration, said Sr Gp Capt Kampee.

Pol Maj Gen Watcharapong Damrongsri, chief of the Metropolitan Police Bureau's (MPB) Division 1, said officers were aware the group had started setting up a stage for the gathering on Sunday night. They did not ask for a permit to stage the protest, while the gathering had occupied lanes of Nakhon Pathom Road and obstructed traffic, the officer said.

At 11am, officers used loud speakers to tell demonstrators to disperse, saying they were breaking the law which bans political gatherings of five people or more.

Following three announcements, police moved in and took away Sr Gp Capt Kampee. Officers also deployed vans to take other demonstrators home. The stage was then torn down.

Deputy chief of the MPB, Pol Maj Gen Panurat Lakboon, said the demonstration's leader will be charged with violation of the National Council for Peace and Order's order barring political assemblies of five people or more as well as the Public Assembly Act.

The offender could face a jail term of up to six months or a fine of up to 10,000 baht, he said.

Get full Bangkok Post printed newspaper experience on your digital devices with Bangkok Post e-newspaper. Try it out, it's totally free for 7 days.

Excerpt from:
Police break up pro-1932 democracy protest - Bangkok Post

The country's economic rise has been meteoric, lifting millions of people out of poverty, but it's also suffered a stream of deadly terror attacks and a failed military coup last year, which prompted a clampdown on civil liberties.

Turkey in 2017 is a vastly different country to a decade ago and on Sunday, the Turkish people will vote in a referendum on a new constitution that could hand Erdogan unprecedented powers, cementing his position for years to come.

Shifting Turkey away from a parliamentary republic to a presidential one, is at the heart of the proposals, but the vote has also become a plebiscite on Erdogan and his footprint on the country.

The 18-article constitutional reform package has been dubbed the "power bill," and would effectively consolidate the authority of three legislative bodies into one executive branch, with the President as its head.

The President would be given the authority to appoint ministers and judges without parliament's approval, design a state budget and dissolve parliament.

Currently, the President's role is supposed to be largely ceremonial, but Erdogan has already broken with tradition and kept himself as the face of Turkey's leadership.

If the Turkish people vote yes, the country will get rid of all the checks and balances that keep the government in line, according to Esra Ozyurek, the chair for Contemporary Turkish Studies at the London School of Economics.

"Parliament will become totally ineffective, just rubber stamping Erdogan's policies. There will be no prime minister -- all the power will be in Erdogan's hands."

Erdogan has essentially ruled Turkey for more than 13 years -- he rose to power as prime minister in 2003 and stayed in that position until he was elected president in 2014.

"Erdogan clearly has charismatic aspects -- the people who love him love him so much, and people who hate him, they hate him intensely," Ozyurek said.

"It's rare to meet anyone without strong feelings toward him."

"Let's make consolidation in this great historic reform and put in place the foundation stones of a strong, leading and prosperous Turkey with unity, solidarity and integrity," he said.

He and his senior ministers have argued that a stronger government is needed to deal with the spate of recent terror attacks.

Extraordinary changes came to Turkey in July 2016, after a failed military coup prompted a purge that reached just about every institution in public life.

According to Turkish state media, 249 people were killed in the coup attempt, and had it been successful, Turkey may have been plunged into civil war.

His government subsequently imposed a state of emergency giving him unprecedented powers; this has been extended several times.

The government has detained tens of thousands of Erdogan's political opponents, as well as journalists and civil society groups and removed more than 100,000 people from their jobs, including school teachers and security officers.

Among those imprisoned were the leaders of the main pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, as the government continues to stamp out Kurdish opposition.

The purge also targeted anyone with links to Fethullah Gulen, Erdogan's friend-turned-rival, who lives in the United States in exile.

"People are afraid to talk. You can get in a taxi and complain about Erdogan, and the driver might record you and take you to the police," Ozyurek said.

"I've heard of activists going to the beach and swimming out to sea so they can have a frank conversation without being heard."

The Turkish people had already seen a forceful response from the government, when a 2013 peaceful sit-in over plans to demolish the Gezi Park in central Istanbul turned into a nationwide protest movement against Erdogan, who was then prime minister.

Many of Erdogan's most loyal supporters come from Turkey's rising middle class, whose lives have transformed in the country's economic boom.

"Now the middle class has a different lifestyle. If you take today a couple in their 30s with two kids, and compare them with another couple 10 years ago, they live a different life," said Marc Pierini, a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe, who served as EU ambassador to Turkey from 2006 to 2011.

Pierini said that when Erdogan became prime minister, his government had adopted the wave of reforms from its predecessors and "got their act together," bringing infrastructure and services to the regions.

The government also made credit more easily available to the middle class.

"Today's couple has an apartment -- of course with a mortgage. They have a car -- of course with credit. They go to shopping centers and they travel. They can take a domestic airline that didn't exist until 2008," he said.

Turkey has also been changed by a series of terror attacks, which some see as a failure by the government to manage long-standing tensions with Kurdish groups and to deal with the Syria conflict on its doorstep.

The US and other countries have long called on Turkey to seal its border with Syria, as ISIS appears to have used Turkey as thoroughfare to smuggle people and resources in and out of Syria.

Almost all recent attacks in Turkey have been blamed on either ISIS or the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

"Tourism in Turkey is in shambles," Ozyurek said. "It is one of the biggest industries, but now all the hotels are empty. And who would want to come to a country where it doesn't feel safe?"

"There used to be a thriving urban nightlife, but not now. It's no longer the cheerful happy city it once was."

What's clear is its role as a bridge between the West and the Islamic east is changing.

And the country now appears to be turning away from the West.

Turkey applied to become a member of the European Union in 1987. Negotiations only began in 2005 and talks have since hit a wall.

If the Turkish people vote "Yes" on Sunday, the country is in for yet another decade of change.

Original post:
How Erdogan transformed Turkey's democracy in a decade - CNN

It was supposed to be different. It was supposed to be a turning point. Following 16 years of Chavismo dominance, in December 2015 the democratic opposition in Venezuela had turned the tables; democratically. Democracy and Venezuela arent two words often heard side by side in a positive statement. But The Democratic Unity Roundtable (the opposition coalition, MUD as its known in Spanish) won the last round of elections with overwhelming results: 14 million Venezuelans elected 112 candidates as opposition deputies out of 167, a clear super-majority. Some (perhaps nave) freedom loving Venezuelans sensed real change.

Constitutionally, the opposition led parliament now had the numbers to legislate real change, remove members of the corrupt and pro-government Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) and National Electoral Council (CNE), as well as to veto ministers and even the vice-president.

The National Assembly held its official opening by swearing in all deputies, both pro and anti-government. The previous parliament, in line with the Chavismo ways, had been hostile to the free press. This parliament invited them all back in. The old guard, however, was not going to leave quietly. And Venezuela quickly learned that lame ducks can still bite.

In its desperation, the outgoing Chavismo-majority National Assembly, that was still in place for a few more days, named 13 new justices and 21 replacements for the TSJ, violating all appointment rules and established protocol. Over half of the new justices lacked the legal qualifications and experience to serve on the courts. And is if to mock all judiciary logic and moral coherence, just a couple of months ago, they placed Maikel Moreno as president of the Supreme Court, a convicted felon for murder. You cant make this stuff up.

Likewise, the National Electoral Council (CNE) the supposed bastion of democracy decided not to confirm the opposition's 112 democratically elected deputies. The new aforementioned judges, following the lead of the CNE, agreed that there had been irregularities in the voting process in several states and that the TSJ would accept the claims for fraud" in Amazonas state; How to Destroy Democracy 101. The newly-elected National Assembly of course refused to accept these trumped up politically motivated claims, cue stalemate, cue mayhem.

Clearly the authorities were getting a taste for this totalitarian business. Next up was the constitution. The CNEs decision to suspend a constitutionally legal recall referendum against President Nicolas Maduro, under the same fraud mechanism, ignoring 2.5 million signatures collected by the opposition, was yet another nail in the coffin of Venezuelan democracy.

Meanwhile the TSJ continues to claim that due to the fraud claim in the Amazonas state, any laws passed (which they dont like) by this National Assembly can be annulled. Using this argument, the high court has annulled over 30 pieces of legislation, and the majority of resolutions taken by the legislative branch since it began its functions almost a year and a half ago. These laws include the Amnesty Law which ordered the release of all political prisoners who have been arrested at protests, or for such heinous crimes as expressing an opposing political opinion. Over 100 Venezuelans, mostly students, still rot in regime dungeons just for expressing the wrong political view.

Last week, Maduros cronies attempted to seal the coffin. The TSJ decided to strip the National Assembly from all of its legislative powers, and eliminated parliamentary impunity. This would allow the court to accuse deputies of treason against the homeland and prosecute them.

For once, the uproar from the opposition was echoed in the international community. Julio Borges, President of the National Assembly, together with a large number of legislators, denounced the decision as trash.

The international community followed suit with the brave and outspoken Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General Luis Almagro notably calling it a self-inflicted coup dtat perpetrated by the Venezuelan regime against the National Assembly, the last branch of government to be legitimized by the will of the people of Venezuela.

Even Venezuelas Attorney General, who is aligned with the socialist government, said the decision by TSJ had gone too far and was a "rupture of the constitutional order".

Maduro, having led this move, now panicked. He quickly asked the high court to review and revert the ruling, which it did. No one has seen the new ruling, and the National Assembly is still paralyzed.

Butseveral things are now patently clear to all of those who thought there were any crumbs of democracy left in Venezuela. First, the TSJ stole the legislative powers a long time ago, the last weeks shenanigans were just a means to formalize it. Reverting the official ruling does not save the judges from their crimes. They should be prosecuted and removed from their posts right away.

Second, Maduros request to review the sentence does not save him from the coup he perpetrated. He and his corrupt cronies continue to get rich while the masses starve, while imposing his disgraceful authoritarian stamp across the various branches of government.

And third, Venezuelas regime is antithetical to democracy and needs to go.

As this recent episode has proven, real international pressure works. Strong voices backed up by strong actions from the US Administration and Congress, combined with the immediate application of the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter, will provide a tail wind to the brave liberty loving Venezuelans who still believe that they too deserve democracy and freedom.

Martin Rodil is the President of the Washington-based Venezuelan American Leadership Council, an advocacy group for freedom and democracy for Venezuela.

View original post here:
The long coup: Why there is nothing left of Venezuela's democracy - Fox News