Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Thursday, March 6, 2014

Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Thursday, March 6, 2014
democracynow.org 
Stories: 
Angela Davis on Prison Abolition, the War on Drugs and Why Social Movements Shouldn't Wait on Obama
For more than four decades, the world-renowned author, activist and scholar Angela Davis has been one of most influential activists and intellectuals in the United States. An icon of the 1970s black liberation movement, Davis’ work around issues of gender, race, class and prisons has influenced critical thought and social movements across several generations. She is a leading advocate for prison abolition, a position informed by her own experience as a fugitive on the FBI’s top 10 most wanted list more than 40 years ago. Davis, a professor emerita at University of California, Santa Cruz, and the subject of the recent documentary, "Free Angela and All Political Prisoners," joins us to discuss prison abolition, mass incarceration, the so-called war on drugs, International Women’s Day, and why President Obama’s second term should see a greater wave of activism than in his first. Watch Part 2 of this interview.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The struggle to overhaul the criminal justice system in the United States has reached a pivotal moment. From the Obama administration’s push to reform harsh and racially biased sentencing for drug offenses to the recent decision by New York state to reform its use of solitary confinement, there is a growing momentum toward rethinking the system. But new battles have also emerged, like the fight over Stand Your Ground laws in states like Florida, where a number of recent court cases have highlighted the issue of racial bias in the court system. Marissa Alexander, an African-American woman of color who fired what she says was a warning shot into a wall near her abusive husband, is facing up to 60 years in prison at her retrial. Michael Dunn, who shot and killed an African-American teenager in a dispute over loud music in the same state of Florida, is facing a minimum of 60 years for attempted murder, but the jury failed to convict him of the central charge in the case: the murder of Jordan Davis, a case that, for many, recalled the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about these issues, we spend the rest of the hour with the world-renowned author, activist, scholar, Angela Davis, professor emerita at the University of California, Santa Cruz. For over four decades, she has been one of the most influential activists and intellectuals in the United States. She’s speaking here in New York on Friday at the Beyond the Bars conference up at Columbia University.
It’s great to have you here, Angela.
ANGELA DAVIS: Thank you, Amy. Thank you. Thank you, Juan.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you sense progress?
ANGELA DAVIS: Well, yes. I think that this is a pivotal moment. There are openings. And I think it’s very important to point out that people have been struggling over these issues for years and for decades. This is also a problematic moment. And those of us who identify as prison abolitionists, as opposed to prison reformers, make the point that oftentimes reforms create situations where mass incarceration becomes even more entrenched; and so, therefore, we have to think about what in the long run will produce decarceration, fewer people behind bars, and hopefully, eventually, in the future, the possibility of imagining a landscape without prisons, where other means are used to address issues of harm, where social problems, such as illiteracy and poverty, do not lead vast numbers of people along a trajectory that leads to prison.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’m wondering, in term—the first term of President Obama was often referred to by some through the myth of post-racial America, represented by the election of President Obama. But even he has shied away, until recently, dealing with some of the racial inequities of our system, especially the prison system. I’m wondering if you can see a movement or transformation in the president himself in how he deals with some of these issues?
ANGELA DAVIS: Well, this is his second term. He really has nothing to lose. And it really is about time that he began to address what is one of the most critical issues in this country. It’s pretty unfortunate that Obama has waited until now to speak out, but it’s good that he is speaking out. And I think we can use this opportunity to perhaps achieve some important victories.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you mean, Angela, the difference between being a prison abolitionist, how you describe yourself, and a prison reformer.
ANGELA DAVIS: Well, of course, in 1977, when the Attica rebellion took place, that was a really important moment in the history of mass incarceration, the history of the prison in this country. The prisoners who were the spokespeople for the uprising indicated that they were struggling for a world without prisons. During the 1970s, the notion of prison abolition became very important. And as a matter of fact, public intellectuals, judges, journalists took it very seriously and began to think about alternatives.
However, in the 1980s, with the dismantling of social services, structural adjustment in the Global South, the rise of global capitalism, we began to see the prison emerging as a major institution to address the problems that were produced by the deindustrialization, lack of jobs, less funding into education, lack of education, the closedown of systems that were designed to assist people who had mental and emotional problems. And now, of course, the prison system is also a psychiatric facility. I always point out that the largest psychiatric facilities in the country are Rikers Island in New York and Cook County in Chicago.
So, the question is: How does one address the needs of prisoners by instituting reforms that are not going to create a stronger prison system? Now there are something like two-and-a-half million people behind bars, if one counts all of the various aspects of what we call the prison-industrial complex, including military prisons, jails in Indian country, state and federal prisons, county jails, immigrant detention facilities—which constitute the fastest-growing sector of the prison-industrial complex. Yeah, so how—the question is: How do we respond to the needs of those who are inside, and at the same time begin a process of decarceration that will allow us to end this reliance on imprisonment as a default method of addressing—not addressing, really—major social problems?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And how do you see the changing public attitudes toward the war on drugs and the willingness of some states now to begin a decriminalization process and recognize drug addiction more as a health problem than as a criminal justice problem? Do you see that having some hope of sharply reducing the prison population?
ANGELA DAVIS: Yes, I think—I think it is important. But again, it’s also essential to point out that people have been struggling around these issues for a very long time. And oftentimes when these new moments emerge, it is as if the legislators have come up with this idea for the very first time. And, of course, it is important that decriminalization is happening in certain states, because drugs have served—the so-called war on drugs, which, as we know, has been a war on poor communities, black and Latino communities, all over the country—that so-called war on drugs has been the major motor driving the rising prison population. So, I often point out we need to look at the corresponding pharmaceutical-industrial complex when we, you know, think about the way drugs have served as a pretext for incarcerating such vast numbers of people of color.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the for-profit system, the for-profit prison system?
ANGELA DAVIS: Well, they’re private prisons. Of course, the U.S. has given rise to this private prison industry. Corrections Corporation of America was the first private prison corporation. And now, of course, we have institutions like G4S, which is the third-largest private corporation in the entire world, third only to, number one, Wal-Mart, number two, Foxconn. And this security corporation, which has—which owns and operates prisons all over the country, which is involved in the production of the carceral technologies used in occupied Palestine by Israel, which is involved in deporting prisoners from Europe to the Global South, from the U.S. to Mexico—one begins to see how it all comes together.
But I think that private prisons are not the only indication of the thoroughgoing corporatization of punishment. Even public prisons rely on private corporations. And healthcare has been outsourced. Food production has been outsourced. The few programs that there are in prisons have been outsourced. So there is a privatization of imprisonment such that it’s not possible to consider the issue of mass incarceration without looking at the important role it plays in the economy. And this means, of course, that people who have very little to do with criminal justice, with punishment, have no stakes in that, really, have stakes in the continued increase in prison populations, because it means more profit for them.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to this discussion. I want to also ask you about feminism, where that plays in, as we move in on International Women’s Day, March 8th, on Saturday. We’re speaking with Angela Davis, the author, the activist, the professor. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Angela," Plastic Ono Band, John Lennon and Yoko Ono singing about Angela Davis. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Our guest today is the academic and activist Angela Davis. Her remarkable life journey is chronicled in a recent documentary, Free Angela and All Political Prisoners, directed by Shola Lynch.
REPORTER: Philosophy Professor Angela Davis admitted that she is a member of the Communist Party.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN 1: Hoover put her on the top 10. Everybody had a file on her.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: Her first lecture drew 2,000 students.
FANIA DAVIS: Angela’s education is now being put into practice.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN 2: Angela Davis purchased four guns.
ANGELA DAVIS: There is a conspiracy in the land. It’s a conspiracy to wipe out the black community as a whole.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN 3: Well, I think she’s trying to overthrow our system of government, and she admits that.
PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON: The actions of the FBI in apprehending Angela Davis, a rather remarkable story.
REPORTER: The U.S. district court judge set bail at $100,000.
FANIA DAVIS: She knows that the movement to free all political prisoners is growing every day.
GOV. RONALD REAGAN: This entire incident was a deliberate provocation.
ANGELA DAVIS: They wanted to break me. They wanted me to respond.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: There was enormous feeling for Angela everywhere in the world.
SALLYE DAVIS: We know that she is innocent.
RALPH ABERNATHY: We want to tell that pharaoh in Washington to let Angela Davis go free.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN 4: What they’re doing to her is an exaggerated form of what happens every day to black people in this country.
PROTESTERS: Free Angela! Free Angela! Free Angela!
ANGELA DAVIS: What does it mean to be a criminal in this society?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 3: They are not going to kill her. They’re not going to imprison her. We’re going to free her. We’re going to win her freedom.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was a documentary on Angela Davis. The making of that documentary, the filmmaker approached you wanting to do what?
ANGELA DAVIS: Well, she was interested in making a film about the trial. I had previously been aware of her work, because she did a wonderful film on Shirley Chisholm, Unbought & Unbossed. And I—
AMY GOODMAN: Who ran for president in, what, 1972.
ANGELA DAVIS: Who ran for president, the first, yes, black woman to run for president in this country. And I had been approached many times by people who wanted to do films, but I’ve been reluctant, because I didn’t think it would be very productive to have a film primarily focused on me. And I knew Shola wanted to tell the story of the trial, and that would also mean telling the story of the campaign that developed all over the country and all over the world around the demand for my freedom. And she did quite an amazing job of retrieving archival footage. And I’ve often pointed out, there were things that I did not know until she made that film. I hadn’t seen a lot of the archival footage because, of course, I was in jail when it was shown on television.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you were in prison for and acquitted of.
ANGELA DAVIS: I was charged with three capital crimes: murder, kidnapping and conspiracy. And I was acquitted on all three charges.
AMY GOODMAN: Weren’t you in prison just down the road from us right here?
ANGELA DAVIS: Yes, as a matter of fact, on the way to the studio, I saw the spot where the old Women’s House of Detention stood, which is right on the corner of Greenwich and Sixth Avenue, Avenue of the Americas. And, yes, the night I was arrested, I could hear the voices of people who had gathered outside to call for my freedom. I suppose that’s one of the reasons it’s no longer in that spot anymore. It’s on Rikers Island, so that the community does not have the same kind of access.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And speaking of the Women’s House of Detention, you’ve been speaking increasingly about bringing feminism within an abolitionist frame and abolition within a feminist frame. What do you mean by that?
ANGELA DAVIS: Absolutely. Well, actually, I mean a number of things by that, because feminist perspectives, I think, are really important, and not just with respect to understanding how essential it is to look at women in prison, even though women constitute a relatively small minority. One can see the way the system functions a lot more clearly by looking at the convergence, for example, of institutional violence and intimate violence. Also, looking at the particular situation of trans prisoners not only allows us to recognize that this is a group that is perhaps more criminalized than any other group—trans people are arrested and imprisoned more frequently than any other group in society—it allows us to see the role that the prison system as a whole plays in upholding the binary notions of gender in the larger society. So, feminism, it seems to me, helps us to reframe the issue of imprisonment and the prison-industrial complex within a larger context. And we see the connections with—between the personal and the political, the institutional and the intimate, the public and the private.
AMY GOODMAN: Aren’t women the fastest-growing population in prison?
ANGELA DAVIS: And all over the world, women constitute the fastest-growing population in prison. But I think it’s also important to point out that women are such a minority because there are other ways of punishing women in the larger society. And I like to point out that violence against women, which is the most pandemic form of violence in the world—I mean, we talk about police violence, we talk about—when we talk about racist violence, we think about street violence, Trayvon Martin and so forth, and that’s absolutely important to recognize, but at the same time, the violence that happens in relationships is connected with that street violence, institutional violence and intimate violence. And when one looks at women’s situation, it’s important—it’s essential to grasp that connection, which then allows us to have a different view on the institution that is responsible for the incarceration of so many men, and especially black and Latino men.
AMY GOODMAN: As we move into this International Women’s Day, what gives you most hope?
ANGELA DAVIS: Well, I think—I always find hope in struggle. I find hope in younger generations.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you feel people have been demobilized under President Obama or are getting more active?
ANGELA DAVIS: I think we could have been much more active. And one of the problems, I think, was that after this world historical election that took place, we went home and decided that this one man in Washington would carry the ball for us, not recognizing that, actually, he was the president of the imperialist, militarist United States of America. And I think that we might have had more victories during the era of Obama’s administration had we mobilized, had we continually put pressure on him, and also created the possibility for him to take more progressive stances.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you still think there’s hope in the next few years?
ANGELA DAVIS: Well, I think we have to act as if there is hope.
AMY GOODMAN: On that note, we have to wrap, but we are going to continue this conversation and post it online at democracynow.org. Angela Davis, author and activist, professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Cruz, the subject of the recent film, Free Angela and All Political Prisoners.
-------
Senate Race-Baiting? Dems Join GOP to Block Obama DOJ Pick Tied to Legal Defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal
In a stunning vote, a group of U.S. Senate Democrats has broken ranks to join Republicans in rejecting President Obama’s pick to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Debo Adegbile. The confirmation fight focused almost solely on Adegbile’s role in the legal defense of imprisoned Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer, despite Abu-Jamal’s longstanding position of being not guilty. Adegbile was part of a team of lawyers at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who successfully argued the trial judge’s jury instructions violated Abu-Jamal’s rights. Adegbile’s supporters say the attacks on him mark a new form of Willie Horton politics and race baiting. We discuss the controversy with two guests: Johanna Fernández, professor of history at Baruch College-CUNY and a coordinator with the Campaign to Bring Mumia Home, and Ryan Haygood, director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s Political Participation Group.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A group of Senate Democrats broke ranks with President Obama Wednesday as they joined Republicans to block his pick to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. In a 52-to-47 vote, the Senate rejected the nomination of Debo Adegbile, the former acting head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Adegbile is a widely respected lawyer who had led the group’s defense of voting rights.
AMY GOODMAN: But the confirmation fight focused almost solely on Adegbile’s role in the legal defense of imprisoned Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued the trial judge’s instructions to the jury violated Abu-Jamal’s rights. Federal courts agreed and in 2011 ordered a new sentencing hearing for Abu-Jamal, a move that eventually took him off death row. Senator Ted Cruz was one of several Republicans who spoke out against Adegbile.
SEN. TED CRUZ: The Fraternal Order of Police vehemently opposes this nomination. According to a letter written by the president of the FOP, Adegbile’s nomination only exacerbates the, quote, "growing division and distrust" towards local law enforcement agencies, a trend that has continued from the time now Labor Secretary Thomas Perez was leading the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Peter Kirsanow, a member on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, wrote, quote, "Responsible people should agree that going out of your way to defend a convicted cop-killer long after it has become unequivocally clear that he was guilty and had suffered no violation of his civil rights disqualifies one from serving as the head of a division of the U.S. Department of Justice."
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who voted against Debo Adegbile’s confirmation. Seven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing Adegbile: Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, John Walsh of Montana and Chris Coons of Delaware. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also voted no, which, under Senate rules, allows him to bring the nomination back to the floor at a later date. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin defended Adegbile’s nomination.
SEN. DICK DURBIN: The Bush administration’s solicitor general, Paul Clement, stated—and I quote—"I have litigated both with and against Debo and have heard him argue in the Supreme Court. I have always found him to be a formidable advocate of the highest intellect, skills and integrity." Mr. Adegbile’s representation of Mumia Abu-Jamal does not mean that he lacks respect for the rule of law, and it certainly should not disqualify him for this important civil rights job. In fact, his willingness to represent an unpopular defendant in an emotionally charged case demonstrates his appreciation for the rule of law, as well as his respect for the criminal justice system. His critics have attempted to characterize him as someone who actively sought out this case, someone who disparaged the officer who was cut down in the line of duty, Officer Faulkner, and someone who was responsible for Abu-Jamal’s death sentence being overturned. Each of these characterizations is wrong, inaccurate and unfair.
AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Senator Dick Durbin speaking Wednesday.
President Obama called the vote a "travesty. Obama said, quote, "The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice."
Well, for more, we’re joined by two guests. Johanna Fernández is with us, professor of history at Baruch College, part of the City University of New York, one of the coordinators of the Campaign to Bring Mumia Home. She’s editor of the collection of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s essays, Writing on the Wall. Ryan Haygood is the director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s Political Participation Group.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Why don’t we begin with you, Ryan? The significance of Debo Adegbile’s rejection by the Democrats as well as the Republicans of the Senate?
RYAN HAYGOOD: Sure. I mean, I appreciate you having me on the show, Amy. It’s really hard to overstate what the U.S. Senate did yesterday. In a shameful vote, the Senate essentially decided that being a lawyer disqualifies one from holding a legal position. More specifically, the U.S. Senate essentially held yesterday that serving this country as a public servant in the highest aspirations of the legal tradition and being one of the pre-eminent civil rights litigators in America disqualifies one—here, Debo Adegbile—from serving as the top lawyer in the Civil Rights Division for the Department of Justice.
And what’s striking in watching the debate yesterday on the Senate floor is that none of the discussion was about the merits, the substance of Debo’s qualifications. There’s no disagreement about him being a pre-eminent civil rights attorney whose worldview and experience speak to his qualification for this position. What the Senate lacked yesterday was the political will to do the right thing and give the American people what they deserve in having a person who is eminently qualified, like Debo Adegbile, serve in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, and the amazing thing about this is, apparently, his involvement in this appeal of the death sentence was almost tangential. It wasn’t even—he wasn’t even a key lawyer in the case. Can you talk about who was actually conducting or involved in the case for the Legal Defense Fund?
RYAN HAYGOOD: Sure. The case was chiefly handled, expertly, by the director of our criminal justice group, Christina Swarns. Debo was overseeing all of the litigation in the Legal Defense Fund, which included this case involving Mr. Mumia Abu-Jamal. And to your point, when you focus on what was really at issue in this case, there were four federal judges, two of whom were appointed by Ronald Reagan, one of whom was appointed by George Bush, which found that there was a constitutional violation at issue in this case, involving the jury instructions, and that it was appropriate for Mr. Abu-Jamal’s death sentence to be altered to life without parole. So, even when you focus on the merits of the issue at hand, you find that Debo’s involvement in this case, though he wasn’t primarily responsible for representing Mr. Abu-Jamal, that his involvement is actually in line with the highest traditions of our legal profession, which is affording everyone their constitutional rights afforded to any criminal defendant.
AMY GOODMAN: His name on several of the documents because he was the acting head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
RYAN HAYGOOD: That’s right. That’s right. As the acting head of LDF, Debo was on all of the legal briefs. In this case, he appeared on two briefs before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and one brief before the U.S. Supreme Court.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Johanna Fernández, the significance of the ability of the lobby of police organizations around the country to essentially tar Adegbile with Mumia Abu-Jamal and the refusal to accept, by the police organizations, that the courts have already ruled, one, that the death penalty in this case was not properly administered or ruled to Mumia?
JOHANNA FERNÁNDEZ: Well, I think that we have to outline what the strategy was that was used to tar Adegbile, because this has been used historically to dismiss nominees and elected officials who are not in line with the interests of a particular section of society. So what exactly did they do? They essentially appealed to the racism of white voters by creating a target. And this target is Mumia Abu-Jamal, whom they depict as a monster, unrepentant, cop killer. And then they link him to Adegbile in order to scare Democrats from supporting him, especially in the run-up to an election. Now, I think that it’s important to note that in the post-civil rights and Black Power era, the alleged killing of a police officer is synonymous with the notion of a white—a black man killing—raping, excuse me—a white man raping a white woman. And this then becomes the basis upon which a legal lynching happens. And this narrative is deployed—it’s the Southern strategy. It’s essentially deployed to instill fear and intimidation in a white, latently racist voter population.
And, you know, at some point we have to say that Mumia was lynched in the courts. Part of what the Fraternal Order of Police says is that the movement to free Mumia cares not about the pain of Maureen Faulkner. But part of what we have to say is that justice for Maureen Faulkner is tied to finding out who killed Officer Faulkner. One of the most important things in this case is that there was a fourth person at the scene of the crime, and that person was seen running away from the crime scene and was identified as the shooter. But that detail was suppressed at trial by the prosecution. The question is, why? We believe that Mumia is innocent and justice for Maureen Faulkner is tied to finding out who killed Officer Faulkner. Why doesn’t the Fraternal Order of Police want to discover the truth in this case?
AMY GOODMAN: This is Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania opposing Adegbile’s nomination last month. As he addressed his colleagues, he stood before an oversized photograph of Daniel Faulkner, the police officer Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing.
SEN. PAT TOOMEY: When they should have been pursuing their historic role in providing the truth and justice for American people, they were advancing neither cause. It’s also important to point out that this was never a case of a criminal deserving a legal defense. OK? Criminals do deserve appropriate legal counsel in their defense. The fact is, the trial had occurred decades ago. Abu-Jamal had multiple high-cost lawyers volunteering their time. He had plenty of lawyers. He didn’t need more lawyers. What Mr. Adegbile did was he decided to join a political cause. That’s what he decided to do. That’s what this was all about. And in my view, by doing so, he demonstrated his own contempt for—and, frankly, a willingness to undermine—the criminal justice system of the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, where Mumia Abu-Jamal, of course, is in prison. Johanna Fernández, can you talk about the campaign to oppose Debo Adegbile? What happened in the Senate? I heard a lot from the opposition in this period of time leading up to the vote; I heard very little from groups supporting Debo Adegbile.
JOHANNA FERNÁNDEZ: So, the campaign against Debo Adegbile was initiated by the Fraternal Order of Police, and it began when they wrote a letter to the president of the United States that essentially demonized Mumia Abu-Jamal and linked Debo Adegbile to Mumia’s alleged shooting of the police officer. And then they proceeded to lobby politicians, like Senator Toomey, but also the first black DA of Philadelphia, Seth Williams. Both of those, Senator Toomey and Seth Williams, ended up writing a letter to The Wall Street Journal filled with lies both about Mumia’s case and a misrepresentation of Debo Adegbile’s association with the case. It was a vociferous campaign, and it was a grassroots campaign. And this is what the right does. They actually went into the floor of the Senate about three weeks ago when an initial vote was taken, and they had literature about Mumia Abu-Jamal and Debo Adegbile filled with lies. And part of what we learn from this example is that if voices of conscience do not organize, like the right does, to present the truth and the facts of the case, they end up winning.
RYAN HAYGOOD: And I tell you, part of the reason why the Senate’s vote yesterday is so tragic is because, as a practical matter, it now leaves the head of the Civil Rights Division position open at a pivotal time in American history where we’re dealing with all manner of inequality, in the civil rights context, in the Stand Your Ground law context. There is the issue of the role of race in higher education. And for me as a voting rights lawyer, one of the more important issues is how do we respond to the Supreme Court’s devastating decision in the Shelby County case last term.
What’s striking about the Senate’s vote against Debo yesterday is that he was one of the people who took the lead in helping to develop the record that Congress used to reauthorize this core provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, and it was Debo Adegbile who twice defended what Congress did before the U.S. Supreme Court, first successfully in the MUD case, and secondly, most recently, when the Supreme Court in Shelby County struck a core provision of the Voting Rights Act. So, the Senate—the U.S. Senate’s vote yesterday was really a vote against its own interests. Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially gave Congress a vote of no confidence when it struck what Congress did by striking a core provision of the Voting Rights Act, and it was Debo who was one of the chief defenders of Congress’s work before the Supreme Court, two times, in some of the most important voting rights cases in our generation.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, isn’t it entirely possible that the real reason behind the attempt to get him out was precisely that he would become, as head of the Civil Rights Division, a main proponent within the federal government of holding up the voting rights of African Americans and other minorities, just at the time when we have these elections coming up?
RYAN HAYGOOD: Sure, I think that’s right. But I also think that there was some interest convergence here. You know, I think it’s significant that Congress essentially was given the vote of no confidence by the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court essentially said, "Look, your power to legislate around a core—a fundamental right, the right to vote, is being constrained by the Supreme Court decision." And Congress really had an opportunity to respond by working with Debo, and the Department of Justice under his leadership, to enact new voting rights legislation that would pass and that would restore what was lost in the Shelby County decision.
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Chris Coons of Delaware was one of the seven Democrats who voted against Debo’s nomination. He said, quote, "At a time when the Civil Rights Division urgently needs better relations with the law enforcement community, I was troubled by the idea of voting for an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who would face such visceral opposition from law enforcement on his first day on the job. The vote I cast today was one of the most difficult I have taken since joining the Senate, but I believe it to be right for the people I represent."
And then there was Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic senator who voted also to oppose Adegbile’s nomination. Her office sent a fundraising email that claimed, quote, "If there’s one thing we should all be able to agree on, it’s that every American deserves the right to vote. It’s one of our most basic rights—but right now it’s under attack." Ryan Haygood, your response to this?
RYAN HAYGOOD: Yeah, I mean, I don’t think that could—I don’t think that could be more disingenuous, right? I think it’s well known by all in the civil rights community that Debo—some of Debo’s most important work was in the voting rights context. He would have been one of the chief champions in this moment to ensure that voters of color, in particular, aren’t made more vulnerable by the Supreme Court’s decision. He would have worked with Congress to get new voting rights legislation passed—to do precisely what Senator Heitkamp was expressing to her funders. And so, her vote against him is actually a vote against doing the thing that she promises to do here in this email to her funders.
JOHANNA FERNÁNDEZ: I think that at stake here is what the Fraternal Order of Police and its allies feared. Here you had the possibility of Debo Adegbile, someone who’s familiar with the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal and who’s interested in issues of social justice, in the Department of Justice. What the Fraternal Order of Police feared was that, perhaps, with Debo in office, the Department of Justice might take on this case of investigating the police. One of the least-known facts in this case is that a third of the police officers involved in collecting evidence in Mumia Abu-Jamal’s trial were later convicted for corruption and tampering with evidence to obtain a conviction. And in 1979, the Department of Justice conducted an investigation of the Philadelphia Police Department, the largest ever in the history of the United States, that concluded that the level of brutality and corruption in the police department in Philadelphia, quote, "shocks the conscience." That’s what the Department of Justice concluded in 1979 at around the same time that Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted. And what the Fraternal Order of Police feared, which has an office in Washington, D.C., and initiated its organization in Philadelphia, is that they might actually come down with the election and nomination of Debo Adegbile.
But the problem is not just historical in this case. The Philadelphia police is infamous for police brutality. The latest case of brutality involves Darrin Manning, a 16-year-old boy whose testicles were ruptured in a stop-and-frisk in Philadelphia. And that group of people in Philadelphia, those people who are fighting for justice for Darrin Manning, are also calling for an investigation of the police in all of Philadelphia. And if the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal enters into a conversation in the Department of Justice, it’s over for the department of the police—of the police department in Philadelphia. Why? Because this is an international case. And as soon as there is any investigation, a lot of people are going to come down, including politicians, who have actually received money from the Fraternal Order of Police and who have actually run their campaigns on the execution and incarceration of Mumia Abu-Jamal. So the stakes politically are pretty high.
RYAN HAYGOOD: I think what this discussion brings to mind is that we really are in this pivotal time where there are lots of important issues in the civil rights context that must be addressed. But the Senate’s vote yesterday has provided us with no head of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, at a time when we are upon the 49th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march that folks know from Selma, Alabama, which ultimately resulted in the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. We’re celebrating that this year after a Supreme Court decision that struck a core part of it. This weekend in Selma, Alabama, the LDF will be hosting a voting rights workshop, and our focus will really be on assessing where we are in this moment and how we can, in the voting rights context, in particular, ensure that voters of color aren’t made even more vulnerable by what the Supreme Court did.
But I also think that another takeaway from the Senate votes—the Senate’s vote yesterday is that there is really a chilling effect, right? So, lawyers like me who practice in the public sphere and who are civil rights lawyers were told essentially by Congress yesterday that being a lawyer will really disqualify you from a legal position, particularly in the government context. And that’s what I think is the most shameful takeaway, particularly for those members of the Senate who themselves were lawyers.
AMY GOODMAN: That you would be afraid to take on difficult cases.
RYAN HAYGOOD: Absolutely. There is—
AMY GOODMAN: That it would jeopardize any kind of political career.
RYAN HAYGOOD: Right. I think that—I think that’s right. I think the takeaway from yesterday’s vote is that if you are interested in a career in government, you ought to tread very, very carefully about the kinds of cases you take. I think it’s very true that if Chief Justice John Roberts today went before the Senate, given his pro bono assistance to a Florida man who was convicted of killing eight people, that he’d have a very, very steep hill to climb in getting the Senate to confirm him.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much both for being with us, Ryan Haygood, former colleague of Debo Adegbile, now director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund’s Political Participation Group, which promotes the full, equal and active participation of black people in the democratic process. And thank you very much to Johanna Fernández, a professor of history at Baruch College here in New York City. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, Angela Davis joins us. Stay with us.
-------
Headlines:
Crimean Parliament Votes to Join Russia, Hold Referendum
Lawmakers in the Ukrainian province of Crimea have voted to join Russia and to hold a referendum on their decision within 10 days. The move could mark a major escalation of the crisis that exploded last week when Russian forces deployed around Crimea, far beyond the confines of their base there. The vote comes amidst new international pressure on Russia to withdraw from Crimea. NATO says it will suspend cooperation with Russia, including a joint mission destroying Syria’s chemical stockpile. Top diplomats including Secretary of State John Kerry held talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but the talks broke off without progress. Kerry said the two sides had agreed to keep talking.
Secretary of State John Kerry: "We agreed to continue intense discussions in the coming days with Russia, with Ukrainians, in order to see how we can help normalize the situation, stabilize it and overcome the crisis. And those intentions are intentions that are shared exactly as I have described them between Russia, the United States, the European countries and Ukrainians, who were here. All parties agreed today that it is important to try to resolve these issues through dialogue."
In an effort to bolster the new Ukrainian government, the European Union has unveiled an aid package worth at least $15 billion.
-------
Leaked EU Call: Opposition Behind Sniper Shootings in Kiev
In other news from Ukraine, a leaked phone call has bolstered claims anti-government forces were behind sniper attacks on protesters in Kiev last month. Both sides of Ukraine’s political divide blamed the other when dozens of people were killed by gunfire in the weeks before the ouster of Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovych. But in an intercepted phone call between Estonia’s foreign minister, Urmas Paet, and European Union policy chief Catherine Ashton, Paet says the sniper fire came from the opposition.
Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet: "All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides."
EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton: "Well, that’s — yeah."
Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet: "So that—and then she also showed me some photos. She said that, as medical doctor, she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets. And it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened, so that there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition."
-------
NATO Air Strike Kills 5 Soldiers in "Accidental" Bombing
In news from Afghanistan, a NATO air strike has killed five Afghan soldiers in eastern Logar province. NATO says the bombing was a mistake.
-------
U.N. Panel: Assad Regime Waging War of "Starvation"
A United Nations panel on the civil war in Syria says the regime of Bashar al-Assad is waging a campaign of siege warfare and starvation against hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Commission of Inquiry says Syrians are being "denied humanitarian aid, food and such basic necessities as medical care, and must choose between surrender and starvation." The report also faults Syrian rebels for scores of extrajudicial killings. Speaking to reporters, panel chair Paulo Pinheiro says the U.N. Security Council bears responsibility for the ongoing atrocities.
Paulo Pinheiro: "The Security Council bears responsibility for not addressing accountability and allowing the warring parties to violate these rules with total impunity. One of the most stark trends we have documented is the use of siege warfare. The denial of humanitarian aid, food and basic necessities, such as medical care and clean water, has forced people to choose between surrender and starvation."
-------
CIA Rejects "Spurious" Claims of Spying on Senate Torture Probe
More details have emerged in the unfolding dispute over the CIA’s alleged spying on a Senate panel probing the agency’s torture and rendition program. Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee say CIA officials illegally monitored their staffers’ work as they compiled the panel’s exhaustive report on CIA torture. The report has yet to be released but reportedly documents extensive abuses and a cover-up by CIA officials to Congress. Senators and their aides say they believe the CIA monitored computers they used while conducting research at CIA headquarters. The spying apparently came to light after the CIA complained Senate staffers had taken a classified internal review that showed CIA officials had misled lawmakers in disputing allegations of torture. In a statement, CIA Director John Brennan said lawmakers are making "spurious allegations about CIA actions that are wholly unsupported by the facts." The dispute is expected to further complicate efforts to have the Senate report released. In an irony noted by critics, several members of the Senate Intelligence Committee now complaining about being spied on have been among the staunchest defenders of the National Security Agency, which they also oversee.
-------
Senate Rejects Obama Nominee over Legal Defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal
A group of Senate Democrats has broken ranks with President Obama to block a key nominee. In a 52-47 vote, the Senate rejected the nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Adegbile is a widely respected lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court on voting rights issues. The confirmation fight focused almost solely on his role in the legal defense of imprisoned Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer. Adegbile was part of a team of lawyers at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who successfully argued the trial judge’s jury instructions violated Abu-Jamal’s rights. Seven Democrats joined with Republicans to defeat Adegbile’s bid. In a statement, President Obama called the vote "a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant." We’ll have more on this story after headlines.
-------
White House Extends Window for Keeping Substandard Health Plans
The Obama administration has again extended the timeline for consumers to keep health plans that fail to meet the standards of the new healthcare law. President Obama granted a one-year reprieve to the substandard plans late last year amidst anger over his failed pledge that all policy holders can keep their plans. On Wednesday, the White House extended the window to two years.
-------
Prosecutors Drop Key Charges Against Activist-Journalist Barrett Brown
Federal prosecutors have dropped a number of key charges against Barrett Brown, an activist-journalist covering online surveillance who has spent more than a year behind bars. Supporters say Brown has been unfairly targeted for investigating the highly secretive world of private intelligence and military contractors. On Wednesday, prosecutors dropped 11 of 17 counts, including a charge for posting a weblink online to a document that contained stolen credit card data. All of the dropped charges relate to the hacking of the private intelligence firm Stratfor, which unearthed how the firm monitors activists and spies for corporate clients. The dropping of charges came just one day after Brown’s attorneys filed a motion to have the same counts dropped, arguing posting a weblink is protected by freedom of speech. Brown still faces up to 70 years in prison.
-------
Coal Giant to Pay Record Fine for Appalachia Pollution
The mining giant Alpha Natural Resources will pay a record fine for years of pollution in the Appalachian Mountains. Alpha has been ordered to pay $27.5 million for thousands of violations of water permits and dumping toxins into waterways. It is the largest-ever fine under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The company will also be forced to pay around $200 million to upgrade facilities in five states. Around half of the violations were committed by Massey Energy, which Alpha bought in 2011.
-------
Alabama Lawmakers OK Anti-Abortion Bills
Alabama lawmakers have passed a bill that would ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen in the earliest stages of pregnancy, around five or six weeks, before many women even know they are pregnant. The bill makes no exception for rape or incest. A similar measure passed in North Dakota has been blocked by a federal judge. The Alabama House also passed three other anti-choice bills on Tuesday: One would extend the waiting period before an abortion from 24 hours to 48 hours; a second would force women who learn their fetuses have lethal conditions and cannot survive outside the womb to wait at least 48 hours and learn about perinatal hospice options, which do not currently exist in Alabama. Another bill would dramatically increases barriers to abortion for minors, whether or not they have parental permission. If a young person seeks legal permission from a judge instead of a parent, her parents participate in the court proceedings, even if they are abusive.
-------
Texas Anti-Abortion Law Forces Closure of More Clinics
Two more reproductive health clinics in Texas, including one that provided abortions, have shut down due to the terms of the state’s harsh new anti-choice law. Pro-choice advocates predict that come September, when a section of the law requiring clinics to meet hospital-style buildings requirements comes into effect, just six abortion providers will be left in the entire state.
-------
IRS Hearing Prompts Heated Exchange Between Lawmakers
A House hearing on alleged political targeting by the IRS has turned into a shouting match between the panel’s top members. IRS official Lois Lerner refused to testify in the latest of dozens of hearings into the alleged singling out of right-wing groups for extra scrutiny. Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa, a Republican, adjourned the meeting after Lerner repeatedly pleaded the Fifth Amendment. In doing so, he refused to allow the panel’s ranking member, Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the chance to speak.
Rep. Darrell Issa: "We are adjourned. Close it down. ... Mr. Cummings, where is your question?"
Rep. Elijah Cummings: "If you will sit down and allow me to ask the question — I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America! I am tired of this! We have members over here, each who represent 700,000 people. You cannot just have a one-sided investigation. There is absolutely something wrong with that, and it is absolutely un-American."
Rep. Darrell Issa: "We had a hearing. Hearing’s adjourned. I gave you the opportunity to ask a question. You had no questions."
Rep. Elijah Cummings: "I do have a question."
Rep. Darrell Issa: "I gave you [inaudible]. You made a speech"
Rep. Elijah Cummings: "Chairman, what are you hiding?"
Congressman Elijah Cummings was speaking off mic, because the chair of the committee, Darrell Issa, had shut his mic off.
-------
Venezuela: Tens of Thousands Mark Year Since Chávez Death Amidst Opposition Rallies
Tens of thousands of people marched in Venezuela on Wednesday to mark the one-year anniversary of the death of longtime President Hugo Chávez. The commemorations faced disruption from government opponents, who have staged a series of protests against Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro. Thousands of people rallied against Maduro on the eve of the anniversary.
-------
RT Anchors Criticize Ukraine Coverage on Russia-Owned Network
In media news, two anchors with Russia’s state-owned U.S. news network, RT, have spoken out against Russian policy in Ukraine on air. On Wednesday, RT anchor Liz Wahl resigned during a live broadcast to protest what she called the network’s biased coverage in favor of the Russian government.
Liz Wahl: "Personally, I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of [Vladimir] Putin. I’m proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth, and that is why, after this newscast, I’m resigning."
RT has dismissed Wahl’s action as a show of "self-promotion." The resignation came days after another RT anchor, Abby Martin, also spoke out on air, calling the invasion of Crimea an act of "military aggression." In an interview with CNN, Martin told CNN anchor Piers Morgan that RT has acted no differently than the U.S. corporate media did in cheerleading for the Iraq War.
Abby Martin: "Piers, no different than every other corporate media station. I mean, we’re talking about six corporations that control 90 percent of what Americans see, hear and read; the lead-up to the Iraq War, parroting exactly what the establishment said. I mean, you could reflect the exact same criticism on all the corporate media channels. So, you know, I can only speak for my show. I stayed true to my moral compass. But RT toes a perspective of the Russian foreign policy, just as the entire corporate media apparatus toes the perspective of the U.S. establishment."
-------
State Department Issues Visa Ban over Ukraine Crisis
In breaking news, the State Department has announced a new ban on visas for Russian and Ukrainian officials who are "responsible for or complicit in threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine." The move could lead to the freezing of assets and barring Americans from doing business with targeted individuals.
-------