Democracy Now!
Daily Digest
A Daily Independent
Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González
|
 |
democracynow.org
Stories:
"We Are Not Beginning a New Cold War, We are Well into It": Stephen Cohen on Russia-Ukraine Crisis
As negotiations over the crisis in Ukraine begin in Geneva, tension is rising in the Ukrainian east after security forces killed three pro-Russian protesters, wounded 13 and took 63 captive in the city of Mariupol. Ukrainian officials said the pro-Russian separatists had attempted to storm a military base. The killings came just after the unraveling of a Ukrainian operation to retake government buildings from pro-Russian separatists. Earlier today, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the authorities in Kiev of plunging the country into an "abyss" and refused to rule out sending forces into Ukraine. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has announced a series of steps to reinforce its presence in eastern Europe. "We will have more planes in the air, more ships on the water and more readiness on the land," Rasmussen said. We are joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. "We are not at the beginning of a new Cold War, we are well into it," Cohen says, "which alerts us to the fact 'hot war' is imaginable now. It’s unlikely, but it’s conceivable — and if it’s conceivable, something has to be done about it."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As negotiations over the crisis in Ukraine begin in Geneva, tension is rising in eastern Ukraine after security forces killed three pro-Russian separatists, wounded 13 and took 63 captive in the city of Mariupol. Ukrainian officials said the pro-Russians had attempted to storm a military base. The fighting comes just after the collapse of a Ukrainian operation to retake government buildings in several eastern towns. On Wednesday, pro-Russian separatists took control of some of their armored vehicles, and crowds surrounded another column, forcing the troops to hand over the pins from their rifles and retreat. Earlier today, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the authorities in Kiev of plunging the country into an "abyss."
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] People in eastern Ukraine have started to arm themselves. And instead of realizing that something bad is going on in the Ukrainian state and making any attempts to start a dialogue, the authorities have started to threaten with force even more and unleash tanks and aviation on civilian populations. This is another grave crime of the current Kiev authorities. I hope it will be possible to realize which hole and which abyss the current authorities are moving towards and dragging the whole country with them. And in this regard, I think the start of today’s talks in Geneva is very important. I think it is very important today to think about how to get out of this situation, to offer people a real—not ostentatious, but real—dialogue.
AMY GOODMAN: Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking on Russian television earlier today. On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced a series of steps to reinforce its forces in eastern Europe because of the Ukraine crisis.
SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: We will have more planes in the air, more ships on the water and more readiness on the land. For example, air policing aircraft will fly more sorties over the Baltic region. Allied ships will deploy to the Baltic Sea, the eastern Mediterranean, and elsewhere as required.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about Ukraine, Stephen Cohen is with us, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University; his most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, out now in paperback. He recently wrote a piece for The Nation headlined "Cold War Again: Who is Responsible?"
Are we seeing the beginning of a new Cold War, Professor Cohen? And what exactly is happening right now in Ukraine?
STEPHEN COHEN: Those are big questions. We are not at the beginning of the Cold War, a new one; we are well into it—which alerts us to the fact, just watching what you showed up there, that hot war is imaginable now, for the first time in my lifetime, my adult lifetime, since the Cuban missile crisis, hot war with Russia. It’s unlikely, but it’s conceivable. And if it’s conceivable, something has to be done about it.
You did two things on your introduction which were very important. Almost alone among American media, you actually allowed Putin to speak for himself. He’s being filtered through the interpretation of the mass media here, allegedly, what he said, and it’s not representative. The second thing is, let us look just what’s happening at this moment, or at least yesterday. The political head of NATO just announced a major escalation of NATO forces in Europe. He did a Churchillian riff: "We will increase our power in the air, in the sea, on the land." Meanwhile, as negotiations today begin in Geneva, we’re demanding that Russians de-escalate. And yet, we, NATO, are escalating as these negotiations begin.
So, if you were to say what is going on in Ukraine today—and, unfortunately, the focus is entirely on eastern Ukraine. We don’t have any Western media—in eastern Ukraine. We don’t have any Western—any Western media in western Ukraine, the other half of the country. We’re not clear what’s going on there. But clearly, things are getting worse and worse. Each side has a story that totally conflicts with the other side’s story. There seems to be no middle ground. And if there’s no middle ground in the public discourse, in the Russian media or the American media, it’s not clear what middle ground they can find in these negotiations, though personally, I think—and people will say, "Oh, Cohen’s a Putin apologist"—but it seemed to me that the proposals the Russians made a month ago for resolving the conflict are at least a good starting point. But it’s not clear the United States is going to accept them.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Stephen Cohen, it was just a few weeks ago when we had you on, as the crisis was beginning to unfold in Ukraine, and a lot of what you said then turned out to be true, which was that you feared that there would be a split in Ukraine itself between the east and west. And obviously Crimea was just developing then. But it seems that all of the emphasis in the coverage here is as if the crisis started with Russian aggression, not with the earlier period of what was NATO and Europe’s involvement in Ukraine before the deposing of the elected president.
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, I think you’ve emphasized the absolute flaw in at least the American—because I don’t follow the European press that closely—the American media and political narrative. As a historian, I would say that this conflict began 300 years ago, but we can’t do that. As a contemporary observer, it certainly began in November 2013 when the European Union issued an ultimatum, really, to the then-president, elected president, of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, that "Sign an agreement with us, but you can’t have one with Russia, too." In my mind, that precipitated this crisis, because why give a country that has been profoundly divided for centuries, and certainly in recent decades, an ultimatum—an elected president: "Choose, and divide your country further"? So when we say today Putin initiated this chaos, this danger of war, this confrontation, the answer is, no, that narrative is wrong from the beginning. It was triggered by the European Union’s unwise ultimatum.
Now flash forward to just one month ago, about the time I was with you before. Remember that the European foreign ministers—three of them, I think—went to Kiev and negotiated with Yanukovych, who was still the president, an agreement. Now, the Russians were present at the negotiation, but they didn’t sign it. But they signed off on it. They said, "OK." What did that agreement call for? Yanukovych would remain president until December—not May, when elections are now scheduled, but December of this year. Then there would be a presidential election. He could run in them, or not. Meanwhile, there would be a kind of government of national accord trying to pull the government together. And, importantly, Russia would chip in, in trying to save the Ukrainian economy. But there would also be parliamentary elections. That made a lot of sense. And it lasted six hours.
The next day, the street, which was now a mob—let’s—it was no longer peaceful protesters as it had been in November. It now becomes something else, controlled by very ultra-nationalist forces; overthrew Yanukovych, who fled to Russia; burned up the agreement. So who initiated the next stage of the crisis? It wasn’t Russia. They wanted that agreement of February, a month ago, to hold. And they’re still saying, "Why don’t we go back to it?" You can’t go back to it, though there is a report this morning that Yanukovych, who is in exile in Russia, may fly to eastern Ukraine today or tomorrow, which will be a whole new dimension.
But the point of it is, is that Putin didn’t want—and this is reality, this is not pro-Putin or pro-Washington, this is just a fact—Putin did not want this crisis. He didn’t initiate it. But with Putin, once you get something like that, you get Mr. Pushback. And that’s what you’re now seeing. And the reality is, as even the Americans admit, he holds all the good options. We have none. That’s not good policymaking, is it?
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to President Obama. Thursday, he was interviewed by CBS News by Major Garrett.
MAJOR GARRETT: Is Vladimir Putin provoking a civil war there? And will you and Western leaders let him to get away with that?
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I think that what is absolutely clear is not only have Russians gone into Crimea and annexed it, in illegal fashion, violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, but what they’ve also done is supported, at minimum, nonstate militias in southern and eastern Ukraine. And we’ve seen some of the activity that’s been taking place there.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cohen?
STEPHEN COHEN: You left out one thing that he said which I consider to be unwise and possibly reckless. He went on to say that Russia wouldn’t go to war with us because our conventional weapons are superior. That is an exceedingly provocative thing to say. And he seems to be unaware, President Obama, that Russian military doctrine says that when confronted by overwhelming conventional forces, we can use nuclear weapons. They mean tactical nuclear weapons. I don’t think any informed president, his handlers, would have permitted him to make such a statement. In fact, depending on how far you want to take this conversation about the Obama administration, I don’t recall in my lifetime, in confrontations with Russia, an administration—I speak now of the president and his secretary of state—who seem in their public statements to be so misinformed, even uninformed, both about Ukraine and Russia. For example, when Kerry testified last week to Congress that all the unrest in Ukraine was due to Putin’s meddling and his provocations, he denied the underlying problem which has divided Ukraine. I mean, everybody knows that history, God, whoever’s responsible for our destiny, created a Ukraine that may have had one state, but wasn’t one country. It may be two, it may be three countries. But for John Kerry to say that all this conflict in Ukraine is due to Putin simply makes a resolution of the problem by denying the problem. Or let me ask you a question: What in the world was the director of the American CIA doing last Sunday—
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I was going to ask you about that.
STEPHEN COHEN: —in Kiev? It is mind-boggling that it was called a secret mission, when my grandson knows that the Ukrainian intelligence services are full of pro-Russian officers. And yet they send the head of the CIA, at this crucial, inflamed moment, thereby—to Kiev, thereby reinforcing the Russian narrative that everything that’s happening in Ukraine is an American provocation. What are they thinking?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, aside from having a very educated grandson, I just want to turn to NATO for a moment.
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, I told him that [inaudible]. But he got it. He got it.
AMY GOODMAN: NATO announced a series of steps to reinforce its forces—this is NATO in eastern Europe—because of the Ukraine crisis. NATO’s top military commander, Philip Breedlove, described the moves as defensive measures.
GEN. PHILIP BREEDLOVE: All the actions that we have proposed and have been accepted today are clearly defensive in nature. And I think it’s going to be very straightforward to see them as defensive in nature. They are designed to assure our allies. And so, I think that, in any case, it’s always a chance that you run that something might be misinterpreted. But we specifically designed these measures to assure our allies only and to be clearly seen as defensive in nature.
AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Professor Cohen?
STEPHEN COHEN: I’ve never known what "purely defensive weapons" have meant—I mean, presuming they are guns that shoot in only one direction. I mean, it’s going to have no effect. I mean, they’re talking about giving the Ukrainians maybe some small arms, some night vision stuff, some superior intelligence. They can’t give them intelligence information, because the Ukrainian intelligence services, as we know from the tapes we’ve had, the leaked tapes, and from the CIA secret mission which was exposed to Ukraine, revealed.
The real debate going on in NATO—the real debate, because this is a distraction—is what Rasmussen said in your earlier clip—he’s the political head of NATO—that we’re building up, as we talk, our forces in eastern Europe. Now, understand what’s going on here. When we took in—"we" meaning the United States and NATO—all these countries in eastern Europe into NATO, we did not—we agreed with the Russians we would not put forward military installations there. We built some infrastructure—air strips, there’s some barracks, stuff like that. But we didn’t station troops that could march toward Russia there. Now what NATO is saying, it is time to do that. Now, Russia already felt encircled by NATO member states on its borders. The Baltics are on its borders. If we move the forces, NATO forces, including American troops, to—toward Russia’s borders, where will we be then? I mean, it’s obviously going to militarize the situation, and therefore raise the danger of war.
And I think it’s important to emphasize, though I regret saying this, Russia will not back off. This is existential. Too much has happened. Putin—and it’s not just Putin. We seem to think Putin runs the whole of the universe. He has a political class. That political class has opinions. Public support is running overwhelmingly in favor of Russian policy. Putin will compromise at these negotiations, but he will not back off if confronted militarily. He will not.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you about the situation in Russia, especially the growing—some reports are that Putin’s popularity has now surged to about 80 percent of the population, at a time when there was actually a dissident movement that was beginning to gather strength within Russia against the more authoritarian aspects of Russian society.
STEPHEN COHEN: Since this is Democracy Now!, let me assert my age and my credential. Beginning in the 1970s, I lived in Russia among the then-Soviet dissidents. They were brave people. They were pro-democracy. They struggled. They paid the price. With the coming of Gorbachev, who embraced many of their democratizing ideas, they were marginalized, or they moved into the establishment as official democratizers. This struggle has continued, even under Putin. But the result of this confrontation, East-West confrontation—and I can’t emphasize how fundamental and important it is—is going to set back whatever prospects remained in Russia for further democratization or re-democratization, possibly a whole generation. It is simply going to take all the traction these people have gotten out from under them. And still worse, the most authoritarian forces in Russia and Russia’s authoritarian traditions will now be reinvigorated politically in kind of a—
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And it’s all ultra-nationalist, as well, right?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, I wouldn’t say it’s ultra-nationalists, but it’s certainly nationalist.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Right.
STEPHEN COHEN: And, I mean, by the way, we’re a nationalist country.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Right.
STEPHEN COHEN: We use a different word: We call it "patriotism." Do you remember an American president who ever ran and said, "I’m not an American patriot"? I say I’m an American patriot. We don’t call ourselves "nationalists." Also, we don’t have a state in the United States; we have a government. The Europeans have states. We have a government. But you take away the language—this is not unusual, but there—when it surges like this, as it does in run-ups to war—and we’re in the run-up at least to a possible war—this is what you get. That’s why I think the policy, the American policy, has been unwise from the beginning.
AMY GOODMAN: The front page of The New York Times: "Russia Economy Worsens Even Before Sanctions Hit." And they’re attributing it partly to Russia’s action in Crimea.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah. Well, I mean, the asymmetry of all of this, right? We say Putin’s got 40,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. And there may or may not be; nobody’s exactly clear how long they’ve been there and what they’re doing, but obviously they’re not helping the situation. But what we have are sanctions that we may put in place against Putin’s cronies. This is—this is the threat. This is what the White House says: "We are going to sanction his oligarchical cronies." And presumably, on this theory, they will go to him and say, "Look, Volodya, you’ve got to stop this, because my bank accounts ..." This is utter nonsense. First of all, he’ll just appoint new oligarchs. Secondly, there’s a law in the Russian Duma, the Parliament, being debated that the state will compensate anybody whose assets are frozen in the West. Now, I don’t know if they’ll pass the law, but you could see that this doesn’t bother the Kremlin leadership.
AMY GOODMAN: We just have one minute. The significance of the meeting in Geneva with Ukraine, Russia, United States, European Union, and what’s going to happen in eastern Ukraine?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, I don’t know what’s going to happen, but things are getting worse and worse. People are being killed. So, obviously, that’s bad, and we’re moving closer toward a military confrontation. The Russians are asking at negotiations the following. They want NATO expansion ended to its all former Soviet republics. That means Ukraine and Georgia, period. I think we should give them that. This has been a reckless, endangering policy. It’s time for it to end. They want a federal Ukrainian state. That’s a debate. But Ukraine is several countries; you can only hold it together with a federal constitution. And they want, in the end, a stable Ukraine, and they will contribute financially to making that possible. I don’t see any reason there, other than the White House saving political face, why that’s not a good negotiating position to begin with.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Stephen Cohen, we want to thank you very much for being with us, professor of Russian studies at New York University, before that, Princeton University, author of numerous books on Russia and the Soviet Union. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, just out in paperback. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Stay with us.
Fixing the Electoral College: New York Joins Pact to Elect President by Popular Vote
New York has become the latest state to join an agreement that would transform the U.S. presidential election. Under the compact for a National Popular Vote, states across the country have pledged to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. If enough states sign on, it would guarantee the presidency goes to the candidate with the most votes nationwide. This would prevent scenarios like what happened in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but still lost the election to George W. Bush. The compact will kick in only when enough states have signed on to reach a threshold of 270 electoral votes. By adding its 29 electoral votes, New York joins those already pledged by nine other states and Washington, D.C. We are joined by New Yorker staff writer Hendrik Hertzberg, an advocate of the national popular vote and a board member of the electoral reform organization FairVote.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: New York has become the latest state to join an agreement that would transform the way we elect the president of the United States. Under the compact for a national popular vote, states across the country have pledged to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote. If enough states sign on, it would guarantee the presidency goes to the candidate who wins the most votes across the country. It would prevent scenarios like what happened in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but still lost the election to George W. Bush.
AMY GOODMAN: The compact will kick in only when enough states have signed on to reach a threshold of 270 electoral votes. This week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo brought the campaign a step closer, adding New York’s 29 electoral votes to those already pledged by nine other states, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts and by Washington, D.C. In a statement, Governor Cuomo said, quote, "By aligning the Electoral College with the voice of the nation’s voters, we are ensuring the equality of votes and encouraging candidates to appeal to voters in all states, instead of disproportionately focusing on early contests and swing [states]." New York State Senator Joseph Griffo, a Republican, sponsored the bill.
STATE SEN. JOSEPH GRIFFO: Potential presidential candidates concentrate more than two-thirds of their advertising budget and two-thirds of their campaign stops in just five states. Almost 100 percent of their message is seen in approximately 16 battleground states. New York has 19.5 million people, but we’re routinely ignored by campaigns. I want to empower people. I want to make New York state relevant in a national campaign again. I want democracy that creates excitement in people, not apathy. Joining the National Popular Vote compact creates that opportunity. It leverages the combined power of the states in a compact to say, "No longer can you take us for granted. No longer can you effectively disenfranchise million of Americans by ignoring us. No longer can you assume that you have our vote."
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the campaign for a national popular vote, we’re joined now by Hendrik Hertzberg, staff writer for The New Yorker magazine. He has been writing in support of the national popular vote since 2006, serves on the board of the electoral reform organization FairVote.
Rick, welcome to Democracy Now!Talk about the significance of New York joining on, but also what the national popular vote is.
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Well, it’s an important step psychologically, because now the threshold, instead of being 50 percent of the way to the threshold, we’re 61 percent of the way. So every little bit—every little bit helps. And, of course, New York is the media capital. Things don’t really happen in the brain of the media until they happen in New York. So even though California, New Jersey, state of Washington—even though all these other states have already signed on, it’s only now starting to raise to the level of some sort of public attention. And most people don’t even know this is going on, and that includes people who are extremely well informed—don’t even—have never even heard of this, don’t realize that we’re halfway—more than halfway to solving one of the central problems of our Constitution, which is the—this Electoral College setup. And the problem with the setup is not the Electoral College itself. The problem is the winner-take-all by state. That’s what creates all the anomalies.
And what the National Popular Vote plan does is, by a whole bunch of states getting together to award their electors to whoever wins in all 50 states, as soon as that happens, well, then it doesn’t matter what state you live in: Your vote is just as much equal to go after, to campaign for. It means that, for instance, in New York, where it’s pointless to do—to do doorbell ringing, to have a coffee collection, invite your neighbors in—what difference does it make? Everybody knows which way New York is going. But if every vote, if a vote in New York is worth the same as a vote in Ohio or Pennsylvania, you get a—that really is transformational. Even more than preventing a wrong winner is that you get grassroots politics happening in every corner of the country. And if you’re worried about political corruption, if you’re worried about campaign finance, for example, what this would do is, all those billions raised for campaigns, instead of being funneled into a handful of states, they would have to be spread out across the whole country, so their relative impact would be much less. This is an extraordinary reform.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, what allows a group of states to be able to come together and reach a compact like this? Wouldn’t a constitutional amendment be needed for this? Explain the legality of it.
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Well, this is based on two things in the Constitution. One is what you just mentioned, interstate compacts. There are hundreds of them. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, maybe not the best example lately, but that is an example of an interstate compact. It’s in the Constitution. The other part is that the only thing in the Constitution about electing the president is basically a one-liner that says each state shall appoint a number of electors in such manner as the Legislature thereof may determine. That’s all it says. Everything else is left to—is left to the states to figure out. And the winner-take-all notion, that’s a—that’s something that came in 20, 30 years after the Constitution was written. And it’s because a party that controls the state Legislature isn’t going to say, if given the choice between keeping all those electors for themselves or giving, you know, some portion of them to the opposition, of course they’re going to do it this way.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democratic New York State Senator Michael Gianaris, who is among those who oppose joining the compact for a national popular vote.
STATE SEN. MICHAEL GIANARIS: The current system allots Electoral College votes based on a state’s population, whereas a system such as the National Popular Vote will do so based on voter turnout in a presidential election, which means states that have a high number of unregistered residents would not be counted as much, or states that have low voter turnout would not be counted as much as they are under the current system. There’s also a myriad of other issues related to those that have wealth being able to saturate a big city media market to affect the outcome more than they currently do, which is already too much, as well as the possibility for some states that are unhappy with the results, potentially between Election Day and the Electoral College vote, changing their state laws to pull back out of a compact like this, which would throw the whole system into chaos.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Democratic New York State Senator Michael Gianaris. Now, interesting, he’s Democrat, and the person we played for the national popular vote was a Republican. But can you answer his points?
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: He’s wrong on every single one of them. You cannot withdraw from the state—interstate compact for 90 days before an election. That’s part of the deal. That’s part of the contract that you make.
The notion that—as far as turnout is concerned, right now there’s a sort of a five-to-10-point difference in the turnout between battleground states and spectator states. So when you have a nationwide vote, you’re going to see—yes, you’re going to see turnout increase, but don’t say it like it’s a bad thing.
He mentions that the Electoral College is based on—is not based on how many people vote; it’s based on population. And that’s one of—that’s sort of the original sin of the Electoral College, because the reason it’s based on population is so that the three-fifths of the slaves could be counted to give the slave owners more representation. It imports—the Electoral College mechanism imports that right—which is in the Senate and the House, right into this choice of the presidency. Now, that part of it’s gone now, but that is the original sin.
And of course it makes more sense for the president to be chosen by voters, one-by-one voters, rather than by states with a fixed number of votes. Even if only three people vote in a state and it’s got 10 electoral votes, they’ll still go to that candidate. All the National Popular Vote plan does, really, is elect the president the way we elect a dog catcher or a governor or a senator or representative. It’s not that complicated.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But my question is, given the fact that you would only need the states who equal a number of 270 votes to join the compact, and they would therefore then be decisive in terms of who would get elected if the—who wins the popular vote, but isn’t it possible just as well for the compact to be broken years down the line? In other words, for new legislatures to come in and decide to leave?
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Sure, that would be possible, yeah. And actually, that’s one of the advantages to this maybe over a constitutional amendment. We can try it. We can try it, see if—try electing a president democratically, see if we like it. If we like it, we can keep it. If we don’t like it, we don’t have to keep it. That’s actually a plus, not a minus.
AMY GOODMAN: So, so far, now—
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: And I might add, Juan, that it’s not as if the states that are compacting are then going to decide who’s president. No, the only thing that will decide who’s president is the voters in all the states that are compacting and that are not compacting. It won’t make any difference whether you live in one of them or not.
AMY GOODMAN: So, now signed on: New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Rhode Island and Washington.
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Mm-hmm.
AMY GOODMAN: What happens next?
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Well, right now there’s a focus on Connecticut, where the bill is being considered. It’s kind of a one-by-one thing, state to state. Now, people may have noticed that the states that you mentioned are all blue states. And, of course, because of what happened in 2000, Republicans tend to have a—you know, they kind of—they kind of have a—react to this and think—or, suspiciously, they think maybe this is Al Gore’s revenge. But, in fact, there are plenty of Republicans who back this. If you believe in democracy, if you believe that the way to have an election is count the votes, see who wins, then it really doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. Yes, there are these inbred prejudices. Republicans are—maybe they’re more resistant to change. Maybe they think this is somehow an end run around the Constitution, which it is not, which it definitely is not. They have a—they have more skepticism to overcome. But this isn’t like, you know, taxing the rich, where that’s a matter of principle. It’s a matter of principle the other way: If you’re for democracy, you really ought to be for this.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Hendrik Hertzberg is a staff writer at The New Yorker. He’s been writing in support of the national popular vote since 2006. I think you said in your last piece you had written 51 pieces on this.
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Fifty-two as of this morning.
AMY GOODMAN: He serves on the board of the electoral reform organization FairVote. When we come back, we’re going to England and to Norway to talk about drones and who’s running the U.S. drone operation. Stay with us.
Former Drone Operators Reveal Air Force Plays Key Role in Secret CIA Assassination Campaign
A new documentary film reveals how a regular U.S. Air Force unit based in the Nevada desert is responsible for flying the CIA’s drone strike program in Pakistan. "Drone" identifies the unit conducting CIA strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas as the 17th Reconnaissance Squadron, which is located on the Creech Air Force Base, about 45 miles from Las Vegas. We are joined by the film’s director, Tonje Hessen Schei, and Chris Woods, an award-winning reporter who investigates drone warfare. Woods is featured in "Drone" and is working on a forthcoming book on U.S. drone warfare.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We end today’s show with a new film that reveals how a regular U.S. Air Force unit based in the Nevada desert is responsible for flying the CIA’s drone strike program in Pakistan. The documentary identifies the unit conducting CIA strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas as the 17th Reconnaissance Squadron, which is located on the Creech Air Force Base, about 45 miles from Las Vegas. This is the trailer for Drone.
BRANDON BRYANT: We are the ultimate voyeurs, the ultimate peeping Toms. I’m watching this person, and this person has no clue what’s going on. No one’s going to catch us. And we’re getting orders to take these people’s lives.
MICHAEL HAAS: You never know who you’re killing, because you never actually see a face. You just have a silhouette. They don’t have to take a shot. They don’t have to bear that burden. I’m the one that has to bear that burden.
UNIDENTIFIED: There’s always been a connection between the world of war and the world of entertainment. The military has invested in creating video games that they’re using as recruiting tools.
UNIDENTIFIED: War is an unbelievably profitable business.
CHRIS WALLACE: The drones have been terrifically effective. They’ve taken out a lot of the al-Qaeda leadership. It’s cheap. It doesn’t involve putting troops on the ground.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I believe the United States of America must remain a standard-bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.
UNIDENTIFIED: United States is violating one of the most fundamental rights of all: the right to life.
UNIDENTIFIED: There’s a large number of innocent civilians who are being killed, and that has to be reported.
CHRIS WOODS: The majority of the secret drone strikes that have taken place have, we have always understood, been carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency.
BRANDON BRYANT: There is a lie hidden within that truth.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the trailer for the new documentary, Drone. It premiered this week on national television in Germany and France. Its director, Tonje Hessen Schei, joins us now from Norway via Democracy Now! video stream. And in London, we’re joined by Chris Woods, one of the people in the film, an award-winning reporter who investigates drone warfare. He recently wrote an article for The Guardian called "CIA’s Pakistan Drone Strikes Carried Out by Regular US Air Force Personnel." He’s featured in the new film, Drone, working on a forthcoming book called Sudden Justice: America’s Secret Drone Wars.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Chris, let’s start with you. The significance of the Air Force being involved with the drone strikes in Pakistan?
CHRIS WOODS: The Air Force, U.S. Air Force, has a long history of working with the Central Intelligence Agency. You go back to the 1950s, the 1960s. U.S. Air Force pilots, for example, flew U-2 CIA flights over Russia. What’s different here, of course, is that the CIA now carries out targeted killings, and it has been doing for more than a decade. And what we found and what Tonje’s film shows is that a conventional U.S. Air Force squadron, regular men and women in the Air Force, have actually been carrying out these targeted killings for the CIA for a decade now. And I think that’s going to surprise quite a lot of people.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the implications of that in terms of the chain of command, in terms of the responsibility of the military versus the CIA?
CHRIS WOODS: Well, they’re—as I said, they’re regular Air Force personnel, but they’re taking their orders from a civilian intelligence agency, orders to kill. And as my work and that of others has shown in Pakistan, for example, where many of these targeted killings have taken place—more than two-and-a-half thousand people, I think, have been killed in Pakistan by these drone strikes, among them perhaps 400 civilians—there have been some really problematic kinds of bombings. So, for example, the deliberate targeting of rescuers and of funerals, which is still under investigation as possible war crimes by U.N. investigation teams. So, where does this leave conventional Air Force answering to a civilian intelligence agency? Where is the chain of command here? We don’t actually know. And unfortunately, the CIA, the National Security Council and the Pentagon all decided that they weren’t going to talk on this occasion, and they won’t talk about this to us.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to another clip from the new film, Drone, about how the CIA’s Pakistan drone strikes are carried out by regular U.S. Air Force personnel. We hear from two former drone operators, former Air Force pilots Brandon Bryant and Michael Haas. The clip begins with our guest, Chris Woods, followed by Ben Emmerson, the U.S. special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights.
CHRIS WOODS: The majority of the secret drone strikes that have taken place have, we have always understood, been carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency, that most secretive of U.S. intelligence organs, protected by huge layers of laws. Anything the CIA is involved in, we’re really not supposed to know about.
BEN EMMERSON: The crucial obstacle to transparency was the decision to hand a targeted killing by drone program into the hands of an intelligence agency, where accountability is impossible. But United States is engaged in an active program to migrate its drone technology away from the CIA and into the hands of DOD.
BRANDON BRYANT: There is a lie in within that truth. And the lie is that it’s always been the Air Force that has flown those missions. CIA might be the customer, but the Air Force has always flown it. The 17th Squadron that flies, they’re the super-top secret squirrel—can’t tell you what I’m doing, but I can tell you that it’s supersecret.
MICHAEL HAAS: Squadron 17 is Area 51-isolated on a single base. Think it’s pretty widely known that the CIA controls their mission. I know right before I left Creech, they actually were putting privacy fences up so you couldn’t even see the front doors or the parking lot. And it got to the point you can’t even see—you don’t even know who’s in there anymore.
BRANDON BRYANT: People brag. People talk about how they were so secret and that they were kicking so much [bleep] killing terrorists. And the CIA label is just an excuse to not have to give up any information. That’s all it’s ever been. Nothing’s going to change, at least nothing that we can see.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Brandon Bryant and Michael Haas, both drone operators, a clip from the new film, Drone, as we turn now to the filmmaker who made this film, Tonje Hessen Schei, speaking to us from Oslo, Norway. The significance of what you have found, Michael Haas speaking to you for the first time, is that right, Tonje?
TONJE HESSEN SCHEI: Yes, that is correct. Michael was getting very frustrated with the amount of secrecy that clouds the CIA war, and he decided that it’s important that the American people know what is going on. And he also felt it was very wrong that Brandon Bryant, the other drone operator that we have in the film, had been the only one speaking out for all this time. So, both their stories, I think, are very important for us to know what is happening from the inside of the drone program.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Tonje Hessen Schei, the relationship between the CIA and the Pentagon and video gamers, and their desire to recruit gamers, could you talk about that?
TONJE HESSEN SCHEI: Yeah. In the film, we look at how militaries now across the world are targeting gamers in their recruiting strategies. The U.S. military has been doing this for a long time with games like America’s Army. And in the film, we visit several Scandinavian gaming conferences, where the militaries very actively recruit gamers as our new warriors for the modern warfare—not just drone war, but also cyberwarfare. And I think the line between the virtual and real war is very interesting and something that we need to take seriously.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what does that do, as well, not only to—between virtual and real world, but to the moral responsibility of people who are recruited to do these kinds of attacks?
TONJE HESSEN SCHEI: Well, I think that’s a very interesting question. I actually got the idea for this film when I heard the story of a gamer who dropped out of college, or high school, and joined the Army, and he was quickly recruited as a drone pilot. And at the age of 19, he became an instructor for other drone pilots. And, to me, this was very concerning, and that’s how I started looking into this. And I don’t believe that the drone pilots think that they’re actually playing a video game, but I think that the similarities are very, very obvious and something we need to look at.
AMY GOODMAN: And—
TONJE HESSEN SCHEI: Also—I’m sorry, but, yeah, it’s just—you know, as far as the interface and the joystick, I know there’s been a very close relationship between the world of entertainment and the world of the militaries. So—
AMY GOODMAN: Tonje, you’re showing this in Europe. You’ve shown it in Germany, in France. What is the reaction to the U.S. drone strikes?
TONJE HESSEN SCHEI: We’ve had very good reactions from our premier. We’re just releasing this film right now. But I do think that here in Europe there is a great concern about the U.S. precedent of the drones, using targeted killing. So, it will be very interesting to see, also because here EU and NATO are now really pushing to acquire armed drones, so I think it’s very important that we’re coming out with this film right now.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Chris Woods, there is this film that’s being shown on American television now, a video, supposedly that shows al-Qaeda in Yemen threatening attacks on the U.S. It features footage of what appears to be a large al-Qaeda gathering in Yemen, with hundreds welcoming the release of prisoners freed in a jailbreak. There was some commentary yesterday on U.S. television: Is this as a result of—is this growing in Yemen because of the pressure not to have drone strikes in Yemen? Your response, Chris Woods? And do you know about this video?
CHRIS WOODS: Well, the drone strikes have temporarily stopped in Pakistan, but they certainly haven’t stopped in Yemen. They’re still going on. As far as we understand, JSOC strikes are presently banned there, but CIA strikes continue. So this was very daring, I would say, of al-Qaeda to be so public and so in the open, holding this gathering. And, in fact, their number two of al-Qaeda in Yemen was present. He’s very, very rarely seen in public. So this was a public taunting, if you like, of both the Yemen government and of the United States. The very act of appearing outside in large numbers is, if you like, you know, thumbing your nose at this ability of the United States to strike anywhere with drones. But it is worrying. And al-Qaeda certainly hasn’t been broken. It’s carried out a number of appalling attacks both on civilians and on the military in Yemen in recent weeks. So, it’s still there. It’s still a problem. And the drone strikes against them are continuing.
AMY GOODMAN: Chris Woods, we want to thank you for being with us, award-winning reporter who investigates drone warfare, recently wrote a piece in The Guardian about CIA’s Pakistan drone strikes carried out by regular U.S. Air Force personnel. He is featured in Drone, which is this new film that has just come out, just premiered in France and Germany, by Tonje Hessen Schei. We want to thank you for being with us, as well, from Oslo, Norway.
Headlines:
Ukraine, Separatists Clash as Geneva Talks Begin
Russia and Ukraine are slated to hold their first direct talks today amidst rising unrest. In an overnight clash, Ukrainian security forces killed three pro-Russian separatists, wounded 13 and took 63 captive after the separatists tried to storm a military base. The fighting comes just after the collapse of a Ukrainian operation to retake government buildings in several towns. Separatists seized Ukrainian armored vehicles, and crowds surrounded another column, forcing troops to hand over the pins from their rifles and retreat. The developments come as four-party talks begin in Geneva today between Russia, Ukraine, the European Union and the United States.
Regime, Rebels Trade Blame for Chlorine Gas Attack in Northern Syria
The Syrian government is facing new allegations of using chemical weapons against civilians. Videos posted online show what are said to be victims of a chlorine gas attack in the northern Syrian town of Kafr Zita. The Assad regime and opposition rebels have each accused the other side of responsibility.
Al-Qaeda in Yemen Threatens to Attack United States
Al-Qaeda in Yemen has released a new video threatening attacks on the United States. The video features footage of what appears to be a large al-Qaeda gathering, with hundreds welcoming the release of prisoners freed in a jailbreak.
Reps for Detroit Public Workers Accept Pension Cuts
A group representing Detroit public employees has accepted cuts to their pensions as part of the negotiations around the city’s bankruptcy effort. The board of Detroit’s General Retirement System has approved a deal that would cut pensions by 4.5 percent and scrap cost-of-living increases. This comes after retired police officers and firefighters accepted a more favorable deal that left pensions untouched. Together, the two groups represent around 23,000 of the 30,000 public workers who have faced threats to their retirement benefits following the bankruptcy filing by Detroit’s emergency manager last year. Detroit’s bankruptcy effort is the largest by a municipality in U.S. history.
Report: Deportation Cases on Steady Decline Since 2009
New figures show deportation cases in the nation’s immigration courts are on the decline. The New York Times reports court-ordered deportations have dropped 43 percent since President Obama took office in 2009. The Obama administration has brought 26 percent fewer cases since its first year, and immigration judges have increasingly ruled against deportations. The courts only account for a portion of deportations, and the overall number of deportations dropped just 10 percent in 2013 from the year before. President Obama has deported an estimated two million people, the most by any administration in history.
Philadelphia Bars Transfer of Undocumented Immigrants Without Federal Warrant
Philadelphia has announced it will no longer detain undocumented immigrants for transfer to federal authorities without a court warrant. The move by Mayor Michael Nutter sharply cuts cooperation between Philadelphia police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on holding detainees for potential deportation. Nutter signed the policy into law at a news conference on Wednesday.
Mayor Michael Nutter: "Every Philadelphian or person in Philadelphia has the right to feel safe, secure and protected. And I believe that our new policy, established by the executive order I will sign shortly, will promote safety, because residents and others who are here will not need to fear that interacting with their government will result in a detainer for themselves or their loved ones."
Similar curbs have been enacted for two states and at least eight cities, but activists say Philadelphia’s effort may be the most progressive so far since it would effectively bring immigration holds to an end.
Judge Overturns North Dakota Anti-Abortion Law
A federal judge has overturned North Dakota’s anti-abortion law, the harshest in the country. The measure banned abortion once a fetal or embryonic heartbeat can be detected, which happens at about six weeks of pregnancy when many women do not know they are pregnant. It was slated to take effect in August. In his decision, District Court Judge Daniel Hovland said the law is "invalid and unconstitutional."
GM Seeks Court Protection from Ignition Switch Claims
General Motors is asking a court to shield it from legal liability for all conduct predating its 2009 bankruptcy. A motion filed this week seeks recognition of the split from "Old GM," into the post-bankruptcy "New GM." If approved, GM’s request could protect it from claims over the defective ignition switch linked to at least 13 and possibly hundreds of deaths. General Motors knew of the defect for over a decade but only issued a recall earlier this year. The company’s request was disclosed in a federal lawsuit filed in Texas over the defect. In its court motion, GM says: "Just like the other 'ignition switch actions' that other plaintiffs have filed in the wake of public reports regarding the outstanding recall, this case relates to a vehicle designed, manufactured, originally sold and advertised by Old GM." GM has yet to reply to dozens of questions about the defect submitted by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration earlier this month. The auto giant is paying a $7,000 fine for each day it fails to provide the answers in full. Speaking to reporters, GM CEO Mary Barra denied that the company is stonewalling.
Mary Barra: "We work on those every day. Some of the questions are really dependent, to have the full complete answer, on getting through the investigation, but we are trying to be as responsive as possible. But we will not sacrifice the accuracy and the right detail of the answers, because it’s very important. This is a very complex situation. It’s very important. But we are working on it with a dedicated team that works around the clock to provide the answers to NHTSA."
Obama Unveils $600 Million Grant for Job Training, Placement
President Obama spoke at a community in college in Pennsylvania on Wednesday to unveil a job training and placement initiative for young workers. Obama pledged $500 million to colleges that help students find jobs and another $100 million for apprenticeship grants.
President Obama: "We want a seamless progression from community college programs to industry-recognized credentials and credit towards a college degree. And today I’m announcing that we are going to award nearly $500 million to those institutions who are doing it best in all 50 states, using existing money to create opportunity for hard-working folks like you. That’s good. Second, and this is related, we are launching a $100 million competition for what we are calling American Apprenticeship Grants. Now these are awards that are going to expand the kinds of apprenticeships that help young people and experienced workers get on a path towards advancement, towards better jobs, better pay, a trajectory upwards in their careers."
Bloomberg Launches New Gun-Control Group with $50 Million Donation
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has launched a new gun-control group aimed at taking on the National Rifle Association. Bloomberg has committed $50 million to funding Everytown for Gun Safety, a grassroots group of voters against gun violence. Lisa Wheeler-Brown, a Florida mother who lost her child to a shooting, and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray were among those to join the group’s unveiling.
Lisa Wheeler-Brown: "Someone murdered my son with an illegal weapon, so I’m going to do all I can to prevent another mother from losing a child to gun violence."
Mayor Ed Murray: "Today we’re announcing Everytown for Gun Safety, a new organization that brings mayors, moms and the grassroots movement of Americans together to deal with the issue of gun violence. Gun violence kills 86 Americans every day. It happens everywhere—in big cities, small towns, on our streets, schools, shopping malls and places of worship."
Senate Intel Committee Probes Torture Probe Leak to McClatchy
The Senate Intelligence Committee has opened a probe of a leak that revealed details of its report on CIA torture. McClatchy reported last week the report questions the program’s underlying legal framework and accuses the agency of impeding its overseers and manipulating the media. Panel Chair Dianne Feinstein says she has asked the Justice Department to investigate how McClatchy obtained the information.
Lavabit Loses Contempt of Court Appeal over User Info
A federal appeals court has upheld a contempt of court ruling against the technology firm Lavabit, which shut down rather than disclose information to the U.S. government. Lavabit closed its secure email service after refusing to comply with a government effort to tap customers’ encryption keys. The FBI was targeting National Security Agency leaker and Lavabit user Edward Snowden. But instead of just targeting Snowden, the government effectively wanted access to the accounts of 400,000 other Lavabit customers. In his ruling, Federal Judge Steven Agee avoided ruling on the merits of Lavabit’s claims, instead saying the company made an error in its appeal. (See our interviews with Lavabit owner Ladar Levison.)
Snowden Questions Putin on Mass Surveillance
Edward Snowden was a surprise questioner today at a televised call-in show hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin spent much of the broadcast fielding questions on the crisis in Ukraine. But Snowden asked Putin if Russia is engaged in the same mass surveillance practices that Snowden exposed in the United States.
Edward Snowden: "Now, I’ve seen little public discussion of Russia’s own involvement in the policies of mass surveillance. So I’d like to ask you: Does Russia intercept, store or analyze in any way, the communications of millions of individuals? And do you believe that simply increasing the effectiveness of intelligence or law enforcement investigations can justify placing societies, rather than subjects, under surveillance? Thank you."
Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Our intelligence efforts are strictly regulated by our law. So how special forces can use this kind of special equipment as they intercept phone calls or follow someone online, and you have to get a court permission to stalk a particular person. We don’t have a mass system of such interception, and according to our law, it cannot exist. Of course we know that criminals and terrorists use technology for their criminal acts, and of course special services have to use technical means to respond to their crimes, including those of terrorist nature. Of course we do some efforts like that. But we do not have a mass-scale, uncontrollable efforts like that. I hope we won’t do that, and we don’t have as much money as they have in the States, and we don’t have these technical devices that they have in the States. Our special services, thank God, are strictly controlled by the society and by the law and regulated by the law."
Salsa, Bolero Singer Cheo Feliciano Dies in Puerto Rico Car Crash
The salsa and bolero singer Cheo Feliciano has died at the age of 78. He was killed early this morning in a car crash in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Born in Puerto Rico, Feliciano moved to New York City and started out as a percussionist before going on to sing with the Joe Cuba Sextet and, later, the Eddie Palmieri Orchestra. Last year, Feliciano announced he had been diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer.
-------
"The Grand American Tradition of Violent White Supremacy" by Amy Goodman
Another U.S. shooting spree has left bullet-riddled bodies in its wake, and refocused attention on violent, right-wing extremists. Frazier Glenn Miller, a former leader of a wing of the Ku Klux Klan, is accused of killing three people outside two Jewish community centers outside Kansas City, Kan. As he was hauled away in a police car, he shouted “Heil Hitler!” Unlike Islamic groups that U.S. agencies spend tens of billions of dollars targeting, domestic white supremacist groups enjoy relative freedom to spew their hatred and promote racist ideology. Too often, their murderous rampages are viewed as acts of deranged “lone wolf” attackers. These seemingly fringe groups are actually well-organized, interconnected and are enjoying renewed popularity.
In April 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a study on right-wing extremists in the United States. The 10-page report included findings like “The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” It controversially suggested military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan could potentially be recruited to join hate groups. The report provoked a firestorm of criticism, especially from veterans groups. The Obama administration was just months old, and newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano withdrew the report, apologizing for it during a congressional budget hearing.
Mark Potok is a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been tracking right-wing hate groups and Frazier Glenn Miller for years. Potok said, about that report, “a real problem with the Department of Homeland Security ... ever since a particular report on the right wing was leaked to the press in April of 2009, DHS has sort of cowered. They essentially gutted their non-Islamic domestic terrorism unit.”
The SPLC was co-founded in 1971 by civil-rights lawyer Morris Dees. It began suing white supremacist groups in the 1980s, representing clients that the groups threatened, beat and harassed. Potok described Frazier Glenn Miller as “one of the best-known white supremacist activists in the country for a very long time ... active for more than 40 years in the movement. He joined, as a very young teenager, things like the National States’ Rights Party, a descendent of the American Nazi Party.” Miller formed his own wing of the Klan, which marched publicly in military fatigues. He had dealings with another supremacist group, The Order, that gave him $200,000 from the more than $4 million stolen through bank robberies and armored-car holdups.
After being sued by the SPLC, Frazier Glenn Miller agreed to a settlement in one case, but violated the terms of the agreement and was found guilty of criminal contempt. While out on bond, he disappeared, issuing a crudely typed “Declaration of War,” specifically targeting Morris Dees for murder. He was eventually arrested. Potok told me, “He was initially charged with conspiracy, very serious charges, in 1987 that could have sent him to prison for 20 or 30 years. But he cut a deal with the federal government and agreed to testify ... against his comrades. That wound up meaning a mere five-year sentence for him, and he served only three years.”
Miller cooperated with federal prosecutors, testifying against 13 white supremacist leaders. He was released from prison and was assisted, it is believed, by the Federal Witness Protection Program as he relocated to Nebraska and changed his last name to “Cross.” Frazier Glenn Miller, also known as Frazier Glenn Cross, lost credibility with other white supremacists and faded into relative obscurity. He occasionally ran for office in Missouri, after running virulently racist campaign ads on radio. Then he went on his murderous rampage this week. “Perhaps if he had been in prison all those years rather than a witness in this trial,” Potok reflected, “we wouldn’t have experienced what we saw in Kansas City the other day.”
Potok and the SPLC track the recent rise of right-wing hate groups. When I asked him about the FBI’s focus on animal rights and environmental groups, he replied, “The idea that eco-terrorists, so-called, are the major domestic terror threat, which was in fact said to Congress a couple of times by FBI leaders during the Bush years, I think is just patently ludicrous ... no one has been killed by anyone in the radical animal-rights movement or the radical environmentalist movement.” The SPLC will soon release a report that links registered members of two prominent white supremacist online forums to more than 100 murders in the United States—in just the past five years.
While law-abiding Muslims are forced to hide in their homes, and animal-rights activists are labeled as terrorists for undercover filming of abusive treatment at factory farms, right-wing hate groups are free to organize, parade, arm themselves to the hilt and murder with chilling regularity. It’s time for our society to confront this very real threat.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,200 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.
© 2014 Amy Goodman
Distributed by King Features Syndicate
-------
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment