democracynow.org
Stories:
Yemen is facing political collapse following the mass resignations of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, his prime minister and entire cabinet. Thursday’s exodus came just hours after Shia Houthi rebels stormed the presidential compound in the capital city of Sana’a. Hadi said he could not continue in office after Houthis allegedly broke a peace deal to retreat from key positions in return for increased political power. The Houthis appear to have major backing from longtime former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was ousted in a popular uprising in 2011. The Obama administration had praised the Yemeni government as being a model for "successful" counterterrorism partnerships, but on Thursday the United States announced it was pulling more staff out of its embassy in Yemen. Some experts warn the developments in Yemen could result in civil war and help al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) gain more power. Meanwhile, Oxfam is warning more than half of Yemen’s population needs aid, and a humanitarian crisis of extreme proportions is at risk of unfolding in the country if instability continues. We are joined by Iona Craig, a journalist who was based in Sana’a for four years as the Yemen correspondent for The Times of London.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin in Yemen, which is teetering on the brink of collapse after the U.S.-backed president, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, his prime minister and entire cabinet resigned on Thursday. The exodus came just 24 hours after Shia Houthi rebels stormed the presidential compound in the capital city of Sana’a. Hadi said he could not continue ruling after Houthis allegedly broke a peace deal to retreat from key positions in return for increased political power. The Houthis appear to have major backing from longtime president Ali Abdullah Saleh, the ousted leader who was forced from office in a popular uprising in 2011.
AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration had praised the Yemeni government as being a model for "successful" counterterrorism partnerships, but on Thursday the U.S. announced it was pulling more staff out of its embassy in Yemen. Some experts warn the developments in Yemen could result in civil war and help al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula gain more power. Meanwhile, Oxfam is warning more than half of Yemen’s population needs aid, and a humanitarian crisis of extreme proportions is at risk of unfolding in the country if instability continues. Ten million Yemenis do not have enough to eat, including 850,000 acutely malnourished children.
For more, we go to London, where we’re joined by Iona Craig. She’s a journalist who was based in Sana’a, Yemen, for four years as the Yemen correspondent for The Times of London, was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2014.
Iona, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about what has taken place.
IONA CRAIG: I think what we’ve seen in the last few days is pretty unprecedented in terms of Yemen, and I think what’s happened now with Hadi handing in his resignation, the prime minister and the cabinet, is really probably the smartest thing they could have done. They were backed into a corner by the Houthis, and quite literally, the Houthis had surrounded Hadi’s house. They obviously couldn’t and hadn’t taken them on militarily, in a fight that they were unlikely to be able to win. And so this was the only way for them to turn around to the Houthis and say, "No, this is enough."
And now we have the prospect of an emergency meeting of the Parliament on Sunday, when Hadi’s resignation will be put forward. Now, they have the option to reject that resignation, which means that Hadi would still be president after that, unless he then hands his resignation in again within three months. So it may actually be that Hadi stays and manages to survive all of this.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Iona, given the constant turbulence within the country, what’s the impact on some of the regional powers—obviously, Iran and the United States and Saudi Arabia?
IONA CRAIG: Well, really, you know, the reason why the international community has been promoting and supporting Hadi is because, for them, there wasn’t another option. They’ve been backing this transition deal from the beginning. It was created initially as Ali Abdullah Saleh signed the deal at the end of 2011 in order to step down, this deal called the GCC deal. But it really originated—and it’s an open secret in Sana’a—from the American Embassy. And the reason we know that is that the politicians in Yemen that first saw it could tell that it was translated from English. So, that transition deal is what the international community have been backing. And that transition deal is really what has brought this to this place today, because it never truly addressed the underlying problems in Yemen. It was all about reshuffling power in order to concentrate on the security issues within Yemen, without actually making the changes that Yemenis have been demanding. So, issues like the Houthis, who were a marginalized group and persecuted under Ali Abdullah Saleh, the issue of southern secession, they were never truly addressed throughout this period. And now this has come to a head now with the Houthis taking their own action to get what they want. So the international community is partly responsible for the situation that Yemen is now in. But, of course, their focus still remains on the security issues in Yemen.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to comments President Obama made last summer when he announced additional U.S. military support to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In response to a question, President Obama invoked U.S. policy in Yemen as a possible model for Iraq and Syria. This is part of what he said.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: You look at a country like Yemen, a very impoverished country and one that has its own sectarian or ethnic divisions, there’s—we do have a committed partner in President Hadi and his government, and we have been able to help to develop their capacities without putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, at the same time as we’ve got enough CT, or counterterrorism, capabilities that we’re able to go after folks that might try to hit our embassy or might be trying to export terrorism into Europe or the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama over the summer. Your response, Iona Craig?
IONA CRAIG: Well, I think this really kind of goes back to what I just mentioned. The international focus has always been about security in Yemen. So, even when Ali Abdullah Saleh was in power, they backed him because they could work with him and, you know, to carry out the operations that they wanted, to use drone strikes in Yemen. And there was no plan B. There was no "What will we do if Ali Abdullah Saleh is not there?" And similarly, then, with Hadi. They knew Hadi had been vice president under Ali Abdullah Saleh. It was someone they knew they could work with. They built on the partnership. And again, now, there is—there is no plan B. So if Hadi goes, this leaves them in a position—you know, in a really bad position of who now are they dealing with.
As for the issue of the Yemen model, clearly now that’s something of a joke, really. The Yemen model has all but collapsed. The fighting against al-Qaeda on the ground has actually been done now by the Houthis, but it’s actually made the issue and the problem of al-Qaeda worse in Yemen, anyway. The violence being carried out by al-Qaeda has increased hugely since the Houthis took Sana’a in September. But, you know—and again, looking at those Oxfam figures, the underlying problems in Yemen, you have—now those figures have gone to 16 million people in need of humanitarian aid. The last figures that came out said 14.7 million, out of a population of 25. So, whilst the international community focuses on the security issues, you’ve got an economy that’s collapsing, you’ve got a rising humanitarian crisis and political issues that haven’t been dealt with. So, this kind of short-term thinking about the security situation in Yemen is really never going to get to the bottom of the political problems, the economic problems and the humanitarian issues that all feed into this in the end.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you mentioned one of the other underlying problems being an ongoing secessionist movement. Most Americans here have short memories. They forget that it wasn’t long ago when there was a separate Marxist state, the Democratic Republic of Yemen, in a huge portion of what is now Yemen. Could you talk about that secessionist movement in its current form?
IONA CRAIG: Yes, the Southern Movement, or al-Hirak al-Janoubi, as it’s known in Yemen, has been around for many years now, technically since 2007. But North and South Yemen, we unified in 1990, and then there was a brief civil war in 1994, and the south was very much crushed in that. But this call for secession has been increasing rapidly over the last few years, particularly obviously since 2011. But the international community again has failed to really engage with the southerners. And they particularly reached out to the U.K., actually, because obviously the British previously had control of Aden, the southern city, for many years. And they reached out to the international community. And really, the international community didn’t—hasn’t engaged with them, mainly because they feel that if they engage with the south, then it’s recognizing their calls for secession, and they don’t want Yemen to break up, because they think it will impact the security situation. So, in that void, it’s actually Iran that a lot of the time in the south has stepped in and has engaged with the southerners, because nobody else will. And they have increasingly been engaging with them and supporting them.
But we’ve also got a situation now in the south over the last 24 hours, since everything’s happened in Sana’a, where they are now taking action. There have been big protests in the south today. They have said—you know, put out a message saying they will refuse to take orders now from Sana’a because of what’s happening with the Houthis. And it now appears that the Houthis are in charge. But, you know, there’s a lot of politicking going on in Aden right now. So you’ve got President Hadi with his supporters and his militiamen and gunmen on the streets. You’ve also got the Houthis, supported by Ali Abdullah Saleh, been trying to make gains in Aden, as well. So, it’s going to come to a head in the south, and that looks like it’s going to happen sooner rather than later now, because of what’s happening in Sana’a.
AMY GOODMAN: Will Saleh return as president?
IONA CRAIG: Ali Abdullah Saleh?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
IONA CRAIG: I think that’s very unlikely, but I think the chances of Ahmed Ali, his son, returning as president are possible. I think that’s distinctly possible. It may not happen in the next week, but when it comes the time of presidential elections—goodness knows when that will happen now—but I think there is a possibility that Ahmed Ali, his son, could rule Yemen. And right now, you know, for some Yemenis, they would throw up their hands and say, you know, security, some form of stability, some form of governance is better than nothing. They’re in a pretty dire situation right now with an economy that’s collapsing and this humanitarian crisis going on at the same time. And people most of the time just want stability so they can carry on with their lives.
AMY GOODMAN: Iona Craig, we want to thank you very much for being with us. She’s speaking to us from London, but she lived for four years in Sana’a, in the capital of Yemen, reporting for The Times of London, winner of the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.
|
King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia has died at the age of 90. Abdullah was one of the world’s most powerful men and a key U.S. ally in the region, controlling a fifth of the known global petroleum reserves. In a statement, President Obama praised Abdullah "as a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond." Many analysts accused Abdullah of turning the uprising in Syria into a proxy war with Iran. In 2010, WikiLeaks published U.S. diplomatic cables which identified Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups. Abdullah also sent tanks to help squash pro-democracy uprisings in neighboring Bahrain. Saudi Arabia recently came under criticism for its treatment of imprisoned blogger Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes to be carried out at a rate of 50 per week for charges including insulting Islam. Abdullah’s half-brother, Crown Prince Salman, has now assumed the throne. We are joined by Toby Jones, director of Middle Eastern studies at Rutgers University and the author of "Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia."
Image Credit: Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in U.S.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Saudi Arabia.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, well, in Saudi Arabia, the funeral for the Saudi king, Abdullah, has begun. He died on Thursday at the age of 90. His brother Salman will now become king of the oil-rich monarchy. The White House announced Vice President Joe Biden would travel to Saudi Arabia to offer condolences. King Abdullah was one of the closest U.S. allies in the region. In a statement, President Obama praised him, saying, quote, "As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions. One of those convictions was his steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship as a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond."
AMY GOODMAN: While President Obama described Abdullah as a force of stability in the Middle East, analysts, many, accused Abdullah of turning the uprising in Syria into a proxy war with Iran. In 2010, WikiLeaks published U.S. diplomatic cables which identified Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups. King Abdullah also sent tanks to help squash pro-democracy uprisings in neighboring Bahrain. Saudi Arabia recently came under criticism for its treatment of imprisoned blogger Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes to be carried out at a rate of 50 per week for charges including insulting Islam. He runs a political blog—or did, until he was imprisoned.
For more on the future on King Abdullah and the future of Saudi Arabia, we’re joined via Democracy Now! video stream by Toby Jones, associate professor of history and director of Middle East studies at Rutgers University. He’s also the author of Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia, previously the International Crisis Group’s political analyst of the Persian Gulf.
Toby Jones, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about the death of King Abdullah.
TOBY JONES: Well, Abdullah’s death of course marks a transition. It’s getting a lot of attention. I think, as you pointed out in the lead up here, you know, his record is not quite as positive or rosy as a lot of people are reflecting upon this morning. He came to power formally in 2005, celebrated as a potential reformer, as somebody who would modernize and lead the kingdom forward. But it turns out he’s largely failed on every one of those measures. He has turned the clock back in terms of inciting sectarianism at home and supporting the forces of radicalism abroad. Or, if we want to read this in some slightly more benign way, he’s at least not cracked down on the domestic forces at home that have sought to incite things like sectarianism. He burned bridges with Iraq. He saw the Arab Spring, the uprising in Syria, as an opportunity to challenge both Iran and Assad’s power there, knowing full well what the possibilities of blowback and the rise of a kind of new regional terrorism might be. They supported instability in Yemen. They’ve crushed pro-democracy forces in Bahrain. Look, Abdullah is somebody who was well liked in the West. He might have been admired by a large section of Saudi society. But his record is one that’s consistent with his predecessors: It’s at odds with democracy, with human rights and with all of the things that we’re supposed to value.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And about that last point, Professor Jones, what is the state of human rights and democracy in the Saudi kingdom?
TOBY JONES: Well, it’s as bad as it’s ever been. You know, I mean, you mentioned Badawi, in the lead up here, being sentenced to a long prison term and, of course, now subject to flogging publicly, a thousand lashes. I mean, this might seem outlandish, but this is sort of common practice in Saudi Arabia. Its prisons are full of political prisoners—they have been for quite a long time—including Islamists, suspected terrorists, as well as liberals and others who champion the cause of reform and human rights. There’s been a steady string of arrests and detentions over the last few years. We pay attention now because of the crude, kind of terrible nature of what’s involved in public beheadings and this kind of Medieval punishment of lashing people for speaking their minds, but this has been going on in Saudi Arabia for quite a long time.
I mean, it’s worth remembering that in 2002, 2003, Abdullah, when he was crown prince—although not formally the king, was nevertheless still in a position of political primacy—became a darling of the reform lobby and kind of the—what we might call the moderate political wing of Saudi Arabia’s domestic political society. He was seen as a reformer. He was embraced by a broad cross-section of folks who believed that Saudi Arabia, following 9/11, following the decade of the 1990s in which there was a kind of brutal politics and crackdown on dissent, that he was going to be the person who spearheaded a period of liberal opening. And it turns out that he turned against all of his domestic allies. When he saw opportunities to crush and push back against those who might challenge Saudi political primacy, he did so. And he did so as crudely as any of his predecessors did. He was not a benevolent dictator. He was a dictator.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the man who will succeed him, King Salman? There is some information, or is it rumors, that he has dementia?
TOBY JONES: Well, I mean, look, a lot of people claim to have insight into the internal politics of the royal family. And I would caution against saying that we know too much. I mean, Salman is not a young man. I mean, he’s at least 79, if not older than that. So he’s been in a—you know, he’s been around for quite a long time. Who knows how long his reign will be? If he is suffering from health issues, you know, the royal family is not going to let us know too much about that. There has been speculation that he’s suffering from dementia. And it’s likely that his reign will be a short one and that there are powers behind the throne that will make sure that the interests of the royal family will be protected, much like Abdullah and his predecessor, Fahd. The family protects itself. There is an arrangement likely in place in which the king is the first amongst equals; nobody can act too radically or too out of step with the interests of the family more broadly.
So Salman’s reign will be probably very consistent and similar to that of Abdullah’s. He’ll be a figurehead. He will likely wield some kind of influence, as will those who are closest to him, as will his successor, the, like, current crown prince, who is probably about a decade younger, Muqrin. But the reality here—and I think one of the things we get caught up in is we get caught up in the politics of succession in Saudi Arabia, and will there be a changing of the guard that leads to some fundamental transformation. The odds are very low that that’s going to happen. The royal family’s interests are in protecting themselves first, their privilege second, and making sure that there are limited challenges to their authority. They’re very good at this, and they have been for over half a century.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the role of the Saudi family or the Saudi elite in the continuing financing of jihadists around the world?
TOBY JONES: Well, I mean, Saudi Arabia is of course a wellhead for a certain kind of ideological thinking and production. There’s a lot of talk about Wahhabism and the similarities between what is the official orthodoxy of the Islamic—of the Saudi state and groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS and others. And I think those ideological connections matter. There are certainly—there are certainly operators on the ground. There is support within Saudi mosques for precisely these kinds of networks. The Saudi state is in a much more difficult—and the royal family, a much more difficult—position. They view—I think we have to be careful here. I think they view the regional political landscape through the lens of kind of good, old-fashioned geopolitics. I mean, they see Iran as a rival. They see Assad as a pawn in all of that game. And they understand that they have a kind of limited playbook, that there are kind of natural alliances with which they can—which they can forge mutual interests and cooperation. And the Islamists happen to be among those. But I don’t think the royal family is necessarily an ideological actor in the same way that some of the preachers and clerics in Saudi Arabia are. But they reach out because they have to, to these networks. They’re dealt a certain hand, and they play the game in the way that they best can.
But this is a dangerous proposition—it was that way in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it was that way in Iraq after 2003—where the Saudis forge alliances, or they at least allow those that are sort of on the margins of the government to fund and support networks that are also simultaneously dangerous to the regime itself. That’s why they’re building a big fence on their border with Iraq. On the one hand, they’d like to see ISIS do damage in Syria, but they don’t want to see it come home. But, look, over the long term, this is an unsustainable, untenable proposition. The Saudis are eventually going to have to deal. They’re going to have to reckon with the blowback from Syria and Iraq. They’d like to postpone it as long as possible, but it’s likely inevitable.
AMY GOODMAN: And the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States, Toby Jones?
TOBY JONES: Well, this is a long-standing and complicated one. It’s often framed, as Obama mentioned or as others will likely remark today, that it’s framed through the lens of security and stability. And that certainly matters from the perspective of both Saudi and American policymakers. If we peel back the layers of what this means, though, it’s not always clear. It’s not as though the Saudis have any power to really shape the region or defend their interests militarily. They’re largely dependent on the United States for security assurances. The U.S. has happily projected its military power into the Persian Gulf since at least the early 1970s, if not earlier than that.
I mean, I think what this really comes down to is that the Saudis are the world’s most important oil producer. They have been for quite a long time. For that reason, they’ve been in the American political orbit since at least the late 1930s. And the oil functions in important ways. It functions because it’s the American—Americans see it as important to the global economy, to our own domestic political economic health. And we see Saudi Arabia as an important player in that respect. But oil wealth also does a lot of other things. It gets recycled to the American economy, especially with the purchase of weapons. And these all become entangled with Saudi Arabia. Our relationship is not just about providing security for oil. It’s about maintaining a certain kind of strategic and economic relationship that profits both sides.
AMY GOODMAN: Toby Jones, we want to thank you for being with us, associate professor of history and director of Middle East studies at Rutgers University, author of Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll talk Ferguson. What about the Justice Department not bringing civil rights charges against the police officer who killed Mike Brown? And then we’ll talk about a Supreme Court decision you might not have learned about this week, a major decision on behalf of whistleblowers. Stay with us.
|
The Justice Department has reportedly concluded it will not bring civil rights charges against police officer Darren Wilson for shooting unarmed African-American teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. On Wednesday, The New York Times reported Attorney General Eric Holder will have the final say, but will almost certainly side with investigators who are recommending no charges. A wider Justice Department probe into Ferguson police over reports of racial profiling in traffic stops and use of excessive force remains underway. Meanwhile, a judge has rejected an NAACP Legal Defense Fund request for a new grand jury to consider criminal charges against Wilson. The group raised concerns over the actions of prosecutor Bob McCulloch, including his decision to let a witness provide false testimony. All this comes as President Obama made just one mention of Ferguson in his State of the Union address Tuesday, prompting activists to release their own video on the State of the Black Union. We are joined by Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to news that the Justice Department does not plan to bring civil rights charges against police officer Darren Wilson for shooting unarmed African-American teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. On Wednesday, The New York Times reported Attorney General Eric Holder will have the final say, but will almost certainly side with investigators who are recommending no charges. A wider Justice Department probe into Ferguson police over reports of racial profiling in traffic stops and use of excessive force remains underway. Meanwhile, a judge has rejected an NAACP Legal Defense Fund request for a new grand jury to consider criminal charges against Wilson. The group raised concerns over the actions of prosecutor Bob McCulloch, including his decision to let a witness provide false testimony.
AMY GOODMAN: All this comes as President Obama made a single mention of Ferguson in his State of the Union address Tuesday, prompting activists to release their own video on the State of the Black Union. This is a clip.
STATE OF THE BLACK UNION: We recognize that not even a black president will pronounce our truths. We must continue the task of making America uncomfortable with institutionalized racism, in the hopes that together we can re-imagine what is possible and build a system that is designed for blackness to thrive.
AMY GOODMAN: For more on the news that the federal government does not plan to file civil rights charges against police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown in Ferguson, we’re joined by Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Vince, welcome back to Democracy Now! Were you surprised?
VINCENT WARREN: Not terribly surprised. It’s very disappointing, because I think a range of people want to have some measure of accountability. But when you actually look at the federal civil rights laws, it’s a much harder and higher burden for them to prove these types of charges. They were going to have to essentially show that Darren Wilson intended to violate Mike Brown’s civil rights. And there are ways that they can do that, by looking at the totality of the evidence, looking at what he said. But I think their view is the evidence just is probably not enough to support that higher burden of proving an intent to do something based on race or to violate his civil rights in that way. It’s a challenge.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about the ongoing investigation of Ferguson by the Justice Department?
VINCENT WARREN: Well, the Department of Justice has two options. One is the criminal route, which it looks like it’s not going to happen specifically with respect to Darren Wilson. But they also have other options, which are civil lawsuits against the Ferguson Police Department for pattern and practice of activities that violate civil rights—excessive force and things like that. So that’s clearly something that they’re intending to move forward. Beyond that, the Brown family also has the ability to file a civil lawsuit, which is not outstanding for the justice that people want, but it certainly is a remedy that could send a very strong financial message.
AMY GOODMAN: On this issue of intent, I mean, even if he didn’t that morning, when he got up, say, "I want to violate his rights," or even five minutes before, once he did that, why is that not sufficient?
VINCENT WARREN: Well, there are a range of things in life that happen that it’s difficult to prove after the fact. And with this situation, you know, it’s not—the proof doesn’t require him to say the N-word right as he pulls the trigger. And you can look at the facts and the circumstances. So, whether Mike Brown’s hands were up or not would matter. Whether Mike Brown was running away or running towards would matter. So those are the totality of the circumstances that they can begin to look at. However, I think their take is, based on that information that they have, it’s going to be very hard for them to issue an indictment in a federal court that would sustain this type of charge, unfortunately.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what’s been the impact nationwide, following Ferguson, in terms of attempts by local communities to reform the police abuse situation in their own communities? We just recently—for instance, this week, Governor Cuomo announced new measures. During his State of the State address Wednesday, he announced his reforms that could lead to the appointment of special prosecutors in cases where police kill unarmed suspects and a grand jury fails to indict the officer. This is Governor Cuomo.
GOV. ANDREW CUOMO: I will appoint an independent monitor who will review police cases where a civilian dies and no true bill is issued, and the independent monitor can recommend a special prosecutor be appointed. The independent monitor should have access to the grand jury information, which will be protected, but this way, the independent monitor can actually make an intelligent recommendation, because they’ll have all the evidence and they’ll have all the facts.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Governor Cuomo at his State of the State. Your analysis of his proposals and what’s going on in other parts of the country, as well?
VINCENT WARREN: Well, yeah, the Ferguson situation has everything to do with what’s going on in different parts of the country. With respect to that particular proposal, I actually was part of a meeting with Attorney General Schneiderman of New York, who proposed a similar measure in which his office would be appointed to be able to look at these things more independently than local prosecutors who work with police officers would. This, I think, is a step in the right direction. And it really points to the larger issue that the protesters are talking about, is that we’re talking systemic failure. What’s happening in grand juries around the country, and even in terms of the federal prosecution, the system is not keeping up with the current nature and tenor of the civil rights violations that are happening with police departments. We need protesters out there to push that political agenda to make sure that black lives matter, and then we need to have smart reforms, like this one, that shift the dynamic so that the system is not trying to reform itself.
AMY GOODMAN: Vince Warren, I want to thank you for being with us. Vince Warren is executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
|
A journalist and activist accused of working with Anonymous has been given a five-year prison term and ordered to pay nearly $900,000 in restitution and fines. Barrett Brown was sentenced on Thursday after pleading guilty last year to charges of transmitting threats, accessory to a cyber-attack, and obstruction of justice. Supporters say Brown has been unfairly targeted for investigating the highly secretive world of private intelligence and military contractors. After his sentencing on Thursday, Brown released a satirical statement that read in part: "Good news! — The U.S. government decided today that because I did such a good job investigating the cyber-industrial complex, they’re now going to send me to investigate the prison-industrial complex." We discuss Brown’s case with Kevin Gallagher, a writer, activist and systems administrator who heads the Free Barrett Brown support network. He says that the public should not believe what the government says about Brown.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A journalist accused of working with the hacking group Anonymous has been sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $900,000 in restitution and fines. Barrett Brown, held in custody since September 2012, pleaded guilty to charges of transmitting threats, accessory to a cyber-attack, and obstruction of justice, for interfering with the execution of a search warrant. After his sentencing on Thursday, Brown released a satirical statement, saying, quote, "Good news!—The U.S. government decided today that because I did such a good job investigating the cyber-industrial complex, they’re now going to send me to investigate the prison-industrial complex."
AMY GOODMAN: Before Barrett Brown’s path crossed with the FBI, he frequently contributed to Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post, The Guardian and other news outlets. In 2009, Barrett Brown created Project PM, which was, quote, "dedicated to investigating private government contractors working in the secretive fields of cybersecurity, intelligence and surveillance." He was particularly interested in the documents leaked by WikiLeaks and Anonymous. In the documentary We are Legion, Barrett Brown explains the importance of information obtained by hackers.
BARRETT BROWN: Some of the most important things that have been—have had the most far-reaching influence and have been the most important in terms of what’s been discovered, not just by Anonymous, but by the media in the aftermath, is the result of hacking. That information can’t be obtained by institutional journalistic process, or it can’t be obtained or won’t be obtained by a congressional committee or a federal oversight committee. For the most part, that information has to be, you know, obtained by hackers.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In 2011, the group Anonymous hacked into the computer system of the private security firm HBGary Federal and disclosed thousands of internal emails. Barrett Brown has not been accused of being involved in the hack itself, but he did read and analyze the documents, eventually crowd-sourcing the effort through the Project PM. One of the first things he discovered was a plan to tarnish the reputations of WikiLeaks and sympathetic journalist Glenn Greenwald, then with The Guardian. Brown similarly analyzed and wrote about the millions of internal company emails from Stratfor Global Intelligence that were leaked on Christmas Eve 2011. Shortly thereafter, the FBI acquired a warrant for his laptop and the authority to seize any information from his communications—or, in journalism parlance, his sources. In September 2012, armed agents barged into Brown’s apartment in Dallas, Texas, handcuffed him face down on the floor. He has been in prison ever since.
AMY GOODMAN: For more on the sentencing of Barrett Brown, we go to Dallas, Texas, to speak with Kevin Gallagher, the director of the Free Barrett Brown support network. He attended Brown’s sentencing hearing on Thursday. Kevin Gallagher is a writer, activist, systems administrator currently working for Freedom of the Press Foundation. He recently wrote a piece for the New York Observer called "Don’t Believe What the Government Says About Barrett Brown."
Kevin Gallagher, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about who Barrett Brown is, the sentencing yesterday, and what it means for freedom of the press. And talk about just what he did.
KEVIN GALLAGHER: Certainly. Well, thank you for having me on, Amy. So, as you provided in that very good background there, Barrett Brown is a journalist activist who became known through his work with Anonymous. And he landed on the radar of the FBI through his investigations of the private intelligence contracting industry. His case has gone on for over two years now, and his sentencing was delayed several times. Finally, yesterday, in the second half of the sentencing hearing, the judge imposed a sentence.
It was really quite extraordinary, because the judge essentially agreed with the government on most of the sentencing enhancements which they had proposed, overruling the defense’s objections. He did not seem to understand what the public impact of this case would be. He dismissed out of hand the mitigating factors of Brown’s mental state when he made the videos. In fact, he was more concerned about the chilling effects on FBI agents in conducting their investigations than any chilling effects on journalists who paste links. I think anybody, any journalist in the United States, should be concerned about the precedent that this sets for people who share information, people who report on hacking, or those who use hackers as sources or who do computer security research and things of that nature. But even just anyone who shares a link without knowing what exactly is in it, they’ve set an unreasonable expectation here that you should know that—for certain, that the link you’re sharing doesn’t contain stolen credit cards or things of that nature before doing so.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what is the importance of the information that he provided about Stratfor? Who is Stratfor Intelligence, and its role?
KEVIN GALLAGHER: Well, yeah, Stratfor is a private intelligence firm. They’re much like a private version of the CIA. They have global—they do global analysis and generate reports, which people subscribe to and receive these reports. As a result of the emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks, several things came out of there. They were conducting surveillance of Occupy Wall Street, going after activists in Bhopal, India, and even targeting PETA at the behest of Coca-Cola. Brown actually did most of his work on the HBGary emails and looking at things like persona management and the Team Themis scandal, which you mentioned, more than he had a chance really to look into Stratfor.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to that issue of HBGary. By analyzing the information from the HBGary hack, Barrett Brown discovered the security firm’s plan to undermine journalist Glenn Greenwald’s defense of WikiLeaks. One slide read, "Without the support of people like Glenn wikileaks would fold." HBGary intended to spread disinformation to discredit both Glenn Greenwald and WikiLeaks. In the documentary We are Legion, the director spoke to former HBGary CEO Aaron Barr about these plans.
BRIAN KNAPPENBERGER: It seems like you’re trying to attack a journalist here.
AARON BARR: Yeah, and I—you know, I don’t want to talk too much more about Glenn Greenwald, but other than, you know, what I previously said. You know, there was never an intent to attack journalists, not on my part. You know, I guess I should say—I should generalize that and to say that, you know, I would never just outwardly attack a journalist, other than if I felt that there was a journalist, in my mind, that was acting unethically, that, you know, that is a—that’s a fair game for having a public discussion about.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s former HBGary CEO Aaron Barr in the documentary We are Legion. Of course, Glenn Greenwald would go on to win the Pulitzer Prize. Kevin Gallagher, the significance of what Barrett Brown did in relation to HBGary? And as we wrap up, what the sentencing says to people in this country?
KEVIN GALLAGHER: Well, it says that they should be very concerned about the state of press freedom in this country. The U.S. has dropped in their ranking on press freedom as told by Reporters Without Borders—in fact, due to this case specifically. As far as HBGary, one of the biggest things that Brown found in there was a program called Romas/COIN, which was this mobile phone application proposal to target the Arab world. And, you know, to me, this is on par with any report that you’ve seen from the Snowden documents, and this was discovered two years before Snowden even came forward.
AMY GOODMAN: And that sentencing, he will spend how long in jail?
KEVIN GALLAGHER: Well, he’s been sentenced to 63 months, which is the maximum under the guidelines which the judge calculated according to the offense levels. But he could be out within one or two years if he completes an in-prison drug rehab program. And, you know, the bottom line is, this is not going to deter him from doing his work, which is writing, making people laugh through his hilarious column, and investigating government wrongdoing.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Kevin Gallagher, we want to thank for joining us, writer, activist and systems administrator currently working for Freedom of the Press Foundation, also director of the Free Barrett Brown—Free Barrett Brown, a support network, advocacy group and legal defense fund. Yes, Kevin Gallagher attended Brown’s sentencing hearing on Thursday in Dallas.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, a major decision from the Supreme Court this week on whistleblowers. Stay with us.
|
A major U.S. Supreme Court decision has upheld the right of federal employees to become whistleblowers. The case centers on former Transportation Security Administration Federal Air Marshal Robert MacLean. In July 2003, MacLean revealed to an MSNBC reporter that the Department of Homeland Security had decided to stop assigning air marshals to certain long-distance flights in order to save money, despite warnings of a potential plot to hijack U.S. airplanes. MSNBC’s report on the story sparked outcry, and the policy was quickly reversed. MacLean was fired three years later after admitting to being the story’s source. He filed a lawsuit over his dismissal, sparking a multi-year legal battle that ended earlier this week when the Supreme Court ruled on his behalf in a 7-to-2 decision. At issue was whether MacLean’s actions could be protected by the U.S. Whistleblower Protection Act, a law that protects employees if a disclosure exposes unlawful conduct, gross mismanagement or threats to public safety. We speak to Robert MacLean and attorney Neal Katyal, who argued MacLean’s case before the Supreme Court. Katyal is the former acting solicitor general of the United States.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to a major Supreme Court decision upholding the right of federal employees to become whistleblowers. The case centered on a Transportation Security Administration federal air marshal named Robert MacLean. In July 2003, MacLean revealed to a reporter from MSNBC that the Department of Homeland Security had decided to stop assigning air marshals to certain long-distance flights in order to save money, despite warnings of a potential plot to hijack U.S. airplanes. MSNBC’s report on the story sparked outcry, and the policy was quickly reversed. MacLean was fired three years later after admitting to being the source of the article. He sued, beginning a multi-year legal battle.
AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this week, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled on Robert MacLean’s behalf. At issue was whether MacLean’s actions could be protected by the U.S. Whistleblower Protection Act, a law that protects employees if a disclosure exposes unlawful conduct, gross mismanagement or threats to public safety.
Robert MacLean joins us now from Orange, California. We’re also joined by attorney Neal Katyal, who argued MacLean’s case before the Supreme Court. Neal Katyal is the former acting solicitor general of the United States.
Well, let’s first go to Robert MacLean. Go back to 2003. Tell us why you decided to do what you did. You were an air marshal.
ROBERT MacLEAN: Well, initially, I thought it was a mistake, because two days before, we had been given a unprecedented emergency briefing that we were going to be attacked by al-Qaeda hijackers smuggling weapons onto aircraft and targeting overseas flights, so—and we’d never had such a briefing. So when two days later we get this text message to immediately cancel all of our hotel reservations, it made no sense. So I called—
AMY GOODMAN: That meant that you would no longer be flying overseas, air marshals.
ROBERT MacLEAN: Pretty much, the way—it would have affected any flight that was about three-and-a-half hours long.
AMY GOODMAN: So what did you do?
ROBERT MacLEAN: First, I called my office to find out what’s with this text message we all got, and everybody got it across the country. And the supervisor told me that the agency had no more money, and they were going to cancel these missions indefinitely. Subsequent investigations by the inspector general and the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that it was going to last until the fiscal year. So it would have been two months until more funding came to the agency.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, what did you do subsequent to that to go through the normal procedures that you would have to appeal a decision like this?
ROBERT MacLEAN: I called the hotline for the Inspector General’s Office, and they asked me where I was located. So they directed me to a office in San Diego, California, where they told me that they were simply an audit office and that they did not handle the type of disclosure that I was giving them. So they gave me a number for the Oakland office, where I spoke to a criminal investigator who had been—according to what he told me, he was detailed from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. And I explained to him what was happening. And he actually sympathized, but he said there was really nothing that could be done, these things happen, agencies run out of money, so this is—there’s nothing that he could do, and gave me sort of a lecture: "Don’t press this. You’ve got a long career ahead of you. You might"—we discussed our ages. And he said, "Just walk away."
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn’t. Tell us what you did.
ROBERT MacLEAN: After that, I looked up—there were two journalists that there were doing really good and very responsible—and I flew myself, so I didn’t want to put myself in danger and the public that I was serving in danger, so I was careful to find these two journalists. One was unavailable, and the other I got through. He explained to me that he was in touch with senior members in Congress, who ended up being Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Hal Rogers. And he said he was in touch with them, and he also verified that air marshals from all across the country got the same message. And the story broke out a few hours later.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What was the reaction within the agency once the story broke?
ROBERT MacLEAN: Immediately, the agency denied it. They said, "That’s not what we’re doing." And eventually, at the end of the day, they issued a press statement that they had made a mistake.
AMY GOODMAN: You would later be fired for—when it was revealed that you were the source of this information?
ROBERT MacLEAN: That’s correct.
AMY GOODMAN: On what grounds?
ROBERT MacLEAN: I was charged with one charge of unauthorized sensitive security information.
AMY GOODMAN: This is after senators held a news conference, an investigation was done, the policy was almost immediately reversed.
ROBERT MacLEAN: Yes. The plan was to go in effect five days later, so it never went into effect.
AMY GOODMAN: But you were fired three years later, when they found out who did this.
ROBERT MacLEAN: That’s correct.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to ask Neal Katyal, the importance of this case and the repercussions that resulted from the whistleblowing here?
NEAL KATYAL: Yeah, I mean, it’s an obviously incredibly important case. Let me start with who it’s important to. I mean, it’s obviously important to Robert and his family. Whistleblowing is a really hard thing to do. And Robert, for a decade, has been living with the consequences of it. And, you know, the chief justice’s opinion for the Supreme Court, a 7-to-2 sweeping decision in Robert’s favor, finally gives him a measure of relief from what has been a really unfortunate ordeal. So that’s just on a personal level.
But on the kind of long-term, systemic level, this is a really important decision. I mean, Congress enacted the Whistleblower Act in 1978 for precisely this kind of thing, because they knew that government agencies engage in, you know, wasteful spending, or sometimes far, far worse—mistakes that damage our national security. And it’s up to people who are employees, like Robert, to do the right thing and come forward and to say, "Hey, you can’t do this. This is wrong." And what the administration and the TSA argued in this case was, "No, we can write our own regulations to punish people like Robert, despite what Congress said." And what the U.S. Supreme Court said, in an opinion that transcended all kind of political lines or anything like that, seven justices signing onto it, they said, "No, you know, the whole point of the Whistleblower Act is to prevent agencies from doing this kind of stuff, these shenanigans like they did to Robert." And, you know, look, I don’t mean to malign the TSA here, in general. There’s a lot of very responsible people there, as there are in all agencies. But I think Congress in 1978, when they wrote the rules, understood, yeah, there are a lot of responsible peoples, but sometimes there are some who aren’t, and that’s why we need the act. And so, you know, this is the U.S. Supreme Court, in a pretty dramatic fashion, coming forward to say, "Hey, agencies, you’re wrong on this stuff. It’s really Congress that set the ground rules here, and they protect people like Robert."
AMY GOODMAN: Neal Katyal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Robert MacLean’s favor, but the Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the Federal Circuit had made a serious legal mistake that would embolden further disclosures by federal employees and could put lives at stake. Can you respond?
NEAL KATYAL: Yeah, I mean, obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration’s argument here. And I should say, I don’t hold any blame for the Obama administration in bringing the case to the Supreme Court. It was an obviously important case to bring. Don Verrilli, the solicitor general, I think, you know, made an understandable decision to bring the case to the Supreme Court. It’s one that I disagree with personally, but reasonable people can have different views of that. But at the end of the day, it’s the U.S. Supreme Court and its decision two days ago that controls this, not what the Obama administration said when asking the court to hear the case. And what the U.S. Supreme Court said is, "Hey, you know, agencies cannot be trusted with this measure of responsibility to allow them to kind of do an end run around the Whistleblower Act." You know, the majority opinion, the chief justice’s opinion, said, basically, that’s kind of like the fox guarding the hen house, and it can’t possibly be.
And it’s an interesting thing, because in this day and age, I think so many people out there in the country think, "Oh, it’s the Roberts Supreme Court. It’s political in one way or another. You know, all these decisions are five to four." This is a really good illustration of how this Supreme Court doesn’t always act politically one way or another, that they come together in a bipartisan fashion. And it’s a good reminder. I mean, last year, the chief justice did something, and his colleagues did something really kind of surprising: They agreed in roughly two-thirds of the cases unanimously. You’d have to go back to the year 1940 to find that level of agreement. And Robert’s case wasn’t totally unanimous—it was seven to two—but it was still seven justices ruling against the government in a national security case. That’s a pretty rare thing to happen.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’m wondering, in terms of the impact of this case on whistleblowers, not just in the federal government, is that potentially—this case could potentially be cited, because at local state government levels, there are government employees who see major problems arising within their agencies, sometimes affecting public safety. Will this embolden them at the local level, as well?
NEAL KATYAL: Well, I mean, I think different states have different whistleblower acts, and they work in different ways. The chief justice’s opinion was careful to really talk about the federal Whistleblower Act and federal employees. So, you know, strictly speaking as a legal matter, I don’t think that it changes the game with respect to states.
But I think what Robert did here is inspiring to all Americans. I mean, I don’t think that whistleblowing is something that should be done lightly. It should only be reserved for a circumstance like this. But in a circumstance like this, in which, you know, the public’s lives are at danger and the agency is doing the wrong thing, I think this U.S. Supreme Court said someone like Robert’s got to come forward. That’s what the system depends on. And, you know—
AMY GOODMAN: The implications—we just have 10 seconds—for Ed Snowden?
NEAL KATYAL: There are no implications for Snowden. I think that’s a very, very different case.
AMY GOODMAN: And let me ask—let me end with Robert. What does this mean for you? You were fired years ago. Do you get reinstated?
ROBERT MacLEAN: I feel—well, I believe not only the Merit Systems Protection Board, in its last decision, agreed that I had a reasonable belief of wrongdoing occurring, but also the TSA. When I made my—
AMY GOODMAN: We have four seconds.
ROBERT MacLEAN: That’s all I can say in four seconds.
AMY GOODMAN: But thank you very much. A very important case. Robert MacLean and Neal Katyal.
|
Yemen in Crisis as Houthi Rebellion Leads President, Cabinet to Resign En Masse
Yemen is facing political collapse following the mass resignations of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, his prime minister and entire cabinet. Thursday’s exodus came just hours after Shia Houthi rebels stormed the presidential compound in the capital city of Sana’a. Hadi said he could not continue in office after Houthis allegedly broke a peace deal to retreat from key positions in return for increased political power.
Prince Salman Assumes Saudi Throne Following Death of King Abdullah
King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia has died at the age of 90. Abdullah was one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men, controlling a fifth of the known global petroleum reserves. The King’s half-brother, Crown Prince Salman, has now assumed the throne. We’ll have more on Abdullah’s death and Saudi Arabia’s future later in the broadcast.
U.S., Cuba Conclude Opening Round of Talks in Havana
The United States and Cuba have wrapped the first round of historic talks in Havana. The two sides met as part of the effort to restore full diplomatic ties for the first time in more than half a century. The head of the U.S. delegation, Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, said while progress was made, there is no timeline for the reopening of a U.S. embassy in Havana.
Roberta Jacobson: "I can’t tell you exactly when that will happen. We are all working through the issues as quickly as we can, and we will do that as soon as we can resolve all of the functional issues that we need to address. On the issue of human rights, the president has spoken to the issue, and certainly that issue remains central to our conversations. We’ve made clear that we will continue to raise that issue, and I did discuss that issue today."
Jacobson is the highest-ranking U.S. diplomat to enter Cuba in nearly 40 years. Josefina Vidal, head of U.S. affairs at the Cuban Foreign Ministry, said Cuba needs several outstanding issues addressed, including the lifting of the embargo and Cuba’s removal from the list of countries sponsoring international terrorism.
Josefina Vidal: "For our part in the process of these discussions, it’s a challenge to say that we have managed to re-establish diplomatic relations between Cuba and the U.S. while our country unfairly remains on the U.S. list of international state sponsors of terrorism. We also say that in order for us to open embassies, it is first necessary to resolve the banking situation faced by the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, which has gone almost a year without services."
President Obama urged Congress to lift the embargo during his State of the Union address earlier this week.
White House: Obama Won’t Meet with Netanyahu on U.S. Trip
The White House has confirmed President Obama will not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the United States in March. Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on Iran at the invitation of Republican House Speaker John Boehner. Netanyahu has backed new sanctions on Iran, despite Obama’s vow to veto them as he pursues a nuclear deal with Tehran. The White House says Obama will not meet with Netanyahu in line with protocol not to meet with foreign leaders close to an election in their home countries.
Journalist, Activist Barrett Brown Sentenced to 5-Year Prison Term
A journalist and activist accused of working with Anonymous has been given a five-year prison term and ordered to pay nearly $900,000 in restitution and fines. Barrett Brown was sentenced on Thursday after pleading guilty last year to charges of transmitting threats, accessory to a cyber-attack, and obstruction of justice. Supporters say Brown has been unfairly targeted for investigating the highly secretive world of private intelligence and military contractors. We’ll have more on his sentencing later in the broadcast.
New York Assembly Speaker Accused of Using Law Firm to Take in Bribes
Federal prosecutors have unveiled corruption charges against New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver following his arrest on Thursday. Silver is accused of using his law firm as a front to rake in millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks for political favors. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Silver had amassed a huge fortune through the abuse of his office.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara: "The complaint charges Speaker Silver in five counts with corruptly seeking legal business from a handful of people and entities with significant business or interests before the state and then corruptly profiting from the legal fees that were paid. All told, we allege that Silver corruptly collected some $4 million in bribes and kickbacks disguised as 'referral fees.' … Politicians are supposed to be on the people’s payroll, not on secret retainer to wealthy special interests they do favors for."
A Democrat, Silver has been New York Assembly speaker for over two decades. A judge has issued seizure warrants to block him from accessing nearly $4 million spread out over eight accounts. In brief comments to reporters outside the courthouse, Silver maintained his innocence.
New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver: "I’m happy the issue is coming to be aired in the legal process, and I am confident that when all the issues are aired, I will be vindicated. Thank you."
Silver is the latest in a series of New York lawmakers to face corruption allegations. His arrest has brought new scrutiny of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to abruptly shut down the anti-corruption Moreland Commission last year.
____________________________
207 W 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment