Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Tuesday, February 10, 2015
democracynow.org
Stories:
As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: We begin in Ukraine. As fighting continues, President Obama says the U.S. has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Obama made the comment Monday during a joint White House news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Now, it is true that if in fact diplomacy fails, what I’ve asked my team to do is to look at all options. What other means can we put in place to change Mr. Putin’s calculus? And the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that’s being examined, but I have not made a decision about that yet. I have consulted with not just Angela, but will be consulting with other allies about this issue. It’s not based on the idea that Ukraine could defeat a Russian army that was determined; it is, rather, to see whether or not there are additional things we can do to help Ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of separatist aggression. But I want to emphasize that a decision has not yet been made.
AMY GOODMAN: German Chancellor Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily.
CHANCELLOR ANGELA MERKEL: [translated] We continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, even though we have suffered a lot of setbacks. These days, we will see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. I’ve always said I don’t see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put all our efforts into bringing about a diplomatic solution.
AARON MATÉ: On Wednesday, Angela Merkel will travel to the Belarus capital of Minsk for talks with leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Over the weekend, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of helping to escalate the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
SERGEY LAVROV: [translated] Unfortunately, at every stage of development in the Ukrainian crisis, our American colleagues and, under their influence, the European Union, as well, made steps leading to escalation of conflict. It’s happened so when the European Union refused to discuss, with Russia’s participation, the consequences of putting into effect an economic block of the Association Agreement with Ukraine. Then there was a direct support for the state coup and, before that, for anti-government protests. The same happened when our Western partners again and again found excuses for everything done by Kiev authorities, which, instead of launching nationwide dialogue, started a wide-scale military operation and called "terrorists" their own citizens who did not agree with the regime change and the rise of ultranationalists.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about whether the United States should arm the Ukrainian military, we’re joined by two guests. Joining us from Chicago is John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago. He’s the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics; his most recent piece, "Don’t Arm Ukraine," published in The New York Times.
In Washington, D.C., we’re joined by General Charles Wald, retired four-star Air Force general, former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, co-author of a new report titled "Preserving Ukraine’s Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do." It was published last week by the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He now works at the consulting firm Deloitte Services, where he serves as vice chair, the Federal Practice senior adviser, leader of Deloitte’s Department of Defense practice.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! General Wald, let’s begin with you. With this report you put out, along—these three major think tanks, why you feel the U.S. should arm the Ukrainian government?
GEN. CHARLES WALD: Thank you for that. The report talks about how we can get to an end state, or at least move the ball down the court on the negotiations for a removal of the Russian military from the eastern Ukraine and go back to the Minsk, at least the line of agreement there. Our belief is—and I heard the discussions, and I actually agree with a lot that’s been said. But I think the difference, for us and others—maybe John will talk to this—is that we don’t believe just a single path—in this case, diplomacy—without some other consequences for Russia, and Putin particularly, will make a difference. So our belief is that we—number one, I think the Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves. And number two, we need to make sure that Russia finds some consequence to the fact that they are attacking Ukraine. Nobody in our report believes that the military solution is the best end state or the fact that Ukraine can defeat Russia, but we do believe that the Ukrainians deserve the right to defend themselves and make it difficult for the Russians to move forward.
AARON MATÉ: But, General, do you believe that all diplomatic options have been exhausted? I mean, on the right to defend oneself, people living in eastern Ukraine, the ethnic Russians there who identify more with Russia than with Ukraine and the West, would say that they have the right to defend themselves against the West, because their president was ousted a year ago. So, do you believe that their concerns have been sufficiently—not addressed, to the point where a diplomatic solution isn’t possible at this point and one has to escalate the fighting, as arming Ukraine would suggest?
GEN. CHARLES WALD: Absolutely not. I believe the—first of all, the fact that Yanukovych left the Ukraine was not necessarily through force. It was through a diplomatic means. Number two is, the Minsk agreement has agreed to ceasefire line that allows for lands in the eastern part of Ukraine to be an autonomous region. The Ukrainian military did not initiate the fighting in the east; they’re defending themselves. So, I think that argument, made obviously by Russia, is not correct, it’s specious, and I think it clouds the issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Mearsheimer, you say that the U.S. should not arm Ukraine. Why?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, the basic game plan here is to drive the costs up for the Russians. As the general said, there’s no way that we can create a situation where the Ukrainian military can defeat Russia, so what we’re going to try and do is significantly drive up the costs for Putin, and we’re assuming that he’s then going to throw his hands up and quit, that we’ll be able to get him to do what we want him to do. That’s not going to happen for one very simple reason: He considers to be what’s happening in Ukraine to be of vital strategic interest to his country. This is the equivalent of Canada or Mexico for the United States. It’s a country right on his border. And he sees NATO and the EU marching up to his border, trying to peel Ukraine away from Russia and make it a Western bulwark. This is just unacceptable to him. And when states get in a situation like that, where their core strategic interests are at stake, they’re willing to suffer enormous costs. So we can inflict great punishment on him, but the fact is, he will not throw his hands up. And this is why the sanctions haven’t worked so far and why arming him is not going to do the trick.
But let’s assume that I’m wrong. Let’s assume that we really drive the costs way up, and he is, Putin is, in a desperate situation. The question you want to ask yourself is: Do you want to put a great power, that sees its vital interests at stake and has thousands of nuclear weapons, in a situation where it’s desperate? I do not want to do that. I think that this is playing with fire. And for this reason, I think there is no military solution to this crisis. It has to be solved diplomatically.
AMY GOODMAN: General Wald?
GEN. CHARLES WALD: Well, in response, first of all, it’s great to hear somebody articulate what seems to be a logical argument on why we shouldn’t go down the path of arming up the Ukrainians. First of all, if Canada or Mexico had an election tomorrow and a different government was put in place, I don’t think we’d feel threatened. Number two, nobody is arming up Putin. Putin has armed up the rebels. And a matter of fact, they have at least a thousand Russian officers in eastern Ukraine today. The argument that we’re going to somehow make Putin feel threatened as a country by arming the Ukrainians is really almost laughable.
But I think the big issue, again, is that—first of all, our report emphasizes the fact that the best outcome and the preferred outcome—and the only outcome, frankly—is a diplomatic outcome. The issue is, you can’t have a single-pronged approach to this problem with a person like Putin. He does not listen to international norms. And the fact that we are trying to impose the way we wish things would be in the world on a world that isn’t how we like it doesn’t make any sense. And we do that invariably in areas like this. So I think we need to have a sophisticated approach.
I think there’s many different parts of the policy or the diplomacy or the strategy, if you will. One, primarily, is diplomacy, which we’re involved with. And matter of fact, President Obama said Monday, again, we’re going to wait to see how the discussions in this week, on Wednesday, go. But number two is, our logic in the West—I mean, I would think that we would say, "Let’s have a diplomatic approach. Let’s come to a solution. Let’s get it over with. And let’s go back to some kind of normalcy in the Ukraine today. We can allow for an autonomous region in the east, not any bigger than was agreed to in Minsk." But the fact of the matter is, Putin will not go down that path unless he sees some kind of consequence. I do not think we should get into a large international military conflict with Russia. But Putin has to have some kind of penalty and price to pay to get to where he needs to go.
AARON MATÉ: Let’s go back to Professor Mearsheimer, this argument that Putin has to pay a price for supporting the rebels is the only way to resolve the crisis.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, again, the key point you want to understand is that Putin thinks that his core vital interests are at stake. Ukraine is a country that has great geostrategic importance for him. And he is going to pay an enormous price to keep NATO and to keep the EU out of that area. He’s made that clear since 2008. The Russians have been against NATO expansion from the beginning. They have said that this was going to lead to a strategic disaster. And we’re basically on the precipice of that.
You know, I would ask the general this question: Do you believe in the Monroe Doctrine? Do you believe that President Kennedy was correct to force the Soviets during the Cold War to get their missiles out of Cuba? If 20 years from now China were to try to form a military alliance with Mexico and Canada, would you say that’s OK, the government in Canada and the government in Mexico want that, and they have a right to have whatever they want? I think the answer is categorically no. I can’t believe a former general doesn’t believe in the Monroe Doctrine and doesn’t think it’s in our interest—that’s America’s interest—to make sure that no distant great power comes into our backyard with military forces.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s put the question—
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: What is going on with Putin is essentially the same thing.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s put the question—
GEN. CHARLES WALD: Well, you’re actually—you’re, first of all—
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s put the question to General Wald.
GEN. CHARLES WALD: OK, OK, I get it. And, first of all, if you want to do a history lesson, that’s probably a different show, but, yes, I believe in the Monroe Doctrine.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well?
GEN. CHARLES WALD: No, I don’t believe the Soviets should have invaded Cuba. No, I don’t believe Russia has the right to invade Ukraine. If China and Canada want to have an alliance, that’s their problem. I don’t think that’s an issue militarily. So you’re mixing up several situations to try to make an issue, a point.
The point—the fact of the matter is, Russia has invaded and helped to invade—they have people there, they have equipment there—a sovereign territory. I don’t care if Ukraine is part of NATO or the EU, for that matter. Matter of fact, President Poroshenko has agreed publicly to swear that they will not go toward a membership in NATO as part of the agreement. He has said they will not do that. He has said, probably, they won’t go to the EU, although economically I think what Ukraine needs more than anything is a good economy. So I think this idealistic, misplaced argument that everything is similar in the world, the Monroe Doctrine, the invasion or the movement of Russia into Cuba are similar, is an argument for people that haven’t studied history, frankly.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: When I was a little boy, my mother taught me that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And if it’s OK for us to have a Monroe Doctrine, if it makes perfect strategic sense for us not to want to have distant great powers on our borders, it should make equally good sense for the Russians to think that way—and, by the way, for the Chinese to think that way. That’s the way great powers behave. And the problem in Washington is that people cannot put themselves in the shoes of leaders in distant capitals. We have to appreciate how Putin thinks about this thing. You don’t have to like Putin. Putin may be a thug. But the fact of the matter is that he and almost all of his colleagues in the Russian leadership believe that NATO, and the West, more generally, are a threat to Russian interests, and what is going on in Ukraine is unacceptable.
GEN. CHARLES WALD: Well, here’s the point to that. Here’s the answer to that. First of all, you’re mixing up the situation again. The United States is not going to occupy the Ukraine. NATO is not going to occupy the Ukraine. NATO has said the Ukraine is not going to be part of NATO. So, the fact of the matter is there’s no—
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: It has not said that. It has never said that.
GEN. CHARLES WALD: Hold on a second. Yeah, they did. They just said it with the agreement of Poroshenko in negotiations with Putin. Poroshenko said, "We are not going to," the Ukraine in this case. And the Western powers, not NATO, but Germany and France, in this case, have agreed that as part of the Minsk agreement, the resetting of the Minsk line, the removal of Russian troops from the Ukraine, that Ukraine would not pursue a NATO membership. That is a fact that’s on public record. Two is, the United States has no intention whatsoever of occupying the Ukraine. Three, the United States would like to see Ukraine be treated as a sovereign nation and have their economy come back to health. Four, we don’t want Russia invading and occupying the Ukraine or going further. Five, we don’t want Russia threatening the other NATO nations that would possibly be of threat, and that could be Poland and Baltics, and obviously Moldova not being part of NATO, but part of the frozen conflict. So, the argument that we’re making, this idealistic, intellectual argument, comparing this to the Monroe Doctrine, is basically unfortunate. I think it’s a smart argument that a professor would make, but it’s wrong.
AMY GOODMAN: We have to break, but we’ll come back to get Professor Mearsheimer’s response. We’re also speaking with General Charles Wald. This is Democracy Now! The debate: Should the U.S. arm Ukraine? Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are General Chuck Wald. He was part of a group of three think tanks that issued a report on the arming of Ukraine. We’re also joined by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer. Aaron?
AARON MATÉ: Well, yes. On Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin says Russia will not accept a world order where one leader dictates what others will do.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] It’s a fact that there clearly is an attempt to restrain our development with different means. There is an attempt to freeze the existing world order, which formed in the decade which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one incontestable leader who wants to remain as such, thinking he is allowed everything, while others are only allowed what he allows and only in his interests. This world order will never suit Russia. If someone likes it, if someone wants to live under conditions of semi-occupation, let him. We will never do this.
AARON MATÉ: That’s Russian President Vladimir Putin. Professor Mearsheimer, there was some debate before the break about the issue whether Ukraine has disavowed joining NATO. The only reference I’ve seen recently is that Poroshenko said the issue would be put off for several years, during which time Ukraine would deliberate this. But can you explain the history behind Putin’s fear, why he is upset about what he says to be NATO encroachment on Russia?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, NATO expansion started in the late 1990s. And the initial tranche, or the first wave of expansion, included countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia. That, again, happened in 1999. And then there was a second big tranche in 2004, which included the Baltic states. And all along, the Russians screamed out loud that this was unacceptable. But there was not much they could do about it because they were very weak, and also the expansion was at a distance at that point in time. Then, in April 2008 at the Bucharest summit—this is the NATO Bucharest summit, April 2008—the end of that summer, a communiqué was issued that said that both Georgia and Ukraine would become part of NATO. And this, by the way, is what precipitated, in large part, the war between Georgia and Russia in August 2008. The Russians made it very clear at the time that NATO expansion into Georgia and into Ukraine was categorically unacceptable.
And what has happened since 2008 is that relations between the Russians and the Americans and the West Europeans, more generally, have gone south, in good part because of NATO expansion—but not only because of NATO expansion, also because of EU expansion, and, furthermore, because of the West’s interest in facilitating the spread of democracy in eastern Europe, maybe even in Russia itself, because the Russians see democracy promotion by the West as basically an attempt to overthrow pro-Russian leaders, or Russian leaders themselves, and put in their place leaders who are pro-Western. So the Russians are very sensitive about this, and therefore it’s no accident that this whole crisis started last February, February 22nd, 2014, when there was a coup in Kiev where a pro-Russian leader, Yanakovych, was overthrown with help from the United States. This is something the Russians considered to be unacceptable, and it led to the present crisis.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask General Wald about how military contractors in the United States feel. You are a retired four-star Air Force general. You’re the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command. But you’re also currently Deloitte’s Federal Government Services Department of Defense Practice leader. Would the weapons industry in this country benefit from arming Ukraine?
GEN. CHARLES WALD: First of all, I’m not a weapons dealer, and I don’t represent Deloitte in this discussion. Number three is, I doubt if—seriously, if anybody of logic at all would think this is really a good idea so we could sell more arms to NATO, or Ukraine in this case. You know, it’s just—that’s the wrong argument.
Let me go back to Professor Mearsheimer’s last discussion. Great synopsis of the recent history. I couldn’t agree more. The part that I kind of take a little bit exception with is the last part. That was an implication that expecting nations in the world, the world order today, the Westphalian model, which is being pressured a little bit today, that Westphalian model of national sovereignty—but the fact of the matter is that the implication that we shouldn’t expect governments to treat their people with dignity, respect, and have human rights in mind, to me, is unfortunate, because that’s really what this is really all about.
Now, going back to the NATO implication, of the Ukraine joining NATO—and Georgia, for that matter—a personal opinion, this is not representing any particular organization or group, but I think NATO overstepped their bounds a little bit, particularly after the Bucharest statement, that we were going to try to see if Ukraine and Georgia then could become members of NATO. I think that was a mistake.
I think the issue should be: Are people—are countries, in this case, in Europe—going to abide by international law, have governments that treat their people with dignity and respect? And the fact of the matter is, Putin has no claim to any sphere of influence whatsoever in Europe, other than Russia, period, dot, over and out. And so, to keep comparing us to what he’s doing, as a counter, that we actually have done the same thing, is, I think, an incorrect argument and actually, I think, puts a lot of good people in America in a position that makes us compared to Putin, is the wrong thing whatsoever at all to do.
So, the issue today is: Does Russia and Putin—do they have the right to invade a sovereign territory because they don’t like the government’s action from the standpoint of sovereignty? I think that’s as simple as that. And is the West and the rest of the world going to stand by when you have a thug like Putin intervening and invading, basically, a sovereign territory, and just stand by and say, "Maybe we could talk about it until you get what you want, Mr. Putin"? That is a big mistake. And to compare Russia to NATO in those objectives, I think, is intellectually kind of interesting, but it’s totally incorrect.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Mearsheimer, your response? Is the rest of the world just standing by?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, let me make a couple points. First of all, the United States sometimes violates international law when it thinks it’s in its interest. The war in Iraq was a clear violation of international law. The war against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999 was a clear violation of international law. The idea that the United States obeys international law and the Russians are simply an outlaw state is not, in my opinion, a correct argument.
Furthermore, with regard to democracy promotion, I’m all in favor of promoting democracy around the world. But the United States has a rich history of overthrowing democratically elected leaders. And furthermore, when it comes to democracy promotion, especially in places like Ukraine, you want to understand that we’re not just simply interested in promoting democracy because it represents our best values; we’re interested in promoting democracy there, and in many other places, as well, because we think it will end up putting in power leaders who are pro-American. And by the way, when that doesn’t happen, we then overthrow those leaders, which contradicts the basic assumption that underpins the policy to begin with. So the United States does not have a particularly good record with regard to either international law or democracy promotion.
With regard to Putin and what’s happened in Ukraine, the fact is, he, right, is now in Ukraine, or his military forces, in however many numbers, are in Ukraine. We’re in this mess. And the question is: How do we get out of it? And I would argue that using big stick diplomacy, which almost everybody in the American national security elite loves to do, is not going to fix the problem. We have been using the big stick in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and we’ve made a mess everywhere we’ve gone. It’s going to be the same story again if we do arming of the Ukrainians. It’s not going to work. It’s just going to escalate the violence, more Ukrainians are going to die, the Russians are going to redouble their efforts, and the crisis is going to escalate. And as I said early on, you want to remember that you’re dealing with a country that has thousands of nuclear warheads and thinks its core strategic interests are at stake. If you put that country in a precarious position, you put Putin in a situation where he feels desperate, it’s not clear what he’ll do. And given he has nuclear weapons, I don’t want to go down that road.
Controversy is mounting around Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned address to the U.S. Congress next month about Iran ahead of Israel’s election. Reuters is reporting Israeli officials are now considering whether Netanyahu should speak to a closed-door session of Congress, rather than in a prime-time television speech. Netanyahu was invited by Republican House Speaker John Boehner. President Obama has said he will not meet with Netanyahu so close to Israel’s election. We get analysis from retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, author of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, we only have a minute to go, but since you both are also—have spoken out on the issue of Iran and Israel, I wanted to ask you about this controversy around the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned address to the U.S. Congress next month about Iran, ahead of Israel’s election. Reuters is now reporting Israeli officials are considering whether Netanyahu should speak to a closed-door session of Congress rather than in a prime-time TV address. Netanyahu was invited by House Speaker John Boehner. President Obama said he will not meet with Netanyahu so close to Israel’s election. Netanyahu against the U.S. nuclear deal, of course. President Obama is for it; Netanyahu is against it. General Wald, first, your position on this?
GEN. CHARLES WALD: It’s about a three-hour discussion, but I think it would be wise for President Netanyahu not to come, under the conditions that are currently in effect. There is no doubt that the Iranian issue, with their possibility of having a nuclear weapon, is a serious threat to the Middle East and to Israel. But I think it would show—it would be wise for President Netanyahu not to come and give a speech at this time, due to the circumstances that we’re in.
AMY GOODMAN: And Professor Mearsheimer?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is between a rock and a hard place. He made a really big mistake agreeing to come to Washington to give this talk without consulting with the White House and without consulting with the Democratic leadership in Congress. And there’s been a huge uproar, and it’s having negative consequences for U.S.-Israeli relations and for the prime minister himself. So there are powerful incentives, I think, reflected in the general’s comments, not to come. But at the same time, if he were to back down, he would end up looking like he had egg all over his face. So I think no matter what he does, he loses. And the simple question is: What’s the least bad alternative? And what they’re trying to do now is find that alternative by finessing the situation, maybe having a closed-door session or having him talk before the annual AIPAC conference. But this is a real mess, and Netanyahu bears principal responsibility for allowing himself to get into this situation.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us, John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, his most recent piece, an op-ed piece in The New York Times, "Don’t Arm Ukraine." And thanks also to General Charles Wald, retired four-star Air Force general and the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, co-author of this new report, "Preserving Ukraine’s Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do."
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll be talking about Ferguson. It’s the six-month anniversary of the death of, well, in Ferguson, Mike Brown. Stay with us.
Monday marked six months since a white police officer killed unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting sparked protests over Brown’s death and the broader racial divide it came to symbolize. Now, half a year later, a major legal action is taking that divide head-on. On Sunday, more than a dozen St. Louis-area residents filed class-action lawsuits against Ferguson and another suburb, Jennings. The residents accuse local officials of creating a "modern debtors’ prison scheme" that targets African Americans with arrests and fines and then locks them up when they cannot pay. A study last year by the ArchCity Defenders found a large part of the revenue for several St. Louis counties comes from fines paid by African-American residents disproportionately targeted for traffic stops and other low-level offenses. In Ferguson, fines and fees were the city’s second-largest source of income in fiscal year 2014. Ferguson issued on average nearly three warrants per household last year — the highest number of warrants in the state, relative to its size. We speak to Michael-John Voss, managing attorney at ArchCity Defenders, one of the groups that has filed a lawsuit against Ferguson and Jennings. We are also joined by Allison Nelson and Herbert Nelson Jr., two of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: Monday marked six months since a white police officer killed unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting sparked protests over Brown’s death and the broader racial divide it came to symbolize. Now, half a year later, a major legal action is taking that divide head-on. On Sunday, more than a dozen St. Louis-area residents filed class-action lawsuits against Ferguson and another suburb, Jennings. The residents accuse local officials of creating a, quote, "modern debtors’ prison scheme" that targets African Americans with arrests and fines and then locks them up when they can’t pay. This is how one resident, George Fields, described it to Democracy Now! in August. He was speaking outside of Michael Brown’s funeral.
GEORGE FIELDS: I’m George Fields, and I’m here for Mike Brown, and mostly for all black men walking down the streets stuck here, not being able to go out in the county, seriously, sir, because we’re like—city is a little more lenient with ticket values and stuff, and we have just been ticketed over much over there, and then it leads to other crimes, you know. And a ticket costs you 50 cents—I mean, $50 a ticket, right? But you have to pay bond. You have to be in jail three days and stuff and like that. It’s just too much.
And in past Goodfellow city line, they tow your car automatically, you know. So they don’t have no leniency in the county with the county police at all, for real. If you check the records, everybody that pass Goodfellow here at the city line get pulled over automatically. And then it’s just a kind of push-off against—you know, systematically against blacks, for real. If you look at the statistics, it shows you. It’s just a little too much when you get pulled over for menial things. You have to go through too much to get out, and you lose your jobs and whatnot, you know, for a $50 ticket and pull-over.
You cannot go in the county. I’m fearful of the county. I’ve been stuck here in the city for six or seven years because the county has been that bad. My kids stay in the county. I can’t see them. I’ve got to sneak to see my kids. I have to sneak to see my kids, because my plate might be bad or something. You know, I’m poor, and I’m trying to drive around to get better. But, you know, they won’t ticket you; they just take your stuff, immediately. You know, if you take it, their tow thing is ready, you know, every time.
AMY GOODMAN: That was George Fields, one of the St. Louis-area residents who attended Michael Brown’s funeral, speaking right before he stepped into the church.
Well, a study last year by the ArchCity Defenders found a large part of the revenue for several St. Louis counties comes from fines paid by African-American residents disproportionately targeted for traffic stops and other low-level offenses. In Ferguson, fines and fees were the city’s second-largest source of income in the fiscal year 2014. Ferguson issued on average nearly three warrants per household last year—the highest number of warrants in the state, relative to its size.
The targeting may have had deadly consequences. According to the new class-action lawsuit, four area residents unable to buy their freedom have committed suicide in local jails in the past five months. Others allege indefinite detention and various denials of due process. The suit claims the debtors’ scheme has, quote, "devastated the City’s poor, trapping them for years in a cycle of increased fees, debts, extortion, and cruel jailings." The plaintiffs want an end to the targeting as well as compensation for its victims.
Well, we’re joined in St. Louis by three guests. Michael-John Voss is the managing attorney at ArchCity Defenders, which is one of the groups that’s filed a lawsuit accusing two St. Louis suburbs, Ferguson and Jennings, of creating these illegal debtors’ prisons. And we’re joined by Allison and Herbert Nelson Jr., two of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits. Allison and Herbert are brother and sister.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Why don’t we begin with Michael-John Voss. Explain how this system works.
MICHAEL-JOHN VOSS: So, what we have in St. Louis, in the municipalities in St. Louis County, is a modern debtors’ prison. Basically, our study, the white paper that you referred to earlier, showed that individuals who are African-American are disproportionately targeted by police in the municipalities, as well as they are also exploited because of their financial inability to pay certain fines and costs related to that traffic stop, that traffic violation. And so, what happens is, an individual then is forced to pay an exorbitant amount of money relative to the charge that they’re facing. And then they are, if they don’t have that ability to pay, they’re actually—no inquiry is made as to that ability or not, and a warrant is issued for their arrest, and then they become incarcerated. It’s sometimes for days, for weeks, without any looking into their financial ability to pay, and actually without even having a clear sense of whether or not they have any sort of specific amount that they would be able to pay to get out of jail. And so, it’s arbitrarily they are being detained in St. Louis County in these municipal jails.
AARON MATÉ: And talk about this lawsuit that you filed, how it was put together and what it’s seeking to accomplish.
MICHAEL-JOHN VOSS: So, the lawsuit that we filed, we’re working with an organization called Equal Justice Under Law out of Washington, D.C., and the St. Louis University School of Law clinics. And basically, by interviewing and talking with many individuals who had gone through these experiences, we were able to take down a number of stories of individuals. And we’ve then investigated the sort of practices of the courts, through court-watching project, and then put together this lawsuit. It is a class-action lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, an end to these practices, and also seeking damages for the individuals that have suffered under this system.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael-John Voss, how many suicides have there been in the jails just in the last five months?
MICHAEL-JOHN VOSS: Well, just in the last five months—within the last few years, there’s been at least four recorded deaths. There’s been also attempted suicides that we also have documentation of through news reports. There was a story of a young man, 18 years old, who clearly needed mental health treatment, but none of that was provided to him. And while he was in Jennings municipal court jail, he committed suicide.
And so, the conditions are deplorable. The conditions that we outline in our—in the lawsuit show that individuals are not—sometimes there’s seven to 10 people in a cell—excuse me, over 12 people in a jail cell that’s supposed to house just eight. They’re not given enough blankets to keep warm. There’s no washing of those blankets. They’re not permitted to take showers. I’ve been, as a lawyer, practicing in the municipal courts for a number of years, and I’ve been in a hallway in Jennings after they take people out of the confined docket, of which they don’t allow any public access to. The inmates are brought down a hallway and down into the jail. I’ve been waiting in that hallway to speak with a prosecutor. And immediately after all of the individuals that are brought down into the jail file through, a court clerk comes through with a can of aerosol to remove the stench, because nobody has taken a bath, because they’re not provided a shower for weeks.
AMY GOODMAN: Allison Nelson, explain what happened to you.
ALLISON NELSON: Well, there were multiple occasions where I was incarcerated by Jennings and Ferguson. But just my recent one, it was Thanksgiving. It was three days before Thanksgiving. I was incarcerated, and it’s a Jennings jail cell. I had been there for three days. And once I left Jennings—well, they negotiated with my mother over the phone to reduce my bond from $1,000 to $100. And then, once they reduced the bond, then I was then transferred to a Ferguson jail cell Thanksgiving morning at around 3:00 a.m. And I sat there for a few hours, and then, once they had a shift change and the other CO came in, the correctional officer came in, I guess he was in a good mood Thanksgiving morning, because he came in, called out a list of names, and he was just like, "OK"—at the time, my bond was $700, and he was just like, "Oh, if you could come up with $100, then you could go home." So then we weren’t given free phone calls at all, so I had to call my mother on the collect phone. And when you’re supposed to speak your name, I had to yell through the phone that, "Oh, they’re giving me a $100 bond, come and get me." So, it was—
AMY GOODMAN: What were you charged with, Allison?
ALLISON NELSON: I was charged with—what was I—it was driving—
MICHAEL-JOHN VOSS: Driving while suspended.
ALLISON NELSON: It was driving while suspended. Yeah, it was driving while suspended. And that’s been the only choice that I’ve had.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain the first time you were approached by police? You were in a car in your own backyard?
ALLISON NELSON: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: You weren’t driving?
ALLISON NELSON: No, I was in the driver seat of the car. I was just sitting in the backyard. I had on my nightgown and everything. And they came up in the backyard. And as I was walking into the house, he was just like, "Freeze, stop." And he asked for my name. You know, I gave him my name. And then they immediately took me to jail in my nightgown, did not have no time—they did not give me any time to put on no clothes. And then, once I was transferred—once I went to Jennings and then transferred to Ferguson, then they then let my mother bring me some clothes.
AMY GOODMAN: But you were sitting in your car in your backyard?
ALLISON NELSON: Yes, in the backyard.
AMY GOODMAN: What did they charge you with?
ALLISON NELSON: Oh, they charged me with driving while suspended.
MICHAEL-JOHN VOSS: So it’s an outstanding warrant for that prior charge of driving while suspended.
ALLISON NELSON: Yeah.
AARON MATÉ: And, Herbert Nelson, the suit alleges that you’ve suffered some medical conditions as a result of your treatment. Tell us your story.
HERBERT NELSON JR.: Yes. I’ve been arrested multiple times, too. But the last couple times, I’ve been arrested on my way to work, with no regards to that. They just arrested me, don’t occur that I’m in uniform. And I’m a painter, so I have a very stiff uniform. And I was in—and the last time I was arrested, I was arrested for close to a week, without no medical attention, and I had an infection that was caused from being jailed previously, and the infection just never went away. And they didn’t give me any attention regarding my medical condition at all at Jennings or Ferguson, and it just got worse and worse. And they really stopped me from going to work. And they’ve done that multiple times, and with no regard to me having a job, not trying to let me out earlier to get to work or anything like that. So I lost a lot through this.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, your mother, Tonya DeBerry, has also had problems with police around traffic violations?
HERBERT NELSON JR.: Yes.
ALLISON NELSON: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what happened to her.
HERBERT NELSON JR.: She has been arrested illegally before. And we have to come up with the money. She usually comes up with the money for us. Now, with her, on the other hand, when she’s arrested, it’s even harder for us to come up with the money for our mother, because we don’t have the resources that she has. So, when she’s in jail, she’s been in jail for a lot longer than we have.
MICHAEL-JOHN VOSS: Ms. DeBerry lives on a fixed income, and so the ability to make a payment, an exorbitant amount of money that these courts are demanding for her to be released, is very difficult for them to do. In addition to that, there’s no judicial finding as to whether or not people have the ability to pay these fines and costs. And so, typically, people will be incarcerated, like Ms. DeBerry was, for weeks at a time without ever going in front of a judge to have an actual judicial determination made as to whether or not they are indigent or not.
AARON MATÉ: And, Michael-John Voss, the structural issues here, nearly three arrest warrants per household in Ferguson, and then using these fines to basically pay for the city services, can you talk about that?
MICHAEL-JOHN VOSS: Right. So, what you see with a number of municipalities in North County, and Ferguson especially, is this wedding of the need to generate revenue for the municipality with the administration of justice. And so, there’s a financial incentive here for these practices to continue for the municipality to continue to run and function. And what we need to have is a divorce between those two things. The need to generate revenue for the municipality needs to be divorced from the administration of justice in these county municipalities.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Allison Nelson, you were 18 when you first got one of these violations and you were put in jail, and now you’re 23. How many times have they put you in jail for, for example, sitting in your car, which is stationary, which is still in your backyard?
ALLISON NELSON: Well, that was the only time that I had been sitting in a nonmoving vehicle and I was arrested. The other times, I was the passenger in the car. So, yeah, it’s been like only a couple times where I have actually been driving, and they pulled me over and was like, "Oh, you have an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license," or whatever the case may be. But any other time, I have been the passenger in a car, or the car was not moving at all.
AMY GOODMAN: Herbert, how does this make you feel about the police?
HERBERT NELSON JR.: That’s a good question, because the last time I was arrested, the officer said I shouldn’t be afraid of officers. But that same officer, he actually—he was like, "Yes!" He was so excited to arrest me. And that alone made me afraid, because a lot of my friends and family won’t even come to see me because I live in Jennings. They’re scared to come into the county of North St. Louis, North County St. Louis, because of the police and how quick they are to arrest you over a minor, minor, minor traffic ticket.
AARON MATÉ: Herbert, when we were there, there was some hope among some residents that we spoke to that things might get better in the aftermath of these protests, of this organizing in Ferguson and the surrounding areas. Has anything improved in the six months since Michael Brown was killed?
HERBERT NELSON JR.: Far as the policing, no, it hasn’t. It hasn’t. And I wouldn’t honestly say it improved. No, actually, it began—it got worse, because it seems like the crime has went up, and the police are really—the jails are just running in an out, like they’re way more packed than they were before Mike Brown was shot. The jails are way more packed. So it hasn’t improved at all.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us. We’ll certainly link to the information about this. Michael-John Voss, managing attorney at ArchCity Defenders; Allison and Herbert Nelson Jr., plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits.
Headlines:
Obama Undecided on Sending Arms to Ukraine
President Obama says he has not yet decided whether to send arms to the Ukrainian military to fight Russian-backed rebels. Obama criticized Russia’s role in the conflict during a joint news conference at the White House with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
President Obama: "Unfortunately, Russia has made a decision that I think is bad for them strategically, bad for Europe, bad for the world. And in the face of this aggression and these bad decisions, we can’t simply try to talk them out of it. We have to show them that the world is unified in imposing a cost for this aggression."
On Wednesday, Chancellor Merkel will travel to the Belarus capital of Minsk for talks with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in an attempt to end the crisis, which has killed more than 5,400 people. We will have more on Ukraine after headlines.
Assad Says Syria Receiving Info on U.S.-Led Strikes
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said his regime is receiving updates on U.S.-led airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria. Assad told the BBC that while there is no direct cooperation with the United States, other countries, including Iraq, have been supplying Syria with information. Assad’s forces have been conducting strikes against both ISIS and the anti-government rebels supported by the United States.
Boko Haram Attacks Towns in Niger, Cameroon
In Niger, lawmakers have voted to send troops to fight the Nigeria-based militant group Boko Haram. The decision came after Boko Haram set off a deadly explosion in the Niger town of Diffa. The group also attacked three towns in Cameroon, kidnapping more than 30 people, including 20 who were on board a bus.
NATO Drone Strike Kills 8, Including ISIS Suspect
A NATO drone strike in Afghanistan has killed a number of people, including a former Guantánamo prisoner suspected of ties to the Islamic State. Mullah Abdul Rauf was killed along with his son-in-law and others in the southern province of Helmand. Rauf, a former Taliban commander, had reportedly pledged loyalty to ISIS. U.S. officials confirmed the attack killed eight people accused of posing a threat.
29 Migrants Die of Hypothermia After Rescue by Italy
At least 29 African migrants have died of hypothermia after they were rescued from the frigid Mediterranean Sea near Libya. The migrants were among the more than 100 people pulled from an inflatable boat by the Italian coast guard. They died en route to the Italian island of Lampedusa.
Egypt to Retry 2 Jailed Al Jazeera Journalists
An Egyptian court will retry two imprisoned Al Jazeera journalists this week despite hopes at least one would be released. Last week, Canada had announced the release of Mohamed Fahmy was imminent after he renounced his Egyptian citizenship. Fahmy is a Canadian citizen. But both Fahmy and his colleague Baher Mohamed face a retrial on Thursday. Fahmy’s family has launched a social media campaign calling on Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to intervene.
Same-Sex Marriages Begin in Parts of Alabama
Alabama has become the 37th state to allow same-sex marriage after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state’s bid to block the unions. Same-sex couples lined up to marry in parts of the state, including Huntsville, Birmingham and Montgomery. But about 50 counties reportedly refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses after Sunday’s conflicting order from an Alabama Supreme Court justice. Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered judges and officials not to issue or recognize the licenses, arguing the local courts are not beholden to a federal court ruling that struck down the ban.
U.S. Oil Strike Expands to 2 More Refineries
The largest oil strike to hit the United States in decades has grown larger. Union workers at two BP refineries in Indiana and Ohio have walked off the job, joining colleagues from nine other sites across the country. In total, more than 5,000 workers have joined the strike to demand safer conditions, higher pay, better healthcare and an end to unsafe staffing levels.
British Court: U.S.-U.K. Spy Program was Illegal
A British court has ruled the spy agency GCHQ acted illegally when it accessed data gathered by the National Security Agency through mass surveillance. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which oversees British spy agencies, ruled the secrecy surrounding the data-sharing program broke British human rights law. But the court found the program is now legal, because more information has been made public after civil liberties groups filed suit. The case marks the first time in its 15-year history the court has ruled against the spy agency.
Argentine Experts Cast Doubt on Mexico’s Claims About Missing Students
A team of Argentine forensic experts has cast doubt on Mexico’s claims about the disappearance of 43 students in September. Mexico’s attorney general has said local police in Guerrero state turned the students over to members of a drug gang who killed them and incinerated their bodies at a garbage dump. But reports by the Mexican magazine Proceso have implicated federal authorities, accusing them of torturing local police to force them to confess. The Argentine investigators now say satellite images show fires at the garbage dump years before the students’ disappearance, and human remains found at the site include dentures, which none of the students wore. They also say authorities left the site unsecured for weeks and made errors in genetic profiles from the students’ relatives. Only one student’s remains have been identified. Felipe de la Cruz, a spokesperson for the parents of the missing students, said the findings bolster claims the students are still alive.
Felipe de la Cruz: "Today we can say to the world that we were not wrong. We always said that until it was proven scientifically with elements of truth that are credible for us, (we would not believe the students’ deaths)."
The office of Mexican Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam has disputed the findings as speculation and questioned the expertise of the Argentine team.
Mexico: Activist Who Protested Students’ Disappearance Found Murdered
An activist who organized protests over the students’ disappearance in Guerrero has been found murdered in the neighboring state of Morelos. Labor and land rights activist Alejandro Salgado Delgado was reportedly found with his head and hands cut off. Authorities have detained four suspects, but Salgado’s supporters blame the state government for targeting him over his activism.
East Timor Gets New Prime Minister
The president of East Timor has chosen former health minister Rui Araújo as the new prime minister following the resignation of former guerrilla leader Xanana Gusmão. Gusmão helped win independence from Indonesia and spent seven years in an Indonesian prison before becoming East Timor’s first president in 2002. He had served as either prime minister or president ever since.
Boston Transit Shuts Down amid Record Snowfall
The city of Boston, Massachusetts, has shut down its public transit system amidst record-setting snowfall across the New England region. Two feet of snow fell Monday in parts of Massachusetts, marking the state’s third major snowstorm in two weeks. Gov. Charlie Baker says workers have removed enough snow to fill 90 football stadiums. Scientists, meanwhile, say the trend of increased snowfall and stronger storms is fueled by global warming.
U.S. Pledges $3.2 Million to Help Monarch Butterfly
The Obama administration has pledged $3.2 million to help save the monarch butterfly, which has seen its population plummet 90 percent. Research has tied the butterfly’s decline to the rise in industrial agriculture and genetically modified crops which destroy milkweed, the monarch’s food source.
North Carolina: Police Kill Elderly Black Man During Welfare Check
Police in Gastonia, North Carolina, have shot and killed a 74-year-old African-American Army veteran after his family asked the police to check on him. Relatives of James Howard Allen asked police to perform a welfare check because Allen had recently undergone heart surgery. Police first arrived at about 10:20 p.m. Saturday night, but Allen did not answer. They returned about an hour later with the fire department and forced his door open. Police say Allen, who was reportedly hard of hearing, pointed a gun at Officer Josh Lefevers, who then opened fire. Allen’s sister Mary Battle told local news station WSOC her brother likely thought someone was breaking into his house in the middle of the night.
Mary Battle: "I am so hurt that he had to die like this. ... Maybe the police was frightened. Maybe they were. I don’t know. But he wouldn’t hurt a fly."
The officer has been placed on paid administrative leave pending investigations by police and the State Bureau of Investigations.
Guantánamo Hearing Halted After Prisoners Recognize Interpreter from CIA Black Site
At Guantánamo, a pretrial hearing for suspects accused of helping plot the 9/11 attacks was halted Monday after prisoners recognized the courtroom interpreter from a CIA black site. One prisoner said he could not trust the interpreter because he worked with the CIA. A second prisoner also recognized the man, whom he accused of participating in his torture. In a statement, Amnesty International called the allegations "deeply unsettling," adding "the courtroom at Guantánamo Bay is piling further injustice on top of impunity for torture."
CodePink Delegation Arrives in Cuba
A group of 150 journalists, academics and activists have arrived in Havana, Cuba, as part of a delegation with the peace group CodePink. The delegation plans meet with Cuban officials and members of the Cuban 5 who were recently released from U.S. prison. The activists have called for Congress to lift all travel restrictions and return Guanatánamo Bay to Cuba. CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin said Cuba should also be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, where it stands alongside Iran, Sudan and Syria.
Medea Benjamin: "We also think it’s important that we work, when we go back, to push that Cuba be taken off the terrorist list. There is a State Department report that’s supposed to come out in March that is supposed to advise President Obama on whether Cuba still belongs on that terrorist list, and we want to be ready for when that report comes out by putting out educational work and organizing and lobbying for Cuba to be taken off the list."
Follow
207 W 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment