democracynow.org
Stories:
Backlash Against TPP Grows as Leaked Text Reveals Increased Corporate Control of Public Health
As the Obama administration praises the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), backlash continues to grow against the deal. WikiLeaks has just published another section of the secret text — this one about public healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry. Newly revealed details of the draft show the TPP would give major pharmaceutical companies more power over public access to medicine and weaken public healthcare programs. The leaked draft also suggests the TPP would prevent Congress from passing reforms to lower drug costs. One of the practices that would be allowed is known as "evergreening." It lets drug companies extend the life of a patent by slightly modifying their product and then getting a new patent. We speak to Peter Maybarduk of Public Citizen and John Sifton of Human Rights Watch about their concerns.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: House Republicans are set to push for a vote as soon as Friday on approving a measure to give President Obama fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. The secretive TPP deal involves 12 countries and nearly 40 percent of the global economy. On Wednesday, WikiLeaks released a leaked draft of another chapter of the secret negotiating text, this time the TPP’s so-called Healthcare Annex. Newly revealed details of the draft show the TPP would give major pharmaceutical companies more power over public access to medicine and weaken public healthcare programs. The leaked draft also suggests the TPP would prevent Congress from passing reforms to lower drug costs. One of the practices that would be allowed is known as "evergreening." It lets drug companies extend the life of a patent by slightly modifying their product and then getting a new patent. This is a video explaining the practice, produced by Doctors Without Borders.
NARRATOR: Evergreening. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? But evergreening is what drug companies do when they want to increase their profits. And it leaves people in developing countries without the medicines they need. Here’s how. A drug company develops a new drug and is rewarded with a patent. The patent stops other producers making the medicine for 20 years. So the drug company can charge very high prices without anyone else undercutting them—for 20 years. When the patent ends, other producers can come in and compete with each other, and bingo, the prices come tumbling down. So the medicines become affordable for everyone. But the drug companies want more profits, so they make a tiny little change to their drugs and ask for another 20-year patent.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined by two guests in Washington, D.C. Peter Maybarduk is director of Public Citizen’s Global Access to Medicines Program. And John Sifton is advocacy director with Human Rights Watch. Today he’s hosting a briefing at the National Press Club on human rights and humanitarian concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, along with Oxfam America and the Council on Global Equality.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Peter, let’s begin with you on this issue of drugs. Talk about the TPP, and, for those who have never heard of it, explain its significance, and particularly as it relates to global access to drugs.
PETER MAYBARDUK: Sure. It’s great to be with you. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an ongoing trade negotiation—been going for about five years now—among 12 countries, including developing countries like Vietnam, Peru, Malaysia, as well as the United States. And in this agreement, the U.S. trade representative and the Obama administration put forward a number of proposals that have nothing to do with trade. There are about 30 chapters. Only a few have leaked; the rest is negotiated in secret. And among the many harmful proposals that have been made by big business are demands to transform other countries’ rules with regard to medical patents and many rules affecting people’s access to affordable medicines.
We’re very concerned that the TPP would lead to preventable suffering and death in these countries where people rely on access to generics. There are many provisions in the TPP that would expand the pharmaceutical industry’s monopoly power. We’re also concerned about rules in this latest leak that potentially have implications for Medicare and for U.S. programming, and most particularly constraining our ability to make some of the healthcare reforms that the Obama administration has pledged to reduce healthcare costs for Americans.
AMY GOODMAN: And you’re just learning this now, because WikiLeaks has released the chapter on these issues?
PETER MAYBARDUK: Well, this annex, which is ironically an annex to a chapter called "Transparency," is the latest in a series of leaks that have been published that give us more particular idea of exactly what rules are being negotiated. The details—the details matter. You can’t get into the negotiations. We do our best to follow by talking to contacts that we know, but due to the secrecy, it’s really only through leaks that we’re available to evaluate the particular proposals and assess their impact. These are all rules that would otherwise be debated in our congresses and parliaments out in the open, rules that include many gifts to big business. And so it’s very concerning that we have to rely on someone taking the tremendous risk of leaking a document in order to have a real public debate about the issues.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the possible justification for not revealing what is in the TPP? President Obama repeatedly says, "Trust me." He says, you know, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, they’re getting it wrong. But we are not able to see. The senators can’t even see, unless they go into a room, what is in this deal?
PETER MAYBARDUK: Yeah, well, the U.S. trade representative has come out and as much as said that we can’t tell you what’s in the agreement because it would create political complications for the negotiation, which is effectively the same thing as saying if people saw what’s in it, they wouldn’t like it, and we wouldn’t be able to pass the deal.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Peter, I want to ask you about what you mentioned earlier about the possible impact of the TPP deal, from what has been revealed, on Medicare here in the U.S. The New York Times yesterday, Wednesday, cited officials at the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office saying rules in the TPP would have no impact on the U.S., because Medicare and Medicaid already adhere to them. Could you comment on that? Of course, they didn’t officially comment on the leaked draft, but these were comments that they disclosed to The New York Times.
PETER MAYBARDUK: Well, the administration makes that assertion. But as I say, the details matter. And if you read the leaked text and compare it to Medicare regulations, we’re quite concerned that it gives pharmaceutical companies opportunities to say, "Well, we have broader rights under the TPP than we have under Medicare regulations. We want to be listed in the formularies if we show any therapeutic value, we want to have opportunities to comment at all meaningful points according to our own definitions." And we’re concerned that that could mean potentially that pharmaceutical companies might even be able to bolster a claim in these secret investor-state tribunals, that are much more friendly to investor rules, in order to make their arguments about interpretation of the particular terms. So we’re concerned that there are potential consequences for Medicare A and B today, if pharmaceutical company lawyers and lobbyists exploit what they might now see as their rights if this agreement is signed. But we’re also concerned about what happens to Medicare Part D in the future.
The president’s budget includes a proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug costs, something that 75 or 80 percent of Americans support broadly across party lines, could save a tremendous amount of money if it’s implemented with a national formulary. And implementing a national formulary under these rules that have just leaked yesterday would be difficult, would be expensive, subject to a great deal of challenge. We know this, in part, specifically because the Veterans Administration, for example, which is considered a model for procurement practices, has been specifically excluded from the annex, we think, because it’s known that these rules would make it difficult for the VA to operate, similarly would make it difficult for us to negotiate drug prices the way we need to.
AMY GOODMAN: John Sifton, you’re holding a news conference today with other human rights groups. Can you expand on—I mean, health rights are also a human right, but go further and talk about your overall human rights concerns with the TPP.
JOHN SIFTON: Well, there are issues both within the agreement with respect to the health issues, but also labor rights issues. And then there are issues that are larger, on the geopolitical level. The simple fact is, this agreement rewards several countries which have atrocious human rights records. One of them is Vietnam, a one-party, undemocratic state ruled by the Communist Party of Vietnam, no elections, no freedom of speech. This is a country which lacks of dissidence for criticizing the government, voicing their own issues. So, that’s one trading partner.
Another, Brunei. The sultan of Brunei wants to impose Sharia law, which would result in adulterers being stoned to death, thieves having their hands cut off, homosexuals whipped. This is a country which is also nondemocratic, ruled by fiat, by a sultan who inherited his power through birth.
Then you have countries like Malaysia, which although emerging democracies have serious problems with freedom of expression and rights of lesbian, gay, transgender people. Singapore, the city-state next to Malaysia, also has serious problems with labor rights and freedom of expression.
All these countries would be rewarded by the United States. We’d like to see the United States use the agreement as leverage to compel these countries to improve their human rights records. And yet, over the last four or five years, that hasn’t really happened. A couple of the countries have made baby steps. Vietnam has done a few minor things. But by and large, no big agreements. Malaysia, in fact, its human rights record has gotten worse.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, this is President Obama speaking last month about how the TPP would improve worker conditions in Vietnam as well as here in the United States.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, when you look at a country like Vietnam, under this agreement, Vietnam would actually for the first time have to raise its labor standards. It would have to set a minimum wage. It would have to pass safe workplace laws to protect its workers. It would even have to protect workers’ freedom to form unions for the very first time. That would make a difference. That helps to level the playing field. And it would be good for the workers in Vietnam, even as it helps make sure that they’re not undercutting competition here in the United States. So that’s progress.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Sifton, that was President Obama speaking. Could you comment on what he said about the likelihood of worker conditions improving as a consequence of the TPP?
JOHN SIFTON: Well, look, we give credit to the administration for pushing along a good labor chapter that would have provisions that would do some of the things that President Obama said. Problem is, all that would be on paper. The key issue here is: Would those provisions be enforceable? Would Vietnamese workers be able to actually compel the government of Vietnam to make those supposed paper reforms a reality? And that’s where the Obama administration has been very disingenuous. They suggest the labor chapter is enforceable. What they mean is that if Vietnam fails to meet the standards, a nonexistent Vietnamese union would bring a claim in a nonexistent tribunal to compel Vietnam to improve its rights? No. The only possibility is that an outside group, maybe an international labor federation, could compel another country, like the United States, to bring a complaint against Vietnam about its labor practices in the abstract, and maybe, after many years of tribunal litigation, that would result in some kind of penalty being imposed on Vietnam. That’s not enforceability. That’s merely a process which might potentially impact Vietnam’s reform process on the grand scale. There is nothing like the rights that investors have to compel governments to change their rules. And that, at the end of the day, is what’s wrong with the TPP. It creates rights for companies and investors, but it doesn’t create new rights for workers or civil society. It basically gives corporations more rights than people.
AMY GOODMAN: So, some are saying even if you can’t negotiate these things after the TPP, you can use the TPP to change things as you negotiate it. Some openly gay lawmakers have called for halting TPP negotiations with Malaysia and Brunei because of their laws targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens. But Colorado Congressmember Jared Polis, who’s openly gay, has called on the Obama administration to use the trade agreement to push for reform. He wrote a letter earlier this year saying, quote, "As negotiations over the TPP proceed, I hope you will seize the occasion by expressing to the governments of Brunei and Malaysia in no uncertain terms that their violations of basic human rights must end." John Sifton, if you could respond to that, using the negotiations to change these countries? But also, then, the two of you disagree over what should be done with TPP: John, you’re with the reform TPP crowd, and, Peter, you’re with the stop it, end it. And I’d like to hear your views on this. John?
JOHN SIFTON: Well, first off, let me say, the problem with the idea of compelling the government of Malaysia and Vietnam to improve through the negotiation process is that that’s already been going on. For four or five years, the United States has been pushing these reform agendas, and these countries have not shown any willingness to make meaningful steps. So the real question for the administration is: How is having fast-track authority going to make it any better? At the end of the day, it’s our position that if the United States—if the administration is compelled to reach certain benchmarks on human rights, not just labor rights, but other human rights—political prisoners in Vietnam, LGBT issues in Malaysia—if they’re compelled by law to actually meet those benchmarks as part of the agreement to allow fast-track authority or allow the government to present the TPP back once it’s finalized, then it will be a necessity. These countries will have to reform; otherwise, they can’t be part of the agreement. And that would be an incentive that wouldn’t exist otherwise.
So, essentially, what we’re saying is, yeah, the TPP could be used for leverage, but you have to actually use it for leverage. And if you don’t, it’s going to be a huge disappointment. And when you actually come back with the negotiated agreement, then you’re going to see human rights groups and others saying, "No, don’t vote for this agreement. We’re against it." But for now, our position is, yes, let’s compel the administration to write this agreement in a way that actually protects human rights, that actually promotes human rights, that actually abandons the ridiculous, unconscionable provisions on intellectual property that will lead to higher drug costs. If you make those changes and then go out and negotiate, and it actually compels Vietnam to improve its records, great. If you can’t do it, though, you’re going to be out of luck when you bring this agreement back to Congress when it’s done.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Maybarduk, you’re with the stop TPP crowd, not reform it, as John is. Why?
PETER MAYBARDUK: Well, there’s no such thing as a good TPP. You know, there have been some very brave negotiators from some of the developing countries in the negotiation who have been standing up to some of the most powerful industries on Earth, in defense of their countries’ various public interests, including health. But at the end of the day, U.S.—well, the multinational corporations involved aren’t going to accept a text that reduces their rights. And so we’re not going to see a TPP that has positive effects for society the way many of us would. The predicted benefits and gains in terms of trade flows are very small. The predicted costs are very large. So I don’t know why Congress would want to cede its constitutional authority to the executive, to the president, giving the president fast-track authority to ram a deal through Congress on an up-or-down vote without possibility for amendment, when the whole thing has been negotiated in secret all this time. As I say, only a few chapters have leaked. That, of course, is unofficial. What’s in the other 25-plus chapters of the agreement that we don’t about? What unfortunate surprises that could have real consequences for human beings? So, we invite your viewers to go to StopFastTrack.com, and your listeners, and to call their member of Congress today, ahead of this very close and very important vote on fast-track trade promotion authority. Say no to fast track.
JOHN SIFTON: And I’d say, look, we don’t disagree at the end of the day about these issues, because the substantive underlying issues are the same. If people want to call their member of Congress and tell them, "I’m uncomfortable with this agreement," they should do that. And, look, we work on Syria, we work on North Korea. We have to be optimistic about the idea, in theory, the Obama administration could do better. If Peter is right and they can’t, and there’s no such thing as a good TPP, then so be it. Then the time will come when it’s time to oppose it. So I don’t think there’s a disagreement here. And, yes, your listeners should go call their congresspeople today. The vote is tomorrow.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Peter, before we conclude, could you just explain specifically what you think the impact of this deal would be on drugs that are used over the long term—for instance, cancer or HIV drugs?
PETER MAYBARDUK: Certainly. Well, there’s a combination of provisions in the intellectual property chapter, enforceable, potentially, through the investment chapter, affected in terms of negotiation powers in this leak that just came out yesterday published by WikiLeaks, that show us that the generic competition, the affordable medicines on which people around the world in many TPP countries depend would be blocked through the expanding monopoly powers of the industry under this agreement. That includes the patent evergreening rules that you mentioned in your run-up. But, you know, for example, if we look at cancer, there’s a rule proposed that was tucked in through a massive lobbying effort by the pharmaceutical industry, tucked into Obamacare, for 12-year automatic monopolies on biologics, which include a great many cancer drugs. Eleven of 12 cancer treatments approved recently by the FDA cost more than $100,000. That’s a leading driver of bankruptcy for American families and leads to devastating consequences—routinely, to death for people in developing countries. So if competition is blocked for a long period of time, governments aren’t going to even be able to offer some of these treatments to their citizens, and people will suffer.
JOHN SIFTON: And it’s madness on the issue of antivirals for HIV/AIDS. It’s amazing that one part of this government, PEPFAR, which is the president’s agenda for combating HIV/AIDS worldwide, they’ll see higher costs to their budget as they try to help countries fight HIV/AIDS, because antivirals, second-stage antivirals, the kind you have to use once the initial ones wear off after a certain number of years of use, are going to be more expensive. Not to mention that all these groups, these humanitarian groups on the ground, are obliged to use subpar generic antivirals, even though there are better drugs that are coming on market, simply because of this expansion in the patent protections. It’s really unconscionable.
AMY GOODMAN: John Sifton, we want to thank you very much for being with us. I know you have to run off to your news conference over at the—you’re holding it at the National Press Club. John Sifton is with Human Rights Watch, and together with Oxfam America, as well as other groups, like the Council on Global Equality, they will be speaking out against TPP. And thank you very much to Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Global Access to Medicines Program.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, has ISIS trumped al-Qaeda, actually begun to destroy it? We go to London to talk with a journalist with The Guardian. Stay with us.
After Iraq-Syria Takeover, the Inside Story of How ISIL Destroyed Al-Qaida from Within
A year ago this month, fighters from the self-proclaimed Islamic State declared they had established a caliphate in the territories they controlled in Iraq and Syria. Since then, the Islamic State has continued to grow, building affiliates from Afghanistan to West Africa while recruiting new members from across the globe. In response, President Obama has sent thousands of U.S. troops back to Iraq. The deployment of another 450 troops was announced on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the rise of the Islamic State has reshaped the jihadist movement in the region, essentially bringing al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse. According to a new investigation by The Guardian, the Islamic State has successfully launched "a coup" against al-Qaeda to destroy it from within. The Islamic State began as al-Qaeda’s branch in the heart of the Middle East but was excommunicated in 2014 after disobeying commands from al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri. While the Islamic State has since flourished, The Guardian reports al-Zawahiri is now largely cut off from his commanders and keeping the group afloat through little more than appeals to loyalty. We are joined by Guardian reporter Shiv Malik.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: A year ago this month, fighters from the Islamic State declared they had established a caliphate in the territories they controlled in Iraq and Syria. Since then, the Islamic State has continued to grow, building affiliates from Afghanistan to West Africa while recruiting new members from across the globe. In response, President Obama has sent thousands of U.S. troops back to Iraq. The deployment of another 450 troops was announced on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the rise of the Islamic State has reshaped the jihadist movement in the region, essentially bringing al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse.
AMY GOODMAN: According to a new investigation by The Guardian, the Islamic State has successfully launched a coup against al-Qaeda to destroy it from within. The Islamic State began as al-Qaeda’s branch in the heart of the Middle East but was excommunicated in 2014 after disobeying commands from al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. While the Islamic State has since flourished, The Guardian reports al-Zawahiri is now largely cut off from his commanders and keeping the group afloat through little more than appeals to loyalty. The Guardian also reports the United States has been slow to grasp the implications of al-Qaeda’s decline and possible collapse.
Joining us now from London is Shiv Malik, lead author on The Guardian investigation headlined "How Isis Crippled al-Qaida." Shiv, if you can talk about, well, just how ISIS crippled al-Qaeda and your meeting in Jordan with the leading al-Qaeda theorists?
SHIV MALIK: Yeah. So, this has been going on for a while now, for a couple of years at least. And, you know, from the outside, we get little pictures. You hear these skirmishes that have been going on. You hear that sort of ISIS has killed a few other members of al-Qaeda, the sort of Syrian branch of al-Qaeda called Jabhat al-Nusra. There was a big conflagration in January last year, in 2014, in which thousands died.
But the real inside story of this comes from just actually a few players, really. And thankfully, we were able to interview Muhammad al-Maqdisi and another guy called Abu Qatada. To British people, he’s quite famous because he lived here for many years, and the home secretary here—actually, various home secretaries tried to deport him over a process of almost 10 years to Jordan to face terrorism charges. He was acquitted of those eventually. But he’s been described as kind of al-Qaeda’s spiritual—or Bin Laden’s spiritual ambassador in Europe. And Maqdisi, who is actually little known in the West, is actually even more senior than Qatada in regards to al-Qaeda.
And what they’ve been doing is, actually, behind the scenes, kind of negotiating between al-Qaeda and ISIS, trying to bring these people back to the table. And they finally gave up about sort of, you know, six months ago or thereabouts, because they all used to be one family. It used to be, if you want, the al-Qaeda family. So, that’s the story that we’ve got from them, which is this process, as I said, of about over two years of how ISIS has sort of risen to take the mantle of the leadership of the sort of global jihad, if you want, from al-Qaeda.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Shiv Malik, could you explain how you came to research this story? And you went to Jordan to speak to these two figures. Could you talk a little about that?
SHIV MALIK: Yeah. So, Maqdisi and Qatada kind of, for obvious reasons, both have—well, Maqdisi also has sort of terrorism convictions, but they’re in and out of prison all the time, as you can imagine—Maqdisi often without charge. He’s just sort of taken by Jordanian security services and sort of locked up. But he was released in February again, and so we went to visit him then, sort of soon afterwards. And then we carried on interviewing him. We’ve got—you know, there’s a big team of investigators that were on this piece, and so we continued to interview him and ask him questions.
And actually, when you meet him, you know, you sort of—you don’t really know what you’re going to get. This guy is the spiritual godfather of al-Qaeda, and Zawahiri counts him as a personal friend. He’s been mentor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He mentored him, and Zarqawi is the founder of ISIS, if you want. He mentored him for five years in prison, and Zarqawi then went on to, of course, create absolute havoc in Iraq in 2003, beheading people, massacring Shias by the thousands. And so, you don’t know what to expect. But when you meet him, he’s sort of—he’s this very interesting guy. I mean, he’s completely energetic, enthusiastic. He’s almost childlike in his enthusiasm for talking about almost anything. His hands flail all over the place. He’s rake thin. And he’s got a real sense of humor, which, you know, sort of throws you, and you don’t really know what to do.
Qatada, on the other hand, is this very large, lumbering man, and he’s very tall, and physically, in that sense, quite intimidating. It’s quite hard to grasp just how big this guy is from sort of the pictures that we have. And he speaks very quietly, and he almost sounds like Marlon Brando in The Godfather, you know, but sort of slightly higher-pitched. So it’s this sort of—and he pauses a lot. So they kind of make an odd pair, if you want.
But we went to speak to them, and they were both very upset. They’ve spent—their life’s work has basically been bringing jihadis under one banner. And for that, that was al-Qaeda. So al-Qaeda is not just an organization, which we know has been incredibly ruthless and bloody and plotting away at terrorism events around the globe; they’re also an idea. And the idea is sort of twofold. First, it’s—and we often look at this from a Western perspective, but, you know, of course, these guys have their own agency. So, the first part of this is that al-Qaeda was created as a kind of a failure, a response to the failures of kind of localist jihadist issues going back to the '80s and ’90s, and Algeria, for example, being a failure, and Afghanistan. So the idea was that they would all come together under one banner, and they would attack, and they would put their focus on America, because they said this is—the theory was that, look, attack the snake's head, if you want. And so that’s what they did. And they planned against that, obviously, culminating most visciously in September the 11th. And these scholars then—this was their idea there.
But the second part of this is they’re also a vanguard for a revolutionary idea of setting up the caliphate. And those who are au fait with kind of what happened with the communist movements will know about vanguardist organization, but the idea is that they educate the people to accepting the notion of an Islamic state, and then they eventually, one day, set it up. So this is what al-Qaeda has meant for these two scholars.
And ISIS have been quietly bubbling away. They’ve alway been—they’ve been a branch of—they’ve been al-Qaeda’s branch in Iraq. That’s the best way to think of them. And they had been, for a very long time, the most troublesome branch, as well—kind of don’t listen to orders, don’t take criticism very well, won’t listen to anyone. And bin Laden had problems with them, and we know that from the Abbottabad documents that have sort of come out, the sort of tranche of documents that were seized when Americans went in and killed bin Laden in 2011 in May. But we also know this from, then, subsequently, what’s happened and what Zawahiri has said publicly. So they’ve been very troublesome.
And at one point, the sort of the peace was broken, if you want, when ISIS sent—when the Syrian civil war started, they sent some people into Syria, and they said, "You know, we’ll grab some turf. We’ll start a branch there." And the people who then went on to lead that, sort of bunch of rebels fighting against Assad, went on to become incredibly powerful. And ISIS in Iraq say, "Ah, we’re a bit threatened by this. I’ll tell you what. We’ll just create a merger." And it’s that point that—it was basically a bit of a power play over territory and patches of land and who would control what. Zawahiri steps in and says, "Actually, let’s just put things back to where they were." Baghdadi steps up and says, "No way. You know what? We’re not going to do this. We don’t need you, old man in Waziristan, anymore. And if you tell us otherwise, we’re just not going to listen to you."
So, that’s what starts a giant civil war, basically, and eventually it gets to the point where, as I said, in January 2014 just all hell breaks loose. And jihadis just keep killing jihadis, and veterans from al-Qaeda are killed, and people in ISIS are killed, and it’s incredibly messy. And it’s almost impossible to keep track of. And we spent a very long time trying to piece together, bit by bit, which villages ISIS were taking over, who was getting killed when, who was saying what. And at one point, they even killed—ISIS ended up killing Zawahiri’s emissary, which he had sent over to make peace. They killed him, too. So it was incredibly vicious and incredibly bloody. In step with scholars, which is—
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, very soon, Shiv Malik—
SHIV MALIK: Yes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Very soon after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, there was already a split, a falling out between Maqdisi, whom you spoke to, and al-Zarqawi, who was initial leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the so-called—the precursor to ISIS. So could you talk about what the ideological divisions are between these two groups and, in particular, focus on what their position came to be on the recruitment of former Baath leaders within this movement, the position of ISIS versus the position of al-Qaeda, what it had been and what it became?
SHIV MALIK: So, I mean, in terms of ideological divisions, the big division came when ISIS set up this caliphate. They declared this caliphate. And I said, you know, al-Qaeda is supposed to be the vanguardist organization. And there they are, ISIS, setting up a caliphate and saying, "You know, the revolution is complete. We’ve done it. We set up the caliphate. We’ve got there finally." And that has also made, in that sense, al-Qaeda a bit redundant. They managed, ISIS, to hold onto this caliphate for a whole year now, or almost—we’re coming up to the anniversary in a couple of weeks—which is remarkable. So that’s certainly one ideological difference. And with that, they’ve been able to—ISIS have been able to capture the imagination of young radicals, who would already be susceptible to this, and also the funders. So the money and the men, the prestige is all going to ISIS at this point in time. And al-Qaeda therefore is being drained of all of that, of that pool. So they’ve been really left on the back foot.
Now, these scholars are saying—Maqdisi and Qatada, that we spoke to, have said, "Look, actually, these guys aren’t the real deal." And that’s why they sort of stepped in. They said, "Look, we’re the elite scholarship. You know, if you’re more than gangsters, and you’re ideologues, then you’ve got to listen to us, because we’re the people who wrote the books." So, they stepped in, and ISIS basically completely—there was a long period of time when they thought maybe there can be some reconciliation. Baghdadi actually wrote a letter to Maqdisi and said, "Please, come join us in the caliphate. Come see what it’s like. Judge for yourself." And there was some suggestion from these two, when we interviewed them, that if they went, they’d never come back: They might get killed. So they’re obviously frightened, as well. And there was a situation, as well, a security situation in Jordan, where, again, these two might get bumped off because they’d been so critical of ISIS. You know, someone might just appear masked and gun them down. So, there’s been that, as I said, that fraticide, but ultimately, they want the same thing in the end, and these are, to Western observers certainly, very petty ideological differences.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Shiv Malik, this may sound like a far-out question, but could you see any scenario in which the U.S. would side with al-Qaeda against ISIS?
SHIV MALIK: Not really. And they shouldn’t. I mean, you know, it’s not like al-Qaeda are friends of America by any means. In fact, they’re still very much focused on attacking America. And that’s how they—you know, this is where they find their niche now. If their marketplace has been closed down for them by ISIS, some of it anyway, then they—again, they reformulate themselves on doubling what they did before, if you want, which is to attack the West and gain, if you want, prestige from that, to appeal to their own base. And that should be very worrying for the West.
Now, that doesn’t mean that America should simply carry on focusing on al-Qaeda and not regear its intelligence machine, its military machine towards ISIS. You know, if you were wondering what’s a greater threat, ISIS certainly is. And the reason is, is because, as I mentioned before, they have a patch of land. It’s actually a very sizable territory with a massive city of a couple million people, in Mosul, in Iraq, which they’re in charge of. And this is very worrying, because this idea is now real. They’ve managed to say to the world, "Actually, we’ve held it for a year. We’ve even expanded it by taking Ramadi, which is another major city in Iraq. And look, you know, clearly God’s on our side." You know, these people are, in that sense, sort of people of faith and religion. And if the caliphate carries on existing, it must be that we’re on the winning side. So, America should regear. And what they’ve announced already, or what seems to have been reported, was, you know, they’re going to send a few other thousand people over to Iraq, or a couple hundred other extra advisers to advise the Iraqi army. I’m not sure if that will be enough, but we’ll see.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And before we conclude, Shiv Malik, could you talk about the significance of the civil war in Syria in precipitating the self-proclaimed Islamic State’s rise and the collapse or near collapse of al-Qaeda?
SHIV MALIK: Yeah, I mean, the civil war has allowed for chaos, and in that sense, you know, these people are sort of like gangsters or sort of drug dealers. They need turf, and they need turf so they can get money and, as I said, recruits. And it’s like a business in that sense. It has to keep itself going. And Syria provided that field. Once the revolution broke out, Assad then brutally put people down and killed them and slaughtered them. And then people decided to arm themselves, and that created the chaos. Then, in stepped—as I said, you know, in stepped ISIS, who were over the border, or ISI, as they were known then, and sent people over to sort of take advantage of all of this. So, in that sense, they have taken advantage completely of what’s been going on, but that’s not to say that people shouldn’t want to resist Assad. They should, you know? He’s been using chemical weapons and certainly chlorine bombs on his population. He’s a despicable dictator. So the question—you know, it’s a complete mess. And someone at some point is going to have to step in, whether it’s European and American forces or something else, and sort that out. But until then, as I said, ISIS will certainly take advantage of it. And they’re doing very well out of it financially.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you, Shiv Malik, for joining us, investigative reporter at The Guardian, lead author of the new in-depth report, "How Isis Crippled al-Qaida: The Inside Story of the Coup That Has Brought the World’s Most Feared Terrorist Network to the Brink of Collapse." Shiv was speaking to us in London. We’ll link to that piece at democracynow.org. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we go to Texas. Major anti-choice actions are taking place there. Stay with us.
As Ruling Threatens to Gut Abortion Access in Texas, Providers Vow to Take Fight to Supreme Court
This week has seen a new round of restrictions on reproductive rights in the United States. In Texas, a federal appeals court Tuesday upheld anti-choice provisions which threaten to leave Texas with just 10 or fewer abortion clinics. The ruling upholds restrictions forcing abortion facilities to meet the standards of hospital-style surgery centers and forcing providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. If the decision goes into effect in about 20 days, attorneys for the clinics have estimated about 900,000 reproductive-age women will live more than 150 miles from the nearest open abortion facility in the state. The clinics plan to take their appeal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed a bill into law forcing women to wait at least 24 hours to have an abortion. And the Wisconsin state Senate has approved a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Like similar bans in other states and a federal ban passed by the U.S. House last month, the bill is based on the medically debunked claim fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks. We are joined by Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We end today’s show with a look at the latest restrictions on reproductive rights in the United States. In Texas, a federal appeals court Tuesday upheld anti-choice provisions which threaten to leave Texas with just 10 or fewer abortion clinics. In 2013, when the sweeping anti-choice law passed despite popular protest and an 11-hour filibuster by Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, Texas had more than 40 clinics. Since then, more than half of them have closed as a battle over access has raged in the courts. Now, a decision by a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threatens to shutter about half of the remaining 18 clinics.
The ruling upholds restrictions forcing abortion facilities to meet the standards of hospital-style surgery centers and forcing providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. It provides narrow exemptions for a single doctor at a clinic in the South Texas city of McAllen, on the grounds that forcing women to travel 235 miles or more to the nearest clinic would be an undue burden. But it remains unclear if the clinic can stay open. When it came to the plight of women in the Far West Texas city of El Paso, the appeals court said they could travel to New Mexico rather than take the estimated 1,000-mile round-trip journey to the nearest open abortion clinic in Texas.
AMY GOODMAN: If the decision goes into effect in about 20 days, attorneys for the clinics have said about 900,000 reproductive-age women will live more than 150 miles from the nearest open abortion facility [in Texas]. The clinics planned to take their appeal to the Supreme Court. In a statement, Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights said, quote, "Not since before Roe v. Wade has a law or court decision had the potential to devastate access to reproductive health care on such a sweeping scale," unquote.
Meanwhile, in Florida, Governor Rick Scott has signed a bill into law forcing women to wait at least 24 hours to have an abortion, and the Wisconsin state Senate has just approved a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Like similar bans in other states and a federal ban passed by the U.S House last month, the bill is based on the medically debunked claim fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks. It does not provide exceptions for rape or incest.
To find out more about the impact of these restrictions, we’re going right to Texas, to Austin, to speak with Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Heather. Start in Texas. What has taken place there?
HEATHER BUSBY: So, over the past few years, we’ve seen a couple of things happen. I want to back up first to 2011, when the Legislature cut funding for family planning by nearly two-thirds, and we’ve lost over 80—that’s eight, zero—family planning clinics across the state, most of those in rural and underserved areas. So, you can’t prevent pregnancy, and then you have an unintended pregnancy, and the state has devastated that access, as well. Like you said, we’ve lost more than half of the clinics in the state, and we’re looking at going down to only eight to 10 clinics. For a state that has 27 million people, that is just unacceptable. And we are already seeing long wait times, women who are forced further along into their pregnancy, which further jeopardizes their health and safety—the exact opposite of what the purported intent of this law was. We all know that was a farce, that this was really about making abortion completely inaccessible. And we know that that most impacts those who are the most vulnerable in the state: Low-income people, young women, people who live in rural areas are so hard hit by this law.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what will this mean, Heather? If you could lay out practically, what do these restrictions now mean for someone wanting to get an abortion, a woman wanting to get an abortion in Texas? Could you lay out what she would have to do?
HEATHER BUSBY: So, you know, I can speak to my experience in actually talking to people who are struggling to access abortion care. And first of all, there’s getting the money together, and that can often take weeks, and then trying to get an appointment at a clinic. And you have to go actually twice to a clinic—once for the mandatory state written materials, where the doctors basically have to lie to their patients, and then—and for the forced sonogram, and then, 24 hours later, if you can get an appointment 24 hours later, you have to then go back to the clinic for your procedure. For some people, that can often mean multiple trips, multiple overnight trips, if they have a two-day procedure, for example. So, it’s really a burden on folks because, you know, you’re losing time from work, time away from your children and your family, trying to get transportation. And in Texas, you know, this is the second largest state. If you’re out in West Texas, where there’s no public transportation infrastructure, if you don’t have reliable transportation, if you can’t get a ride, you have no access at all. Abortion may as well be illegal for you.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask about one of the responses to the recent legislation on HB 2 in Texas. The anti-choice group, Texas Right to Life, wrote, quote, "Although unpredictable, the Supreme Court could solidify Texas’ Pro-Life protections while concomitantly strengthening Pro-Life laws for every state by defining clearer standards of the notion of 'undue burden'—the vague term upon which the abortion industry founded their legal opposition to HB 2," unquote. Heather, could you respond and also explain the concept of undue burden?
HEATHER BUSBY: Right. You know, I find that statement particularly cruel. They want to define undue burden as no burden is too great. And, you know, what I’ve seen is the exact opposite of that for people who are struggling to put foods in their children’s mouths, struggling to access the reproductive healthcare that they need, or just healthcare in general. Keep in mind, Texas has refused to expand Medicaid. We have the highest uninsured rate in the country. So, you know, to say that they want the Supreme Court to basically define undue burden as no burden is too great—you know the one thing I will agree is that I would like to see a little more judicial clarity when it comes to undue burden. That standard is quite unclear. It’s definitely an exception, when you look at constitutional jurisprudence, to have such a nebulous concept as undue burden. And, you know, unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit is one of those courts that’s very conservative, very ideologically conservative, and makes their decisions fit that mindset. And for them, you know, I was actually surprised that 235 miles they considered undue burden. I think 100 miles is too far, and especially if you don’t have access to transportation, you don’t have money, you can’t miss work, you’ve got children at home. The burdens of all of these laws cumulatively are insurmountable for so many people in this state and across the country. So, you know, I really wish that the courts would have a little more compassion for the struggles of everyday people’s lives.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So I want to turn to comments, very quickly before we conclude, made by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Earlier this month, he said he would sign Wisconsin’s proposed bill banning abortions after 20 weeks. When asked by reporters about the lack of an exception for rape, Walker said women who become pregnant from rape and incest are most concerned about it in the, quote, "initial months." Could you respond to that?
HEATHER BUSBY: Well, I think that is just incredibly cruel. To say that, you know, to put himself in the place of a rape survivor and try and make assumptions about what that person is going through, is just—it just floors me. And it’s completely opposite of what we know about trauma and PTSD and what survivors go through. You know, it assumes that you go through this traumatic experience, and you’re just on top of your game, taking care of things, just getting it done. That’s not the way it works. You know, you have to process that trauma, and that can take months.
AMY GOODMAN: Heather?
HEATHER BUSBY: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: We have to break, and I want to thank you very much for being with us.
HEATHER BUSBY: OK. Yeah, thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas. Of course, Governor Walker, governor of Wisconsin, is believed to be planning a run for the presidency. That does it for our show.
Headlines:
U.S. to Deploy 450 Soldiers, Speed Weapons Shipments to Iraq
The White House has confirmed plans to increase the U.S. military presence in Iraq. On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced the deployment of up to 450 U.S. troops to train and back Iraqi forces in the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. The new U.S. contingent will operate out of a military base in Anbar province. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced the move.
Josh Earnest: "I think what it represents is a conclusion by the president and his national security team that the situation on the ground in Iraq would benefit from more trained Iraqi security forces and more Sunni tribal fighters that are operating under the command and control of the Iraqi central government, who are — who have received advice and assistance and equipment from the U.S. military. There is no environment in which I would downplay the risk that these military — that these military servicemembers will face in Iraq. We’ve been direct about the fact that the security situation in Iraq is tenuous, particularly in Anbar province."
The U.S. will also speed weapons deliveries to Iraqi forces, including tribal fighters under Iraqi command. Efforts are expected to focus on recapturing Ramadi, which fell to ISIL last month. The new deployment brings the official count of U.S. soldiers in Iraq to 3,550.
Hezbollah Vows to Rid Lebanon Border of ISIL amid Deadly Fighting
Deadly clashes have escalated between the Islamic State and the Lebanese group Hezbollah along Lebanon’s border with Syria. Dozens of ISIL fighters were killed in violence on Wednesday. In a speech, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah vowed to uproot ISIL from the Lebanon border, saying: "The fight with ISIL has begun."
Vatican Announces New Tribunal on Child Abuse
Pope Francis has authorized a new Vatican panel to judge bishops accused of concealing or not preventing child sexual abuse within the church. A Vatican spokesperson unveiled the new mandate.
Father Federico Lombardi: "The thing that is new is that a specific procedure is now indicated for these questions that may have to do with a bishop’s abuse of office. This certainly was not before an ordinary and clear path. This is the real new aspect."
The tribunal’s establishment marks Pope Francis’ most forceful action to date in confronting child sexual abuse by clergy and meets a key demand sought for years by victims and advocates.
FIFA Suspends World Cup Bidding amid Corruption Probe
FIFA has suspended the bidding contest for who will host the 2026 World Cup following the corruption scandal that’s thrown the world soccer body into turmoil. FIFA Secretary General Jérôme Valcke announced the decision.
Jérôme Valcke: "There was a decision to allocate this World Cup in 2017 and to start the bidding process soon. Due to the situation, I think it’s nonsense to start any bidding process for the time being. And we will postpone this bidding process for, again, the time being."
Probes are underway into where bribes influenced the awarding of the next two tournaments to Russia and Qatar.
Controversy over Artificial Turf at Women’s World Cup in Canada
The news comes as the Women’s World Cup is underway in Canada. Despite protests alleging gender discrimination, concerns over potential injury, and a lawsuit withdrawn earlier this year, the women are being forced to play on artificial turf, not on grass, as the men do. Just before kickoff at the opening game Saturday, the artificial turf measured 120 degrees Fahrenheit, on a 75-degree day, just two degrees under the level studies have shown is unsafe, because skin can burn within seconds.
U.N. Envoy to Warring Factions: "Libya Has No More Time"
Talks have resumed in Berlin on reaching a peace deal between Libya’s two rival factions. The country has been torn apart since the NATO intervention four years ago, with two governments claiming authority and scores of militant groups controlling territory in between. U.N. envoy Bernardino León said, after months of talks, Libya is out of time to avoid a resolution.
Bernardino León: "Libya has no more time. This is my first message. And for all those who are listening from Libya, it’s very important to understand and to translate this in concrete action, in saying very clearly that enough is enough and that the time has come to make a deal."
Texas Officer Says Emotional Duress Influenced Pool Party Conduct
The Texas police officer who resigned over his aggressive response to African-American teens at a pool party has blamed emotional duress for his behavior. Eric Casebolt stepped down after being caught on video wrestling an African-American teenage girl in a bikini to the ground, pulling her hair and sitting on top of her. Casebolt also pulled his gun on other teens. On Wednesday, Casebolt’s attorney said the officer had been distraught after responding to two suicide-related incidents earlier in the day. While offering an apology, Casebolt also put part of the blame on teens whom he said were being disorderly.
Jane Bishkin: "He believed that those who fled were possible suspects. He was not targeting minorities. In fact, he also detained a white female who you do not see on the video. His efforts to gather information was hampered by some teenagers who were instructing others to defy police instruction. He is apologizing that his conduct offended. He recognizes, and I think I said this, that he does recognize that his emotions got the best of him and that the prior suicide calls put him in an emotional place that he would prefer not to have been in when responding to this call."
Georgia Drops Murder Charges Against Woman Who Took Abortion Pill
Georgia authorities have dropped murder charges against a woman whose labor was induced after taking an abortion pill. Twenty-three-year-old Kenlissa Jones was arrested for allegedly self-inducing an abortion with the pill Cytotec, which she apparently bought from a Canadian source. She gave birth to a live fetus who died shortly after. Jones was initially charged with "malice murder," but the charge was dropped after a public outcry. She is still accused of possessing a dangerous drug. Advocates say Jones’ case exemplifies women’s limited options as abortion access is restricted and health funding is slashed. Lynn Paltrow of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women said: "It is shocking each and every time we see an attempt to deny pregnant women their human rights and to treat them and the fact that they are pregnant as a crime rather than a public health issue."
Florida Enacts 24-Hour Wait Time for Abortions
Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed a bill into law forcing women to wait at least 24 hours to have an abortion. Exceptions will be made if women can document rape, incest, domestic violence or human trafficking. Opponents argue such measures burden women who have already made their decision or who live too far away from clinics to make repeated visits affordable. We’ll have more on abortion rights later in the broadcast.
New York Expands Manhunt for Escaped Pair to Vermont
New York authorities have expanded a manhunt for two prisoners to neighboring Vermont six days after their escape. The two convicted murderers used power tools to drill through the walls and break out of the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora. Police say a prison employee may have helped them. Joseph D’Amico of the New York State Police said an extensive search continues.
Joseph D’Amico: "We won’t stop until we have these convicts captured. To date, we’ve received more than 500 leads, and we’re thoroughly investigating each and every one. That means looking behind every tree, under every rock and inside every structure until we find these men. Today, the public will have noticed an increased police presence both in the village of Dannemora and in Willsboro, in Essex County. We continue to go door to door, checking homes and seasonal residences. And we continue to do vehicle checks at a number of roadblocks in the area."
At six days, the jailbreak is now the longest in New York history.
Rikers Corrections Officers Indicted for 2012 Beating Death of Prisoner
Two corrections officers at the Rikers Island jail have been arrested for the 2012 beating death of prisoner Ronald Spear. A federal indictment alleges one of the guards repeatedly kicked Spear in the head while two others held him down. The coroner found Spear died from "blunt force trauma." New York paid $2.75 million to settle a lawsuit brought over Spear’s death last year.
Retrial Underway for Marine in Slaying of Iraqi Civilian
A retrial is underway for a U.S. marine in the 2006 killing of an Iraqi civilian. The victim, Hashim Ibrahim Awad, was dragged from his home, shot, and then planted with a weapon to make it appear he was planning an attack. Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins had been the only one of seven U.S. servicemembers involved in the killing to receive a murder conviction. But his conviction was overturned in 2010 on the grounds his attorneys were improperly dismissed before trial.
Juan Felipe Herrera Named 1st Latino Poet Laureate of U.S.
And Juan Felipe Herrera has been named the new poet laureate of the United States. He is the first-ever Latino to hold the position. Born to Mexican migrants, Herrera previously served as California’s poet laureate. He writes in both English and Spanish.
Follow
WEB EXCLUSIVE
"Kalief Browder, Albert Woodfox and the Torture of Solitary Confinement" by Amy Goodman
Twelve days after his 22nd birthday, Kalief Browder wrapped an air-conditioner power cord around his neck and hanged himself. In 2010, at the age of 16, he was arrested after being accused of stealing a backpack. He would spend three years in New York City’s Rikers Island prison, more than two of those years in solitary confinement. He was beaten by prison guards and inmates alike. He was not serving a sentence; he was in pretrial detention. He declined all plea bargains. He wanted his day in court, to prove his innocence. A judge finally dismissed the case against him. After his release, Kalief Browder tried to reclaim his life. In the end, the nightmare he lived through overwhelmed him. Two years after his release, he committed suicide.
Albert Woodfox also knows the torment of solitary confinement. Woodfox has the distinction of being the prisoner in the United States who has spent the most time in solitary confinement, now well over 42 years. For most of that time, he was locked up in the notorious maximum-security Louisiana State Penitentiary known as “Angola,” built on the site of a former plantation worked by slaves from the African country of Angola.
Woodfox is one of the “Angola Three,” three prisoners who served more than a century—that’s right, more than 100 years—of solitary confinement between them. They believe the isolation was retaliation for forming the first prison chapter of the Black Panthers in 1971. They were targeted for organizing against segregation, inhumane working conditions and the systemic rape and sexual slavery inflicted on many imprisoned at Angola.
Woodfox and another of the Angola 3, the late Herman Wallace, were convicted for the 1972 murder of prison guard Brent Miller. The case against them had significant flaws, and their convictions were later overturned. On Oct. 1, 2013, Herman Wallace was freed, but only after a federal judge threatened to arrest the warden if he did not release him. Wallace was suffering from advanced liver cancer, and died, surrounded by family and friends, several days later.
A federal judge has just issued a similarly urgent order for Albert Woodfox’s release, but the state of Louisiana has appealed to a federal appeals court. Woodfox’s conviction has been overturned not once but twice. Even the murdered guard’s widow, Teenie Verret, has said she doesn’t believe the men killed her husband. Nevertheless, Louisiana’s Attorney General “Buddy” Caldwell would like to subject Woodfox, who is now 68, to a third trial for the same crime. Federal Judge James Brady is determined to set Woodfox free, once and for all.
Brady ordered, “Mr. Woodfox’s age and poor health ... this Court’s lack of confidence in the State to provide a fair third trial, the prejudice done onto Mr. Woodfox by spending over forty years in solitary confinement, and finally the very fact that Mr. Woodfox has already been tried twice and would otherwise face his third trial for a crime that occurred over forty years ago ... the only just remedy is an unconditional writ of habeas corpus barring retrial of Mr. Albert Woodfox and releasing Mr. Woodfox from custody immediately.”
The warden of Angola, Burl Cain, said he had to keep Woodfox and the Angola 3 in solitary confinement because of their “Black Pantherism.” Woodfox, speaking over a prison phone, said, “I thought that my cause, then and now, was noble. ... So they might bend me a little bit, they may cause me a lot of pain, they may even take my life; but they will never be able to break me.”
Kalief Browder, sadly, was broken. Jennifer Gonnerman of The New Yorker magazine, who wrote eloquently about Kalief’s case while he was alive, wrote on the day after his death, “He wanted the public to know what he had gone through, so that nobody else would have to endure the same ordeals.” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has ended solitary confinement for 16- and 17-year olds on Rikers Island, and hopes to end it soon for those under 21. After learning of the suicide, de Blasio said: “A lot of the changes we are making at Rikers Island right now are a result of the example of Kalief Browder. So I wish, I deeply wish we hadn’t lost him, but he did not die in vain.”
There are an estimated 80,000-100,000 prisoners held in some form of solitary confinement in the United States. The United Nations says the practice often amounts to torture. It is cruel and unusual punishment, and must be abolished, once and for all.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,200 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.
(c) 2015 Amy Goodman
Distributed by King Features Syndicate
207 West 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment