democracynow.org
Stories:
A Mounting Humanitarian Catastrophe in Yemen: War Death Toll Tops 3,000, Fear of Famine Grows
Aid groups are warning Yemen is on the brink of famine as the Saudi-led attack intensifies. More than 3,000 people, including 1,500 civilians, have died in Yemen since the U.S.-backed Saudi offensive against the Houthi rebel group began on March 26. According to the United Nations, 80 percent of Yemen’s 25 million people are now in need of some form of humanitarian aid, and more than one million Yemenis have fled their homes, as a Saudi naval blockade has cut off food and fuel supply lines for much of the country. Monday was reportedly the deadliest day since the fighting began, with over 176 people killed, including 30 people at a market in the northern province of Amran and 60 people at a livestock market in the southern town of al-Foyoush. To talk more about Yemen, we are joined by two guests. Farea Al-Muslimi is a co-founder of the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies in Yemen. He is currently a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. And here in New York is Matthieu Aikins, award-winning foreign correspondent. He’s a fellow at The Nation Institute. He was in Yemen last month reporting for Rolling Stone magazine.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Aid groups are warning Yemen is on the brink of famine as the Saudi-led attack intensifies. More than 3,000 people, including 1,500 civilians, have died in Yemen since the U.S.-backed Saudi offensive against the Houthi rebel group began on March 26. A Saudi naval blockade has cut off food and fuel supply lines for much of the country. According to the United Nations, 80 percent of Yemen’s 25 million people are now in need of some form of humanitarian aid. More than one million Yemenis have fled their homes. Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, addressed the crisis on Wednesday.
STÉPHANE DUJARRIC: The Office for the—for Human Rights say they are deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian and human rights situation in Yemen, where civilians continue to bear the brunt of the conflict. The office now says that a total number of civilians reportedly killed and injured since 27th of March is 1,528 and 3,605 injured.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Monday was reportedly the deadliest day since the fighting in Yemen began, with over 176 people killed, including 30 people at a market in the northern province of Amran and 60 people at a livestock market in the southern town of al-Foyoush. On Tuesday, a Saudi airstrike reportedly killed dozens of Yemeni soldiers stationed at a military base. One military source told the BBC the base was hit by accident. Another source said the strike was called in to stop the soldiers defecting to the Houthis.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about Yemen, we’re joined by two guests. Farea Al-Muslimi is a co-founder of the Sana’a Center or Strategic Studies in Yemen. He’s currently a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, Lebanon. In 2013, Al-Muslimi testified before the U.S. Senate on the secret U.S. drone program in Yemen. Here in New York, Matt Aikins joins us, award-winning foreign correspondent, fellow at The Nation Institute. He was in Yemen last month reporting for Rolling Stone magazine.
Farea Al-Muslimi, let’s go to you first in the Middle East. Talk about what’s happening in your country.
Farea, are you able to hear me? We’re speaking to Farea in Beirut, Lebanon, right now, and we may have a bit of a problem with the audio connection. Farea, can you hear me? And can you talk about the situation in Yemen? Well, it looks like he is not hearing us.
FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: I can barely hear you, actually. There’s a problem with the sound.
AMY GOODMAN: Ah, go ahead, Farea. We can hear you now. Ah, OK, we’ll go to Matt Aikins. Matt, you have just recently returned from Yemen. Talk about what you found there.
MATTHIEU AIKINS: Well, it’s, first of all, very difficult to get into the country, because there’s a full-on blockade by air, land and sea. And we actually had to smuggle ourselves in by boat from the neighboring country of Djibouti across the Gulf of Aden. Once we got out there, we found a country that had been completely paralyzed by lack of fuel, food, medicine. There’s no power in most of the cities that we visited. There’s a constant toll of airstrikes and, of course, very heavy fighting in numerous areas of the country. So, really, it’s a mounting humanitarian catastrophe, as you mentioned, and extremely dangerous situation that I think threatens to get worse as time goes on.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And can you talk about the Saudi blockade? I mean, it’s because of this blockade that there is this humanitarian catastrophe, in part because fuel and food supplies can’t get in. So what was the justification for the blockade? And where you traveled in Yemen, what did you see as its effects in the refugee camps, etc., that you went to?
MATTHIEU AIKINS: The justification that the Saudi coalition gives for the blockade is that it’s preventing deliveries of weapons to the Houthis from Iran. There hasn’t really been any smoking gun evidence of such deliveries in the past, but that’s the reason that they’re giving. Now, Yemen was a country that was essentially already in a kind of humanitarian catastrophe even before the war. It was one of the most impoverished nations in the region, suffered from very high levels of malnutrition, food insecurity, access to water, etc. It had 90 percent of its food imported. So this kind of blockade has a devastating impact on a country that was already very fragile. And many people believe that this amounts to collective punishment of the entire Yemeni people, that’s aimed at, you know, one particular group.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to a clip from one of the Rolling Stone videos filmed in Sana’a last month. Matt Aikins was in the Old City the day after the Saudi coalition carried out airstrikes in the area. This is Yahya al-Habbari, a representative of the Old City in the Senate, describing the scene.
YAHYA AL-HABBARI: My heart is broken. And, in fact, you are foreigners, and you can see the actual area. It’s, you know, the oldest living museum on Earth. What was the hate behind these beautiful old houses? It is nothing. It’s only old people and young children.
MATTHIEU AIKINS: And who was there? Who was there when it was hit?
YAHYA AL-HABBARI: There are about four families.
MATTHIEU AIKINS: Yeah.
YAHYA AL-HABBARI: Four families completely, completely dead. All of them. There are still three persons remain under the—under this disaster.
MATTHIEU AIKINS: And I’ve heard people here say that they also find America responsible for this. Do you think people feel that Americans are also to blame?
YAHYA AL-HABBARI: Well, I can—I can absolutely confirm that the United States of America, headed by idiot Obama, that they are 100 percent involved.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk further, Matt, about what you found here.
MATTHIEU AIKINS: Well, that was an incident where a bomb—it was later actually discovered to be a 2,000-pound bomb by Amnesty International—hit a section of the Old City and collapsed four houses, killed a number of civilians. So we went there that morning. The bomb had come in early in the morning, and we came after sunrise and viewed some of the rescue attempts. People were pulling bodies out of the rubble while we were there.
And this is actually something that’s happening every day. But because it happened that day at a UNESCO World Heritage site, this ran on news broadcasts. It was one of the few instances that I think the conflict in Yemen has actually been of interest to the rest of the world. And one of my Yemeni friends sort of bitterly joked that the West was more interested in old houses than Yemeni lives.
AMY GOODMAN: We seem to have remade a connection with Farea Al-Muslimi in Beirut. Can you talk about the whole overall situation, Farea, in Yemen?
FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: Yes, Amy. It’s great to be back with you.
Overall, I mean, since the beginning of this recent war on Yemen, led by the Saudi coalition and started in last March, since then, the humanitarian situation in Yemen have badly gone even worse, more than it was in the past. Obviously, Yemen was going through a lot of problems in the past. More than 14 million people were already in a need for humanitarian aid. And when this war broke out, first what it did is it escalated the already bad humanitarian situation. It obviously made the scope for a political solution go much less than they were. And most importantly, it paralyzed the movement in and out of the country, at least compared to the past. Thousands of people have been killed, clearly, since this have started, and thousands have been injured. Hundreds of thousands have been forced to leave their houses.
The country is going—especially due to the aid and food blockage by all war sides, have been going through one of the possibly worst humanitarian situations in the world. And the blockage of food and aid and movement of ships was probably or have been the worst part of this overall war, and since it literally banned those who even can afford life from the ability of finding food in the market compared to the past. And, obviously, more importantly, I mean, in overall picture, clearly, every new day, this war is becoming less and less about Yemen and more of a regional proxy, while Yemen is caught in the middle of 25 million people currently going under multiple internal and external wars.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Farea Al-Muslimi, you have said in an interview that Yemen is, quote, "the Mexico of the Arabian Gulf." Could you explain what you mean by that and your sense of the international community’s response to the crisis in Yemen?
FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: Obviously, the current turmoil in Yemen, or the current chaos, is an outcome of an imposed international solution that has in Yemen been in force for the last three years before everything collapsed. And obviously, it was a transition that faked everything more than actually led a real transition. Everyone was faking their parts, apparently, except the gun dealers, since the story in the international was that Yemen was a success story. Clearly, there has been a problem going over the last three years.
What happened is it was an attempt, I think, for the international community to act in Arab Spring countries, especially after its failure in Syria and Libya. And Yemen was the "successful" model, between a quotation. But it was more of myth successful model, was left behind, I think, first collapsed into a lot of internal conflicts, and then it was neglected, obviously, for many—by many regional international sides, until it recently became—how do you say it? A fuel for a regional proxy war, and also, at the same time, a place where no one internationally or regionally is being held accountable about what they are doing there. Apparently, the current war has—a lot of war crimes have been committed in it, but no one has been held accountable or even have been called in.
And obviously, this luxury of always having not to deal with Yemen, as it is not a prominent oil country, it’s not an Israeli-bordering country, and that have made it obviously less important to the world or to the West, specifically, than it could or it needed. But apparently we are now witnessing a prize of that long-term decade neglection that left Yemen first under the oppressive rule of former President Saleh and his regime, and, post that, for a model of a transition that was very far from reality, let’s say, at its best.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, our correspondent, usually based in Cairo, went to Sana’a in Yemen recently and described for us there the extent to which Saudi Arabia controls conditions in Yemen, including access to the country and its airspace.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Just to give you a sense of how much control the Saudis have over the airspace, Yemenis who are flying into Yemen from the outside, the planes—where before there was a direct flight from Cairo to Sana’a, it now stops in Saudi Arabia. And so, the plane stops there. All the bags are taken off; they’re checked. Saudi Arabian security officials come onto the plane. They check the passports. And when I was there, one Yemeni with me was humiliated that this was happening, that he had to go through Saudi Arabia to get to his country. So they really are controlling access to the country, both for Yemenis, for the media and for—more importantly, for all the humanitarian aid and the fuel.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about Saudi Arabia’s interests here, what they’re doing, and—you talked about alleged war crimes—who you think is responsible?
FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: Obviously, all sides have committed that in many times, whether the blockage of aid, which was committed by sometimes the Yemeni government in exile, led by President Hadi, sometimes by the Saudis and sometimes by the Houthis themselves, internal, inside Yemen.
Overall, the Saudi Arabia has always enjoyed an unquestionable prominence over Yemen’s politics for decades. But in the last three years, it was busy first with rivalries with Qatar and Yemen and in other parts of the region, and then it was busy with Egypt and Syria. So it simply watched Yemen sink into the hell of what it is going through. But there has been, obviously, in Saudi, recent years, there has been the phobia of Iran, that made it, probably, let’s say, overreact to what happens to the—to what’s happening in Yemen or obviously to the Houthis’ rise to power in Yemen.
But apparently, overall, I think the absence of accountability, whether to the Saudis or to the Houthis, would have—or have participated in improving or in increasing the legacy of violence around the country, which has been going through a lot of increase since the immunity law was passed in Yemen in 2011 under the back of the international community. And under this law, obviously, all Saleh’s regime has been forgiven from what they have done or misdone over the last 33 years. And with that support of, let’s say, trading of justice for the sake of security, have obviously led many internal and external actors to be more violent in Yemen and to be less accountable, whether in war situations or even in non-war situations.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Matt Aikins, I want to ask you, as well. You talked about the difficulty you had in getting into Yemen, and Sharif described a similar situation. Do you think that’s what accounts for the relatively little press coverage that there’s been of the crisis in Yemen, here and possibly elsewhere?
MATTHIEU AIKINS: Yeah, I think there’s no doubt about that. And the fact of the matter is, is that the Saudis were blocking journalists from entering the country. So, we were told that we wouldn’t be allowed in on either official humanitarian flights or shipments. And actually, a WFP flight, World Food Program flight, carrying a number of journalists from Djibouti, was actually blocked by the Saudis shortly before we left. So, they’re deliberately restricting press coverage of the conflict.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what about U.N. officials? You also found, when you were there, that humanitarian aid workers were not there in as large numbers as you might expect, given the scale of the catastrophe.
MATTHIEU AIKINS: Yeah, I think the U.N. was very unprepared for this crisis, and they, as a result, evacuated almost all of their international staff. We were traveling in areas outside of the capital, Sana’a, in Amran province, for example, and we found refugees who were just living in the open without shelter, without water, without food. The only international agency that was really on the ground working with them was Doctors Without Borders, MSF. And they were incredulous, actually, that there could be this scale of displacement without any response from the international humanitarian community.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, one of the people that you—the video clip that we played earlier of the representative from the Old City concluded by saying that he blames the United States 100 percent for what’s going on there. And you pointed out, in one of your pieces, that you came across munitions made—remnants of munitions made in the U.S. that were being used by Saudi Arabia in their air war in Yemen. So could you talk about what you learned from people in Yemen about how they see the responsibility for what’s going on there?
MATTHIEU AIKINS: Sure. We found cluster bombs, for example, that are banned under the global treaty, that were used by the Saudis in Yemen, that had been—that originally come from the U.S. There’s no doubt that Yemenis understand that the weapons and the jets that are being used against them were sold to the Saudis by the U.S., that the U.S. is supporting this war with in-flight refueling, with intelligence and targeting. So, absolutely, Yemenis see the U.S. as being responsible. Often when we visit the site of these civilian casualties where women and children have been killed, a lot of the ire that people have on the ground was directed toward the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to Farea and to go back to 2013, when you testified in Washington on Capitol Hill about the U.S. drone strikes in Yemen. You spoke a week after your home village in Yemen was hit by a U.S. drone strike.
FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: What Wessab’s villagers knew of the U.S. was based on my stories about my wonderful experiences here. The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know and that I love. Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time. What the violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant. There is now an intense anger against America in Wessab. This is not an isolated incident. The drone strikes are the face of America to many Yemenis.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Farea Al-Muslimi in 2013 speaking on Capitol Hill in a Senate hearing on Yemen. Farea, that was two years ago. Can you talk about how the U.S. is seen on the ground there now and how what’s happening in Yemen compares to two years ago?
FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: Well, I mean, compared to two years ago, if you’re a Yemeni, you would absolutely think at least the number of countries were bombing Yemen by that time was still limited to one. And it was one you can—that has a parliament you can complain to. So at least it was—comparatively to what’s happening today in Yemen domestically and externally, it’s actually, sadly speaking, an OK days compared to now.
At the same time, I want to probably elaborate more on the idea of how Saudis are responsible or how the view that this is actually a war under the sponsorship of the United States of America. It’s not only, as mentioned in your talks earlier, that there is a general feeling in Yemen over that of all, but even in Saudi Arabia, there is a lot of feeling or relaxation of the overuse of force or overall on this war, because they feel they have the green light from the United States of America and from the United Kingdom and, obviously, from many Western countries. Last month, I was in Saudi, and I spoke to Saudi officials about the usage of cluster bombs. And guess what was their usual or their main response. That these are weapons that’s sold to us by the United States of America, and we can use them because they are sold to us legally in America. So that overall, you know, feeling, even by the Saudis, that they are backed overall, have made this war could go—go worse than it could have just been.
And more importantly, it have elaborated or increased the non-accountability overall of this war in Yemen, and especially by the Saudi Arabia. If at the moment—and that’s why at the moment if there is any power that can push the Saudis to behave in Yemen or to accept a ceasefire, it is definitely the United States of America. And that realization overall what influence the U.S. have on Saudis, which is probably the only country right now can have influence on Saudis, makes a lot of feeling, whether in Saudi or in Yemen, the United States as a larger sponsor of this war.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Farea Al-Muslimi, you’ve suggested that the likelihood of Hadi returning to Yemen is virtually nil. In other words, he will not be going back to Yemen. So what do you see as Saudi Arabia’s objectives? How can this war be resolved? Many people have suggested that at the moment, given the continuation of the war, the only people who are benefiting are Islamist extremists—al-Qaeda or the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: And obviously, but the issue in this is Hadi is a matter of tool in this whole larger war, obviously, whether in the eyes of Saudi or in the eyes of the bigger regional proxy war that Yemen is at least having an impact on. Obviously, to move forward, there is a deep realization, I think, in Yemen and outside Yemen, within the Houthis and even from the Houthis’ opponents, that one of the biggest obstacles facing Yemen right now is actually the current president, who have, in a big or in a way or another, paved the road, first of all, for the Houthis from the mountains to power, because a lot of his misactions, his insist on imposing removal of fuel subsidies last year and a lot of—and the imposement of an unpopular constitutional draft and unpopular division of regions, all of this misacts by him, obviously, makes his supporters, before his opponents, realize that the way forward in Yemen has to go through a removal of this man.
But yes, obviously, you know, this continuation of the war right now, as it is happening, with no state—legit state actor in Yemen or even government, benefits the group like ISIS and al-Qaeda. But this trend has been, overall, going the last year. And, two, since, I think, the Arab Spring was knocked down, the whole region, and not just Yemen, have been, you know, witnessing a wave of radicalization, a wave of picking guns on the expense of protester or protest failures. And this is, I think, mainly because of how the Arab Spring was knocked down. I’m not sure how the world can think it can sleep at night after it what did to the Arab Spring, which was, in a way or another, the biggest strike ever happened to ideological groups in the region, especially these regimes who are very unpopular. And there was a strong social movement in Yemen, but these regimes, in a way or another, did not move. Their tools, their bureaucracy did not change. And obviously they were unpopular and incapable of staying in power, but there was the new elite, or obviously the new masses of 2011 were not in power, and that, consequently, obviously, benefit the group of like ISIS and like al-Qaeda, especially with a lot of internal sectarian tension increasing by a regional fueling of guns and cash.
AMY GOODMAN: Farea Al-Muslimi, I want to thank you for being with us, co-founder of the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies in Yemen, currently visiting scholar at Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. And I also want to thank you, Matt Aikins, again for coming into the studio, award-winning foreign correspondent, fellow at The Nation Institute. He was in Yemen last month reporting for Rolling Stone magazine.
When we come back, we go to Capitol Hill, where California Congressmember Barbara Lee joins us to talk about a new bill she’s put forward around abortion. Stay with us.
"A Sea Change": With 100 Women in Congress, Lawmakers Go on Offensive with Landmark Pro-Choice Bill
In a landmark push to turn back the record tide of anti-choice restrictions, pro-choice U.S. lawmakers have introduced a bill to expand insurance coverage of abortion. The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, or EACH Woman Act, would dismantle the nearly 40-year-old Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. The Hyde Amendment denies coverage of abortion to many of the country’s poorest women, who are disproportionately women of color. We speak with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), lead sponsor of the bill. "In the past, we’ve just been on the defense constantly, just defending a woman’s right to choose, a woman’s right to privacy, Roe v. Wade. Well, now it’s about time we take the offense," Lee says. "This is a major first step."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: In a landmark push to turn back the record tide of anti-choice restrictions, pro-choice lawmakers have introduced a bill to expand insurance coverage of abortion. The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance, or EACH Woman, Act would dismantle the nearly 40-year-old Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. The Hyde Amendment cuts off funding for a routine medical procedure sought by one in three women, to members of the military and their families, federal employees, women in federal prisons, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients and Medicaid recipients. Research has shown one in four women on Medicaid who want to end their pregnancies instead give birth when the funding is unavailable. While a minority of states do provide Medicaid coverage for abortion, a number of states have gone beyond the Hyde Amendment, banning abortion coverage on any insurance plan or on plans sold through healthcare exchanges.
AMY GOODMAN: Dubbed "the third rail of abortion politics" by MSNBC’s Irin Carmon, taxpayer funding for abortion is an issue even pro-choice Democrats have hesitated to touch. In 2010, President Obama issued an executive order ensuring the ban on federal funds for abortion would stand under his signature healthcare law. But on Wednesday, Democratic Congressmember Barbara Lee of Oakland and her colleagues introduced the EACH Woman Act to repeal the ban and prevent political interference in abortion coverage by private insurers. Congressmember Lee spoke Wednesday along with other sponsors of the bill, including Congressmember Judy Chu of California and Congressmember Raúl Grijalva of Arizona. This is Congressmember Brenda Lawrence of Michigan.
REP. BRENDA LAWRENCE: Today, I stand as a member of Congress, one of the first in our history, having 100 women sitting in Congress. This is a time for leadership.
REP. BARBARA LEE: Politicians have no business interfering with a woman’s private reproductive health decision. The EACH Woman Act ends these political bans, whether they’re imposed at the state or federal level.
REP. JUDY CHU: Nearly one in seven women of reproductive age is insured through Medicaid. Half of Medicaid enrollees are people of color. Three in 10 young women are eligible for Medicaid. We know that this attack on poor women is an attack on all women. By denying federal insurance coverage of abortion, Hyde puts this access out of reach for so many. We cannot sit back and watch the constitutional right of women deteriorate any further. We have been playing defense for far too long, and it’s time to change that strategy.
REP. RAÚL GRIJALVA: This act that has been proposed is about reaffirming a woman’s right, period. And it’s about bringing up to a level standard the civil rights and the equity that every woman deserves in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmembers Grijalva, Chu, Lee and Lawrence. For more, we go to the Cannon Rotunda in Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by the sponsor of the bill, Congressmember Barbara Lee, former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, lead sponsor of the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, known as the EACH Woman Act.
Congressmember Lee, welcome back to Democracy Now! Lay out what this legislation would do.
REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, thank you very much. First of all, let me just say, women around the country, and men, have said enough is enough. And what this legislation basically would do is remove the barriers and the bans on funding for reproductive healthcare, all the reproductive healthcare options which women with money have, which includes abortions. And so, finally, we have—and I’m so pleased that we had 70 co-sponsors who introduced this bill, along with myself, to just say, basically, enough is enough. We want equity. You know, the American people, regardless of their personal views on abortions, they believe that all women, regardless of their income, should be allowed the full range of reproductive options. And so, what this bill does is equalize this whole healthcare issue and really puts low-income women and women of color—you heard half of women on Medicaid are women of color—you know, it provides some equity in their whole reproductive healthcare decisions. And also what it does is take elected officials out of those personal decisions that women must make, which are very grueling oftentimes and very difficult.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to read from a comment from Representative Henry Hyde, author of the Hyde Amendment. When it was first introduced in 1976, he said, quote, "I [certainly would] like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the ... Medicaid bill." So, Representative Lee, could you talk about who was principally impacted by this amendment?
REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, this was a direct attack on low-income women. And this was in the '70s, and I was not a member of Congress, of course, but I was working for a great member of Congress who did not support the Hyde Amendment, Congressman Ron Dellums. I was a staffer here. And I remember how horrible those days were and the debates and really feeling that this amendment really was attacking low-income women. And that's what it does. It really prevents low-income women from having all of the reproductive health choices that women who are not low-income have. And so, it basically attacks low-income women, poor women and women of color who are on Medicaid. And that’s got to stop.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lee, what happens to women in the military?
REP. BARBARA LEE: Same thing. The VA women in the military are denied the full range of reproductive options. This bill would stop that. It would lift that barrier.
AMY GOODMAN: And how—what are the prospects for this bill moving forward in a Republican House?
REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, of course, we have to educate the public, which I believe are really there, but we have to let members of Congress know that the public—I think over 80 percent of the public really believes, regardless of their personal views, that there should be some equity and that low-income women should be treated fairly. And so we have a massive educational campaign to conduct.
But I’ll tell you one thing. Women all around this country—and I’m so proud of all of the young women, the organizations, who have been working for years and years and years on this legislation. Now we have 72 co-sponsors. Of course, we have a tea party-controlled, very conservative Congress, so we are not—we don’t have our heads in the sand. We’re not looking at the world through rose-colored glasses and believe that this could pass this year. But this is a long-term fight. This was in the '70s, when former Henry Hyde—the late Henry Hyde passed this. And so, we're going to begin now. We’re going to be very assertive. We’re going to educate members of Congress. And sooner or later, we’ll get this done. And so, this is a marathon. But it starts—it must start somewhere, so we’ve taken the very first step.
You know, in the past, we’ve just been on the defense constantly, just defending a woman’s right to choose, a woman’s right to privacy, the Roe v. Wade. Well, now it’s about time we take the offense and say, "Look, there’s got to be some justice and some fairness, as it relates to all women." And so, this is a major first step. And we have no idea when it could pass, but we have to build that political support. And so, interviews like this and educating the public will really help us build that support. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it has something to do with what was said when you introduced this yesterday, standing with a number of women and some male congressmembers, the idea that you have hit 100 women in Congress now?
REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, I believe it does. When we have that type of power—of course, we need more women in Congress. But when you have a hundred women, and when you have women who are at the table writing the rules, when you have women who really understand this from a deeply personal level, you know, I think things change, when you have women who really understand, regardless of their views, once again, on abortion, that elected officials, members of Congress, should not be making those decisions for women. These are very personal, difficult decisions. Let women decide where they want—how they want to live their lives and what their reproductive choices are. So, yes, I think getting to a hundred women in Congress really is a sea change. And again, we have now 72 co-sponsors on this bill, which is really very positive and very good for the movement that is developing. And I just have to give credit once again to all of our organizations and our young women around the country who have been working so hard on this for so many years.
The Next Steps on Cuba: Rep. Barbara Lee Pushes for End to Embargo & U.S Travel Restrictions
As the United States prepares to reopen its embassy in Havana, we speak to Rep. Barbara Lee, who has been rumored to be a frontrunner to become U.S. ambassador to Cuba. Lee has traveled to Cuba over 20 times since the 1970s and has co-sponsored the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act and Free Trade with Cuba Act.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Congressmember Lee, speaking of issues that people have worked hard on, you have worked extremely hard on changing the U.S. relationship with Cuba. The embassies are about to open—U.S. Embassy in Havana, Cuban Embassy in Washington, D.C. It has been talked about that you were interested in being the U.S. ambassador to Cuba, the first one, right now in this new era. Would you accept that position if President Obama nominated you?
REP. BARBARA LEE: No, let me tell you what happened. There was an article in the Matier/Ross column. They wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle some gossip, I guess, a rumor or—I don’t know where they got this from. They said that I had a gentlewoman’s agreement with the president that I would be the first ambassador to Cuba. That is just not the case. That is not true.
I represent some great constituents in the 13th Congressional District. There’s a lot of work to do in Congress. And so I intend to continue working to represent my constituency in Congress and continue to try to help lift this embargo, because, you know, that’s going to take legislative action, as well as lifting the travel ban. The president has come a long way and done everything he can do. I’ve been to Cuba over 20 times, beginning in the '70s. I think ’76, ’77. And I've worked very hard to get us to this point, with other members. But we’ve been doing this for many, many years. And so, now this is a sea change, once again. But I—these rumors, you know how they get started. And, you know, I intend to stay here in Congress and continue to work to represent my constituents, which, I have to—
AMY GOODMAN: You may not have—
REP. BARBARA LEE: —I have to say, is the most progressive and enlightened and diverse constituency in the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lee, you may not have an agreement, but would you like to be the ambassador?
REP. BARBARA LEE: Being an ambassador to Cuba is, I think, a great position, if you’re about ready to retire from Congress. I’m not about ready to retire from Congress. I want to continue to work to lift this embargo and to ensure that the travel ban is lifted. I want to continue representing the greatest district in the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain the legislation that you think needs to happen with the president’s diplomatic initiatives on Cuba? As you said, he can only go so far. What has to pass in Congress, and what are you pushing for now for normalizing relations with Cuba?
REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, there are two bills. One would lift the travel ban. Now, you know, you have to have a license. It’s a general license, that really, though, is specific in terms of who can travel to Cuba. But under this administration, they have really made it a little broader and much more flexible in terms of traveling. But you cannot go to Cuba as a tourist. And so, we have legislation that would allow just normal travel relations, like we can travel to China, to Vietnam. Americans have the right to travel to Cuba. And so, we have to have a law, though, that says that, which is really unfortunate. But there’s legislation we’re trying to get passed that would do just that. I’m co-sponsoring that legislation with a Republican member of Congress, Congressman Sanford, to try to get a bipartisan consensus to get this legislation passed.
Secondly, just in terms of normal trade relations, to be able to do business. Currently, under the recent executive orders and prior executive orders, there are some industries that can do business in Cuba. For instance, we can sell medicine and agricultural products to Cuba. But normal trade relations just don’t exist. There’s an embargo. And so, we have to pass legislation that would lift the sanctions and lift the embargo against Cuba, so that we can engage in normal financial and trade transactions. And let me just say, Amy, once that is done, there have been enough businesses, the Chamber of Commerces, all—many economic organizations have shown that we would create economic growth in this country, as well as create jobs in America, if in fact we had normal trade relations with Cuba. And so, there are two bills—there’s a bill that would actually do just that, that Congressman Charlie Rangel is leading on, and I’m a co-sponsor of that.
And so, I hope the people listening to this interview would call their members of Congress and tell them to—tell their members to sign on as co-sponsors, and let’s get these bills passed so that we can have just normal trade and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. It’s to the benefit of the Cuban people and the American people.
"These Should Not Be in America": Democrats Aim to Remove Confederate Symbols from Federal Property
As House lawmakers in South Carolina pass a measure to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state Capitol, we speak to Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) about efforts in Washington to remove symbols of the Confederacy. The South Carolina vote came early this morning, almost exactly three weeks to the day after a white suspect who embraced the Confederate flag massacred nine African-American worshipers at a church bible study in Charleston.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Congressmember Lee, the—looks like South Carolina is going to bring down the Confederate battle flag on the grounds of the state Capitol. Extremely emotional debate was held in the last few days in both houses. But it’s overwhelmingly been voted. Is there federal legislation that would take down any kind of Confederate symbols in any federal public lands?
REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at a variety of bills. Congressman Bennie Thompson has legislation pending, specific legislation, and other efforts are taking place. But I’ll tell you, we’re looking at all aspects of symbols of hatred and racism and bigotry. These should not be in America. And so, you know, I’m very pleased and happy that Charleston and the South Carolina Legislature have finally gotten to this point. It took such a horrific tragedy, that we’re still grieving from and mourning from, and this is an example of how these horrible tragedies lead to change. But it should happen without having so many horrific acts of violence take place. And so, these symbols, such as the flag, that promote this kind of hatred, not only on federal lands or wherever, they should not exist in America. And so we’re looking at all aspects of this at this point.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lee, thanks so much for being with us, Democrat of California from Oakland, former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, author of—co-author of the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, known as the EACH Woman Act, which would guarantee abortion coverage for all Medicaid recipients and women who receive health insurance through the federal government.
When we come back, did BP get off cheaply in the deal that’s been reached after the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico? Stay with us.
Did BP Get Off Cheaply? Antonia Juhasz on $18.7B Gulf Oil Spill Settlement
BP has reached an $18.7 billion settlement to resolve all government claims resulting from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, the worst offshore oil spill in world history. If confirmed by a federal judge, it would be the largest environmental settlement in U.S. history and the largest ever by a single entity. The agreement covers damages sought by the federal government, the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, as well as more than 400 civic entities along the Gulf Coast. The payment includes a $5.5 billion civil penalty under the Clean Water Act and a $7.1 billion fine for environmental damage to the Gulf. But some groups have questioned if BP is paying enough. For more we’re joined by reporter Antonia Juhasz in San Francisco. Her Rolling Stone story is headlined "BP 'Got Off Cheaply' With $18.7 Billion Settlement.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We end today’s show looking the historic settlement BP has reached that will resolve all government claims resulting from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The agreement totals $18.7 billion and covers damages sought by the federal government, the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, as well as more than 400 civic entities along the Gulf Coast. The payment includes a $5.5 billion civil penalty under the Clean Water Act and a $7.1 billion fine for environmental damage to the Gulf.
AMY GOODMAN: If confirmed by a federal judge after a public comment period, it will be the largest environmental settlement in U.S. history and the largest ever by a single entity. But some groups have questioned if BP is paying enough.
For more, we go to reporter Antonia Juhasz in San Francisco. Her Rolling Stone story is headlined "BP 'Got Off Cheaply' with $18.7 Billion Settlement." Her report in the May issue of Harper’s magazine is "Thirty Million Gallons Under the Sea: Following the Trail of BP’s Oil in the Gulf of Mexico." She’s also author of Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill.
You have been reporting on this for years, Antonia. Did BP get off cheaply? What were the costs, and what are they ultimately liable for?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, good morning, Amy and Nermeen.
Yeah, unfortunately, BP did. So, you know, as you said in the introduction, this is certainly a historic settlement. It is a very large figure, $18.7 billion. But BP also caused the largest oil spill in world history, the largest offshore drilling oil spill in world history. And with that—and it was found to be a crime. BP had to settle 12 criminal charges. And BP was found grossly negligent in causing this disaster. So, with that, with those crimes and that grossly negligent behavior comes a historic fine, if you apply our laws. And our laws are supposed to account for the enormous amount of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. That’s the Clean Water Act. The Oil Pollution Act says that BP is required to put everything back the way it was, basically, economically and ecologically, so pay for the damage that was done and pay for restoration. And that’s the Oil Pollution Act. In addition, we want to make sure that other companies will not engage in that same sort of criminal and grossly negligent behavior. And so, on each of those legal counts, I think this settlement fails. It fails to account for the Clean Water Act. It fails to account for full restoration. And I think it certainly fails as a very, very important tool for dissuading this type of behavior in the future, which is very problematic given the move of the oil industry into even more dangerous and risky oil drilling behavior.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Antonia, could you explain how the BP settlement breaks down? How much goes to damage, and how much to restoration? And what would have been a better settlement, in your view?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, I mean, the federal government was originally seeking $18 billion—18 billion—just in Clean Water Act fines alone. And that’s a straight application of the law. So, the federal government had argued, and most independent scientists agreed, that 4.1 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico. And the judge had found in September that BP was grossly negligent, which brings a fine of $4,300 per barrel, which would have equaled an $18 billion fine. The judge then ruled that it felt—that he felt that only 3.1 million barrels of oil were spilled, which would have reduced the Clean Water Act fine to about $14 billion. But this settlement only provides $5.5 billion in Clean Water Act fines, so that’s more like about $1,800 per barrel of oil spilled, so BP got off on that provision.
Then, in addition to the Clean Water Act, this also covers all natural resource costs and restoration. And the National Wildlife Federation did an analysis a few years back that that number should have been about $31 billion alone. But in this settlement, BP gets $7.1 billion for natural resource restoration, plus $1 billion it had already paid, so that’s $8 billion.
And then there is, in addition, the economic costs suffered by states and, as you said, some 400 localities. And that’s $4.9 billion for the states, $1 billion for the localities. That’s how we get at $18.7.
And there is no—and this is really critical—reopener. So, you know, there’s a lot of science that’s still going on. I was on the show not too long ago talking about my submarine trip to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico at the site of the BP oil spill, and the scientists who I accompanied estimating that 30 million gallons of oil is still in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s the—
AMY GOODMAN: Antonia?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted you to respond to The New York Times Editorial Board responding to the settlement with "BP Deal Will Lead to a Cleaner Gulf" headline. They wrote, "Even before this settlement, BP’s costs have not been trivial. ... When all is said and done, the company estimates it will have paid nearly $54 billion, shedding major assets to pay the tab. If that isn’t a deterrent to careless behavior by the oil companies, it’s hard to know what is." Can you respond to that, finally?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah. Again, it’s a lot of money. It’s the largest oil spill—offshore drilling oil spill in world history. So, BP has been estimating all along the costs associated with this disaster. They had already estimated $43 billion, so put aside a $43 billion cost. This puts it to about $53 billion. But that’s even less than analysts were predicting the cost would be for the spill. So, back in 2011, Moody’s estimated $60 billion. And this is coming in.
AMY GOODMAN: We have—
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: OK.
AMY GOODMAN: And I want to thank you very much for joining us, Antonia Juhasz—we will link to your pieces—also the author of Black Tide.
Headlines:
South Carolina House Votes to Remove Confederate Flag
House lawmakers in South Carolina have passed a measure to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state Capitol. The final vote was 94 to 20. South Carolina Republican Governor Nikki Haley has vowed to quickly sign the bill into law. That will give the state 24 hours to take down the flag and move it to a museum. The vote came early this morning, almost exactly three weeks to the day after a white suspect who embraced the Confederate flag massacred nine African-American worshipers at a church bible study in Charleston. Among those to speak during a heated debate was Republican state Representative Jenny Horne.
Rep. Jenny Horne: "I cannot believe that we do not have the heart in this body to do something meaningful such as take a symbol of hate off these grounds on Friday! And if any of you vote to amend, you are ensuring that this flag will fly beyond Friday. And for the widow of Senator Pinckney and his two young daughters, that would be adding insult to injury!"
State Rep. Jenny Horne is a descendant of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
Judge Orders Cancellation of Redskins Trademarks
A federal judge has dealt a blow to another symbol widely seen as racist. In a victory for Native American activists, U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee ordered the cancellation of federal trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins football team. The decision affirmed an earlier ruling by the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which said the name is offensive to Native Americans. The decision does not force the team to change its name, but it could make it more difficult to legally guard the name and logo from use by third parties. The team has said it will appeal.
Syrian Refugee Population Tops 4 Million
The number of Syrian refugees fleeing the turmoil in their home country has topped four million. The United Nations said more than 24,000 people crossed into Turkey from Syria last month alone. Within Syria, an estimated 7.6 million people have been displaced. António Guterres, U.N. high commissioner for refugees, said, "This is the biggest refugee population from a single conflict in a generation."
Greece Submits Three-Year Bailout Request
Greece has formally requested a new bailout from European creditors. The plan would see Greece commit to tax and pension-related reforms in exchange for a three-year aid package. More specific details are expected today. Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras addressed the European Parliament Wednesday. He said Greeks are tired of being a "laboratory for testing austerity" and want a "viable agreement."
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras: "We want a sustainable program, because we want to be in a position to repay the loans that we’ve accepted. And when we ask to reduce the debt, we are asking for that because we want to be able to pay this back. We don’t want to be forced time and time again to accept new loans to pay off the old ones."
London Protesters Highlight Deadly Impact of Austerity
In London, anti-austerity protesters staged a die-in outside Parliament to protest welfare cuts and corporate tax breaks in the new Conservative budget. The People’s Assembly Against Austerity expressed solidarity with Greek voters who rejected austerity last weekend in a historic referendum. The protesters released black balloons to symbolize the deadly consequences of welfare cuts.
John Rees: "What we’ve done is to release black balloons and have a die-in to symbolize those people who we know have died directly as a consequence of austerity. The last estimates for this, which was two years ago, were that 10,000 people in this country had died from the direct effects of austerity."
European Parliament Backs Pro-Corporate TTIP Trade Deal
As they pressed Greece to accept austerity, members of the European Parliament also voted Wednesday to endorse a U.S.-European free-trade deal critics say would enrich corporations at the expense of the environment and public health. Denounced by critics as a "Corporate Bill of Rights," the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, is being negotiated in secret. One provision would establish a parallel legal system where corporations could sue governments over laws they claim threaten their profits.
Technical Issues Hit NY Stock Exchange, United, Wall Street Journal
Trading on the New York Stock Exchange was halted for hours Wednesday following what authorities say was a technical problem. A further spate of technical issues grounded United Airlines flights for nearly two hours and took down the Wall Street Journal homepage. Officials say the problems appear unrelated. They came amidst concern over economic turmoil in China, where stocks appear to have rebounded after steep losses.
FBI Presses for Access to Encrypted Communications
FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees Wednesday in favor of government access to encrypted communications. Encryption refers to the scrambling of communications so they cannot be read without a key or password. Comey invoked the threat of the self-proclaimed Islamic State to justify possible government backdoors into encryption software. Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Dianne Feinstein questioned Comey about concerns raised by tech companies.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "And let me ask you to respond. This is another quote from this same letter: 'Requiring technology that provides law enforcement access to information also risks undermining the security of all electronic communications and digitally stored information,' end quote. Would you comment on that? As I understand it, what you would be talking about is some kind of front-door key? Is that correct?"
FBI Director James Comey: "Again, my reaction to that comment is, maybe, and if that’s the case, well, then I guess we’re stuck."
You can go to democracynow.org to see our interview with Bruce Schneier, one of 14 leading cryptographers and computer scientists who wrote a paper opposing government access to encrypted data.
Lawmakers Introduce Landmark Bill to Ensure Abortion Coverage
U.S. lawmakers have launched a landmark push to turn back the record tide of anti-choice restrictions. California Congressmember Barbara Lee and pro-choice colleagues introduced the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, or EACH Woman Act. It would dismantle the nearly 40-year-old Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. California Congressmember Judy Chu was among those to support the EACH Woman Act at a news conference on Wednesday.
Rep. Judy Chu: "Nearly one in seven women of reproductive age is insured through Medicaid. Half of Medicaid enrollees are people of color. Three in 10 young women are eligible for Medicaid. We know that this attack on poor women is an attack on all women. By denying federal insurance coverage of abortion, Hyde puts this access out of reach for so many. We cannot sit back and watch the constitutional right of women deteriorate any further. We have been playing defense for far too long, and it’s time to change that strategy."
We’ll speak with EACH Woman Act lead sponsor, California Democratic Congressmember Barbara Lee, later in the broadcast.
Baltimore Mayor Fires Police Chief After Freddie Gray Protests
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has fired the city’s police commissioner in the wake of protests over the death of African-American resident Freddie Gray in police custody. Rawlings-Blake cited a recent crime rise and said criticism of Police Commissioner Anthony Batts had become a "distraction."
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake: "A key goal of my administration, a primarily focus, is on making Baltimore a safer place. I think it’s important that we understand that we cannot continue to debate the leadership of the department and think we’re going to see the progress that we want to see in the crime fight. And I think I would say the commissioner understands that."
Protesters have called for the ouster of Police Commissioner Anthony Batts over his handling of the death of Freddie Gray, whose family said his spine was 80 percent severed at the neck when he died after being arrested and transported without a seat belt in a police van. Six officers involved have been criminally charged. On Wednesday, the Baltimore police union issued a review accusing Batts of ordering officers to allow looting and property destruction during an uprising over Gray’s death, which left 19 buildings burned.
3 Presidential Candidates Vow to Refuse Fossil Fuel Money
Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, have pledged not to accept contributions from fossil fuel companies. The Nation magazine and 350.org called on candidates to sign a pledge not to solicit or accept donations "from any oil, gas or coal company." Hillary Clinton and 14 Republican candidates contacted by The Nation editors have not replied.
Report: Exxon Knew of Climate Change in 1981, Still Funded Deniers
And The Guardian reports a newly surfaced email shows oil giant ExxonMobil knew about climate change seven years before it became a public issue, but still spent millions of dollars to fund climate change denial for nearly 30 years. The email from Lenny Bernstein, Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, says the company first "got interested" in climate change in 1981. According to Greenpeace, Exxon spent more than $30 million on think tanks and researchers promoting climate change denial.
Donate today →Follow:
WEB EXCLUSIVE
"Cybersecurity, Encryption and The Golden Age of Surveillance" by Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan
The Internet, the electronic nervous system of the planet, has changed human society, profoundly altering the way we conduct our lives. It has been a great leveler, allowing people to connect, publish and share on a global scale. You can write, shop and bank online, or organize a demonstration that could overthrow a dictatorship. But the Internet also opens us to intense monitoring, exposing our most personal, private communications to the prying eyes of corporations and government spies, not to mention criminals. One way we can protect ourselves is with encryption, which provides security for our data, allowing us to send and store digital information safely, essentially scrambling the information. In order to unscramble it, you need a key, a password. The ability of regular people to access encryption tools has prompted the governments of both the United States and the United Kingdom to propose special access to all communications. They want a master key to everyone’s digital life.
FBI Director James Comey appeared before a Senate Committee on Wednesday, July 8, along with U.S Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates. As the meeting convened, the frailty of our networks was on display for the world: The New York Stock Exchange was shut down for half a day, supposedly due to a computer “glitch”; United Airlines grounded flights when it lost access to its computer systems; and The Wall Street Journal website was down due to “technical difficulties.” The Senate panel was called “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy.” “Going Dark” is a term used when people encrypt their communications. A joint statement from the duo, delivered by Yates, acknowledged “citizens have the right to communicate with one another in private without unauthorized government surveillance — not simply because the Constitution demands it, but because the free flow of information is vital to a thriving democracy.”
Despite the lofty pledge, Comey and others in the so-called intelligence community want unlimited access to all communications, all the time. They want what digital security experts call “extraordinary access mandates.” This means that any encryption tool would be required to have a “back door,” through which the FBI, the CIA or whomever possesses the requisite authority could access and read the communication, whether it is email, text, video chat or any other format. Why do they want this unlimited access? As Comey and Yates said, “When changes in technology hinder law enforcement’s ability to exercise investigative tools and follow critical leads, we may not be able to identify and stop terrorists who are using social media to recruit, plan and execute an attack in our country.”
A group of the world’s leading experts on computer and Internet security published a paper this week on just how deeply flawed Comey’s demand is. Fifteen authors contributed to the paper, published by MIT and titled “Keys Under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communications.”
Bruce Schneier, one of the paper’s authors, is a security technology guru and author of “Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World.” He said on the “Democracy Now!” news hour: “It’s extraordinary that free governments are demanding that security be weakened because the government might want to have access. This is the kind of thing that we see out of Russia and China and Syria. But to see it out of Western countries is extraordinary.”
Comey wants to mandate a back door, a built-in security weakness. Schneier continued: “What Comey wants is encryption that he can break with a court order. But as a technologist, I can’t design a computer that operates differently when a certain piece of paper is nearby. If I make a system that can be broken, it can be broken by anybody, not just the FBI. So his requirement for access gives criminals access, gives the Chinese government access.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has been one of the most vocal critics of government spying. In an online critique of a blog post by FBI Director Comey, Wyden wrote: “Trying to restrict the use of encryption would cast suspicion on those who legitimately seek protected communications, such as journalists, whistleblowers, attorneys, and human rights activists. ... It’s time to stop attacking the technology and start focusing on real solutions to the real threats facing our nation.”
Bruce Schneier summed up: “We’re concerned about the security of our data, and encryption is a valuable tool. To deliberately weaken that at the behest of the FBI or the U.K. government, I think, is a really crazy trade-off. It doesn’t make us safer; it makes us more at risk.” Ultimately, it is democracy that is at risk. The freedom to communicate without the government spying on us is essential to the functioning of a free and open society.
WORK WITH DN!
Engagement Editor
Senior News Producer
Fall 2015 Internships
207 West 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
___________________________________
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment