Missionary Renegade: Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Wednesday, September 7, 2016
democracynow.org
Stories:

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Lawyer: Judge's Ruling Allows Dakota Access to "Desecrate" Sacred Ground

In Washington, D.C., a federal judge has ruled that construction on sacred tribal burial sites in the path of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline can continue. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order that halts construction only between Route 1806 and Lake Oahe, but still allows construction to continue west of this area. The ruling does not protect the land where, on Saturday, hundreds of Native Americans forced Dakota Access to halt construction, despite the company’s security forces attacking the crowd with dogs and pepper spray. This part of the construction site is a sacred tribal burial ground. We get an update from Stephanie Tsosie, associate attorney with Earthjustice who helps represent the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in its lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers over the Dakota Access pipeline.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today’s show with an update on the fight by Native Americans to stop the proposed $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline, which would run through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois, and could contaminate the Missouri River. More than a thousand Native Americans from more than 100 tribes have traveled to the resistance camps on and around the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. It’s the largest unification of Native American tribes in decades.

Well, on Tuesday, a federal judge ruled on a request for a temporary restraining order to halt some construction until the same judge issues a ruling later this week on an injunction that the tribe filed challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over its approval of the pipeline. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary retraining order that halts construction only between Route 1806 and Lake Oahe, but still allows construction to continue west of this area. The ruling does not protect the land where this weekend’s mass protest occurred, which is an ancient burial and prayer ground. Jan Hasselman, attorney for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, responded to the ruling.

JAN HASSELMAN: We’re disappointed with what happened here today. We provided evidence on Friday of sacred sites that were directly in the pipeline’s route. By Saturday morning, those sites had been destroyed. And we saw things happening out at Standing Rock—dogs being put on protesters—that haven’t been seen in America in 40, 50 years.

AMY GOODMAN: As the ruling was issued in Washington, D.C., about 100 land defenders shut down construction on the Dakota Access pipeline by obstructing equipment. Some of them locked themselves to workers’ heavy machinery.

JULIE RICHARDS: My name is Julie Richards. I’m a member of the Oglala Lakota Nation. I’m also the founder of the Mothers Against Meth Alliance. And I’m here this morning locked down because water is life. We need our water to survive. We need to put a stop to this pipeline.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Tuesday’s limited temporary restraining order does not cover this construction site, either. Meanwhile, North Dakota authorities say they plan to pursue trespassing and vandalism charges against Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein for spray-painting construction equipment at the Dakota Access pipeline action. In a photograph posted on Twitter, Stein is seen next to a spray-painted message in red paint on the blade of a bulldozer that says, quote, "I approve this message." Stein, who is antiwar and advocates for clean energy, camped out with the protesters Monday evening.

AMY GOODMAN: For more on Tuesday’s hearing and actions, and what it means for the Dakota Access pipeline, we’re joined by several guests. In Seattle, Washington, Stephanie Tsosie is with us, an associate attorney with Earthjustice. She is co-counsel with Jan Hasselman representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in its lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers over the Dakota Access pipeline. Via Democracy Now! video stream, we’re joined by Tara Houska, national campaigns director for Honor the Earth.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with the lawyer, talking about what the ruling means. If you can talk about what exactly the federal judge ruled yesterday?

STEPHANIE TSOSIE: Yes. Well, thank you for having me, Amy. We—as Jan mentioned, we are disappointed. It is important to remember that this land is an area that these tribes have inhabited for time immemorial, and there are sacred sites around the entire area. What this means is that construction can continue, and it can continue to desecrate these areas west of Highway 1806. And the tribe does not get an opportunity to go out and survey these areas for cultural sites.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But there will be a full hearing, won’t there be, later this week on the claims of the lawsuit? And what do you expect to happen there?

STEPHANIE TSOSIE: There will not be a hearing. There will be an order issued on Friday, that we’re looking for from Judge Boasberg, on the hearing we had on August 24th. But regardless of what happens on Friday and which way the order goes, there will still be the overall legal process that we’ve pursued, which has other claims, as well. And that will take some time.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to just go to the moment on Saturday when the Dakota Access pipeline security unleashed dogs and pepper spray on the Native Americans who had come onto the site not expecting to see them actively bulldozing it on Saturday. They were just going to be planting their tribal flags there, but that’s what they found. This is a clip.

PROTESTER 1: This guy maced me in the face. Look, it’s all over my sunglasses. Just maced me in the face.

PROTESTER 2: These people are just threatening all of us with these dogs. And she, that woman over there, she was charging, and it bit somebody right in the face.

AMY GOODMAN: The dog has blood in its nose and its mouth.

PROTESTER 2: And she’s still standing here threatening.

AMY GOODMAN: Why are you letting their—her dog go after the protesters? It’s covered in blood!

VICTOR PUERTAS: Over there, with that dog. I was like walking. Throwed the dog on me and straight, even without any warning. You know? Look at this. Look at this.

AMY GOODMAN: That dog bit you?

VICTOR PUERTAS: Yeah, the dog did it, you know? Look at this. It’s there. It’s all bleeding.

AMY GOODMAN: There you have just a moment of what took place on Saturday when the security unleashed the dogs and the pepper spray. One of those dogs, both the mouth and the nose dripping with blood. This site that the Native Americans—they don’t call themselves "protesters," they call themselves "protectors." This site, Stephanie Tsosie, is not included in the temporary restraining order?

STEPHANIE TSOSIE: That’s correct. And that is exactly why the tribe is disappointed in the ruling yesterday.

AMY GOODMAN: And then, explain. This was just a hearing, an emergency hearing, after this violent crackdown on Saturday, you filed on Sunday and got the hearing yesterday with the judge in Washington. But what are you waiting to hear this week from Judge Boasberg?

STEPHANIE TSOSIE: We are waiting for a ruling on Friday that will either deny or grant our preliminary injunction that we filed in August. And he can scope it in any degree. And we’re just waiting to see what happens on Friday. And depending on how he orders it, construction may or may not continue after Friday. But we’re unsure as to what he’ll do.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the primary legal arguments that you’re using in the injunction request?

STEPHANIE TSOSIE: Specifically in the injunction request, we are pursuing claims under the National Historic Preservation Act. You know, that act is there precisely to protect areas like this and to protect—to prevent incidents like this from happening. Our larger legal claim also includes claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as others, but for the scope of this injunction, it was just the National Historic Preservation Act.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then get reaction from the main camps of the resistance in North Dakota. We’ll be talking to Tara Houska. Stephanie Tsosie, thanks so much for being with us, associate attorney with Earthjustice. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.

As a temporary restraining order that halts construction on part of the Dakota Access pipeline was issued Tuesday, about 100 people again shut down construction on another part of the pipeline by obstructing equipment. Some of them locked themselves to the heavy machinery. Native Americans from across the U.S. and Canada continue to arrive at the resistance camps. We speak with Tara Houska, national campaigns director for Honor the Earth.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As the ruling was issued in Washington, D.C., about 100 land defenders shut down construction on the Dakota Access pipeline by obstructing equipment. Some of them locked themselves to workers’ heavy machinery. We go now to North Dakota to get reaction on the lawsuit and on the actions on the ground.

AMY GOODMAN: Tara Houska is with us. She’s national campaigns director for Honor the Earth.

Tara, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the reaction on the ground to the court decision? And then, what exactly happened in that protest yesterday?

TARA HOUSKA: It was really disappointing. You know, there—we were really hoping that the judge would see that there was this filing on Friday that detailed all these different sacred sites that were in the pipeline’s path, and then the company went out on Saturday and destroyed those sites. It was very clearly a situation in which a temporary restraining order to actually stop that construction and prevent such violent altercations from occurring—I mean, the security company actually turned dogs on Native American people protecting sacred sites. It’s incredibly disappointing to see that the court system did not continue to protect our interests and stop this from happening, while we’re waiting to see what this injunction is ruled upon.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Tara, your reaction to the response of Native Americans around the country who have now flocked to the Dakota area to participate in these protests?

TARA HOUSKA: I mean, I think, you know, folks are still pouring in. The camp grows every single day, that, you know, people know they’re coming from around the country to defend this river and also to take a stand for indigenous rights. We’ve seen some pretty serious human rights violations as this process has gone on. The state of North Dakota took the water supplies from the camp. They took medical supplies. They have put up a blockade, preventing—you know, making it very, very difficult to actually get into the reservation. This is occurring, and no one’s really covering that issue, and no one is really seeming to care. And, you know, indigenous people all know that this is going on. I mean, while those dogs were—those private security dogs protecting an easement, while that was happening, there were North Dakota police standing there, not doing anything. We’re citizens, too, just like everyone else. And so, this has become a moment in history in which we’re standing up for the environment, for our children, for the river, for the drinking water, and also just—and generally for the upholding of treaty rights and human rights.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, we wanted to ask about this protest. One of those who participated in the protest, who locked down, was Victor Puertas. We saw him on Saturday. We interviewed him because one of the dogs bit him on his arm, and we showed that image. For people to see the whole attack on Saturday, you can go online at democracynow.org. But his arm clearly showed bite marks. Can you talk about exactly what they did yesterday?

TARA HOUSKA: Yeah. Yesterday, there was a direct action, a nonviolent direct action, in which, you know, the location of construction was discovered. And, you know, about a hundred people just hopped in their cars and went over there and locked onto the equipment to prevent active construction from occurring. I think it’s worth noting that the company voluntarily, you know, said that they would cease construction up until the point of the injunction. That clearly has not happened. Active construction has still been occurring throughout this entire process. And the land defenders here know that. They know that we know that, that this is obviously not being upheld and not being fully acknowledged. And yesterday, we went on site, and, you know, there were folks that were willing to lock themselves to machines to stop this construction and prevent the pipeline from going in.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play a clip of Victor Puertas from Saturday, the different action, right after he was attacked.

VICTOR PUERTAS: Look at this. A dog—

PROTESTER: Dog bit him right now.

VICTOR PUERTAS: Throwed the dog on me. This [bleep] throwed the dog on me. Look at this. Look at this. You throwed the dog on me. No, you did it on purpose, man.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me see. Let me see.

VICTOR PUERTAS: Over there, with that dog. I was like walking. Throwed the dog on me and straight, even without any warning. You know? Look at this. Look at this.

AMY GOODMAN: That dog bit you?

VICTOR PUERTAS: Yeah, the dog did it, you know? Look at this. It’s there. It’s all bleeding.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Victor Puertas with the dog bite on his arm, and he, with Jules [Richards], were two who locked down.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Tara, what’s been the—what was the response yesterday of the security guards and the company to your protest? Was it markedly different from Saturday?

TARA HOUSKA: It was markedly different. The police officers, for one, actually came on site initially, kind of stood around and took pictures of our—took pictures of people’s faces and generally didn’t really do much, and then ended up actually leaving. I think there’s a realization that the use of dogs on Native Americans protecting their treaty lands and their sacred sites is actually a really bad PR move, that they know that the world is watching as these gross violations of human rights are occurring. And so, there was a very big sense of "we’re going to back off." And they really did not engage at all yesterday.

The Dakota Access pipeline is also facing legal resistance in Iowa, one of four states through which it passes. We go to Des Moines to speak with Bill Hanigan, an attorney representing 15 Iowa landowners who are contesting the project’s use of eminent domain under the guise that it would provide a public service, even as it threatens to pollute the state’s farmland and water supplies.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we wanted to turn now, go sort of down the pipeline. The Dakota Access pipeline is also facing legal resistance in Iowa. The pipeline goes from North to South Dakota through Iowa to Illinois. In Iowa, about 30 people were arrested last week in an effort to block construction. For more, we’re going to Des Moines, where we’re joined by Bill Hanigan, an attorney representing 15 Iowa landowners who are contesting the use of eminent domain by the Dakota Access pipeline.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Bill Hanigan. Isn’t the Dakota Access pipeline a private company?

BILL HANIGAN: Good morning. Thank you for having me. Dakota Access is absolutely a private company. It’s a multibillion-dollar corporation owned by about five other multibillion-dollar corporations.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, how, then, were they—was the company able to get access to the land of the folks that you are representing?

BILL HANIGAN: I represent about 15 Iowa landowners, all of them farmers. And Dakota Access is using in Iowa the power of eminent domain. The power of eminent domain is the authority of the state to take real estate and other assets for public purposes. And Dakota Access has applied to and obtained the power of eminent domain from our Iowa Utilities Board. So they have represented to the state that they are a public pipeline that is providing a common carriage service for the benefit of Iowans and the nation, and therefore they should be entitled to use the power of eminent domain. And about that, we very much disagree.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the connection between the protests in North Dakota and what’s happening to you downstream, if you will, from North Dakota, South Dakota—now you’re in Iowa—those connections?

BILL HANIGAN: Well, the legal arguments are different, but the purpose and the power behind Dakota Access is the same. In North Dakota, they’re arguing about Native American artifacts. In Iowa, we’re arguing about the application of the Constitution. And what’s common between those two things is, first of all, we’d like Dakota Access to stop what they’re doing until everybody gets their day in court, so we can make our arguments before it’s too late, before it’s a moot point. Now, the commonality among it, in addition to seeking this stay, the commonality is the issue of the great economic disparity. So, you’ve got, again, these multibillion-dollar companies who have combined this joint effort to build this pipeline across Iowa and across North Dakota and Illinois and South Dakota. And the commonality is that great economic force behind those billions of dollars pushing this through, both with law firms and both with the power of politics and the money of politics, to get this thing on a fast track in all of these places, before Iowans and South Dakotans and North Dakotans and Native Americans have an opportunity to even get to the court to get the court to review this and say it’s not fair.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And how do you hope to prevail in court, given, of course, the infamous Kelo decision of the Supreme Court some decades back, where, in essence, the court allowed private interests to be able to use eminent domain in commercial—in commercial projects? And interesting, as I recall, it was the, quote, "liberals" on the Supreme Court who backed the Kelo decision and the, quote, "conservatives" who opposed it.

BILL HANIGAN: That’s correct. And we think that even the Kelo majority—in that case, the so-called liberals—would apply the Kelo case and rule in our favor. And what the majority in Kelo said—and it was a bare 5-4 majority—what the majority in Kelo said is that we’re going to leave it up to the states to determine what a public purpose is for the purposes of using the power of eminent domain. However, they also said that public purpose does not include and can’t be a shill for a true private purpose. And so, in Kelo, that was a comprehensive community redevelopment plan, and the court said that, in that context, where there would be some public assets, including streets and sidewalks and sewers, that they would allow there to be a using of the power of eminent domain to help repair a blighted community. And in that context, economic development was a legitimate consideration.

AMY GOODMAN: You know—

BILL HANIGAN: Here, in Iowa, we don’t have—we don’t have economic development to repair a blighted community. We’ve got—we’ve got farmland that doesn’t need repair.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, when I was in North Dakota this weekend, I was speaking to an oil trucker, who trucked Bakken oil around the area and said it was precipitous how low the demand had gone in this last year. You could conceivably set up this pipeline, the Dakota Access pipeline could be set up—it’s built through to Illinois—and the demand gets lower and lower. And they have just destroyed these sacred sites along the way. And then, eventually, you see the abandonment of the pipeline.

BILL HANIGAN: We feel the same way about our farmland. See, in Iowa, in the Midwest, our strategic and competitive advantage is our black soil, that from the black soil and the earth, that’s where we grow our crops. That’s how we feed our families. That’s how we fuel our cars.

And so, what they’ve done is they plow this trench that is eight, 10, 12 feet deep, and they put the soil out, and it rains on the soil. And they put their pipe in there. Then they put the soil back in. And it’s just not the same as it was. And on top of that, there’s the risk of this oil leaking into our water supply, and there’s this risk of this oil leaking into the soil and making the fertility of it much less than it was before.

So, the idea that a Texas company can take our land for its private purpose—you know, the argument that Dakota Access has made, that this is a somehow public purpose, is that they will take this oil off to the Gulf of Mexico through Iowa, and then they’ll produce unleaded gasoline, and somehow some of that gasoline will splash its way back to Iowa. They can’t prove it, they can make an estimate of it, and they can’t tell us how much, but they think that is somehow our public use or public purpose.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what’s the—

BILL HANIGAN: Now, everyone has to remember that in—in December, Congress repealed the decades-old prohibition on exporting that crude oil. So what we think’s going to happen, and what has already happened with the same-quality oil, is it’s being prepared for export. So, the idea that there is a public purpose here and that we’re all going to benefit from it, not only can they not prove that this oil is not coming back to Iowa, they really can’t prove or demonstrate that it’s even going to be for the U.S. market. So I think that the state of Iowa and the other states are being played for suckers, if you will, and this is all going to accrue to Texas profits and foreign export.

AMY GOODMAN: Because the pipeline that goes to Illinois would then link up with a pipeline down to the Gulf. Bill Hanigan, thanks so much for being with us, attorney representing 15 Iowa landowners who are contesting the use of eminent domain by the Dakota Access pipeline. And again, if you want to see the coverage of the security of Dakota Access pipeline, if you can call them security, unleashing dogs and pepper spray on the protesters, the full report, go to democracynow.org.

When we come back, why would a government official, why would a person working with immigration, come to women who are on hunger strike at Berks and tell them, if they eat an apple, they can leave? Stay with us.

In an exclusive interview, we speak with a woman held for nine months with her four-year-old daughter at the Berks County Residential Center in Pennsylvania as they seek asylum from El Salvador. She describes how she won their release only after she bowed to pressure to break her hunger strike and eat an apple. She agreed to do an interview if we did not show her face or use her real name. "Maria" had just arrived in Arlington, Texas. She must now wear an electronic monitor around her ankle. Democracy Now! correspondent Renée Feltz filed this report.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: How long is too long for a child to be held in detention? We turn now to look at an ongoing protest by mothers and their children who have been held indefinitely in a family detention center—in some cases for more than a year. Last week, more than 20 immigrant women at the Berks County Residential Center in Pennsylvania resumed their hunger strike to call for their release. This followed a suspension of their protest when officials said they would take away their children if they grew weak.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has detained the families at Berks since they arrived in the United States seeking asylum from violence in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. Most have been denied asylum and are being held while they appeal their cases. Their protest has raised questions about whether ICE is flouting a federal judge’s mandate that puts a 20-day limit on the time that children can be detained.

AMY GOODMAN: In a few minutes, we’ll be joined by a physician who just spent a week at Berks observing the families who have been held there indefinitely. But first we turn to an exclusive interview taped just yesterday, taped on Tuesday, with a woman who was participating in the hunger strike until she was released from Berks after nine months in detention. She and her daughter are in a similar legal position as the other families at Berks. But as it turns out, all she had to do to win her freedom was end her hunger strike and eat an apple. Democracy Now! correspondent Renée Feltz files this report.

RENÉE FELTZ: I got word that a mother held at Berks County Residential Center with her four-year-old daughter had been released and had an incredible story to tell. I reached her, and she agreed to do an interview if we didn’t show her face or use her real name. Maria had just arrived in Arlington, Texas, after a three-day cross-country bus ride, where she reunited with her husband and another relative, who she’ll now live with. So I went there to meet her. I began by asking her how it felt to be free.

MARIA: [translated] I am very happy. I’m ecstatic, because I am here with my family, and my daughter is here with her dad, whom she wanted to be with. I’m just very, very happy.

RENÉE FELTZ: Maria and her daughter’s time in detention began last November, when she came to the United States from El Salvador to seek asylum. They were placed in a South Texas residential center, a family detention center in Dilley, Texas, run by Corrections Corporation of America. Within a month, her request for asylum was denied. While she appealed the decision, they were transferred to the Berks County Residential Center in Pennsylvania, where she and other families pleaded with ICE officials to be released.

MARIA: [translated] And he would ask us, how are we doing here? And we said, "We’re locked up. We don’t have anything to do. We want to get out." And all he would say is—he would just shrug his shoulders and look at us and almost mockingly laugh at our faces. It was just demeaning.

RENÉE FELTZ: The Berks residential center is a low-security detention center housed in a former hospital and nursing home. But Maria described it as more like a jail.

MARIA: [translated] I want to tell you that, yes, I did not feel well at all. I was—it was terrible. I could not sleep at all. Every night when you would go to sleep, every five minutes, every 10 minutes, the door would open. Someone would come in and flash the light at you, at your face.

And then my daughter, she would, of course, sleep on the other bed, but because she would get up in the middle of the night—she was afraid, and she would get up in the middle of the night and say, "Mommy, mommy, I’m scared." And she would slip into bed with me. And they would come, the officers would come, in the middle of the night and shine their light at me. And they would look at me and say, "She’s not supposed to be here. Get her off, and get her into her own bed." And they would make her go into the bed. And she would be afraid.

And so, because my daughter, maybe she didn’t sleep enough at night—I don’t know—but she was always angry. She was always very aggressive. She was terrible, because she just wasn’t—she wasn’t sleeping. And neither was I. And I felt terrible because of everything.

And there were children who had their ID hanging on their neck, and sometimes they would want—they would take it, and they would strangle themselves with it, because they couldn’t stand being there, so they would try to strangle themselves with the ID.

RENÉE FELTZ: Maria and her daughter were detained for nine months. She told me the length of time was unbearable.

MARIA: [translated] The first month, I felt fine. I felt good. In the same room where I was, I found my friend from Dilley, so she was in the same room I was, and that was nice. But they gave her her freedom in two months’ time, so she left. So I stayed very sad, and I didn’t—I wasn’t happy anymore, after she left.

And so, they kept putting people in, and then they kept taking them out, and they kept putting people in, and they kept taking them out. And I kept staying there, and I kept staying there. And I didn’t know what was going on. We went to say our goodbyes to them, and we all hugged and kissed. And my daughter went to kiss her little friend, their son. And they were—and she couldn’t even cry, because she didn’t know what to do. And I just felt—I just—I didn’t know what to do. I just felt horrible. But my daughter kept asking me, and she would ask and say, "Mom, why are they leaving, and not us?" And I would tell her, "Please, baby, have patience. We’ll be next. We’ll be next."

RENÉE FELTZ: In August, Maria says, she and about 20 mothers reached a breaking point. They decided to go on a hunger strike to call for their release from the Berks detention center while their cases were pending. For one week, they refused to eat any meals. Then, Maria says, they were granted a meeting to discuss their demands with the director of the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Thomas Decker. No lawyers were present during the meeting. Maria described what happened next.

MARIA: [translated] Look, they would put big servings of fruit—of watermelon, of grapes, of all different types of fruit—around where we were to entice us to eat. I met with Mr. Thomas, and I sat there with him, and he said, "I don’t want to see anyone who is not eating. I want you to eat something. If I bring an apple, will you eat it? I’m going to bring an apple, so I want you to eat it." And so he sent out for an apple. So, then, they brought the apple in, and he saw that I was eating it. I ate the apple in front of him. He looked at me. And he only made two questions for me. I told him that I couldn’t stand the food, that if I ate that food, the only thing that would happen, I would go straight to the bathroom. And I couldn’t take it anymore, so I could not eat any of that food. And then I told him also that I wanted my freedom and that that’s the other reason I was doing this, because I wanted my freedom, and so I would stop—I stopped eating because of that. And so, he told me that this was not going to do any good if I stopped eating, that I was not going to get freedom that way. So then I kept eating. I kept eating, just as he asked.

But that following week, I did not get any result. I did not get any answer from him. So then I went, and I decided to write some things to Mr. Thomas. And so I wrote some things. Immigration picked it up. They sent it to him. And then, that’s when he followed through. He said he looked at what I wrote to him then, and he said—he replied to me that in one or two days he would send me back a reply. A Wednesday arrived, and my immigration official called me in, and he asked me if I was still on a hunger strike. And then he asked me if I had the address for here, and I told him that I did. And he said, was I going to come here? And I said I would. And he asked me, did I have people here? And I said, yes, I did. And then he told me that he would take that to his boss. And so, then, the following day, they called me, and that day they gave me my freedom. But he said that I still would go out—even though I had my freedom, I would still go out with deportation orders.

RENÉE FELTZ: Now living in Arlington, Maria still faces deportation. She’ll be required to check in weekly with immigration officials. And like almost all women released from detention at Berks, she has to wear an electric monitor bracelet on her ankle. While Maria says she’s grateful to be out of detention and living with her family, she has a message for President Obama about the families still inside.

MARIA: [translated] I want to tell him to, please, feel it in your heart, to, please, listen to us and to help us. There are many children in these detention centers. There are many children desperate to get out. They need their liberty. We need our liberty, our freedom. Just like my daughter now feels happiness, I want all these children to feel that same happiness. That’s what I ask for.

AMY GOODMAN: Thanks to Democracy Now! correspondent Renée Feltz for that exclusive interview with—well, she is calling herself Maria, and now in Arlington, Texas, with a security bracelet, a monitoring bracelet, around her ankle. Special thanks to Ana Fores Tamayo for interpreting. This is Democracy Now! Juan?

How long is too long for a child to be held in detention? At least five families have been held for a full year in the Berks Residential Center in Pennsylvania while their asylum case is appealed, even though they could be released to live with immediate family members and relatives in the United States. We discuss the impact of indefinite detention of asylum-seeking women and children with Bridget Cambria, an immigration lawyer who represents many of the families detained at the Berks County Residential Center, and with Dr. Allen Keller, who is an expert in the evaluation and treatment of detained immigrants and asylum seekers. Dr. Keller visited Berks in August to observe the families there. He is Director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, and an Associate Professor at the NYU School of Medicine.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, at least five families have been held for a full year in the Berks residential center in Pennsylvania while their asylum cases are appealed, even though they could be released, like Maria, to live with immediate family members and relatives in the United States. Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, recently wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security head, Jeh Johnson, saying, quote, "The women and children currently in detention, in many instances have come here from some of the most violent nations on Earth, often escaping rape, murder, and domestic assault. These families deserve a fair opportunity to seek asylum. They do not deserve to be treated as criminals." Casey’s staff is set to visit Berks as early as this week, possibly with staffers from other offices.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, to discuss the indefinite detention of asylum-seeking women and children at the Berks County Residential Center—some as young as two years old—we’re joined by Bridget Cambria, an immigration lawyer who represents Maria and many of the families detained at Berks, as well as Dr. Allen Keller, expert in the evaluation and treatment of detained immigrants and asylum seekers. He visited Berks in August to observe the families there. He’s director and co-founder of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture and serves as a primary care physician for many patients in the program. He’s also a member of the international advisory board for Physicians for Human Rights, as well as assistant professor at New York University’s School of Medicine.

Bridget Cambria, let’s begin with you, more on Maria. React to what she said here as she sat there with this—I don’t like to say ankle bracelet. I mean, this is a monitoring metal ring around—shackle around her leg. Talk about her situation now.

BRIDGET CAMBRIA: That’s correct. Now, I don’t—I don’t agree with putting ankle bracelets on everyone who’s released, but, unfortunately, everyone who’s released from Berks does get an ankle bracelet placed on them. Listening to her story, it’s very familiar. It’s the same account that most of the women in Berks gave. What I find most striking, though, with Maria is that her concern now, now that she’s free and she sees her children happy, she’s still thinking about all the women and children who are stuck in Berks, and stuck in Berks for more than a year now.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And interestingly, she was released, but she was not part of a habeas case that several of the women in Berks have filed. Could you talk about the difference between how the authorities are treating those who are part of the habeas case versus those who are not?

BRIDGET CAMBRIA: Sure. What’s very clear is what they’re doing, immigration, is treating them in different ways. There’s clear disparate treatment between those who are pursuing their case federally and those who are administratively pursuing their case. So far, about five women have—women and children have been released since the hunger strike began. All of them were not part of that federal habeas case. And, in fact, in these meetings, where attorneys were not allowed to be present, the women and children in Berks requested attorneys to be present at these meetings. It was denied. At that meeting, they were specifically told, if you are pursuing your case in the federal court, we could not help you. Anyone who was outside of that case, however, though, was talked to, and several were released because of that.

AMY GOODMAN: So, this ICE official, Thomas Decker, comes in, lays out apples and says, "If you eat this apple, you can leave." I mean, this is almost biblical.

BRIDGET CAMBRIA: Yes. It was quite striking when we were told what happened. But in those meetings, there’s a—

AMY GOODMAN: They’re desperate to end the hunger strike.

BRIDGET CAMBRIA: They’re desperate to end the hunger strike, and the women are desperate to leave.

AMY GOODMAN: But the other woman did not get released who ate the apple.

BRIDGET CAMBRIA: That’s correct. So, two were treated in that same manner. One has been released. One is still detained.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dr. Keller, I’d like to ask you about Maria’s account, especially this whole issue of what amounts to basically sleep deprivation going on with the women and their children, and what you—your sense of what’s going on there, as a medical doctor?

DR. ALLEN KELLER: Right. So, I went to Berks at the request of Bridget and her colleague, Carol Anne Donohoe, who are the attorneys representing these women. And frankly, one of the great stories, I think, in this whole travesty is attorneys like Bridget and Carol Anne and others across the country have really stepped up to provide pro bono services. So, I went to do evaluations and apply my expertise as a physician who’s cared for survivors of torture and trauma for over 20 years. And what I found was really quite striking.

This group of women and children, who have been kept in the equivalent of indefinite detention—that is, not knowing when or if they’re going to be released, when or if they are going to be deported—are horrifically traumatized by these experiences. We are causing harm by keeping these women and children, many of whom, most of whom, fled not because they wanted to, but, as one woman said to me, because they had no choice. They were fleeing for their lives. And the women who are now on the hunger strike, many of whom I spoke to, consistently, every one of them, said they are doing this not for themselves, but for their children, for their safety. I mean, it reminds me—you know, back in the ’80s, we know about the women, the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, mothers in Argentina who went to protest for their children, who had been disappeared as part of the dirty wars. These really are the mothers of Berks, in a sense, are these latter-day mother heroes of our time.

We get an update from Mohammad Abdollahi, immigration activist, on sit-ins planned today at the office of Senator Tim Kaine by formerly detained women, calling on him to release families from the Berks County Residential Center. They want the Democratic vice-presidential candidate and other senators to write personal bills that could allow the families to live with relatives in the United States while their cases are pending.

Latest news: This morning after we broadcast, Central American mothers began a sit-in at the office of Sen. Tim Kaine to protest the treatment of other women and children at Berks. See an interview with one of them on Democracy Now! last year.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Before we wrap up the show—we’re going to continue our discussion with you both after the show and post it at democracynow.org—we’re joined on the phone by Mohammad Abdollahi, who’s an immigration activist working to support families in detention in Texas. He’s part of protests planned today at the offices of people like, well, Senator Tim Kaine in Manassas, Virginia, who is, yes, Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate. Can you talk about what you’re calling on Senator Kaine and others to do right now?

MOHAMMAD ABDOLLAHI: Yeah, absolutely. So, we’re here in Washington, D.C., and for the last two weeks we’ve been calling on Democratic leadership to take action on the families. We’ve heard a lot of words. We’ve heard a lot of promises. But in reality, what the senators have the power to do this very moment, since the Senate is in session, is they can introduce a private bill for each and every one of these families, and that will automatically defer their deportations for the duration of the congressional session. It’s a very easy thing to do, and it’s something that they can do to put their words into action. And unfortunately, we’ve been getting nothing but closed doors from this Democratic leadership.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feinstein has done this before?

MOHAMMAD ABDOLLAHI: Senator Feinstein routinely introduces private bills. Every year, she introduces dozens of private bills. And there’s other senators across the board that introduce these private bills for families that are in this specific situation, where they’ve exhausted all their legal options and there’s nothing else happening and the administration is not budging. This is a routine action. They’re refusing to do it for these families.

AMY GOODMAN: So what are you doing at Senator Kaine’s office?

MOHAMMAD ABDOLLAHI: So, at Senator Kaine’s office and the other senators’ offices, we’ve been meeting with them, and we’ve pretty much told them that later this week there’s going to be a civil disobedience action with undocumented mothers who have been released from other family detention centers, that are going to stage a sit-in in one of their offices, demanding immediate action. At this very moment, we’re looking at Senator Leahy’s office, we’re looking at Senator Sanders’ office and Senator Warren’s office, all where we have families that are detained at Berks, that have lived half of their lives as children in this jail. And we’re going ask them for action. And so, the senators need to be aware that we are going to get action, and they need to step up and be champions for these families.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you’re picking these particular senators because there are folks detained who are from their states?

MOHAMMAD ABDOLLAHI: Absolutely. We have families that are from Boston, and we have families that are from Vermont. We have families from California. And yeah, these are offices that they’re not doing what they are saying in the press that they’re doing, that they stand behind these families. You know, words are great, but when you can introduce a private bill that will stop their deportation this very moment and you’re refusing to do that, you know, people need to know.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammad Abdollahi, we thank you for being with us. We will certainly follow what happens at that action at Senator Kaine’s office. Dr. Allen Keller, thanks for being with us, and Bridget Cambria, immigration lawyer representing many of the families detained at the Berks County Residential Center in Pennsylvania. We’ll do Part 2 of our interview after the show and post it at democracynow.org. Special thanks to Democracy Now!’s Renée Feltz, as well as Laura Gottesdiener.

... Read More →

Headlines:
Obama Does Not Apologize for Secret U.S. Bombing in Laos
President Obama is continuing his historic trip to Laos—the first trip there for a sitting U.S. president—although he has so far refused to issue a formal apology for the secret U.S. bombing campaign in Laos during the U.S. war in Vietnam. Between 1964 and 1973, the U.S. dropped an average of eight bombs per minute on Laos, including as many as 270 million cluster bombs. Laos authorities say as many as one-third of these cluster bombs did not explode at the time. President Obama has pledged $90 million to help clear Laos of the unexploded U.S. bombs.
President Barack Obama "For all those years in the 1960s and '70s, America's intervention here in Laos was a secret to the American people, who were separated by vast distances and a Pacific Ocean, and there was no internet, and information didn’t flow as easily. For the people of Laos, obviously, this war was no secret. Over the course of roughly a decade, the United States dropped more bombs on Laos than Germany and Japan during World War II. Some 270 million cluster bomblets were dropped on this country."
Judge Rules Dakota Access Construction on Sacred Burial Sites Can Continue
In Washington, D.C., a federal judge has ruled that construction on sacred tribal burial sites in the path of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline can continue. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order that halts construction only between Route 1806 and Lake Oahe, but still allows construction to continue west of this area. The ruling does not protect the land where, on Saturday, hundreds of Native Americans forced Dakota Access to halt construction, despite the company’s security forces attacking the crowd with dogs and pepper spray. This part of the construction site is a sacred tribal burial ground. As the ruling was issued in Washington, D.C., about 100 Native Americans again shut down construction on another part of the Dakota Access pipeline by obstructing equipment. Some of them locked themselves to the heavy machinery. Native Americans from across the U.S. and Canada continue to arrive at the resistance camps. This is Defender Eagle, a Lakota Sioux.
Defender Eagle: "I think that we’ve waited long enough, in various ways and means, to listen always to what the white man tells us to do. And the time is dawning, and the age is beginning, when we listen again to our indigenous femininity. So I’m waiting for the women, and I’m hearing the women keep telling us what to do. They’ll guide our course. So, I’m tired of waiting. I’m tired of listening to the white man tell us different forms of ’I’m not honoring the treaties,’ which are the law of the land."
Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein also was on the site of the protest and graffitied the excavating equipment. We’ll go to North Dakota and to Seattle for an update on the lawsuit and the actions after headlines, and we’ll go to Iowa, where the pipeline is also facing legal resistance over its use of eminent domain.
88 Retired Military Leaders Endorse Donald Trump
In news from the campaign trail, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will both speak at a public forum on national security this evening. This comes as Donald Trump’s campaign has released a list of 88 retired military leaders who have endorsed Trump. The list includes Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, the right-wing leader of the anti-LGBTQgroup the Family Research Council. He served as undersecretary of defense for intelligence under the George W. Bush administration. He’s described the U.S. war on terror as a "spiritual battle" between a "Christian nation" and Satan—rhetoric that sparked widespread outrage and a rebuke from President George W. Bush.
More Questions About Trump and FL Attorney General Pam Bondi
Trump continues to face questions about his financial relationship with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. In 2013, Trump donated $25,000 to a political group backing Bondi, only days after her office said it might investigate claims of fraud at Trump University. Following the donation, Bondi’s office said it would no longer investigate Trump University. Trump also hosted a $3,000-a-person fundraiser for Bondi in 2014 at his Mar-a-Lago beach resort. Trump University is now facing an ongoing lawsuit arguing the defunct for-profit school defrauded students.
NYT: Trump Fined Multiple Times for Campaign Contribution Violations
This comes as a New York Times investigation has revealed multiple cases in which Donald Trump has been fined over illegal campaign contributions. The Federal Election Commission fined Trump in the 1990s for exceeding the limits on campaign contributions by tens of thousands of dollars. In 2000, the New York state lobbying commission slammed Trump with a quarter-of-a-million-dollar fine, after he did not disclose he’d spent $150,000 on ads opposing a casino in the Catskills that he feared would compete with his Atlantic City casinos. Political operative Roger Stone created the ads. The resulting $250,000 fine was the largest penalty the state lobbying commission had ever imposed. Trump was also subpoenaed by the New York state commission to testify about his lobbying in the 1980s. In that testimony, Trump admitted he used 18 different subsidiaries to get around corporate contribution limits.
FBI: Clinton Mobile Phones Were Smashed by Hammer
Meanwhile, the FBI says it has uncovered at least 13 phones that Hillary Clinton may have used to send and receive email during her time as secretary of state. Yet the FBIsays it’s been unable to recover any of those phones—and that at least two may have been smashed with hammers. This comes as Republican lawmakers call for another investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of multiple private email servers during her time as secretary of state.
Fox Settles Host Gretchen Carlson's Sexual Harassment Suit for $20MFox has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with Fox News host Gretchen Carlson for $20 million. In the lawsuit, Carlson said former Fox News Chairperson Roger Ailes repeatedly made advances toward her, calling her "sexy" and explicitly asking for a sexual relationship during a meeting in his office. She says that when she rejected his advances, Ailes retaliated against her by cutting her salary, curtailing her airtime and then refusing to renew her contract. Carlson first filed her lawsuit in July, paving the way for more than 20 women to also come forward and accuse Ailes of sexual harassment. Ailes resigned later that month, receiving a $40 million severance package—twice as much as Carlson has won in her settlement.
Afghanistan: Taliban Bombings in Kabul Kill 35
In Afghanistan, at least 35 people have been killed in a series of bombings in Kabul Monday. The Taliban has claimed responsibility for two of the bombings, both targeting the area around the Afghan Defense Ministry.
Iraq: ISIS Car Bombing Kills 10 in Baghdad
In Iraq, a car bomb killed 10 people and wounded dozens more in the Karrada district of Baghdad just before midnight on Monday. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the bombing.
Syria: Rescue Workers Say Government Dropped Chlorine BombsIn Syria, volunteer rescue workers known as the "White Helmets" have accused the Syrian government of dropping chlorine bombs from helicopters onto a neighborhood of Aleppo. No one died, but a video posted by the White Helmets shows civilians struggling to breathe. The allegations have not been independently verified.
Ethiopia: 23 Die in Disputed Circumstances at Addis Ababa PrisonIn Ethiopia, at least 23 people have died under disputed circumstances at a prison in the capital Addis Ababa where many Oromo protesters are incarcerated. The Ethiopian government says the prisoners died of suffocation after a fire broke out, prompting a stampede. But local media is reporting that prisoners were actually shot by guards and that the sound of gunfire was heard at the prison during the time of the fire. Some believe the fire was set on purpose. For over two years, the Oromo have staged massive nationwide protests against the Ethiopian government. Ethiopian forces have responded with a brutal crackdown against the Oromo protesters. Last month, human rights groups say nearly 100 people were killed after government forces opened fire during a day of nationwide marches. Also last month, Ethiopian Olympic runner Feyisa Lelisa raised his arms in an "X" as he won a silver medal in the marathon to protest Ethiopia’s human rights abuses against his ethnic tribe, the Oromo people.
State Department Calls for Release of Bahraini Activist Nabeel RajabThe U.S. State Department is calling for the release of prominent human rights activist Nabeel Rajab, who is reportedly facing new charges after he wrote an op-ed for The New York Times earlier this week. In the piece headlined "Letter from a Bahraini Jail," Rajab says he was being held, in part, for having criticized the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen. He called for the U.S. to stop backing Saudi Arabia, writing that the United States’ "unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and its lifting of the arms ban on Bahrain have direct consequences for the activists struggling for dignity in these countries." Rajab was rearrested this past June. He’s been imprisoned multiple times in recent years for participating in pro-democracy protests and for criticizing the Bahraini government. On Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Mark Toner called for his release.
Mark Toner: "We’re obviously concerned about Nabeel Rajab’s detention and the charges filed against him, and we call on the government of Bahrain to release him. We have concerns about the state of human rights, in general, in Bahrain, and we’re engaging with the government of Bahrain on all of these issues."
Bahrain is a close U.S. ally, home to the Navy’s Fifth Fleet.
Northwestern Professor Says She's Been Banned from CampusA prominent tenured professor at Northwestern says she’s been banned from campus—a move she says is retaliation for her activism. Professor Jacqueline Stevens is a scholar focused on private prisons, deportations and militarism. She has criticized U.S. universities’ increasing ties to the military-industrial complex. In a 2015 article last year, she criticized her own university, Northwestern, for its corporate ties. She also led a successful campaign to block retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry from being named the head of one of Northwestern’s research centers. Northwestern has so far refused to comment on the ban.
Bolivia: Trans Activists Celebrate New ID Cards
And in Bolivia, transgender activists are celebrating new laws that allow transgender people to receive ID cards that match their gender identity. It also allows them to update their names on the ID cards. This is Pamela Valenzuela, the first transgender woman in Bolivia to receive the card.
Pamela Valenzuela: "I have totally assumed my female identity. It took me more than 30 years for this change, and in these 30 years I have suffered so much discrimination, so much psychological, verbal and even physical violence. I believe that everything that has happened has borne fruit. I wouldn’t let myself stop in my fight until I arrived at this moment, until the state recognized all transgender people in accordance with their identity that we have completely assumed."
-------

Donate today:
Follow:
WEB EXCLUSIVE