Democracy Now! Daily Digest - A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Wednesday, 19 February 2014 - Thursday, 20 February 2014 - Friday, 21 February 2014
democracynow.org
Stories:
"Black Trans Bodies Are Under Attack": Freed Activist CeCe McDonald, Actress Laverne Cox Speak Out
After serving 19 months in prison, the African-American transgender activist CeCe McDonald is free. She was arrested after using deadly force to protect herself from a group of people who attacked her on the streets of Minneapolis. Her case helped turn a national spotlight on the violence and discrimination faced by transgender women of color. In 2011, McDonald and two friends were walking past a Minneapolis bar when they were reportedly accosted with homophobic, transphobic and racist slurs. McDonald was hit with a bar glass that cut open her face, requiring 11 stitches. A brawl ensued, and one of the people who had confronted McDonald and her friends, 47-year-old Dean Schmitz, was killed. Facing up to 80 years in prison for his death, McDonald took a plea deal that sentenced her to 41 months. In the eyes of her supporters, CeCe McDonald was jailed for defending herself against the bigotry and violence that transgender people so often face and that is so rarely punished. At the time of the attack, the murder rate for gay and transgender people in this country was at an all-time high. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs documented 30 hate-related murders of LGBT people in 2011; 40 percent of the victims were transgender women of color. Transgender teens have higher rates of homelessness, and nearly half of all African-American transgender people — 47 percent — have been incarcerated at some point.
McDonald joins us on her first trip to New York City. We are also joined by one of her supporters, Laverne Cox, a transgender actress, producer and activist who stars in the popular Netflix show, "Orange is the New Black." She plays Sophia Burset, a transgender woman in prison for using credit card fraud to finance her transition. She is producing a documentary about McDonald called "Free CeCe." We also speak to Alisha Williams, staff attorney with the Sylvia Rivera Law Project.
"I very easily could have been CeCe," Laverne Cox says. "Many times I’ve walked down the street of New York, and I’ve experienced harassment. I was kicked once on the street, and very easily that could have escalated into a situation that CeCe faced, and it’s a situation that too many trans women of color face all over this country. The act of merely walking down the street is often a contested act, not only from the citizenry, but also from the police."
Click here to watch part 2 of this interview.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn today to a case that’s turned a national spotlight on the violence and discrimination faced by transgender women of color in the United States. That’s the case of CeCe McDonald.
On June 5th, 2011, CeCe and two friends were walking past a Minneapolis bar when they were reportedly accosted with homophobic, transphobic and racist slurs. CeCe was hit with a bar glass that cut open her face, requiring 11 stitches. A brawl ensued. One of the people who had confronted CeCe and her friends, 47-year-old Dean Schmitz, was dead, from a stab wound that police say came from a pair of fabric scissors in CeCe’s purse.
At the time, the murder rate for gay and trangender people in this country was at an all-time high. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs documented 30 hate-related murders of LGBT people in 2011; 40 percent of the victims were transgender women of color.
Nearly a year after the attack in Minneapolis, CeCe McDonald stood trial on charges of second-degree manslaughter. The judge in her case rejected key evidence, including a swastika tattoo on Schmitz’s chest and his three prior convictions of assault. Facing up to 80 years in prison, CeCe McDonald took a plea deal that sentenced her to 41 months behind bars. McDonald was held in a men’s prison, even though she identifies as a woman.
In the eyes of her supporters, CeCe McDonald was jailed for defending herself against the bigotry and violence that transgender people so often face and that’s so rarely punished. This is part of a video that was crowdsourced with the voices of different supporters of CeCe McDonald appealing for her freedom while she was still behind bars. On the video, they come together to tell her story.
CECE McDONALD SUPPORTERS: Last June, a Minneapolis woman was attacked on her way to a grocery store with her friends. While passing a bar, a group of onlookers assaulted them, yelling obscenities and smashing a glass in her face. Fearful for her life, she defended it with the only thing that she could find in her bag—a pair of fabric scissors. Fortunately, these scissors saved her life, when a man lunged at her and was stabbed. Unfortunately, she was arrested for the man dying because of it. Even more unfortunate, she’s been accused of murder and faced with upwards of 80 years in prison.
Sound ridiculous? It gets better. The woman attacked is transgender and black. And the main attacker who was killed? A white male neo-Nazi. And the obscenities yelled weren’t just any obscenity—"[bleep], [bleep] lover, chicks with [bleep], you’re dressed like a woman to rape me, look at that boy dressed as a girl and tucking her [bleep] in." A hate crime. This was a hate crime, a transphobic, racist hate crime.
Why, then, is CeCe McDonald behind bars? Because the Hennepin County District Attorney Michael O. Freeman and the court didn’t see it that way. They rejected the following as viable evidence: consideration of gender, sexual orientation, race and class; the climate of violence transgender people face; those little statistics that say trans people are more at risk for bullying violence, domestic abuse, assault by law enforcement, suicide attempts and hate violence; the swastika tattoo on the attacker’s chest; his three previous convictions for assault; and, best of all, the meth, cocaine and alcohol present in his system on the night of the attack. However, the following were all admissible for convicting CeCe: how she, quote-unquote, "handled her scissors in an unreasonable way" when being attacked; how she defended her life by killing her attacker; oh, and she wrote a bad check once.
Because the usable usable evidence was so void of actual substance, the odds were stacked against her, and she was forced to make a choice: fight the murder charges with little support in her favor, likely spending years in jail, only to get slapped with an 80-year prison sentence, or plead guilty to second-degree manslaughter and only spend three years in prison. She chose the latter.
But was it really a choice, when the options were so unfair from the outset, when it became not a matter of innocence or guilt but the degree of guilt, when the path to freedom boiled down to the lesser of two evils—really guilty or somewhat guilty? No, this was not a fair choice and not a fair trial. CeCe McDonald is being punished for daring to confront and survive a hate crime. And this is unacceptable, especially when people just like CeCe are being killed almost monthly.
Governor Mark Dayton, you are the only one with the power to stop this injustice. Please pardon CeCe McDonald and show her and the world that bravery like this should be heralded and not punishable.
AMY GOODMAN: A video that was crowdsourced with the voices of different supporters of CeCe McDonald.
Well, CeCe McDonald is now free. She walked out of prison earlier this month after serving 19 months. She was also given credit for nine months of time served before her trial. And she joins us here in our New York studio.
We’re also joined by one of CeCe McDonald’s most well-known supporters, Laverne Cox, actress, producer, activist, transgender woman, who was there with CeCe McDonald the day she left prison. Some fans might be used to seeing Laverne Cox in prison attire: She plays Sophia Burset on the popular Netflix show Orange is the New Black. Her character is a transgender woman imprisoned for credit card fraud which she used to finance her transition. Laverne Cox is producing a forthcoming documentary about CeCe McDonald called Free CeCe.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! CeCe, how does it feel to be free?
CECE McDONALD: It’s a blessing, foremost. It’s a feeling that I really can’t express, but I can tell you it’s a huge load off of my shoulders. It’s really good to be able to get back into, you know, doing everyday things, being a woman, living life. But the other day, I did a panel for the Anti-War Committee, and someone asked me, "How is it for you to come out of prison and regain your life?" And I told that person, "Every day is a journey, and each day I have to pick back up a piece of me from where I left off two years ago." And it kind of touched everybody, because it’s a true statement, you know. You have to get back into everyday things and on top of things related to my transitioning and career-situated things.
And just, you know, having down time with my family and being able to hug them without someone watching over us or having a time limit to love someone, I really can’t put that into words. But I can just say it’s a really, really good feeling to be back with everyone and to actually use this platform that I have now to educate people and to inform people about the violence against trans women, about the prison-industrial complex, to let people know about hatred towards women and trans women, and just, you know, be more willing and open to help people understand what it’s like for me and for other trans women who are in prison, and people in general who have to deal with the policies and the martial law of prison, I should say.
AMY GOODMAN: Laverne Cox, why was CeCe’s case so important to you?
LAVERNE COX: Well, first of all, I want to say I’m just so happy to be here with CeCe in New York City. I’m so happy to see you. And it was very moving to see all those voices in support of a trans woman of color. So often our lives are treated as if they don’t matter. And I think that’s why CeCe’s case has meant so much to me. I very easily could have been CeCe. Many times I’ve walked down the street of New York and I’ve experienced harassment. I was kicked once on the street, and very easily that could have escalated into a situation that CeCe faced. And it’s a situation that too many trans women of color face all over this country.
The act of merely walking down the street is often a contested act, not only from the citizenry, but also from the police. I just had the wonderful pleasure visiting a young—a group of young people in New Orleans, Louisiana, called BreakOUT! And they were formed a few years ago to deal with the criminalization of LGBTQ youth of color in New Orleans by the police. Just a few weeks ago, Gabourey Sidibe, the wonderful actress, was on Arsenio Hall Show, and she talked about being in New Orleans and basically witnessing repeated acts of profiling of trans women of color in New Orleans by the police. And I think it’s really important to do—a lot of—she got a lot of controversy because she used some language that a lot of trans folks find offensive, but what the takeaway should be is that we have a witness to the police brutality that so many trans people face in New Orleans and all over this country.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to this discussion. Our guests are Laverne Cox, the actress on Orange is the New Black, which just announced its next season, and CeCe McDonald, who last month was released from prison after serving 19 months there. This is Democracy Now! Back in a moment.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Tightrope" by Janelle Monáe, one of CeCe McDonald’s favorite artists. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
are joined by the African-American transgender activist CeCe McDonald, released from prison in January after 19 months. She was arrested in 2011 after using deadly force to protect herself from a group of people who attacked her on the streets of Minneapolis. Her case helped turn a national spotlight on the violence and discrimination faced by transgender women of color.
with us, Laverne Cox, the actress, the producer, activist, transgender woman, who was there with CeCe McDonald the day she left prison. She stars in the TV show Orange is the New Black.
we’re joined by Alisha Williams, staff attorney for the Sylvia Rivera Law Project and director of the group’s Prisoner Justice Project.
2012, Democracy Now! spoke to Rai’vyn Cross, one of CeCe’s best friends. She described the harassment that she and CeCe had faced for years.
RAI’VYN CROSS: We have encountered this every day of our lives, as us being together. We have been—have a solid friendship of eight years. We experience this on a daily basis when we wake up, when we go to sleep, if it’s in a public place or if it’s just outside, period. Transphobic slurs, racial slurs, I mean, we best deal with it just by just—you know, just wiping it off, just keep going on, just staying strong.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Rai’vyn Cross. In fact, she’s in the New York studios today, but not on the set, being here with CeCe as CeCe comes for the first time since she was freed from prison to New York. Cece, what was your time like in prison? You’re also a prison activist and have been.
CECE McDONALD: Prison was a very dark and bad place, basically. I had to deal with a lot of discrimination, more so than any of the other male inmates.
AMY GOODMAN: You were put in a men’s prison.
CECE McDONALD: Yes, I was put in a men’s prison.
AMY GOODMAN: You chose not to fight that, to be put in a women’s prison?
CECE McDONALD: Yeah, and my reasoning behind that was because after I did some educating myself on the prison-industrial complex and the history behind African Americans in incarceration, I felt like sending me to any prison wouldn’t solve my issue. Men’s prisons, women’s prisons, they’re prisons, and they’re not good. And I felt like instead of focusing all of the energy of I and the Support CeCe Committee and the people involved, I told them that we can use that energy to make sure that I’m not being discriminated against and to make sure that I was safe wherever I went. And so, by me doing that, people thought I was kind of crazy, because it was like, "Well, you know, you deserve to be in a women’s prison." But me, personally, I felt like it wouldn’t solve any problems. It wouldn’t change the fact that now I’m a felon. It wouldn’t change the fact that I have to be under these harsh and cruel policies by the DOC that everyone has to deal with who is in prison. And so, I just kind of stepped back from trying to figure out whether I wanted to be in a men’s or women’s prison, because it wouldn’t help. It wouldn’t make me happy. It wouldn’t take away that pain that I was dealing with. So I just kind of just let that go and focused my energy on other things.
GOODMAN: Alisha, can you talk about the situation of transgender women in men’s prisons, and what are the issues nationwide that they face?
WILLIAMS: I mean, oftentimes what we see is that when trans women are incarcerated, they are placed in a men’s facility because the facilities basically use their assigned sex at birth to determine where they should be placed. We have new laws that are being passed, like the Prison Rape Elimination Act. It’s a federal law. It’s not mandatory for states to comply with, but if they do not comply, they risk losing some federal funding, so you see states making some effort to change their policies and come into compliance with PREA. And PREA states that trans people should be—
GOODMAN: Prison Rape Elimination Act, PREA.
ALISHA WILLIAMS: Yes, mm-hmm. So, PREA states that when trans people are incarcerated, their individual assessment of where they would be safest should be taken into consideration, along with a lot of other factors. And the courts show the prison system a lot of deference. So, I don’t see PREA as being a solution, necessarily, but it is something that advocates have now in their toolkit to use to advocate for safer placements for people. And as CeCe said, it’s totally—it should be totally up to the individual. We shouldn’t say all trans women should be in a women’s facility or vice versa; it should be up to the individual. And that’s what advocates have been pushing for.
GOODMAN: I want to turn to Laverne Cox and your character, Laverne, from the Netflix show, Orange is the New Black. Laverne’s character is Sophia Burset. That’s who she plays. She’s been imprisoned for credit card fraud which she used to finance her transition. In this clip from the show, she’s speaking with a prison doctor.
BURSET: [played by Laverne Cox] Listen, Doc, I need my dosage. I’ve given five years, $80,000 and my freedom for this. I’m finally who I’m supposed to be. Do you understand? I can’t go back.
DR. BROOKS: [played by Arden Myrin] Look, I’d like to help you. Unfortunately, you have elevated levels of AST and ALT, which could mean liver damage.
SOPHIA BURSET: That’s [bleep]. That could mean anything.
DR. BROOKS: We’re going to take you off your hormones entirely—
SOPHIA BURSET: What?
DR. BROOKS: —until we can schedule an ultrasound, get a clean read.
SOPHIA BURSET: But that could take months.
DR. BROOKS: I can offer you an antidepressant.
AMY GOODMAN: Offer you an antidepressant. That is Laverne Cox in Orange is the New Black. She plays the prisoner, Sophia. Talk about your role there and how common this experience is.
COX: Well, first of all, I wanted to stay around CeCe’s choice to stay where she was housed initially. It’s estimated that 49 percent of sexual assaults that happen in prison happen as a result of the prison staff, that the prison staff is committing these sexual assaults. So, we know that no matter where you’re placed, that is really a huge issue that needs to be addressed.
—I’ve often said that Sophia, in some ways, is very privileged, my character on Orange is the New Black, because she gets to serve her time in a women’s prison. The issue that we just saw in the clip is basically Sophia being taken off her hormones. That’s something that CeCe talks about having experienced in prison, and a large number of trans people.
AMY GOODMAN: Where is she in her transition in prison?
LAVERNE COX: Sophia has been placed in a women’s prison because of her surgical status. She has had gender reconstructive surgery. And so, because of that, she has been placed in a women’s prison. And so, depending on the state you’re in, you will be placed in a women’s prison based on your surgical status, but some states it’s based solely on the gender you were assigned at birth.
AMY GOODMAN: And what happens when the hormones are denied, like we see in Orange is the New Black?
LAVERNE COX: It is a major health concern for trans people. It’s devastating. I mean, honestly, for me as a trans woman, when I’ve had—there’s hot flashes, so it’s a weird sort of menopause that happens, but it’s really bad for your health, especially if you’re not producing any kind of hormones already, as my character wasn’t. Then you’re at risk for osteoporosis and any other conditions that women would face if they’re taken off hormones.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the research that goes into your character, Sophia. You’re a remarkable figure, because also you’re a remarkable actress, but talk about how this character—and now, we understand, when is the next season going to premiere?
LAVERNE COX: Season two premieres June 6th. We just announced that. Folks have been anxiously awaiting for that—awaiting that information, as have I. So, June 6th, the second season premieres.
The research that I did for Sophia, a lot of it had to do with me, you know, my own lived experience as a trans woman, but I’ve actually been researching on trans folks in prison because of CeCe’s story, before I even found out about Orange is the New Black. So, there was a lot of prison research I had been doing already, so it just sort of all aligned.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about your own life? Because it truly is fascinating. Even in the film, in the part where you’re—the flashbacks to you, Sophia is married—
LAVERNE COX: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: —to a woman and has a child.
COX: Yes.
GOODMAN: Those flashbacks are played by your actual identical twin brother?
LAVERNE COX: Well, the pretransition flashbacks, when we see Sophia—she was a firefighter before she transitioned—when we see her as the firefighter, that is—those moments were played by my identical twin brother. His name is M. Lamar. He’s a musician here in New York.
AMY GOODMAN: And this is in real life.
LAVERNE COX: Yes. I have a twin brother, identical twin brother, in real life. And he’s a brilliant musician and thinker, and he’s amazing. So, I’m a twin. And I’m very lucky that I have a loving family, and I feel very, very blessed. It’s very unusual to see a trans woman playing a trans character on TV. I’ve heard a lot of—people have tweeted to me, and I’ve heard folks at dinner parties say, "Is she really trans?" And I think folks just aren’t used to seeing trans people actually play trans roles. And there’s something very remarkable about that for a lot of folks. And I think it’s really important for people to see reflections of themselves in media, and I think that that can really begin to shift the conversation. I think so many of the issues that trans folks face have to do with policy, but also has to do with how our stories are told in the media, how do we begin to create more multidimensional, fully humanized stories of trans people in the media, because so many people don’t actually know someone trans, and the media can be a way to get to know someone.
AMY GOODMAN: So, tell us your story. And—
LAVERNE COX: What do you want to know?
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about growing up. Here you—there’s the two of you. There’s you and your identical twin brother. Just talk about how you decided to transition, how you felt when—I assume, when people would talk about "the boys" all the time, right, the two—you and your brother—that you felt, no, no.
LAVERNE COX: Well, I was very—I was always a creative person as a kid. I started dancing at a very young age. I was very feminine. I was majorly bullied as a kid, so I was chased home from school practically every day because I was very feminine. And that was my life growing up, so I never fit neatly into the sort of boy role. I don’t really think I ever really had male privilege even, because I was so feminine. I never sort of was in a "boy" situation in terms of my story; I was always very feminine.
And for me, it was about getting—moving past denial. And I’ve told this story a zillion times about when I was in third grade. My third-grade teacher, Ms. Ridgeway, called my mother and said, "Your son is going to end up in New Orleans wearing a dress if we don’t get him into therapy right away." And the funny thing is, I was just in New Orleans a few days ago doing a talk at Tulane. So, it took over 20 years for Ms. Ridgeway’s prediction to come true. But I—so because of that and because of a lot of the shaming and policing of my gender that happened when I was a child, I had a lot of internalized transphobia. And it really wasn’t until I moved to New York City and met actual trans people that I was able to debunk a lot of the misconceptions that I had about trans people, have empathy for them and then have empathy and love for myself. And once I began to develop that, I was able to accept myself and then to transition.
AMY GOODMAN: CeCe McDonald, what about your story?
CECE McDONALD: Well, my story is similar to Laverne’s.
AMY GOODMAN: Where were you born?
CECE McDONALD: I was born in Chicago, Illinois. And I moved to Minnesota when I was 18. But prior to that, I was very feminine. And I grew up in a big family. My grandma and granddad had 18 kids—nine boys, nine girls. And like Laverne said, I grew up in a really heavily religious family, very—as people call them, Bible thumpers, so there was also a lot of policing about my femininity. And it kind of made me hate myself. It made me become, I guess, more rebellious than most teens would at that age, when I got to that age.
And I pretty much had a hard life. I was out on my own since I was 14. And, you know, from sleeping on park benches and couch hopping and trying to figure out what I was going to do in my life, I really wanted to get a leg up, but it seemed like there was no opportunities for trans women in Chicago. And it seemed like every place I went into turned their backs on me or slammed the door in my face, and it was really hard for me to like figure out what I was going to do in my life.
And then, after some major consideration, I decided to move to Minnesota, after a friend had invited me. And it didn’t take me very much time to take her up on her offer, because it seemed like I had nothing to go for in Chicago. And she was telling me that, you know, I can start over, and there’s more resources, and I can get this help and that help. And so, it sounded really tasteful. I wanted to, you know, expand my horizons and see what I can, you know—or how I can better myself. And so, I moved to Minnesota.
And that’s when I actually started my transition as far as, you know, hormone therapy and finding a therapist and stuff like that. And that kind of made me build this love for other trans women, like you were saying, because, you know, you have this part of you that’s unquestionable, and it’s a big mystery until you meet these people. And you’re like, yeah, I think I know who I am as a person. And so, you know, sometimes you get a little bad advice, sometimes you get the best advice, but it was all helpful for me in my transitioning. And now I am here today, so...
AMY GOODMAN: Alisha Williams, how common is that, trans teens homeless?
ALISHA WILLIAMS: At our website, www.srlp.org, we have a number of charts that kind of explain the disproportionate representation of trans people in prison because of things that happen beforehand, being forced into poverty and experiencing houselessness. It could be from family rejection, or it could be the lack of support at school, when you’re being discriminated against and bullied by other students or by school administrators, or not having safe access to spaces because you’re policed when you’re just trying to go to the bathroom, someone trying to tell you that you’re going to the wrong bathroom. We have a lot of people who are arrested on the streets. Because we work with low-income people of color, they’re living in neighborhoods that are already heavily policed.
AMY GOODMAN: We have a chart right now, that was—
ALISHA WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, that’s the chart I was talking about.
AMY GOODMAN: —your chart.
ALISHA WILLIAMS: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to that chart and go through it, because it’s quite interesting. When you look at the number of people who are in prison who are trans, you have all trans persons, 16 percent have gone to prison or jail; black trans persons, 47 percent; American Indian trans people, 30 percent; trans women, 21 percent. So, of the trans women, 21 percent have served time in jail, and trans men, 10 percent. How do you change those numbers?
ALISHA WILLIAMS: Well, definitely, it’s—even though we have "Law" in our name at SLRP, we do not really believe that the law is the answer. We have a lot of legal remedies that reduce harm that people in prison are facing, but really the answer is to keep people out of prison and to provide safe spaces, safe access to healthcare, to employment, to education, so that we really need to push for those sort of policies in our neighborhoods to make sure that we’re keeping trans people and people of color, low-income people, out of jail and providing them safe access to the systems that other people have access to.
LAVERNE COX: And I think, too, the bigger—
AMY GOODMAN: Laverne Cox?
LAVERNE COX: May I? I think the bigger picture, too, is that—how do we begin to create spaces in our culture where we don’t stigmatize trans identity, where we really create spaces of gender self-determination? It is so often acceptable to make fun of trans people, to ridicule trans people. When we look at the epidemic of violence against trans folk, so many people sort of think that our identities are inherently deceptive, our identities are inherently sort of suspect, and then we should be criminalized because of that. I mean, in Arizona, they were trying to sort of criminalize going to the bathroom last year, like literally. That policy was overturned. But how do we begin to create spaces where we accept trans people on our own—on trans people’s own terms, and really listen and let trans people lead the discussions in terms of who we are and what the discussion about our lives should be?
AMY GOODMAN: Defining yourselves—I wanted to turn to that for a moment in the mainstream media, to turn to a clip from television. The author and transgender advocate Janet Mock, who has written a book about her own life, recently joined CNN’s Piers Morgan to talk about that book, Redefining Realness. After the interview, Mock said she felt the Piers had tried to sensationalize her story by saying, quote, "She used to be a man and was born a boy," and by displaying an on-screen descriptor under her name that said she, quote, "was a boy until age 18." Following her criticism, Piers Morgan invited Janet Mock back on the show. I want to go to a clip from that second interview.
PIERS MORGAN: With the greatest of respect—and I mean with the greatest of respect—you’ve written a book, Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love & So Much More, right? I’ve got here, as I say, the Marie Claire article that started your whole media profile, "I Was Born a Boy," repeatedly, in your words, saying—
JANET MOCK: I did not write that piece.
PIERS MORGAN: "I was born a boy."
JANET MOCK: It’s not my words.
PIERS MORGAN: Right. So let me ask you a—
JANET MOCK: Words are precious to me. I’m a writer.
PIERS MORGAN: Let me ask you—let me ask you a simple question.
JANET MOCK: Words are precious. And I really believe that—
PIERS MORGAN: Let me ask you a simple question.
JANET MOCK: —we need to give people—I would like to ask you a question.
PIERS MORGAN: OK, can I ask mine first, then you can ask yours?
JANET MOCK: OK.
PIERS MORGAN: OK? My question is simply this: Do you—do you dispute that you were born a boy?
JANET MOCK: Do I dispute that I was born a boy? I was born a baby, who was assigned male at birth. I did not identify or live my life as a boy.
PIERS MORGAN: OK.
JANET MOCK: As soon as I had enough agency in my life to grow up, I became who I am.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Janet Mock speaking to CNN’s Piers Morgan. Janet Mock actually tweeted a photo of herself and Laverne Cox reacting to her initial interview with Piers Morgan. You both have your eyebrows raised. The tweet says, "Me + @Lavernecox’s reaction after @piersmorganlive tried it with the man and boy tag lines." Talk about your reaction, Laverne.
LAVERNE COX: Well, my initial reaction to the interview—that was actually at Janet’s book party. The night that interview aired, she was having her book party for her brilliant book, Redefining Realness, which everyone should read. It’s incredible. My reaction was not to the interview. It was initially to the tweets that were sent out surrounding the interview. So they were—it seemed as if what was happening in the tweets is the suggestion that she used to be a man and all those sorts of things. Janet would never tell her story that way. She has never described her experience that way. And really, the important piece for media to remember when we’re telling transgender people’s stories is that we should let trans people take the lead in terms of how we describe ourselves. Janet has written extensively about critiquing. And if they had read the book, Redefining Realness, in the introduction to it, she actually critiques the Marie Claire article that Piers Morgan refers to in that clip.
AMY GOODMAN: He kept saying, "You wrote this article. Why are you denying it?"
LAVERNE COX: And she did not write—she actually didn’t write the article. It was an interview. And the editor of Marie Claire, a few days after the Piers Morgan sort of controversy, tweeted out that Janet and the writer of the article actually had issue with the title, "I Was Born a Boy," and the editors of the magazine went with that anyway.
AMY GOODMAN: Go to that point, "I Was Born a Boy."
LAVERNE COX: I think the piece—I think in mainstream media over the past 61 years, since Christine Jorgensen stepped off the plane from Europe and became the first, you know, sort of internationally known trans woman, we’ve had a certain narrative that we’ve told about who trans people are. And that narrative has been someone born a boy and having sex reassignment surgery and becoming a woman. That is not everyone’s story. And even the idea, "born a boy," is a social construct. We assign gender at birth. We don’t really know how people identify. Gender is so deeply complicated. It’s about more than genitalia. We assign people genders at birth. No one is born anything. We actually name and impose that on someone. And it’s really important with trans folks to listen to how they describe their own experiences. And the amazing thing to me about Janet Mock is that she wrote this book, Redefining Realness, to redefine how our stories are told, and in this media moment, the interviewers and the producers of the Piers Morgan show relied on very traditional ways of telling trans stories, when Janet has this wonderful document of a new way to tell our stories.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s very interesting, when you talk about a baby. A person is born a baby. Why is it so important? What is the first question most everyone asks when they meet a little baby? Is it a—
LAVERNE COX: "Is it a boy or a girl?" I actually say, "Is it a boy, a girl or trans?" is what I say. And I say it that way to disrupt that binary assumption and to also open the possibilities of—we don’t really know, we don’t really know how someone might identify. And we have these very rigid—the gender binary—the logic of the gender binary models puts people in very rigid categories that most of us don’t fit neatly into.
AMY GOODMAN: And isn’t it more about how should the person who’s asking react to the little baby? It’s because we ask, "Is it a girl or a boy?" I think the studies have been done. I remember years ago Baby X, when a parents decided not to reveal the sex of the child, because they decided they didn’t want people to respond to the infant in stereotypical ways, that that determines how we treat an infant.
LAVERNE COX: And make all kinds of assumptions. And what’s interesting to me, I think—I talk about this a lot in my lectures—that all the bullying that I experienced, the violence that so many trans folks experience, policies that constantly police our genders, are really about policing gender, to make sure people fit neatly into two categories that most of us don’t fit into, that we have to police gender constantly to maintain this binary model. If we just let people be who they are, how amazing would that be?
AMY GOODMAN: We have to break for a second, then we’re going to come back to this discussion. I also want to ask you about Facebook, that’s just expanded the gender identifications that people can use. We’re talking with Laverne Cox, the actress, the star of Orange is the New Black. We are also speaking with CeCe McDonald. It’s her first trip to New York since she was freed from prison after serving 19 months. And we’re joined by Alisha Williams, who’s staff attorney at the Sylvia Rivera Law Project. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "You’ve Got Time" by Regina Spektor. "You’ve Got Time" is the theme song of Orange is the New Black, the Netflix hit show that one of our guests stars in today, Laverne Cox. I’m Amy Goodman. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. As we talk about the violence and discrimination faced by transgender women of color, I want to turn to a story here in New York. On January 30th, a group of transgender women and their allies gathered outside the New York City Police Department headquarters to demand justice for Islan Nettles. Nettles was a 21-year-old transgender woman of color who was taunted with slurs, then beaten to death in Harlem in August. A suspect was arrested on assault charges, but the case against him was later dismissed. So far, no one has been charged with her murder. Protesters have accused police of mishandling the investigation. These are some of the voices from the rally. One of the voices in the middle of this piece is Islan Nettles’ mother, Delores Nettles.
PROTESTER: No justice!
PROTESTERS: No peace!
PROTESTER: No justice!
PROTESTERS: No peace!
PROTESTER: If there ain’t gonna be no justice!
PROTESTERS: There ain’t gonna be no peace!
DANIELLA CARTER: That I’m here. I’m living in New York City. And I’m as educated, and I’m as political, I’m as human—you know, because we’re dehumanizing the trans community. And this is a prime example of dehumanizing someone and their rights.
LOURDES ASHLEY HUNTER: With Islan Nettles, she was beaten until she could move no more, outside of a police station. She was in a crux of three different police stations in a gentrified neighborhood of Harlem where 10 different cameras are not working. This goes beyond just brutality and discrimination and against trans folks. What about the safety of all New Yorkers? How could it be in the middle of Harlem and cameras don’t work? This could happen to anyone. If it happened to a white woman, would we be standing out here right here in the freezing cold fighting for justice six months later?
DELORES NETTLES: I spoke to a Sergeant Dorsey on the 17th.
UNIDENTIFIED: Dorsey!
DELORES NETTLES: Dorsey!
UNIDENTIFIED: Dorsey!
DELORES NETTLES: From the PAL.
UNIDENTIFIED: Sergeant Dorsey!
DELORES NETTLES: Sergeant Dorsey told me the only thing he could tell me was that the person was arrested. And I said, "Half of my child’s brain is out of her head, and that’s all you can tell me?" And no one came from that precinct. But I thank all of you for coming. I appreciate it, and that’s all I have to say. Thank you. I love you.
MADISON ST. SINCLAIR: He was arrested, but he wasn’t charged. And I sat with his mom, who is actually right there, Islan’s mom, in court to listen to them sort of just destroy her as a person. It was disgusting. And she was the victim.
LOURDES ASHLEY HUNTER: Unacceptable. We are tired. We are tired of waiting by lesbian and gay folk to champion their policies and what they’re interested in. Marriage doesn’t impact us. We’re tired of being pushed away and discriminated against in housing, access to jobs, education. And we’ve had enough. And even with this particular murder, you know what I’m saying? This is continual. This is not something new. This is indicative of NYPD. This is indicative of politics in New York City.
UNIDENTIFIED: ... comes to transgender people, is violence chases us all everywhere, whether it’s CeCe McDonald in Minnesota or us here in Harlem, in New York City.
MADISON ST. SINCLAIR: Trans people are no longer a marginalized community. We’re no longer a disenfranchised community. We’re doctors. We’re lawyers. We’re taxpayers. And we demand and deserve the exact same rights as everyone else. We’re not asking for special rights; we’re asking for human rights. And so, it’s disgusting that this happens now. It’s constantly happening. People are being killed all the time, and no one is being charged for it.
PROTESTER: No justice!
PROTESTERS: No peace!
PROTESTER: No justice!
PROTESTERS: No peace!
PROTESTER: No justice!
PROTESTERS: No peace!
PROTESTER: No justice!
PROTESTERS: No peace!
AMY GOODMAN: Some of the voices at a rally calling for justice in the case of Islan Nettles. Special thanks to our Democracy Now! fellow Messiah Rhodes for that report. Laverne Cox, this is a case that you’ve been particularly interested in here in New York.
LAVERNE COX: Again, with Islan’s case, we see the safety of trans folks just walking down the street, having the audacity to walk down the street, being questioned. And so often—the director of the Ali Forney Center spoke at that rally and talked about how folks who have been served by the Ali Forney Center, who are trans women who have—we’ve lost to violence, their cases haven’t been solved. So often, these murders of trans women—and it’s the—we know it’s the highest homicide rate amongst the LGBTQ community, is trans women—it’s usually trans women of color. So often, these murders don’t go—they go unsolved. And I think it reflects how so often our lives are treated as if they don’t matter by the police, treated as if they don’t matter by society.
AMY GOODMAN: CeCe, what was your response as you watched? This has to hit very, very close to home.
CECE McDONALD: Yeah. Just watching that kind of just made me go back to that time where I know what it’s like to have to always have this guard up, because you don’t never know when somebody will literally try to kill you for just being who you want to be. And to know that Islan’s life was taken from her out of hatred and out of ignorance, it really upsets me, because I’m trans, and all the people that I know who are trans that are really close to me, I always have this fear for them, because I would never want someone to get a phone call saying that I was dead or me getting a phone call saying that one of my friends was dead because someone just wanted to hurt them. You know, like, it’s rare that you hear about a trans woman living happily and long and having this glorious life where she dies of old age, natural causes or whatever. Usually, from my own—you know, from me knowing about the history of violence against trans women, I’ve yet to hear of a trans woman who has just lived her life happily. And I’m trying to be one of those women who tells other trans women to educate themselves and to protect themselves and to be safe and to be cautious, because people do not care. We’re—trans people are like props to people sometimes, I feel like, like we’re just less than human. And it’s really ridiculous that we have to live a life like this every day. Like, I and so many other trans women who have dealt with violence, you know, over the course of growing up—you know what I’m saying—have to deal with this on a daily basis. And for me to have to watch that was really heartbreaking, because it’s another story. It’s another name that we have to add to this day of Trans Day of Remembrance. And I always encourage people to like—we have to change that. We have to make Trans Day of Remembrance Trans Day of Celebration. We need to celebrate our lives. We need to celebrate being human. But it’s just—it’s just so much. I can’t right now.
AMY GOODMAN: Laverne Cox, this hits close to home for you, too, as you cry.
LAVERNE COX: It does. I think—I think, for me, what comes up, listening to CeCe talk, is the collective trauma that so much of our community faces. And particularly, I think it’s important to look at the intersectional piece, that we’re usually talking about trans women of color, that there’s something about—that black bodies are under attack in this culture, and black trans bodies are under attack. So it’s important for us to remember that. And how do we create spaces of healing for ourselves as a community in the face of such oppression, in the face of such trauma? It’s devastating. It’s devastating to our community to continually hear about this kind of violence. And it’s pervasive. It’s intimate partner violence. In the documentary, Free CeCe, people can find out about it at FreeCeCeDocumentary.net. In the documentary, we’re going to be looking at intimate partner violence. We’re going to be looking at all of the different elements of violence that surrounds these situations, to hopefully find some solutions and ways to combat it.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you all for joining us. We want to do a post-show and we’ll post it online. I also want to talk to you about the new definitions or identifiers in Facebook and more. Our guests are CeCe McDonald, who is just recently out of prison; Laverne Cox, the actress who stars in Orange is the New Black; and Alisha Williams, staff attorney with the Sylvia Rivera Law Project. And a great honor to have them all on this day, our 18th birthday. Democracy Now! went on the air February 19, 1996.
-------
A New Cold War? Ukraine Violence Escalates, Leaked Tape Suggests U.S. Was Plotting Coup
A short-lived truce has broken down in Ukraine as street battles have erupted between anti-government protesters and police. Last night the country’s embattled president and the opposition leaders demanding his resignation called for a truce and negotiations to try to resolve Ukraine’s political crisis. But hours later, armed protesters attempted to retake Independence Square, sparking another day of deadly violence. At least 50 people have died since Tuesday in the bloodiest period of Ukraine’s 22-year post-Soviet history. While President Obama has vowed to "continue to engage all sides," a recently leaked audio recording between two top U.S. officials reveal the Obama administration has been secretly plotting with the opposition. We speak to Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, "Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War," is out in paperback. His latest Nation article is "Distorting Russia: How the American Media Misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A short-lived truce has broken down in Ukraine as street battles have erupted between anti-government protesters and police. Last night, the country’s embattled president and the opposition leaders demanding his resignation called for a truce and negotiations to try to resolve Ukraine’s political crisis. But the truce only lasted a few hours. The last three days have been the bloodiest period of Ukraine’s 22-year post-Soviet history. Over 50 people have died, including at least 21 today. The truce ended today when armed protesters attempted to retake Independence Square. Both sides have accused the other of using live ammunition. A Ukrainian paramedic described the chaotic scene.
UKRAINIAN PARAMEDIC: [translated] Some bodies are at the concert hall. Some are at the barricades. Now there are maybe around 15 or 20 dead. It is hard to count, as some are carried away, others are resuscitated. Now, as far as I know, three dead people are at the city hall, and two more dead are at the main post office. There are so many at the concert hall that we didn’t even take them.
AMY GOODMAN: The Ukrainian parliament, Rada, and Cabinet buildings have reportedly been evacuated because of fears they could be stormed by protesters. The street clashes are occurring while the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, is meeting with the foreign ministers from Germany, Poland and France.
The Obama administration stepped up pressure on the Ukrainian government Wednesday by announcing a visa ban on 20 members of the Ukrainian government. The U.S. is also threatening to place sanctions on the Ukrainian government.
The protests began in late November after President Yanukovych reversed his decision to sign a long-awaited trade deal with the European Union, or EU, to forge stronger ties with Russia instead.
To talk more about the latest in Ukraine, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is now out in paperback. His latest piece in The Nation is called "Distorting Russia: How the American Media Misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine."
So, talk about the latest, Professor Cohen.
STEPHEN COHEN: Where do you want me to begin? I mean, we are watching history being made, but history of the worst kind. That’s what I’m telling my grandchildren: Watch this. What’s happening there, let’s take the big picture, then we can go to the small picture. The big picture is, people are dying in the streets every day. The number 50 is certainly too few. They’re still finding bodies. Ukraine is splitting apart down the middle, because Ukraine is not one country, contrary to what the American media, which speaks about the Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Historically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, politically, economically, it’s two countries. One half wants to stay close to Russia; the other wants to go West. We now have reliable reports that the anti-government forces in the streets—and there are some very nasty people among them—are seizing weapons in western Ukrainian military bases. So we have clearly the possibility of a civil war.
And the longer-term outcome may be—and I want to emphasize this, because nobody in the United States seems to want to pay attention to it—the outcome may be the construction, the emergence of a new Cold War divide between West and East, not this time, as it was for our generation, in faraway Berlin, but right on the borders of Russia, right through the heart of Slavic civilization. And if that happens, if that’s the new Cold War divide, it’s permanent instability and permanent potential for real war for decades to come. That’s what’s at stake.
One last point, also something that nobody in this country wants to talk about: The Western authorities, who bear some responsibility for what’s happened, and who therefore also have blood on their hands, are taking no responsibility. They’re uttering utterly banal statements, which, because of their vacuous nature, are encouraging and rationalizing the people in Ukraine who are throwing Molotov cocktails, now have weapons, are shooting at police. We wouldn’t permit that in any Western capital, no matter how righteous the cause, but it’s being condoned by the European Union and Washington as events unfold.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when you say the Western countries who bear some responsibility, in what sense do they bear responsibility? I mean, clearly, there’s been an effort by the United States and Europe ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union to pull the former Soviet states into their economic sphere, but is that what you’re talking about?
STEPHEN COHEN: I mean that. I mean that Moscow—look at it through Moscow’s eyes. Since the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the U.S.-led West has been on a steady march toward post-Soviet Russia, began with the expansion of NATO in the 1990s under Clinton. Bush then further expanded NATO all the way to Russia’s borders. Then came the funding of what are euphemistically called NGOs, but they are political action groups, funded by the West, operating inside Russia. Then came the decision to build missile defense installations along Russia’s borders, allegedly against Iran, a country which has neither nuclear weapons nor any missiles to deliver them with. Then comes American military outpost in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which led to the war of 2008, and now the West is at the gates of Ukraine. So, that’s the picture as Moscow sees it. And it’s rational. It’s reasonable. It’s hard to deny.
But as for the immediate crisis, let’s ask ourselves this: Who precipitated this crisis? The American media says it was Putin and the very bad, though democratically elected, president of Ukraine, Yanukovych. But it was the European Union, backed by Washington, that said in November to the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country, Ukraine, "You must choose between Europe and Russia." That was an ultimatum to Yanukovych. Remember—wasn’t reported here—at that moment, what did the much-despised Putin say? He said, "Why? Why does Ukraine have to choose? We are prepared to help Ukraine avoid economic collapse, along with you, the West. Let’s make it a tripartite package to Ukraine." And it was rejected in Washington and in Brussels. That precipitated the protests in the streets.
And since then, the dynamic that any of us who have ever witnessed these kinds of struggles in the streets unfolded, as extremists have taken control of the movement from the so-called moderate Ukrainian leaders. I mean, the moderate Ukrainian leaders, with whom the Western foreign ministers are traveling to Kiev to talk, they’ve lost control of the situation. By the way, people ask—excuse me—is it a revolution? Is it a revolution? A much abused word, but one sign of a revolution is the first victims of revolution are the moderates. And then it becomes a struggle between the extreme forces on either side. And that’s what we’re witnessing.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to the Ukrainian opposition leader, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who admitted earlier today the opposition does not have full control of protesters in Independence Square.
ARSENIY YATSENYUK: The only chance to do it is to stop the riot police, to stop the protesters, to impose a DMZ, like demilitarized zone, and to move this conflict from the streets to the Parliament.
REPORTER 1: Parts of the protesters are out of control?
ARSENIY YATSENYUK: No one—I would be very frank, that the government doesn’t control the riot police, and it’s very difficult for the opposition to control Maidan. And there are a number of forces who are uncontrolled. This is the truth.
REPORTER 2: So, Ukraine is in chaos now.
ARSENIY YATSENYUK: Ukraine is in a big mess.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ukrainian opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Professor Cohen?
STEPHEN COHEN: A moderate.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go—
STEPHEN COHEN: Who wants to be president.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to President Obama. He’s in Mexico for the big Mexico-Canada-U.S. summit talking about Ukraine.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: With regard to Ukraine, along with our European partners, we will continue to engage all sides. And we continue to stress to President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian government that they have the primary responsibility to prevent the kind of terrible violence that we’ve seen, to withdraw riot police, to work with the opposition to restore security and human dignity, and move the country forward. And this includes progress towards a multi-party, technical government that can work with the international community on a support package and adopt reforms necessary for free and fair elections next year. Ukrainians are a proud and resilient people who have overcome extraordinary challenges in their history, and that’s a pride and strength that I hope they draw on now.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama in Mexico, Professor Cohen.
STEPHEN COHEN: What are you asking me to comment on?
AMY GOODMAN: Your response to his response.
STEPHEN COHEN: To what he just said? Shame. Shame. He is saying that the responsibility for restoring peace is on the Ukrainian government, and it should withdraw its security forces from the streets. But let me ask you, if in Washington people throwing Molotov cocktails are marching on Congress—and these people are headed for the Ukrainian Congress—if these people have barricaded entrance to the White House and are throwing rocks at the White House security guard, would President Obama withdraw his security forces? This is—this is—and do you know what this does? And let’s escape partisanship here. I mean, lives are at stake. This incites, these kinds of statement that Obama made. It rationalizes what the killers in the streets are doing. It gives them Western license, because he’s not saying to the people in the streets, "Stop this, stop shooting policemen, stop attacking government buildings, sit down and talk." And the guy you had on just before, a so-called moderate leader, what did he just tell you? "We have lost control of the situation." That’s what I just told you. He just confirmed that.
So what Obama needs to say is, "We deplore what the people in the streets are doing when they attack the police, the law enforcement official. And we also don’t like the people who are writing on buildings 'Jews live here,'" because these forces, these quasi-fascist forces—let’s address this issue, because the last time I was on your broadcast, you found some guy somewhere who said there was none of this there. All right. What percent are the quasi-fascists of the opposition? Let’s say they’re 5 percent. I think they’re more, but let’s give them the break, 5 percent. But we know from history that when the moderates lose control of the situation, they don’t know what to do. The country descends in chaos. Five percent of a population that’s tough, resolute, ruthless, armed, well funded, and knows what it wants, can make history. We’ve seen it through Europe. We’ve seen it through Asia. This is reality. And where Washington and Brussels are on this issue, they won’t step up and take the responsibility.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, even in most recent history, whether you look at Libya or whether you look at the situation in Syria, where those presidents warned that there were extremist elements inside a broader popular movement that were eventually going to gain control, this seems like a replay in terms of what’s going on here in the Ukraine of a popular movement, but yet a very, very, as you say, right-wing movement—not only a right-wing movement, but a fascist movement with a history. Ukraine has had a history of a fascist movement going back to the days of Nazi Germany.
STEPHEN COHEN: Let’s go to real heresy. Let’s ask a question: Who has been right about interpreting recent events? Let’s go to the Arab Spring. Obama and Washington said this was about democracy now, this is great. Russia said, "Wait a minute. If you destabilize, even if they’re authoritarian leaders in the Middle East, you’re not going to get Thomas Jefferson in power. You’re going to get jihadists. You’re going to get very radical people in power all through the Middle East." Looking back, who was right or wrong about that narrative? Have a look at Egypt. Have a look at Libya. Who was right? Can Russians ever be right about anything?
Now what are the Russians saying about Ukraine? They’re saying what you just said, that the peaceful protesters, as we keep calling them—I think a lot of them have gone home. There were many. By the way, at the beginning, there were hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, of very decent, liberal, progressive, honorable people in the streets. But they’ve lost control of the situation. That’s the point now. And so, the Russians are saying, "Look, you’re trying to depose Yanukovych, who’s the elected government." Think. If you overthrow—and, by the way, there’s a presidential election in a year. The Russians are saying wait 'til the next election. If you overthrow him—and that's what Washington and Brussels are saying, that he must go—what are you doing to the possibility of democracy not only in Ukraine, but throughout this part of the world? And secondly, who do you think is going to come to power? Please tell us. And we’re silent.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the famous leaked tape right now. The top State Department official has apologized to her European counterparts after she was caught cursing the European Union, the EU, in a leaked audio recording that was posted to YouTube. The recording captured an intercepted phone conversation between the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe. Nuland expresses frustration over Europe’s response to the political crisis in Ukraine, using frank terms.
VICTORIA NULAND: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the U.N. help glue it. And, you know, [bleep] the EU.
AMY GOODMAN: While Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s comment about the EU dominated the news headlines because she used a curse, there were several other very interesting parts of her conversation with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
GEOFFREY PYATT: Let me work on Klitschko, and if you can just keep—I think we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. Then the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych, but we can probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
VICTORIA NULAND: So, on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR saying, "You need Biden?" And I said, "Probably tomorrow for an attaboy and to get the deets to stick." So Biden’s willing.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Pyatt, speaking with Victoria Nuland. The significance of what she is saying? She also had gone to Ukraine and was feeding protesters on the front line.
STEPHEN COHEN: Cookies, cookies. Well, here again, the American political media establishment, including the right and the left and the center—because they’re all complicit in this nonsense—focused on the too sensational, they thought, aspect of that leaked conversation. She said, "F— the European Union," and everybody said, "Oh, my god! She said the word." The other thing was, who leaked it? "Oh, it was the Russians. Those dirty Russians leaked this conversation." But the significance is what you just played. What are they doing? The highest-ranking State Department official, who presumably represents the Obama administration, and the American ambassador in Kiev are, to put it in blunt terms, plotting a coup d’état against the elected president of Ukraine.
Now, that said, Amy, Juan, you may say to me—neither of you would, but hypothetically—"That’s a good thing. We don’t like—we don’t care if he was elected democratically. He’s a rat. He’s corrupt." And he is all those things. He is. "Let’s depose him. That’s what the United States should do. Then the United States should stand up and say, ’That’s what we do: We get rid of bad guys. We assassinate them, and we overthrow them.’" But in Washington and in Brussels, they lie: They’re talking about democracy now. They’re not talking about democracy now; they’re talking about a coup now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, this is more from—
STEPHEN COHEN: And we—excuse me—and we should—we, American citizens, should be allowed to choose which policy we want. But they conceal it from us. And I’m extremely angry that the people in this country who say they deplore this sort of thing have fallen silent.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Let’s listen to little bit more of the leaked conversation between the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe.
VICTORIA NULAND: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.
GEOFFREY PYATT: Yeah. I mean, I guess, you think—in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys. And, you know, I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of—
VICTORIA NULAND: I think—I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy—you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk. It’s just not going to work.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe, speaking with Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine. Stephen Cohen, this—this chess game—
STEPHEN COHEN: You don’t need me here. What do you need me for?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —this chess game that they’re conducting here?
STEPHEN COHEN: There it is. There it is.
AMY GOODMAN: But explain the names. Who is Klitsch, Yats?
STEPHEN COHEN: All right. And notice the intimacy with which the Americans deal with the two leading so-called "moderate"—and these are big shots, they both want to be president—Ukrainian opposition. Klitschko is Vitali Klitschko, a six-foot-eight former—he resigned his title two months ago to enter politics—heavyweight champion of the world. His residence has been Ukraine—I mean, Germany. He plays—he pays taxes in Germany. He’s a project of Merkel. He represents German interests. I’m sure he’s also faithful to Ukraine, but he’s got a problem. Yatsenyuk, however—not Yatsenyuk, but the other guy she calls "Yats" is a representative of the Fatherland Party. It’s a big party in Parliament. But Washington likes him a lot. They think he’ll be our man. So you could see what they’re saying. We don’t quite trust Klitschko. Now, if you want to get esoteric, that’s the tug between Washington and Berlin. They’re not happy with Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. They don’t like the role Merkel is playing, generally. They think Germany has gotten too big for its britches. They want to cut Merkel down. So you noticed Klitschko, the boxer, is Merkel’s proxy, or at least she’s backing him. You notice that they say, "He’s not ready for prime time. Let him do his homework."
Now, this guy—I’m bad on Ukrainian names. Tyagnybok, that they say has got to play a role, he’s the leader of the Freedom Party, the Svoboda Party, but a large element of that party, to put it candidly, is quasi-fascist. And they’re prepared to embrace this guy. This is the guy, by the way, that Senator John McCain in November or December went to Kiev and embraced. Either McCain didn’t know who he was, or he didn’t care. The United States is prepared to embrace that guy, too—anything to get rid of Yanukovych, because they think this is about Putin. That’s all they really got on their mind.
AMY GOODMAN: And yet, here you have President Obama, again, speaking yesterday in Mexico.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Our approach as the United States is not to see these as some Cold War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia. Our goal is to make sure that the people of Ukraine are able to make decisions for themselves about their future, that the people of Syria are able to make decisions without having bombs going off and killing women and children, or chemical weapons, or towns being starved, because a despot wants to cling to power.
AMY GOODMAN: Who benefits from the instability, Professor Cohen, in Ukraine? And what does it mean for Putin? Is he concerned about this?
STEPHEN COHEN: Of course he’s concerned. It’s right on his borders, and it’s all tainting him. I mean, The Washington Post wrote an editorial yesterday. Putin is happy that the violence has broken out in the streets. Everybody understands, even The Washington Post understands, which understands almost nothing about Russia, but they got this, that during the Sochi Olympics, the last thing Putin wants is violence in Ukraine. So why is he happy about it? He deplores it. He’s unhappy. He’s furious at the president of Ukraine. He read him the Riot Act on the phone last night, that why doesn’t he get control of the situation? What is he doing? So Putin is not responsible for this. Can we speak about Obama?
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly.
STEPHEN COHEN: Very quickly. I grew up in the segregated South. I voted for him twice, as historical justice. That’s not leadership. That’s a falsification of what’s happening in Ukraine, and it’s making the situation worse, what he says, is that we deplore the violence and call upon Ukrainian government to withdraw its forces and stop the violence. He needs to talk about what’s happening in the streets.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And is it conceivable, if Ukraine descends into a further civil war, that Russia might intervene?
STEPHEN COHEN: It’s conceivable. It’s conceivable. Here—I mean, Yanukovych—you might say, as an adviser to Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine, "Impose martial law now, because you’ve got bad PR in the West anyway, and you’re not in control of the situation." The problem is, Yanukovych isn’t sure he controls the army.
AMY GOODMAN: He just fired the head of the army yesterday.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, we don’t know what it means, but it indicates he’s not too sure about the army. But, by the way, you asked, would Russia intervene? Would NATO intervene? NATO is all over the place. NATO was in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Ask yourself that: Would NATO send troops in? Is that, yes, you think they would?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I—
STEPHEN COHEN: We don’t know.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We don’t know, yeah.
STEPHEN COHEN: And we’re not going to be told, just like we’re not being told what’s going on in these private conversations about deposing the president of Ukraine. If they depose—
AMY GOODMAN: Unless they’re leaked again.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, and if the Russians leak them, it doesn’t count. Is that right?
AMY GOODMAN: The U.S. can hardly protest, given the whole scandal with the NSA recording conversations.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, well, you know what they said. They said—they said, when this got leaked, that this is a low point in statecraft. After Snowden? After Snowden? I mean, what did Tennessee Williams used to say? Mendacity? Mendacity? The mendacity of it all? Don’t they trust us, our government, to tell us a little bit of the truth at last?
AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Cohen, I want to thank you for being with us. We’re going to move onto Venezuela. Stephen Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, it’s just out in paperback. His latest piece in The Nation is "Distorting Russia: How the American Media Misrepresent [Putin], Sochi and Ukraine." This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Edwin Starr singing "War." This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. We have just hit 18. We have just come of age. Yes, Democracy Now! is 18 years old this week, and people are sending in from all over the world pictures of themselves holding up signs, "We need Democracy Now! because..." And we urge you to do the same thing. You can just go to democracynow.org/because, and you can send us your image. Also people also sending in videos. We’ll play some of them in a bit. Yes, this is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now that we’re 18, we are of legal age.
-------
Venezuelan Protests: Another Attempt by U.S.-Backed Right-Wing Groups to Oust Elected Government?
In Venezuela, at least six people have died in recent days during a series of anti-government protests. The latest casualty was a local beauty queen who died of a gunshot wound. The protests come less than a year after the death of Hugo Chávez and present the biggest challenge to Venezuela’s new president, Nicolás Maduro. Earlier this week, right-wing opposition leader Leopoldo López turned himself in to the National Guard after authorities issued a warrant for his arrest last week, accusing him of inciting deadly clashes. On Monday, Maduro ordered the expulsion of three U.S. consular officials while claiming the United States has sided with the opposition. Our guest, George Ciccariello-Maher, looks at the recent history of the U.S. role in Venezuela opposing both the Chávez and Maduro governments. He is author of "We Created Chávez: A People’s History of the Venezuelan Revolution" and teaches political science at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Venezuela, where at least six people have died in recent days during a series of anti-government protests. On Wednesday, a local beauty queen died of a gunshot wound. The protests come less than a year after the death of Hugo Chávez and present the biggest challenge to Venezuela’s new president, Nicolás Maduro. Earlier this week, right-wing opposition leader Leopoldo López turned himself in to the National Guard after authorities issued a warrant for his arrest, accusing him of inciting deadly clashes. On Monday, Maduro ordered the expulsion of three U.S. consular officials while claiming the United States has sided with the opposition.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, to find out more, we go to Philadelphia to speak with George Ciccariello-Maher, author of We Created Chávez: A People’s History of the Venezuelan Revolution. He teaches political science at Drexel University in Philadelphia, previously taught at the Venezuelan School of Planning in Caracas.
What is happening in Venezuela today?
GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER: Well, there’s a great deal happening, and I think you’ve got your finger on the fact that this is a crucial test for the Maduro government. And I think it’s our obligation to put it in its broad historical context to understand who’s acting. And I think there’s a tendency—there’s an unfortunate tendency, if you follow Twitter or if you’re on the Internet, that, you know, in this sort of post-Occupy moment and in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, every time we see—every time we see protesters in the streets, we start retweeting it, and we start to sort of, you know, feel sympathetic, without necessarily knowing what the back story is. And I think we’re obligated to do that here. And once we look into this back story, what we see is yet another attempt in a long string of attempts of the Venezuelan opposition to oust a democratically elected government, this time taking advantage of student mobilizations against—you know, ostensibly against insecurity and against economic difficulties to do that.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, George Ciccariello, who is Leopoldo López? The Washington Post describes him as a 42-year-old, Harvard-educated, left-leaning moderate. What do you know about his history?
GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER: Left-leaning moderate would be quite a stretch. Leopoldo López represents the far right of the Venezuelan political spectrum. In terms of his personal and political history, here’s someone who was educated in the United States from prep school through graduate school at the Harvard Kennedy School. He’s descended from the first president of Venezuela, purportedly even from Simón Bolívar. In other words, he’s a representative of this traditional political class that was displaced when the Bolivarian revolution came to power.
In terms of his very specific political history, his first party that he came to power as a representative of, Primero Justicia, was formed through the—at the intersection of corruption and U.S. intervention—corruption by his mother purportedly funneling funds, you know, from Venezuela’s oil company into this new party and, on the other hand, funding from the NED, from USAID, from U.S. government institutions, to so-called civil society organizations. Now, after—as Chávez came to power, the traditional parties of Venezuela collapsed, and both the domestic opposition and the U.S. government needed to create some other vehicle through which to oppose the Chávez government, and this party that Leopoldo López came to power through is one of those—is one of those vehicles. So this is really where he’s coming from.
In this moment, though, even his former compatriot from that party, Henrique Capriles, who was the unified presidential candidate for the opposition in April, has realized that the line of taking street action in an attempt to oust a democratic government is simply not going to work. And Leopoldo López, as well as other far-right leaders like María Corina Machado and Antonio Ledezma have really gone all-in with this attempt to oust the government.
AMY GOODMAN: So, shortly after Leopoldo López’s arrest, his opposition Popular Will party released a video of him speaking that was apparently filmed before he surrendered to Venezuelan government troops. This is part of what López said.
LEOPOLDO LÓPEZ: [translated] I would like to tell all Venezuelans that I do not regret what we have done thus far, like the call we put out for the protests, which is what we’ve been doing for some time. But on the 12th of February, on the Day of Youth, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Venezuela, not only in Caracas like in the past, but in all of Venezuela, in the cities and in the towns. There were 10 or 50 or a thousand or 10,000 or even 70,000, but the people came out. The people woke up. Venezuela today, more than ever, needs you, who are watching this, and that each one of us takes on the commitment to want change. But that commitment cannot be passive. That commitment has to be active.
AMY GOODMAN: So that’s Leopoldo López. Also, President Maduro has thrown out three consular officials, U.S. consular officials, saying they’re involved with supporting the opposition. Can you talk about this, George Ciccariello-Maher?
GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER: Sure. Well, the Obama government continues to fund this opposition even more openly than did the Bush—than did the Bush regime. If you look at the budget there, you know, Obama specifically requested funding for these Venezuelan opposition groups despite—you know, despite anti-democratic activity in the past, despite the fact that López and others were involved in signatories of the coup in 2002 and engaged in violent actions that they were brought up on charges for in 2002. And so, for López to come now and to claim that he’s an actor for democracy in the streets is really quite—you know, quite laughable. But what he is trying to do is to really seize control of this opposition away from the more moderate elements.
And there’s an interesting question here, namely the fact that the Venezuelan government, if we listen to the words of Leopoldo López’s wife, her recent statements—the Venezuelan government acted to protect the life of López, who was under certain threats, you know, threats to his life. And the Venezuelan government, if we look at the way that López was arrested, was very generous, and indeed much more generous than López has been in the past, during the coup, for example, when he led these sort of witch hunts for Chavista ministers who were brought out and beaten publicly on the way to being arrested. And you may wonder—López was allowed to speak the other day when he was arrested for several minutes on a megaphone by those—by the troops who were arresting him. And you may ask why—you know, why is the Maduro government being, in many ways, so gentle with this leader? And the reality is, they may prefer him as the leader of the opposition because he’s someone that simply can’t be elected president in Venezuela, because he really does represent that upper, upper crust of Venezuelan elites.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the pictures that we’re getting in the commercial media here in the United States is of a Venezuela that is spiraling out of control with rising crime, with scarcities of food, with high inflation. What is your assessment of the actual situation in the country right now?
GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER: To be perfectly clear, food scarcity has been a problem, and insecurity is a massive problem in Venezuela. And both of these are really deep and intractable problems that have—you know, that have some relationship to government, government failures to confront them in certain ways, but also to the action of various other actors. In the case of crime, the infiltration of mafias has been a powerful force in recent years. And in the case of scarcity, the role of private capitalists in withholding and hoarding goods, as well as currency speculation, has been a massively destructive force that really echoes the kind of Chile scenario of helping to destroy an economy as a preparation for the government being overthrown.
But the reality is, these do not—these two factors, which the students are claiming are driving these protests, are really—they don’t explain why these protests are emerging now. Why? Because crime is actually going down, as we speak, and because food scarcity is not nearly as bad as it was earlier in the year. Rather, what explains what’s going on now is that this is the moment in which—after December elections, in which the opposition fared very poorly, this is the moment in which the right wing of that opposition has said, "Enough. You know, once again, enough. We’re done with elections. We’re going to go to the streets, and we’re going to try to topple this government."
But, you know, in the meantime, the Venezuelan revolutionary movements, the popular organizations, that are, after all, the foundation of this government, this is never—this was never about Chávez, the individual. It is not about Maduro, the individual today. But it’s instead about millions and millions of Venezuelans who are building a better democracy, a deeper and more direct democracy, who are building social movements and organizations and workers’ councils and student councils and peasant councils, and as well as local communes. These people are continuing to struggle and are continuing to build. And while they’re certainly coming out to defend the Maduro government, they’re sort of focused on a much broader horizon. And this distraction, that’s largely confined to the wealthiest areas of Caracas, the sort of Beverly Hills of Caracas, is not going to sort of push them away from that task.
AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. role?
GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER: The U.S. continues to fund this opposition. I think we’ll probably find out afterward, as we usually do, to what degree the U.S.'s hand has been actually involved in these processes. But the reality is this is a—this is a miscalculation by the opposition. I think it's doubtful that the United States has told the opposition to take this tack, because it’s not a very strategic tack. But, you know, we know that this is an opposition that’s been in direct contact with the embassy, that it receives funding from the United States government. And so, this is—against the broad backdrop of U.S. intervention and the funding of the Venezuelan opposition, this is the action of an autonomous Venezuelan opposition that is going to, once again, it looks like, tear itself apart.
AMY GOODMAN: George Ciccariello-Maher, we want to thank you for being with us, author of We Created Chávez: A People’s History of the Venezuelan Revolution, teaches political science at Drexel University in Philadelphia. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute, going to the border, Tucson, to talk about the latest killing of a person on the border by border control agents. Stay with us.
-------
Excessive Force? Migrant Shot Dead by U.S. Border Agent Near San Diego After Throwing Rock
While the United States, Mexico and Canada held a major summit in Mexico on Wednesday, U.S. border policies are back in the spotlight after a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot and killed a man near San Diego, California, on Tuesday. Officials said the agent was pursuing a group of people suspected of crossing the border from Mexico. When a man threw a rock at him, the agent opened fire and killed him. The agent suffered minor injuries and declined hospital care. The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general recently found U.S. border agents have been involved in 20 fatalities since 2010, eight of which — that’s nearly half — involved rock throwing. For more, we’re joined by John Carlos Frey, an investigative reporter who has long reported on immigration, and more recently on killings of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Folk music legend Odetta on September 11th, 2002, singing at our old firehouse studios marking the exact time that United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, while the United States, Mexico and Canada held a major summit in Mexico on Wednesday, U.S. border policies are back in the spotlight after a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot and killed a man near San Diego, California, on Tuesday. Officials said the agent was pursuing a group of people suspected of crossing the border from Mexico. When a man threw a rock at him, the agent opened fire and killed him. The agent suffered minor injuries and declined hospital care.
AMY GOODMAN: A September report released by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general showed U.S. border agents have been involved in 20 fatalities since 2010, eight of which—that’s nearly half—involved rock throwing. An uncensored copy of the report, obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting, showed it featured a recommendation from a think tank that agents use restraint when dealing with rock throwers. But in the copy that was publicly released, that recommendation was blacked out.
Well, for more, we’re joined by John Carlos Frey, an investigative reporter who has long reported on immigration, and more recently on killings of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. His work is supported by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, John. Talk about what happened, the killing on the border.
JOHN CARLOS FREY: The most recent report that I’ve read and the report that comes out of those that are investigating in the sheriff’s department in the area say that a Border Patrol agent was in pursuit of a migrant, separated from his partner. He was by himself. The suspected migrant started throwing rocks. There’s even an allegation that he threw a basketball-sized rock towards the agent—I’m not quite sure how you can do that. And the agent opened fire, fired twice, striking the migrant and killing him. And this seems to be a pattern. Obviously, the migrant’s not going to be able to speak up for himself as to what happened. But agents are allowed to use deadly force when being confronted with rock throwing. And that seems to be what happened here.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And how is the Border Patrol justifying its rejection of a recommendation of its own inspector general on its policies for shootings of unarmed migrants?
JOHN CARLOS FREY: If you take a look at the recommendations, they’re actually quite sane. PERF, which is the think tank, the Police Executive Research Forum, it’s a group of law enforcement officers, professionals, who recommended to U.S. Border Patrol agents not necessarily to take away any sort of use of force when confronted with rock throwers, but to tamp it down, to de-escalate the situation, to move from the area, to actually physically move from the region where rocks are being thrown, or to take cover or to use nonlethal force. Those were the recommendations by PERF, and Border Patrol decided to deny all of those. They would like to still be able to use deadly force.
They claim in the past 10 years there have been about 6,000 confrontations with rock throwers. But there never has been an agent killed by rock throwers, so the use of deadly force seems a bit excessive, if agents themselves have never been killed by rocks. If you go to any major law enforcement agency in the country, in the United States, killing or shooting rock throwers, using guns to shoot rock throwers, would be forbidden by police agencies across the country. So it’s interesting that Border Patrol claim that it’s a necessity for them.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting also that this is taking place against the backdrop of the Tres Amigos summit in Mexico with Canadian, Mexican and American leaders. The three North American leaders expected to announce an easing of border controls for corporate executives, and yet at the same time you have this killing of a migrant on the border. John Carlos?
JOHN CARLOS FREY: Yeah, it’s interesting also, too, the circumstances under which these happen. I’m not denying that Border Patrol agents have a dangerous job and that they need to at times possibly use their weapons, but it always seems when the conditions or when the details are suspicious, Border Patrol agents can claim rock throwing, rock throwing in any circumstances. I’m actually in Tucson right now taking a deeper look into a 16-year-old who was killed about a year and a half ago, shot 10 times in the back by a Border Patrol agent for allegedly throwing rocks. And if you go to the area where this young man was killed, it’s next to impossible for him to have been able to throw a rock. He would have had to have thrown it through an almost impenetrable border fence.
So, you know, these claims of rock throwing and being able to fire weapons are not policies that the United States actually supports in other zones around the world. Israel and Palestine, we’ve brokered deals between those two countries where Israeli troops are asked to fire rubber bullets as opposed to lethal weapons. So, we’re not really abiding by our own policies across the globe, but for some reason we can do that here at the United States-Mexico border.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask you, this summit, the impact in Mexico and on the government of Enrique Peña Nieto, that—the failure to move immigration reform here in the United States, what impact that’s having in Mexico?
JOHN CARLOS FREY: I think it’s—you know, we expect Mexico to be our partner. We expect Mexico to be a friend and a neighbor, our third-largest trading partner. But there seems to be a push against Mexicans themselves coming to the United States. I hate to sort of claim racial bias here, but I believe that if immigration reform was about a different country or a different group of people, we might be able to move it forward. There really is sort of a bias against Spanish-speaking or brown people coming to the United States. There seems to be a xenophobia or a perceived threat that these people are going to be taking over with their culture, with their language. So, especially along the Southwest is where I see it the most. We have a fortified militarized zone here, where we have drones flying over. We have 700 to 800 miles of border fence. We have a military-style equipment and footing where we’re actually now shooting people actually in Mexico, shooting across the border. So there’s this real perceived pushback against Mexico. And I think trying to find a way to alleviate this less-than-neighborly policy is where we really need to start, before immigration reform is even a possibility. If Mexico is considered criminal, it’s going to be really difficult for Congress to even grant any sort of legal status.
AMY GOODMAN: John Carlos Frey, we want to thank you for being with us and for all your work as an investigative reporter who has long reported on immigration, and more recently on the killings of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Thanks so much for being with us—
JOHN CARLOS FREY: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: —joining us from Tucson.
-------
Democracy Now! Celebrates 18 Years On Air
Eighteen years ago, on February 19, 1996, Democracy Now! aired for the first time. We began as a daily election-year show on Pacifica Radio and a handful of community radio stations. Democracy Now! was supposed to stay on the air for nine months. However, 18 years later, we are now a TV, radio and Internet news hour that millions of people worldwide rely on every day. We air a clip of that first episode before co-hosts Amy Goodman and Juan González are surprised with a birthday cake live on-air.
To celebrate our 18th birthday, we are asking our listeners and viewers to submit a photo or video that describes why Democracy Now! is important to you, starting with "I need Democracy Now! because…" Take a picture of yourself holding a sign or shoot a 30-second or shorter video telling us your name, where you live and why you tune in to Democracy Now! Click here to submit your photo or video. We’ll highlight our favorites online, live on air, or on our social media networks.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: As we wrap up today, on this day, 18 years ago—actually yesterday, on February 19th, but 1996, that was the day when Democracy Now! first aired for the first time. If you were tuning in then, this is what you would have heard.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! From Pacifica Radio, I’m Amy Goodman in Washington. Today on Democracy Now!, Live Free or Die: a look at the political landscape in New Hampshire, where the Republican Revolution has taken its toll. All coming up on Democracy Now!
Today is President’s Day, and tomorrow is the New Hampshire primary. Welcome to the maiden voyage of Democracy Now!, Pacifica’s daily national election show. Greetings to our audiences in California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Washington state, Kansas City and Colorado. In this election year, we’re embarking on a nine-month journey through the country and hope to pick up community radio stations in many more states as we go, as we give voice to the grassroots.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: From nine months to 18 years. Well, to celebrate our birthday, we’ve launched a social media campaign where we’re asking people to tell us, "I need Democracy Now! because..." with a photo or video. People can submit their photo/videos at democracynow.org/because. We are using the hashtag #democracynowbecause.
AMY GOODMAN: "Because."
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: "Because." And many people have already sent us videos, including these two.
STEVE: I’m Steve. I’m a musician living in Germany, and I need Democracy Now! because the world needs Democracy Now!, and democracy needs information, and Democracy Now! is a wonderful source of information, and I’m thankful for that. And when I play music, I usually wear one of my Democracy Now! T-shirts. So, thank you, Democracy Now!
LAURIE CHARNIGO: Happy birthday, Democracy Now! I am Laurie Charnigo, a librarian in rural Alabama, and I’d like to thank Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman and crew, for bringing us progressive stories that would otherwise fall through the corporate media cracks. We need you in Alabama definitely. So keep up the good work. Happy birthday. Peace.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank everyone who has made this birthday, this 18th anniversary, possible. And thanks to all the folks all over the world who are sending in photographs and videos. Again, you can go to democracynow.org/because, and you can send us what it is that you want to tell us about Democracy Now! Juan, you were there at the very beginning.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You know, it’s hard to believe it’s been 18 years, Amy, and I think of all of the tremendous journalists and producers that have started their careers or passed through with their careers here. I’m thinking of Jeremy Scahill and Yoruba Richen and Lenina Nadal and so many others who have been—
AMY GOODMAN: David Love.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —who have been with us—David Love.
AMY GOODMAN: And María Carrión.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So many of them have been here—
AMY GOODMAN: Dan Coughlin.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —and moved on—and Dan Couglin—who have moved on and done such great things. But the time they spent here made this show the rich and powerful show it has become.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, folks, you are the oxygen that makes Democracy Now! continue. And speaking of oxygen, Juan, we’ve got some candles to blow out.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Oh, ready? One, two...
AMY GOODMAN: Happy birthday, everyone. Thank you for making this day possible.
-------
Silencing the Scientist: Tyrone Hayes on Being Targeted by Herbicide Firm Syngenta
We speak with scientist Tyrone Hayes of the University of California, Berkeley, who discovered a widely used herbicide may have harmful effects on the endocrine system. But when he tried to publish the results, the chemical’s manufacturer launched a campaign to discredit his work. Hayes was first hired in 1997 by a company, which later became agribusiness giant Syngenta, to study their product, atrazine, a pesticide that is applied to more than half the corn crops in the United States, and widely used on golf courses and Christmas tree farms. When Hayes found results Syngenta did not expect — that atrazine causes sexual abnormalities in frogs, and could cause the same problems for humans — it refused to allow him to publish his findings. A new article in The New Yorker magazine uses court documents from a class action lawsuit against Syngenta to show how it sought to smear Hayes’ reputation and prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from banning the profitable chemical, which is already banned by the European Union.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now we turn to the story of a University of California scientist who discovered that a popular herbicide may have harmful effects on the endocrine system. Tyrone Hayes was first hired in 1997 by a company that later became agribusiness giant Syngenta. They asked him to study their product, atrazine, a pesticide that is applied to more than half the corn crops in the United States and widely used on golf courses and Christmas tree farms. But after Hayes found results that the manufacturer did not expect, that atrazine causes sexual abnormalities in frogs and could cause the same problems for humans, Syngenta refused to allow him to publish his work. This was the the start of an epic feud between the scientist and the corporation.
AMY GOODMAN: Now a new article in The New Yorker magazine uses court documents from a class action lawsuit against Syngenta to show how it sought to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from banning the profitable chemical, which is already banned by the European Union. To start with, the company’s public relations team drafted a list of four goals. Reporter Rachel Aviv writes, quote, "The first was [quote] 'discredit Hayes.' In a spiral-bound notebook, Syngenta’s communications manager, Sherry Ford, who referred to Hayes by his initials, wrote that the company could 'prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as noncredible.' He was a frequent topic of conversation at company meetings. Syngenta looked for ways to 'exploit Hayes' faults/problems.’ 'If TH involved in scandal, enviros will drop him,' Ford wrote."
Well, for more, we’re joined by TH himself. That’s right, Tyrone Hayes is with us, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, joining us from the campus TV station right now in Berkeley.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you tell us what happened to you, how you were originally tied to Syngenta, the research you did, and what prevented you from originally publishing it?
TYRONE HAYES: Well, here at Berkeley, I was a new assistant professor. I was already studying the effects of hormones and the effects of chemicals that interfere with hormones on amphibian development. And I was approached by the manufacturer and asked to study the effects of atrazine, the herbicide, on frogs. And after I discovered that it interfered with male development and caused males to turn into females, to develop eggs, the company tried to prevent me from publishing and from discussing that work with other scientists outside of their panel.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What was the process within the company? As you raised your findings, what was their immediate reaction to what you had come across?
TYRONE HAYES: Well, initially they seemed sort of supportive. You know, we designed more studies. We designed more analysis. And they encouraged me to do more analysis. But as the further analysis just supported the original finding, they became less interested in moving forward very quickly, and eventually they moved to asking me to manipulate data or to misrepresent data, and ultimately they told me I could not publish or could not talk about the data outside of their closed panel.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Professor Hayes, talk about exactly what you found. What were the abnormalities you found in frogs, the gender-bending nature of this drug atrazine?
TYRONE HAYES: Well, initially, we found that the larynx, or the voice box, in exposed males didn’t grow properly. And this was an indication that the male hormone testosterone was not being produced at appropriate levels. And eventually we found that not only were these males demasculinized, or chemically castrated, but they also were starting to develop ovaries or starting to develop eggs. And eventually we discovered that these males didn’t breed properly, that some of the males actually completely turned into females. So we had genetic males that were laying eggs and reproducing as females. And now we’re starting to show that some of these males actually show, I guess what we’d call homosexual behavior. They actually prefer to mate with other males.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, where did you go with your research?
TYRONE HAYES: Well, eventually, what happened was the EPA insisted that—the Environmental Protection Agency insisted that the manufacturer release me from the confidentiality contract. And we published our findings in pretty high-ranking journals, such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. We published some work in Nature. We published work in Environmental Health Perspectives, which is a journal sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when did you begin to get a sense that the company was organizing a campaign against you? What were the signs that you saw post the period when you published your findings?
TYRONE HAYES: Before we published the findings and before the EPA became involved, the company tried to purchase the data. They tried to give me a new contract so that they would then control the data and the experiments. They actually tried to get me to come and visit the company to get control of those data. And when I refused, I invited them to the university, I offered to share data, but they wanted to purchase the data. And then they actually—as mentioned in the New Yorker article, they actually hired scientists to try to refute the data or to pick apart the data, and eventually they hired scientists to do experiments that they claim refuted our data.
And then that escalated to the company actually—Tim Pastoor, in particular, and others from the company—coming to presentations that—or lectures that I was giving, to make handouts or to stand up and refute the data, and eventually even led to things like threats of violence. Tim Pastoor, for example, before I would give a talk, would literally threaten, whisper in my ear that he could have me lynched, or he would—quote, said he would "send some of his good ol’ boys to show me what it’s like to be gay," or at one point he threatened my wife and my daughter with sexual violence. He would whisper things like, "Your wife’s at home alone right now. How do you know I haven’t sent somebody there to take care of her? Isn’t your daughter there?" So, eventually, it really slipped into some, you know, pretty scary tactics.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what did you do? I mean, you’re actually—I mean, this is very serious. You could bring criminal charges if you’re being threatened and stalked in this way.
TYRONE HAYES: Well, initially, I went to my vice chancellor here at the university. I went to my dean. I went to legal counsel here at the university. And I was told by legal counsel that—well, I was told, first of all, by the vice chancellor for research at the time that, "Well, you published the work. It’s over. So I don’t understand what the problem is." And I tried to impress upon her, Beth Burnside, at the time that—you know, that it wasn’t over, that I was really being pursued by the manufacturer. And eventually, when I spoke with the lawyer here at the University, I was told that, "Well, I represent the university, and I protect the university from liability. You’re kind of on your own." And I remember I looked at him, and I said, "But the very university, from the Latin universitas, is a collection of scholars, of teachers and students, so who is this entity, the university, that you represent that doesn’t include me?" But clearly there’s some entity that doesn’t really include us, the professors and students, and doesn’t really protect our academic freedom, I think, the way that it should.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you about one of your critics, Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health. When The New York Times ran a critical story about the herbicide as part of its toxic water series in 2009, she referred to its reporting as, quote, "all the news that’s fit to scare." This is a clip of Whelan from an interview on MSNBC.
ELIZABETH WHELAN: I very much disagree with the New York Times story, which is really raising concerns about a totally bogus risk. Atrazine has been used for more than 50 years. It’s very, very tightly regulated. Even the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not known for soft-pedaling about environmental chemicals, even they say it’s safe.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, it turns out that Syngenta has been a long-term financial supporter of Whelan’s organization, the American Council on Science and Health, paying them at least $100,000. Your comments on her remarks?
TYRONE HAYES: Well, again, they’re paid remarks. And one of the most disheartening things in this whole process is that many of my critics—you know, it’s one to be academic, if you come and say, "Well, we interpreted the data this way, and we want to argue about this point," but these people really didn’t even have an opinion. These opinions were written by the manufacturer, and they were paid to put their names on them, to endorse the opinions of the manufacturer. So, you know, that’s one of the most disheartening things, that they were really just personalities for sale.
And many of the things that she’s saying there is just not true. There are—any independent study, from any scientist that’s not funded by Syngenta, has found similar problems with atrazine, not just my work on frogs. But I’ve just published a paper with 22 scientists from around the world, from 12 different countries, who have shown that atrazine causes sexual problems in mammals, that atrazine causes sexual problems in birds, amphibians, fish. So it’s not just my work in amphibians.
And also, with regards to the EPA, one of the scientific advisory panel members on the EPA that was supposed to review atrazine turns out is paid and works for Syngenta. So the whole process was tainted. And, in fact, the EPA ignored the scientific advisory panel’s opinion and actually decided to keep atrazine on the market and not to do any more studies, when that clearly wasn’t the recommendation of the scientific advisory panel.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to go back just a second to your remarks about your university, because obviously there are many questions about major universities around the country being, in some way or other, supported financially by the pharmaceutical or the drug industry. But you are at a prestigious university, one of the top universities in the country, at Berkeley. Do you have some concerns about how your university responded to your—in your time of need, and the attack on your academic integrity?
TYRONE HAYES: Well, they’re not just my concerns. There are many at the university who fear that the university is just becoming a corporation. You know, we’re a public university that used to get a lot more support from the state. In my lifetime, tuition was free for students. Tuition has been rising. And it’s really an effort to monetize things, and that includes scientific researchers. There’s a lot of pressure on us not just to be scholars and to teach and to do research, but also to bring in funds that will support the university. So there’s some sentiment from the university that if you are raising a concern potentially that might cause the university to lose support or to lose funders, then you won’t necessarily get the support on the campus that you need. And we’ve seen this over and over again. A colleague of mine, Ignacio Chapela, for example, was in a fairly huge battle over the same company, Novartis, and its influences over scientific research at the university.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of Syngenta? First of all, is it a significant presence at the university, at UC Berkeley? But also, the significance of Syngenta as a pesticide company and all that it makes, how powerful is it?
TYRONE HAYES: Well, when they were—when I was originally consulting for the manufacturer, they were Novartis at the time. And Novartis had a big influence on the campus. There was a major deal on the campus. I understand a fifth of the biological sciences’ support was coming from Novartis. And at the time, they both made pesticides, and they made pharmaceuticals.
One of my big concerns is that, as of the year 2000—prior to the year 2000, Novartis not only made atrazine, which is used on corn, of course, which is an herbicide, but it also induces an enzyme called aromatase. It causes you to make too much estrogen. And it’s now been shown that this herbicide, atrazine, and this mechanism, is potentially involved in development of breast cancer, for example. Up until 2000, the company also made a chemical called letrozole, which did exactly the opposite: It blocked aromatase, it blocked this enzyme, it blocked estrogen production. And this chemical, letrozole, is the number one treatment for breast cancer. So this company was simultaneously in 2000 making a chemical that induced estrogen and promoted breast cancer, and making a chemical that blocked estrogen production and was being used to treat breast cancer. So there’s a clear conflict of interest there, a clear problem.
The other problems are that something like 90 percent of the seeds that we use to produce our food right now are owned by the big six pesticide companies. So, again, there’s a conflict of interest where the companies have an interest in, I guess, getting us addicted to the pesticides, to grow the seeds that they also own. And Syngenta, of course, is one of those big six, one of the big pesticide or agribusiness companies.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And a New Yorker that delves into your story also says that you came to find out that the company was also reading your emails. Could you talk about that?
TYRONE HAYES: Well, I originally—I had some suspicion that they had hacked into my email. And originally found out—there was a professor at Minnesota, and I was going there to give a big lecture, and this professor in the School of Public Health, Deb Dubenofsky, said that she happened to be standing in line at the airport, flying back to Minnesota, and just by coincidence she was standing behind somebody who was having a conversation on his cellphone and who identified himself as an employee of Syngenta, and he made the statement, "We have access to his email. We know where he is at all times." So it wasn’t just paranoia on my part. I had direct evidence that they had access to my email. And at the time, I maintained a second and a third email that I could keep private, and I actually used that information, that they had access to my email, to send them information, and sometimes false information—for example, booking plane tickets through that email, because then I could sent them to the wrong place, so they wouldn’t necessarily be there to follow me when I was going to speak in other places.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, Professor Hayes, this is stunning stuff that came out in this class action suit. The suit wasn’t brought by you, but the documents that came out that referenced you, Tyrone Hayes, TH, and trying to discredit you, trying to discredit your family, talk—that was a lawsuit that involved atrazine contaminating water supplies.
TYRONE HAYES: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: But what was your reaction when you saw this? You suspected this. You felt you were being followed. You felt you were—they were trying to discredit you. But now you had the documents.
TYRONE HAYES: Well, you know, it’s funny. You know, the way the article reads, that I suspected—I mean, I knew. I knew Tim Pastoor. I knew Sherry Ford. I knew many of the individuals who would follow me around. I knew who they were. I knew they had access to my email. You know, so, for me, I knew that these things were happening. This guy would directly come up and make lewd comments to me and threatening comments to me. But it was the kind of thing where, you know, it sounded like something out of a movie. I couldn’t go and tell my colleagues, like, "They’re following me around, and, you know, they’re hacking into my email"—
AMY GOODMAN: Did you record?
TYRONE HAYES: —because I would look crazy.
AMY GOODMAN: Did you put on a tape recorder?
TYRONE HAYES: You know, what I found—here’s how I’ll answer that question. What I found out, that it was much more powerful for me to suggest and have them think that I recorded everything than for them to actually know what I recorded. And that actually became sort of my protection. So, when this guy came up and threatened me and threatened my wife, to then go back and go, "Oh, my god, did he record that or not?" So, it was much more powerful for me to have them think that. But you can see in their handwritten notes that they were very concerned that I was recording conversations. There’s notes that they wanted to trap me, to entice me to sue, and these kinds of things.
And my reaction now, to see it all in The New Yorker and for—you know, all this open for the world to see, is—there are two reactions. One is, I can’t believe they wrote these kinds of things down, right? That you’re plotting to, you know, investigate me and investigate my school and investigate my hometown and all these kinds of things, and you wrote it down. But my other response is, this is quite analogous to, you know, when you hear these stories of somebody who’s been in jail for murder for 10 years, and then the DNA evidence gets them out, you know, and you ask them, "Are you happy?" Well, of course I’m happy, but I’ve also been in jail for 10 years. You know what I mean? So, of course I’m happy now that these documents have all been revealed, but it’s also been a very difficult time for me for the last—and for my family, you know, for the last 10 or 15 years, for my students, as well, for the last 10 or 15 years, to be pursued this way and to be under a microscope this way and to feel threatened this way for so long.
AMY GOODMAN: As we wrap up, what’s happening with atrazine today? Where does it stand?
TYRONE HAYES: It’s still on the market. We’re still studying it. A number of studies are still coming out from around the world. One recent study has shown that male babies that are exposed in utero to atrazine, their genitals don’t develop properly. Their penis doesn’t develop properly, or they get microphallus. There are studies showing that sperm count goes down when you’re exposed to atrazine. And this is not just laboratory animals or animals in the wild; this is also humans. We use the same hormones that animals do for our reproduction. And it’s a big threat to environmental health and public health.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, Tyrone Hayes, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who’s devoted the past 15 years to studying atrazine, a widely used herbicide made by Syngenta. We’ll link to the article in The New Yorker magazine that reveals how the company tried to discredit Professor Hayes after his research showed atrazine causes sexual abnormalities in frogs and could cause the same problems for humans. The article is called "A Valuable Reputation: After Tyrone Hayes Said That a Chemical was Harmful, Its Maker Pursued Him." This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
-------
The Shadow Lobbying Complex: How Corporations Are Hiding Vast Influence Peddling Efforts
A new exposé in The Nation magazine reveals that much of the lobbying money spent on shaping policy in Washington is going unreported. For the third straight year, the official amount spent by lobbyists has declined, and the number of registered lobbyists is the lowest it’s been in more than a decade. But these numbers are misleading, says reporter Lee Fang, author of the "The Shadow Lobbying Complex: On paper, influence peddling has declined. In reality, it has gone underground."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We end today’s show with a look at how much of the lobbying money spent on shaping policy in Washington is going unreported. For the third straight year, the official amount spent by lobbyists has declined, and the number of registered lobbyists is the lowest it’s been in more than a decade.
AMY GOODMAN: But a new cover story in The Nation magazine reveals how these numbers are misleading. It’s headlined "The Shadow Lobbying Complex: On Paper, Influence Peddling Has Declined. In Reality, It Has Gone Underground."
For more, we go to San Francisco, where we’re joined by its author, Lee Fang, reporting fellow with the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Lee. Just lay out just what this is, the shadow lobbying complex.
LEE FANG: Good morning. My new story for The Nation looks into federal lobbying laws and the state of American lobbying. As you mentioned, on paper, the lobbying industry is decreasing. The number of registered lobbyists are shrinking. The amount spent is going down precipitously every year. But in reality, the influence industry, as it’s known, is growing very quickly. It’s becoming more sophisticated. Companies are spending more and more to influence policy. And in many ways, corporations are extending their reach and hiring as many lobbyists as they can as this industry grows.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, when President Obama was campaigning in 2008 and he came into office, he declared a virtual war, supposedly, on lobbyists, had an executive order banning lobbyists from his administration. Has that had anything to do with these lobbyists attempting now to go underground in terms of how they spend their money and how they influence legislation?
LEE FANG: That’s right. And this is one of the big ironies of the Obama administration. President Obama campaigned vigorously in 2008 against the influence and the outsized influence of corporate lobbyists in American politics. He promised to drain the swamp and to come into office and enact stronger ethics reforms. But the only real enforcement or official action that he took was an executive order right when he got into office to not allow registered lobbyists into his administration. The catch was, many lobbyists simply de-registered, pushing the system more into the shadows, more into the darkness, and leading to where we are today. And the administration, at the same time, started issuing exemptions to still allow registered lobbyists into the Obama administration. So, little has changed. If anything, Obama’s only action on lobbying has made the system worse.
AMY GOODMAN: Lee Fang, you encountered Zach Wamp, a former Republican politician, telling members of Congress he manages operations for Palantir, a controversial big data company that does work for intelligence agencies. I want to play a clip of the video of you questioning him about the scandals associated with the firm, which include allegations that they spied on activists. This is a clip of your encounter.
LEE FANG: Former Congressman, can I ask you, what are you doing now for Palantir?
ZACH WAMP: What am I doing for Palantir?
LEE FANG: Yeah.
ZACH WAMP: What do you know about Palantir?
LEE FANG: I just heard you say you’re working for Palantir a couple days a week.
ZACH WAMP: No, a couple days a month.
LEE FANG: Couple days a month. How’s that going?
ZACH WAMP: It’s going great. It’s a great Silicon Valley-based company that does a lot of private sector solutions that now the—have a lot of government applications on the intelligence side—big data—saving the government a lot of money. So I’m kind of overseeing their operations up here.
LEE FANG: Have you followed the story that they were also working for some private interests, like the U.S. Chamber, to develop a domestic spying program on liberals?
ZACH WAMP: I don’t know anything about that.
LEE FANG: Do you think there’s any type of civil liberty problem with these big data firms that are working for spy—or intelligence—agencies, then using that same technology in the private sector?
ZACH WAMP: I know nothing about that, so [inaudible].
LEE FANG: OK. May I ask you how much they’re paying you?
ZACH WAMP: No, it’s a private [inaudible].
LEE FANG: I know. I’m just curious.
ZACH WAMP: I don’t know anything about what you’re talking about.
LEE FANG: All right. Thank you, Congressman.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Zach Wamp, the former Tennessee Republican congressman, speaking with our guest today, Lee Fang. Talk about the significance—it was a little hard to hear—of what you were saying and he was saying about Palantir. And can you talk about spying on activists, on unions?
LEE FANG: Right. Zach Wamp is a former Republican congressman from Tennessee, and like dozens of former congressmen and senators who have promised not to become lobbyists, Wamp left Congress and said he would start a business development firm, that he would not engage in lobbying, that he’s going back to Chattanooga, Tennessee. But as this video shows, I found Wamp on Capitol Hill talking to current members of Congress about Palantir. And as I talked to Wamp after his discussion with lawmakers, he said that he’s overseeing Palantir’s operation on Capitol Hill.
Now, Palantir is a very controversial company who’s backed by the CIA, a lot of venture capitalists here in the Silicon Valley area. And it works for intelligence agencies to synthesize large amounts of data. And there was a large—there was a scandal in 2011 that I helped break when I was at ThinkProgress. Palantir and two other defense contractors created a proposal for the United States Chamber of Commerce to develop a domestic spying program, using the same government-backed technology to spy on unions, on different labor activists and progressive media outlets. It’s not clear exactly how far that proposal went, but they did start gathering intelligence on all types of different left-of-center organizations and individuals.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I want to ask you a little bit more about this morphing of the lobbyists into other forms of influence peddling. For instance, the American League of Lobbyists actually changed its name; they rebranded themselves as the Government Relations Professionals. This reminds me a little bit of United Fruit Company changing its name to Chiquita. This rebranding of these lobbyists, what other examples do you have of how they continue to do influence peddling under another name?
LEE FANG: That’s right. You know, I think if you look at the polls, and if you actually listen to some of these seminars from the large lobbying organizations and firms, they understand that the American public is incredibly upset with the level of big money in politics, of the influence of lobbying in politics. And they’ve adapted by this, not by reforming, not by changing their behavior or using better reporting standards; they’re simply massaging their image, and they’re de-registering. So, this example of changing the name from League of Lobbyists to Association of Government Affairs Officials—Professionals, excuse me—is emblematic of that. Many big firms, instead of calling their lobbying staff "lobbyists," they’re calling them public affairs directors, government affairs associates, other euphemisms, but it’s largely a smokescreen for the exact same type of behavior that’s gone on for a very long time.
AMY GOODMAN: Lee, we only have 30 seconds. You have so many amazing examples in your piece, "The Shadow Lobbying Complex." Bangladesh and TPP, if you can talk about them very quickly?
LEE FANG: These two very big, controversial issues are another area where corporations are spending tens of millions of dollars that are not being reported on lobbying disclosure forms. No one really knows where the money is coming from, but large firms are hoping to impact both the situation in Bangladesh and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, again, using these public affairs or government affairs officials to peddle influence without disclosure.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Lee Fang, we want to thank you for being with us. The new cover story at The Nation is called "The Shadow Lobbying Complex: On Paper, Influence Peddling Has Declined. In Reality, It Has Gone Underground." We’ll link to it at democracynow.org.
And that does it for our broadcast and our 18th anniversary week. Again, send us your thoughts. Go to our website at democracynow.org. We look for photos. We look for videos.
-------
Turning a Wedding Into a Funeral: U.S. Drone Strike in Yemen Killed as Many as 12 Civilians
Human Rights Watch has revealed as many as 12 civilians were killed in December when a U.S. drone targeted vehicles that were part of a wedding procession going toward the groom’s village outside the central Yemeni city of Rad’a. According to HRW, "some, if not all those killed and wounded were civilians" and not members of the armed group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as U.S. and Yemeni government officials initially claimed. The report concluded that the attack killed 12 men, between the ages of 20 and 65, and wounded 15 others. It cites accounts from survivors, relatives of the dead, local officials and news media reports. We speak to Human Rights Watch researcher Letta Tayler, who wrote the report, "A Wedding That Became a Funeral: US Drone Attack on Marriage Procession in Yemen," and Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of the TheIntercept.org, a new digital magazine published by First Look Media. He is the producer and writer of the documentary film, "Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield," which is nominated for an Academy Award.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A new report has revealed that a U.S. drone strike that killed at least a dozen people in Yemen in December failed to comply with rules imposed by President Obama last year to protect civilians. The strike was carried out by the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command and targeted vehicles that were part of a wedding procession going towards the groom’s village outside the central Yemeni city of Rad’a. According to the Human Rights Watch investigation, quote, "some, if not all those killed and wounded were civilians" and not members of the armed group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as U.S. and Yemeni government officials initially claimed. The report concluded that the attack killed 12 men between the ages of 20 and 65 and wounded 15 others. It cites accounts from survivors, relatives of the dead, local officials and news media reports.
One of the witnesses Human Rights Watch interviewed in Yemen was Abdullah Muhammad al-Tisi of Yakla. He described the scene on the day the wedding procession was attacked on December 12, 2013. His son, Ali Abdullah Muhammad al-Tisi, was killed in that drone strike.
ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD AL-TISI: [translated] We were having a traditional marriage ceremony. According to our traditions, the whole tribe has to go to the bride’s tribe. We were in about 12 to 15 cars with 60 to 70 men on board. He had lunch at the bride’s village at Al Abu Saraimah. Then we left to head back to the groom’s village.
A drone was hovering overhead all morning. There were one or two of them. One of the missiles hit the car. The car was totally burned. Four other cars were also struck. When we stopped, we heard the drone fire. Blood was everywhere, and the people killed and injured were scattered everywhere. The area was full of blood, dead bodies and injured people. I was injured. I saw the missile hit the vehicle behind the car my son was driving.
INTERVIEWER: [translated] Was it your car?
ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD AL-TISI: [translated] It was my own car. I went there to check on my son. I found his body thrown from the car. I turned him over, and he was dead. He was already dead.
I didn’t see any al-Qaeda militants in the procession, and no one from the area is a member of al-Qaeda. The Yemeni government gave us 100 Kalashnikovs and 34 million Yemeni rials, nearly $159,000 U.S., according to tribal tradition. According to tribal tradition, this alone is an admission of guilt, and the money was an admission of guilt. The money was for the burial of the dead and the treatment of the injured. The U.S. government made a big mistake. They killed innocent people. This was a serious crime. They turned many kids into orphans, many wives into widows. Many were killed, and many others were injured, although everyone was innocent.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Abdullah Muhammad al-Tisi talking about the U.S. drone strike in December that killed his son. All of this comes as the White House is reportedly considering using a drone to kill a U.S. citizen living in Pakistan who’s allegedly affiliated with al-Qaeda.
For more, we’re joined right now by Letta Tayler, senior researcher on terrorism and counterterrorism at Human Rights Watch. She wrote the new report titled "A Wedding That Became a Funeral: US Drone Attack on Marriage Procession in Yemen."
We’re also joined by Democracy Now! video stream by Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of TheIntercept.org, as well as the producer of and the co-writer of the documentary that’s been nominated for an Oscar, Dirty Wars.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Letta, you just recently came back from Yemen, came out with this report. Talk about its findings.
LETTA TAYLER: Well, it’s a pleasure to be here.
What we found is that this strike on a wedding convoy in Yemen killed 12 people, injured 15, including the bride, who received a superficial face wound. And we have serious concerns that the strike not only may have violated international law, but also flies in the face of President Obama’s policies on targeted killings. The president has said the U.S. does not strike unless it has near certainty that no civilians were killed, yet the evidence strongly suggests that at least some of those killed in this strike, and possibly all of them, were civilians.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, could you talk to us about what your research involved in producing the report? And also, you seem to have found contradictions between what national Yemeni officials were saying and what local provincial or officials closer to the ground were saying.
LETTA TAYLER: Yes, indeed, there are a mind-boggling array of on, off and on-the-record comments about this strike, which really underscores the urgent need for the United States to come clean on what exactly happened. I researched this strike in Yemen. This is my seventh or eighth trip to Yemen in recent years, many of those trips to look at this particular issue of targeted killings. I met with relatives and family members there, as well as government officials, academics, journalists and so forth. The most compelling testimony, of course, was from the family members—as you’ve seen in the video, men holding tattered ID cards of their loved ones, in some cases the only remaining item that they had of these people who died, and saying to me, "Explain to me, explain to me why did the U.S. kill my son, why did the U.S. kill my nephew." Even the—even the son of the groom from a previous marriage was killed in this strike. And these Yemenis deserve answers from the United States as to what happened.
AMY GOODMAN: What has the U.S. said?
LETTA TAYLER: The U.S. has responded to my report in a fashion that I find disappointing and disconcerting. We are getting more of the same obfuscation. We’re getting more off-the-record comments to media that, yes, this strike did hit, that the targets of the strike were militants. But where is the evidence? Show us the proof. Show us the findings of your reports. If indeed militants were killed, let us judge the facts. Let us see if you’re complying with law and with your own policy.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, the government did claim that there was a particular militant that they were looking to kill, but then his name did not appear in the list of the dead, right?
LETTA TAYLER: Yes, Shawqi al-Badani. He was not among the 12 names that were given to me, the 12 bodies that were identified by relatives as well as other media in Yemen. And indeed, the relatives I spoke to said they never heard of this man.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill, in Dirty Wars, you go to Yemen. You investigate a number of drone strikes. Talk about how this one fits in, the December attack that is now—we’re talking about, of the Human Rights Watch report.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, first of all, I mean, what I think is really key here that Letta and the team at Human Rights Watch have really zeroed in on is that when there are—when there’s these strikes and civilians are killed, the Obama administration has stated that they do a review, that they do an investigation. And indeed, these anonymous officials have been saying to major media outlets that they did an internal investigation and that the Department of Defense determined that the individuals that were killed were in fact legitimate combatants. And yet, those reports are never made public.
In the cases that I’ve investigated in Yemen, one of which was the al-Majalah bombing that you referenced, it was the first time that we know of that President Obama authorized a military-style attack inside of Yemen. And that wasn’t a drone attack; it was actually a cruise missile attack. And it killed three dozen—more than three dozen people, the overwhelming majority of whom were women and children. There supposedly was an internal investigation into that, and yet the White House won’t release it. The Pentagon will not release these investigations that they do. In the case of the drone bombings of Anwar Awlaki, an American citizen, and then his 16-year-old son two weeks later in a separate drone strike, again they said that there was an internal investigation into the killing of this boy. The findings of it are not released.
And what we’re seeing right now, and we’ve talked about this a lot on the show, boils down to the Obama administration trying to wage what it perceives—what it believes is, you know, pre-emptive war or preventative strikes, where they’re killing people that they think may one day pose a threat, or they may have picked up chatter that they’ve been discussing some kind of a plot. And there’s no—not even a sort of vague idea that we should have any kind of a law enforcement approach to the crime of terrorism anymore. They’re just zapping people, you know, in acts of precrime. The idea of judicial process or legal process has been replaced by the National Security Agency tracking the metadata of individuals in various countries, building profiles of where—what telephones are in contact with other telephones, where particular SIM cards have been physically or geographically. And then you have a secret process in the White House on these so-called Terror Tuesday meetings where officials essentially condemn the users of these SIM cards or phones to death, and then President Obama signs off, and the drone serves as the executioner. That’s basically the judicial process that the U.S. now offers to people who are actually not even accused of the crime of terrorism, just perceived by the White House to be involved with it.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Jeremy, you’ve mentioned President Obama’s direct involvement in—of this. I want to turn to him speaking about drone strikes during the first major counterterrorism address of his second term. His comments came one day after Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed U.S. drone strikes had killed four American citizens in Yemen and Pakistan.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: And before any strike is taken, there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set. Yes, the conflict with al-Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Obama. Letta?
LETTA TAYLER: I wanted to point out one thing in this speech. He said, "We’re targeting those who want to get us, not those they hide among." There is one theory about this December 12th strike on the wedding convoy, that members of AQAP, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based group, may have infiltrated the convoy. If this is true—and I have no idea that it is; we have no evidence one way or the other that AQAP was actually in this convoy, but let’s assume for the moment that this might be correct—that shielding—it’s called human shielding—for AQAP to go into the convoy, would not excuse or exonerate the—excuse the—would not give the United States the right to attack that convoy. The United States as an attacking force always has to distinguish between civilians and combatants. And by combatants, I mean lawful targets. We have a lot of questions as to whether many of the people being killed who the U.S. considers militants are actually lawful targets. So, even if AQAP was hiding among these forces, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that that strike was lawful.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Letta Tayler, Human Rights Watch senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, who just came out with this report, "A Wedding That Became a Funeral: US Drone Attack on Marriage Procession in Yemen." What are the implications of this report? And what has the U.S. said to you? Have other countries gotten in touch with you?
LETTA TAYLER: Well, the implications of this report are first that we’re still operating in a vast accountability vacuum. The United States is saying, "Trust us," yet they’re not giving us any information that would allow us to trust them. And this sets a very—not only does this mean that the U.S. may well be violating international law and President Obama’s own policy, but it sets a very dangerous precedent for countries around the world. I don’t find it surprising that journalists from Russia and China call us, frequently, when we come out with a report like this, because there are many leaders in many countries who are very happy to see the U.S. pave the way for taking out people without any justification, anytime, anywhere, and simply calling them terrorists or threats to national security.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jeremy, have we seen any movement at all on the part of the administration, given all of the—all of the publicity that has come out about these strikes now, or even in terms of Congress attempting to rein in the policies of the administration?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I mean, Congress is almost entirely asleep at the wheel when it comes to oversight or raising serious questions about the drone program or the assassination policy in general. I mean, the most vocal critics of this program, who have raised some of the essential questions, are people like Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who on many issues really sounds like a raving lunatic, but on this particular issue, when he filibustered the nomination of John Brennan, who really was the drone czar of the Obama administration’s first term, Rand Paul read into the congressional record human rights reports, media reports about civilians killed. It was the first time that there was discussion on the floor of the U.S. Senate of American citizens potentially being targeted for assassination in these drone strikes.
But, you know, polls indicate that a solid percentage of self-identified liberal Democrats support the White House on this, and that’s in part due to the fact that President Obama has projected—and it really boils down to propaganda—that this is somehow a cleaner way of waging war. I think also, politically, many Democrats would be opposing these policies or raising serious questions if their guy wasn’t in the White House. If McCain or Mitt Romney had won those elections, I think we would see a more robust discussion in Congress on this.
But President Obama said in his major address, and then his administration has released papers saying that among the standards is not just that mere certainty that civilians will not be killed, but also that the individuals that they’re targeting represent an imminent threat and that they—and that capture is not feasible. And I think that those two factors in this should also be investigated, because I don’t believe that the majority of the people that are killed in these drone strikes are engaged in an imminent plot that’s going to harm America’s national security or American interests, even as broadly as the Obama administration defines it.
I mean, we really—this should be brought up at an international level, because the U.S., as Letta says, is setting a standard. There are some 80 countries in the world that have weaponized drone technology. It’s just a matter of time before a Russia or a China says, "You know what? America does this. We have the right to do it, too," and they start doing drone attacks to take out dissidents or people that they perceive to be terrorists.
Every nation around the world now claims that it’s in a war against terrorism. I was just in Egypt, where the U.S.-backed dictatorship of General Sisi is in power, and there are huge posters all over Egypt that talk about how the Egyptian government is in a war against terrorism. It’s really a cooptation of this Bush-Cheney idea, that Obama unfortunately has continued, that if you just label your enemies as terrorists, you can justify doing anything to them and justify denying them of any basic rights. You can’t surrender to a drone, and you can’t turn yourself in when you haven’t been charged with a crime. To what authority do you surrender?
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us. Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of TheIntercept.org, a new digital magazine published by First Look Media, also the producer and writer of the documentary Dirty Wars , which has been nominated for an Oscar. Congratulations, Jeremy, and good luck on your road to the Oscars, which will be on March 2nd. And Letta Tayler, senior researcher on terrorism and counterterrorism at Human Rights Watch. Her report, "A Wedding That Became a Funeral: US Drone Attack on Marriage Procession in Yemen," we’ll link to at democracynow.org.
This is the 18th birthday of Democracy Now!, and in our breaks, we are showing folks and encouraging people to go to our website at democracynow.org and submit pictures of yourself holding up signs that say, "I need Democracy Now! because..." and you fill in the rest or send us videos, as well. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Patti Smith, "People Have the Power," and I thank all the people from all over the world who are sending in pictures and videos letting us know what you think. Again, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. And I’m also thinking today about Julie Drizin, who was the first producer of Democracy Now!, and also our colleague Sharif Abdel Kouddous, who is in Cairo, in Egypt, and our colleagues Anjali Kamat and Nicole Salazar and so many others who make—helped make this program great, as well as Kris Abrams out there in Colorado. Well, I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. We’ve been with you for 18 years, as we turn to another story.
-------
Headlines:
Ukraine: 25 Killed in Deadliest Episode of Uprising
Clashes between police and anti-government protesters are continuing in the Ukranian capital Kiev in the deadliest episode since protests began three months ago. At least 25 people have died, including at least nine police officers, and more than 200 have been injured since Tuesday, when protesters clashed with police near parliament. In the evening, police closed in on the protesters’ encampment in Independence Square, spurring protesters to set fire to the perimeter in a bid to defend the site. The protests erupted in November over the decision by President Viktor Yanukovych to strengthen economic ties with Russia instead of Europe. Earlier today, opposition leader Vitali Klitschko said talks with the president had broken down.
Vitali Klitschko: "I am very unhappy because it was no discussion and the president don’t want to listen opposition. They don’t want to listen, and it’s just one way opposition have, and all protesters have to stop protests, they have to stop this demonstration, he said. But right now, it’s very important to make a break and not fight anymore. Thank you."
Klitschko is the opposition leader who U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland was recently caught on tape discussing in a hacked phone call. In the leaked conversation, Nuland says, "I don’t think [Klitschko] should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea." European foreign ministers are holding an emergency meeting on Ukraine today in Brussels, where they are expected to discuss possible sanctions.
-------
Thailand: 5 Killed in Clashes Between Police, Protesters
Deadly clashes erupted in Thailand Tuesday as police there attempted to clear protest sites. Five people were killed and at least 65 wounded. Protesters in Bangkok have been calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, accusing her of being controlled by her brother, a former prime minister convicted of corruption, now living in self-imposed exile.
-------
Court in Britain Rules Detention of David Miranda, Partner of Glenn Greenwald, was Lawful
A court in Britain has ruled police acted legally when they detained the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald at Heathrow Airport under an anti-terrorism law. David Miranda was carrying documents leaked by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden when he was detained for nearly nine hours. While acknowledging the detention marked "an indirect interference with press freedom," the court upheld its legality. The ruling comes just days after Greenwald and three other journalists won the George Polk Award, one of journalism’s highest honors, for their reporting on the NSA. Greenwald said the court ruling makes it clear the top British spy agency was monitoring "the communications of myself, David [Miranda] and/or the Guardian." He wrote, "It may be perfectly normal for a country lacking constitutional guarantees of press freedom (such as the U.K.) to have their surveillance agencies eavesdrop on the communications of journalists and their family members, but that conduct, by itself, is rather radical."
-------
Venezuela: Right-Wing Opposition Leader Surrenders to Authorities amid Rival Protests
In Venezuela, right-wing opposition leader Leopoldo López has turned himself in to the National Guard after authorities issued a warrant for his arrest last week, accusing him of inciting deadly clashes. Violent protests by opponents of President Nicolás Maduro left at least three people dead last week. Maduro’s supporters and opponents held rival rallies Tuesday in the capital, Caracas. Maduro has accused the United States of backing the unrest and expelled three U.S. diplomats. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claims.
Jay Carney: "We have seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the U.S. or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela, and these efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces. The allegations against our diplomats by the Venezuelan government are baseless and false."
-------
U.S. Border Agent Kills Man Who Threw Rock Near San Diego
A U.S. Border Patrol agent shot and killed a man near San Diego, California, Tuesday after the agent was hit in the face with a rock. Officials said the agent was pursuing a group of people suspected of crossing the border from Mexico. When a man threw a rock at him, the agent opened fire and killed him. The agent suffered minor injuries and declined hospital care. A September report released by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general showed U.S. border agents have been involved in 20 fatalities since 2010, eight of which —– that’s nearly half –— involved rock throwing. An uncensored copy of the report obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting showed it featured a recommendation from a think tank that agents use restraint when dealing with rock throwers. But in the copy that was publicly released that recommendation was blacked out.
-------
U.S. Soldier Who Raped, Murdered Iraqi Girl Dies in Apparent Suicide
A former U.S. soldier convicted of raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl in Iraq after killing her parents and younger sister has been found dead in his prison cell in Arizona. Steven Dale Green was found hanging in an apparent suicide. In 2006, he and three fellow soldiers went to the home of an Iraqi family, where Green killed three people, then joined his colleagues in the gang-rape of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, before killing her. Three years later, Green was sentenced to life in prison, becoming the first U.S. soldier convicted under a 2000 law allowing U.S. soldiers and contractors to face prosecution for crimes committed abroad.
-------
Report: Coal Ash Blankets Bottom of Dan River After Duke Spill
Federal wildlife officials are warning coal ash from a spill by Duke Energy has blanketed the bottom of North Carolina’s Dan River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it had discovered a mound of toxic sludge in the river that stretched about 75 feet long and up to five feet deep. Coal ash was found up to 70 miles away from the spill site. The report came a day after state environmental regulators and a Duke Energy executive told North Carolina state lawmakers that the spill does not pose an immediate threat to public health.
-------
Obama Orders Better Fuel Efficiency for Trucks
President Obama has announced a new round of steps to develop tighter fuel efficiency standards for trucks. Speaking in Maryland Tuesday, Obama said he has instructed federal agencies to develop higher standards for medium and heavy trucks by March 2016.
President Obama: "Heavy-duty trucks account for just 4 percent of all of the vehicles on the highway. I know when you’re driving sometimes it feels like it’s more, but they’re only 4 percent of all the vehicles. But they’re responsible for about 20 percent of carbon pollution in the transportation sector. And improving gas mileage for these trucks are going to drive down our oil imports even further. That reduces carbon pollution even more, cuts down on businesses’ fuel costs, which should pay off in lower prices for consumers."
-------
Obama in Mexico for Talks with Canadian, Mexican Leaders
President Obama is in Mexico today for the so-called Tres Amigos summit with Canada and Mexico. The three North American leaders are expected to announce an easing of border controls for corporate executives and to promote the neoliberal reforms of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, who recently opened the country’s oil sector to foreign companies. This week hundreds of Mexican teachers marched on the highway toward the summit site in Toluca to protest Peña Nieto’s education reforms. The meeting comes as President Obama faces pressure from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would carry Canadian tar sands oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The pipeline has faced mass protests in the United States from Native Americans and environmentalists who say it would fuel climate change and threaten communities. Another likely focus of today’s summit is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a secretive deal among Pacific Rim countries to establish a free-trade zone encompassing nearly 40 percent of the global economy. Critics say the TPP would further entrench the failures of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect 20 years ago and caused mass displacement in Mexico.
-------
Members of Pussy Riot Detained 3 Times in 3 Days
Members of the Russian protest group Pussy Riot have been released following their detention in Sochi, Russia, where the Winter Olympics are underway. Nadya Tolokonnikova said she and fellow group member Maria Alyokhina have been detained three times in three days.
Nadya Tolokonnikova: "We have been in Sochi for three days now, and every day they detain us. We haven’t spoken out about it, as we are here as Pussy Riot and we can’t announce that to the public. But today it went overboard: They accused us of a crime. The police came to me today and told me specifically that I, Tolokonnikova, was accused of theft that took place at the hotel where I’m staying."
Five members of the group emerged from the police station on Tuesday wearing brightly colored balaclavas and singing their new song, "Putin Will Teach You to Love Your Motherland."
-------
84-Year-Old Nun Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison for Peace Protest
In the United States, an 84-year-old nun has been sentenced to nearly three years in prison for infiltrating a nuclear weapons site in a protest for peace. In 2012, three peace activists calling themselves the "Transform Now Ploughshares" broke into the Y-12 nuclear facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. They cut holes in the fence to paint peace slogans and threw blood on the wall, revealing major security flaws at the facility, which processes uranium for hydrogen bombs. More than two hours later, when security guards finally arrived, they found the protesters singing. The three were convicted last year of damaging a national defense site. Two of the activists, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed, received five-year sentences, while 84-year-old Megan Rice received 35 months.
-------
Whistleblower at Nuclear Site Fired from Her Job
A whistleblower who spoke out about safety concerns at a nuclear weapons site in Washington state has been fired from her job. Donna Busche had complained of retaliation after filing safety complaints related to the cleanup of the Hanford nuclear site, which is the most polluted nuclear weapons site in the United States. She was fired from the San Francisco-based firm URS Corp. on Tuesday. At least two other top project officials at the site have reportedly been fired or have left under pressure after raising safety concerns.
-------
Truce Breaks Down in Ukraine; Clashes Kill 21
In Ukraine, a short-lived truce between the government and opposition protesters has broken down amid the bloodiest period in the months-long uprising. At least 21 people have died today alone in clashes between protesters and security forces. President Obama addressed the crisis on Wednesday.
President Obama: "I want to be very clear that as we work through these next several days in Ukraine, that we are going to be watching very carefully, and we expect the Ukrainian government to show restraint, to not resort to violence in dealing with peaceful protesters. We’ve said that we also expect peaceful protesters to remain peaceful, and we’ll be monitoring very carefully the situation, recognizing that, along with our European partners and the international community, there will be consequences if people step over the line."
We’ll have more on the crisis in Ukraine after headlines.
-------
Trial Opens for 3 Detained Al Jazeera Journalists in Egypt
The trial opens today in Egypt for three detained Al Jazeera journalists who are accused of terrorism-related charges. Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed were arrested in late December. Their case has drawn global condemnation against Egypt’s military-backed regime for clamping down on freedom of speech. Greste’s brother, Andrew Greste, spoke to reporters on Wednesday.
Andrew Greste: "He’s in a cell with Baher and Mohamed, so the three of them are sharing a cell together. They’re allowed one hour of exercise a day. So the conditions are pretty tough. But I think probably the most difficult thing for him is the mental challenge of staying positive and focused and not allowing the conditions that he’s living under to become overwhelming and depressing."
In total, 20 journalists are set to go on trial today, including eight who are in custody.
-------
Nebraska Judge Voids State’s Approval of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline
In a victory for opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a judge in Nebraska has voided the state’s approval of the pipeline route. District Court Judge Stephanie Stacy struck down a 2011 law that allowed Gov. Dave Heineman to approve the pipeline’s passage through Nebraska, saying the decision should have been left up to a state commission. The pipeline would funnel tar sands oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast, but critics say it would fuel climate change and threaten the health of communities in its path. Obama has yet to issue a decision on whether to approve the pipeline.
-------
More Coal-Waste Leaks Found in North Carolina, West Virginia
Federal prosecutors have issued more than 20 subpoenas to North Carolina’s environmental agency as part of a criminal probe into a coal-ash spill by Duke Energy. The subpoenas follow reports the agency blocked lawsuits against Duke Energy, where North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory worked for 28 years. Earlier this month, a leaking pipe caused one the worst coal-ash spills in U.S. history. On Tuesday, state regulators announced they had found a second leak containing unsafe levels of arsenic at the same site. Meanwhile, yet another coal-waste spill was reported in West Virginia. State regulators said snow melting into waste ponds caused contaminated water to overflow into a nearby creek.
-------
U.S. Approves Loan Deal for 1st New Nuclear Power Plant in 30 Years
The Obama administration has approved $6.5 billion in loan guarantees to back construction of the nation’s first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years. The Vogtle nuclear plant is currently under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia. The announcement comes as the administration investigates a radioactive leak at a nuclear waste site in New Mexico.
-------
Bahraini Activist Faces Possible Return to Prison
In Bahrain, court proceedings against human rights activist Zainab Alkhawaja were postponed on Wednesday until March 3. Alkhawaja could return to prison after she was released on Sunday following nearly a year behind bars. She spoke to Democracy Now! on Tuesday, the day before she was due back in court.
Zainab Alkhawaja: "We’re calling for a country where every Bahraini is respected, every Bahraini is treated equally. We’re calling for a country where we feel we have rights, where we feel we have dignity, where people can’t step all over us, can’t torture and kill and get away with these things. We’re living in a country, basically, where the criminals are the most powerful people in the country, and where a lot of us actually feel proud when we’re in jail, because we know that in Bahrain, when you go to jail, it means you did something right and not wrong."
The pro-democracy uprising in Bahrain marked its third anniversary last Friday. Bahrain is a close ally of the United States, hosting the Navy’s Fifth Fleet.
-------
FCC to Rewrite Net Neutrality Rules for Equal Internet Access
U.S. regulators have announced they will not appeal a court ruling that struck down rules promoting equal access to the Internet. Instead, the Federal Communications Commission says it will rewrite the regulations on net neutrality, which force Internet providers to provide all content at equal speeds. A court rejected the rules last month after a legal challenge by Verizon.
-------
Documents Tie Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Secret Email System
A trove of newly released documents has raised new questions about ties between the campaign of Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker and his former post in county office. Walker served as Milwaukee County executive while running for governor in the 2010 election. Two of Walker’s aides have been criminally convicted of conducting campaign business on the taxpayer dime. Documents unsealed Wednesday reveal just how closely Walker and his aides blurred campaign and official business. They link Walker to a secret email routing system used by his county staff and show he directed county staff to hold daily strategy calls with campaign aides. The revelations come as Walker eyes a potential presidential bid in 2016.
-------
Juror in Trial of Michael Dunn Speaks Out
A member of the jury in the trial of Michael Dunn for killing African-American teenager Jordan Davis during a dispute over loud music says she believes Dunn got away with murder. Dunn, who is white, shot at the vehicle carrying Davis and his friends 10 times. He then fled the scene, went to a hotel with his fiancée and ordered pizza. He never called the police. The jury deadlocked on the murder charge Saturday, but convicted Dunn of three counts of attempted murder, meaning he faces a minimum of 60 years in prison. A juror identified only as Valerie was interviewed by ABC’s Byron Pitts.
Byron Pitts: "You think Michael Dunn had options?"
Valerie: "Oh, yes, sir."
Byron Pitts: "What were his options, do you think?"
Valerie: "Roll your window up, ignore the taunting, put your car in reverse, back up to the front of the store, move a parking spot over. That’s my feeling."
The juror said three out of her 12 fellow members ultimately felt Dunn was justified in killing Davis. Dunn claimed Davis had a gun, but police never found one.
-------
New York Terror Suspect Pleads Guilty in Case That Feds Turned Down
A man charged under New York State terrorism laws in a case that raised claims of entrapment has accepted a plea deal to serve 16 years in prison. Jose Pimentel was arrested in 2011 and accused of being an "al-Qaeda sympathizer" who was trying to build a bomb. But federal authorities, including the FBI, declined to join the case, saying Pimentel did not appear predisposed or capable of carrying out an attack. Defense attorneys say he was entrapped by informants who gave him food, shelter and marijuana. He pleaded guilty just days before his trial to avoid a possible life sentence.
-------
New York Agrees to Reform Use of Solitary Confinement in State Prisons
The state of New York has agreed to limit its use of solitary confinement in prisons. Under an agreement with the New York Civil Liberties Union, the state’s prison system will become the largest in the country to ban solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure for those under 18. The deal also curbs the use of solitary confinement for pregnant and developmentally disabled prisoners. NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said, "New York State has done the right thing by committing to comprehensive reform of the way it uses extreme isolation, a harmful and inhumane practice that has for years been used as a punishment of first resort in New York’s prisons."
-------
Texas Suspends Abortion Provider Under Harsh New Law
Authorities in Texas have suspended the license of a Houston doctor who has provided abortions for 40 years after he failed to comply with the state’s harsh new anti-choice law. Dr. Theodore Herring had failed to meet the law’s requirement to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Critics say such privileges are medically unnecessary and can be impossible to obtain because abortion providers do not admit enough patients to meet hospital minimums and because some hospitals oppose abortion. In related news, doctors at the only remaining abortion clinic in North Dakota have obtained hospital admitting privileges, which are also required under that state’s law.
-------
Pennsylvania Mother Faces Criminal Charges for Buying Abortion Medication for Daughter
A mother in Pennsylvania is facing multiple criminal charges for ordering medications to induce abortion on the Internet and giving them to her 16-year-old daughter. Jennifer Whalen said she could not find a nearby abortion clinic and did not realize she needed a prescription for the medications. The use of self-induced medication abortions appears to be on the rise in states where restrictions are making it harder to access legal abortion.
-------
Pussy Riot Members Beaten by Cossack Militia
In news from Russia, a video released Wednesday shows members of the Russian protest group Pussy Riot being whipped by Cossack militia as they tried to film a music video in Sochi, where the Olympics are underway. Maria Alyokhina described her injuries.
Maria Alyokhina: "I have marks. I have a bruise here. My fingernails are broken. And in my eyes and nose I have tear gas, which they sprayed into our eyes."Ukraine: Deal Proposed to Hold
-------
Early Election After Deadly Violence
Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych announced concessions to his pro-European opponents on Friday, including a plan to hold early elections, but it remains unclear whether the opposition will accept the deal. At least 47 people died on Thursday in the most violent day Ukraine has seen since it became independent 22 years ago. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned both the police and armed protesters for using deadly force.
Ban Ki-moon: "I continue to strongly appeal to all involved to cease the violence and for the Ukrainian authorities to refrain from excessive use of force. I am appalled by the use of firearms by both the police and protesters. I urge all parties to immediately resume a genuine dialogue. This is the only way to prevent further bloodshed and arrive at a solution to the deepening political, security and economic crisis."
-------
Somalia Presidential Palace Attacked
In news from Somalia, the presidential palace in Mogadishu has come under attack. Police said a huge car bomb exploded outside the gates, then militants attempted to shoot their way into the compound. It is unclear how many people have died. The United Nations’ top envoy to the country said the Somalian president survived the attack.
-------
Three Al Jazeera Journalists Plead Not Guilty in Egypt
Three Al Jazeera journalists on trial in Egypt pleaded not guilty Thursday to having links to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military government has accused them of "joining, or aiding and abetting a terrorist organization." The trio were denied bail, and their trial was adjourned until March 5. Heather Allan, the head of Al Jazeera English news gathering, criticized Egyptian authorities for prosecuting journalists.
Heather Allan: "We believe we will be acquitted. The lawyers are fully on board with us. They fully believe in our case. They fully believe that we were just operating as journalists. We don’t have an agenda. We’ve got nothing against Egypt. We certainly don’t lie or do biased reporting. So, we believe that we are innocent."
-------
100 Tons of Highly Radioactive Leaks at Fukushima
In news from Japan, about 100 tons of highly radioactive water have leaked from one of the hundreds of storage tanks at the devastated Fukushima nuclear power plant. The Tokyo Electric Power Company described it as the worst spill at the plant in six months. Next month marks the third anniversary of the meltdown at Fukushima.
-------
NOAA: Last Month was Globe’s Fourth Warmest January Ever
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is reporting last month was the fourth warmest January globally since record keeping began in 1880. Temperature maps show much of the world — except the eastern United States — experienced warmer than average temperatures. The NOAA also reported 37 percent of the United States is now suffering from drought. Precipitation was below normal for more than 30 states last month.
-------
Obama Proposes to Drop Social Security Cuts
President Obama has dropped a measure to trim cost-of-living increases in Social Security from an upcoming budget proposal. While the move was praised by progressive Democrats, the White House admitted the cuts, known as chained CPI, remain "on the table," but only as part of a grand bargain deal with Republicans.
-------
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against NYPD for Spying on Muslims in New Jersey
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the New York Police Department’s secret surveillance of Muslims and Arabs in New Jersey. The lawsuit alleged the surveillance programs were unconstitutional because they focused on religion, national origin and race. U.S. District Judge William Martini said, "The motive for the program was not solely to discriminate against Muslims, but to find Muslim terrorists hiding among the ordinary law-abiding Muslims." Judge Martini also criticized the Associated Press for exposing the secret spy program. He wrote, "Nowhere in the complaint do the plaintiffs allege that they suffered harm prior to the unauthorized release of documents by the Associated Press. This confirms that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries flow from the Associated Press’s unauthorized disclosure of the documents." The judge went on to write, "The Associated Press covertly obtained the materials and published them without authorization. Thus the injury, if any existed, is not fairly traceable to the city."
-------
Family: Teen Shot Dead by Police Was Holding Video Game Controller, Not a Gun
In Georgia, the family of a 17-year-old ROTC student who was shot and killed by a police officer says police mistook a video game controller the teenager was holding for a gun. Police shot dead Christopher Roupe on Feb. 14 when officers showed up at his mobile home to serve a probation violation warrant for his father. Police had claimed the teenager pointed a gun at the time of the shooting, but the family says a Nintendo Wii video game controller was in his hands.
-------
Texas Police Change Story on African-American Woman Shot Dead
Authorities in Bastrop County, Texas, are also facing questions over a fatal shooting. On Sunday a police officer shot dead a 47-year-old African-American woman as she opened the door for police at her boyfriend’s house. Police initially claimed Yvette Smith was armed, but investigators now say they "cannot confirm" if she had a gun or even if she refused to follow commands.
-------
U.N. Seeks More Troops for Central African Republic
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appealed to the international community to send an additional 3,000 troops and police to Central African Republic to combat worsening sectarian violence.
Ban Ki-moon: "It is a calamity with a strong claim on the conscience of humankind. Over the past year we have seen, in quick succession, the violent overthrow of the government, the collapse of state institutions, and a descent into lawlessness and sectarian brutality. More than 2.5 million people, more than half the population, need immediate humanitarian assistance."
-------
Haitian Court: Duvalier Can Be Charged with Crimes Against Humanity
A Haitian appellate court has ruled that former U.S.-backed dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier could be charged with crimes against humanity under international law. The suit was filed by victims of forced disappearances and torture during his 15-year rule. The court reverses an earlier ruling.
-------
Undercover Video Shows Shocking Conditions at Kentucky Hog Farm
The Humane Society of the United States has just released undercover video showing shocking conditions at a huge hog operation in Kentucky called Iron Maiden Farms. One video shows pigs confined in cramped cages known as gestation crates being fed ground-up intestines from piglets who had recently succumbed to a highly contagious disease. More than 900 piglets recently died from the disease in a two-day period.
-------
Idaho Considers Ag-Gag Bill
In related news, Idaho has become the latest state to consider an "ag-gag bill" that would impose penalties for trespassing and filming without permission in farming facilities. In 2012, undercover activists in Idaho filmed workers stomping on cows, beating and dragging them at a dairy farm.
-------
Ex-Black Panther Russell Maroon Shoatz Moved from Solitary Confinement
Former Black Panther Russell Maroon Shoatz has been moved out of solitary confinement for the first time in 22 years. Last year, the 70-year-old prisoner filed a lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections over being held in isolation for so long. Click here to see our recent special report on aging political prisoners being held in solitary confinement.
-------
Ex-Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin: Jesus Will Return with AR-15
Jerry Boykin is back in the news. The retired Army lieutenant general who once described the war on terror as a "holy war" is now predicting Jesus will return to Earth armed with an AR-15. Boykin now serves as the executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He made the comment at a recent Pro-Family Legislators Conference in Dallas, Texas.
Jerry Boykin: "The lord is a warrior, the lord is his name, and in Revelation 19 it says when he comes back, he’s coming back as what? A warrior, a mighty warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe. And I don’t know about theologians, and I was at Dallas Theological Seminary yesterday, and I said, ’I’m not going to argue theology with you folks, but I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies, because he’s coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.’ And I believe now — I’ve checked this out — I believe that sword he’ll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15."
-------
Documentary on Indonesian Genocide Projected on World Bank Building
While the Academy Awards are still a couple weeks away, the Oscar-nominated documentary "The Act of Killing" had an unusual screening on Thursday; it was projected on the World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C. The East Timor and Indonesian Action Network used the film to call on the World Bank to acknowledge its role in the 1965 military coup in Indonesia that led to the massacre of an estimated one million civilians. Robin Bell of Bellvisuals helped set up the screening.
Robin Bell: "We like to project on buildings. We like people to see the films, and we want to kind of shake things up and spark dialogue. We’ve had people walk by who have had no idea about the crimes that were committed, and this is a good way to spark discussion and get people’s comments and, in general, let people know what’s going on."
-------
"The Comcast-Time Warner Merger Threatens Democracy" by Amy Goodman
Comcast has announced it intends to merge with Time Warner Cable, joining together the largest and second-largest cable and broadband providers in the country. The merger must be approved by both the Justice Department and the FCC. Given the financial and political power of Comcast, and the Obama administration’s miserable record of protecting the public interest, the time to speak out and organize is now.
“This is just such a far-reaching deal, it should be dead on arrival when it gets to the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission for approval,” Michael Copps told me days after the merger announcement. Copps was a commissioner on the FCC from 2001 to 2011, one of the longest-serving commissioners in the agency’s history. Now he leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause. “This is the whole shooting match,” he said. “It’s broadband. It’s broadcast. It’s content. It’s distribution. It’s the medium and the message. It’s telecom, and it’s media, too.” Back in 2011, when Comcast sought regulatory approval of its proposed acquisition of NBC Universal (NBCU), Copps was the sole “no” vote out of the five FCC commissioners.
Copps is not the only former FCC commissioner with an opinion on the merger. Meredith Attwell Baker served briefly there, from 2009 to 2011. President Barack Obama appointed Baker, a Republican, to maintain the traditional party balance on the FCC. Baker was a big supporter of the Comcast-NBCU merger. It surprised many, however, when she abruptly resigned her FCC commission seat to go work for—you guessed it—Comcast. She was named senior vice president for governmental affairs for NBCU, just four months after voting to approve the merger.
As for the regulators, the news website Republic Report revealed that the head of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, William Baer, was a lawyer representing NBC during the merger with Comcast, and Maureen Ohlhausen, a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, provided legal counsel for Comcast before joining the commission. If you wonder how President Obama feels about the issue, look at who he appointed to be the new chairperson of the FCC: Tom Wheeler, who was for years a top lobbyist for both the cable and wireless industries.
A leading organization on media policy in the U.S., Free Press, issued a statement following the announcement of the proposed merger. Craig Aaron, the group’s president, said: “No one woke up this morning wishing their cable company was bigger or had more control over what they could watch or download. But that—along with higher bills—is the reality they’ll face tomorrow unless the Department of Justice and the FCC do their jobs and block this merger.” Free Press hopes millions will reach out to the FCC and the Justice Department to voice disapproval of the Comcast/Time Warner merger.
In Congress, one of the most vocal opponents is someone who actually knows a bit about the TV industry, Minnesota Sen. Al Franken. Franken rose to national prominence as a comedian and writer on the early years of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.” He clearly doesn’t find the prospect of a larger Comcast very funny. “Cable rates have risen significantly over the last two decades, and my constituents express frustration at being squeezed by unacceptably high cable bills every month. Many consumers would switch cable providers if only they had a viable option to do so,” he wrote in a letter to the FCC, Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.
Coincident with the attempted merger is a renewed fight over net neutrality, the basic rules governing how the Internet operates, especially whether Internet service providers like Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T and Verizon should be able to favor some websites over others. Should there be rules that allow people equal access to the website of a small human-rights organization in Russia or a group of Occupy activists in New York, as, say, the websites of Wal-Mart or the National Rifle Association? A growing fear among Internet activists is that the U.S. regulatory system, beholden to lobbyists and corporate donors, will forfeit net neutrality, creating what Michael Copps calls “the cable-ization of the Internet.”
The public has confronted monstrous mergers before, and blocked them. So, too, have they faced corporate attempts to stifle the fundamental freedom of the Internet. Freedom of speech, freedom to connect and communicate, is the lifeblood of a democracy. The fight to preserve and expand the diversity and vibrancy of our media system is one that cannot be left to bought-out regulators and corporate lobbyists.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,000 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.
© 2014 Amy Goodman
Distributed by King Features Syndicate
-------
Democracy Now
207 W 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10001 United States
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment