democracynow.org
Stories:
Supreme Court Says Warrants Needed to Search Cellphones, But are "Stingrays" a Police Workaround?
The Supreme Court delivered a resounding victory for privacy rights in the age of smartphones Wednesday when it ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant before searching the cellphones of people they arrest. The ruling likely applies to other electronic devices, such as laptop computers, which, like cellphones, can store vast troves of information about a person’s private life. The ruling makes no reference to the National Security Agency and its vast web of cellphone spying. But some NSA critics say it signals a greater understanding by the court of today’s technology and its implications for privacy. We get reaction to the ruling from Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. He also discusses police use of "Stingray" spy devices, which mimic cell towers and intercept data from all cellphones in a certain radius.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Supreme Court has delivered a resounding victory for privacy rights in the age of smartphones. On Wednesday, the court ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant before searching the cellphones of people they arrest. The ruling likely applies to other electronic devices, like laptop computers, which, like cellphones, can store vast troves of information about a person’s life.
The decision involves two cases, including that of a California man, David Riley, who was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after police pulled him over for expired vehicle tags, found guns in his car and then searched his phone, discovering data used to tie him to a shooting.
AMY GOODMAN: Wednesday’s court ruling makes mention of the National Security Agency and its vast web of cellphone spying. But some NSA critics say it signals a greater understanding by the Supreme Court of today’s technology and its implications for privacy. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. On the final page, he wrote, "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life.' The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant."
Well, to talk more about the ruling, we’re joined by Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.
Nate, welcome to Democracy Now!
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the significance of this unanimous, nine-to-zero ruling.
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: That’s right. It’s really amazing. It’s an unequivocal affirmation that the Fourth Amendment still has vitality in our digital age. The court held that when police arrest a person and search their cellphone or seize their cellphone, they need to go to a judge, get a warrant based on probable cause before they can search the contents of that phone. And that’s important because, as the court described, our phones contain staggering quantities of personal and private information about us. Our phones contain things like years of our emails, our text messages, photos, financial records, medical information, information about our intimate relationships. And police no longer are able to go on fishing expeditions through those records without getting a warrant first. The court understood and recognized that digital searches in the 21st century require 21st century rules.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Nate, I wanted to go back, because it really was an amazing decision and strongly worded. Chief Justice Roberts writing the opinion for the nine-zero vote said, "[A] cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form—unless the phone is." So, your sense of the fact that both the conservative and the liberal wings of the court on this were unanimous?
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: Yeah, it’s really amazing, and it reflects a complete consensus that the aggregation of our sensitive digital data requires more robust protections from the court, because it poses more acute privacy problems under the Fourth Amendment. I mean, as the court recognized, you know, years ago in the analog world, we never would have had the kind of staggering quantities of personal communications in our houses that we now have in our email saved on our phones, or on our other digital devices, for that matter. And the court’s opinion applies directly to searches of cellphones, but clearly the logic extends equally to other kinds of computers—tablets, desktops, laptops. And it also starts to provide a roadmap for courts to look to when they’re addressing other kinds of electronic searches, whether it’s cellphone tracking or laptop searches at the border or other kinds.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about the whole issue of the NSA spying, the implications of this decision in terms of cases that may come up before the court on that, as well?
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: Yeah, I mean, the court was careful not to directly address that question, but the logic the court employed in its reasoning, I think, provide strong indication that courts around the country can look more carefully at those issues. Whenever the government is trying to troll through large quantities of our private digital information and learn the most intimate details of our lives, the Fourth Amendment has something to say about it now. And I look forward to courts really grappling with this issue, using this as guidance.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the two cases on which it was based?
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: Yeah, so the cases came out of California and Massachusetts. One involved—the California case involved a smartphone. The Massachusetts case involved a more traditional, older flip phone. And police in both cases took the phones after arresting somebody, searched through them without a warrant, and the court held that the evidence that comes from those searches cannot be admitted against people at trial, because those are unconstitutional searches. And it really—it shows how sensitive that information is, and it really is going to have a practical impact on police-citizen interactions, police interactions with people, all over the country.
AMY GOODMAN: What can people practically do, whether they’re at the airport, on a border, on the street, when the police or customs agents takes their digital equipment?
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: Well, the first thing is, people now—they know that they do not need to consent to these searches. You know, calmly tell the officer, "I do not consent to this search." And then, if the officer insists on continuing to search the phone, then, you know, a reasonable affirmation of your rights, a statement that the Supreme Court has said that you need a warrant, would be appropriate. And then, it will be up for the courts to sort it out after the fact, but as of now, police are on notice that there is a firm rule: They need to get a warrant.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the Justice Department immediately reacted to the court decision. The Justice Department spokesperson, Ellen Canale, said, quote, "We will make use of whatever technology is available to preserve evidence on cell phones while seeking a warrant, and we will assist our agents in determining when exigent circumstances or another applicable exception to the warrant requirement will permit them to search the phone immediately without a warrant." What’s your response to the Justice Department’s immediate response?
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: Well, it’s not surprising, and really it’s nothing new. In all kinds of searches, police have for a long time had the power to secure a crime scene or secure a home while they go to try to get a warrant. And that’s fine. And if they can demonstrate probable cause, that they have real reason to search this phone, then they’ll get a warrant. But if they can’t, the judge is going to turn them down, and they’ll have to turn that property back over to the person they’ve searched.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about Stingray spy devices, which are being used by police across the country. The Associated Press recently reported the Obama administration is pressing local police departments to conceal information about their use of powerful spy equipment like Stingrays, which mimic cell towers to intercept data from all cellphones within a certain radius. This is a clip from a report by News 10 in Sacramento about the secrecy surrounding their local Sheriff Department’s alleged use of the technology.
NEWS 10 REPORTER: During our investigation, it became clear the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department couldn’t get its story straight about using Stingray technology. Originally, it gave us an invoice from the maker of the device, the Harris Corporation, showing the department bought a high-powered antenna that extends the range of Stingrays. Then it said, quote, "this technology comes with a strict non-disclosure requirement. ... It would not be appropriate for us to comment." And finally, it said more documents from the Harris Corporation, quote, "exist that were not disclosed." The department’s attorney said the sheriff didn’t have to give us the records and cited all sorts of public records exemptions, including a state law written to protect railroads.
AMY GOODMAN: The ACLU actually had records they were seeking on Stingrays seized by U.S. marshals in Sarasota, Florida. Is that right, Nate Wessler?
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: That’s right. Stingrays, just to give a little background, are devices that police use to mimic cellphone towers and trick people’s cellphones into reporting back their electronic serial number and other identifying information and their location. So these are powerful police tools. And we’ve been seeking information about them around the country, including in Florida and including in Sarasota. And when we requested records from the Sarasota Police Department about their use of these devices, they initially told us that they had records, and they were willing to let us come and inspect them in their offices. And then hours before that appointment, they emailed to say that they were canceling the meeting, because the U.S. marshals office had asked them to, and the Marshals Service was asserting that they own the records. And then, while we were negotiating with the police about how we can inspect these records, incredibly—and I’ve never seen this in my years of doing public records work—the U.S. marshals sent somebody down in a car from the nearest field office, seized the boxes of records and physically removed them to an undisclosed location, thus removing them from the jurisdiction of the Florida courts and from the view of the Florida and the national public.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And do you have any sense of how widespread the use of these Stingrays is?
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: We know it’s quite widespread, and we know that dozens of state and local police departments, as well as the FBI and the marshals and other federal agencies, are using them. A recent ACLU investigation of records obtained by the press and by our own affiliates and our national office, and through Internet searches, has determined that at least 38 state and local police departments in 15 states have purchased these. And that’s aside from the agencies that are borrowing them from the U.S. marshals or the FBI or the state police, and it’s aside from the numerous agencies that we still haven’t gotten records from.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But to erect enough of these to be able to cover a city must be a pretty big cost, isn’t it?
NATHAN FREED WESSLER: Well, the way that we’ve seen them being used so far is that police deploy them in particular investigations. Often they’re looking for a particular cellphone, and they’ll drive around a city or a suburb looking for that cellphone. Now, part of the problem, and why we’re so concerned about these devices, is that even when police are trying to locate a particular person’s phone, these devices work by sending out a signal that triggers every phone in the area, every innocent bystander’s phone, into reporting back its location and its identifying information. And we’ve been asking basic questions, like "Are police getting a warrant? Do they have internal policies to protect the privacy of these innocent bystanders? And, you know, have they—have they implemented privacy protections that we can rely on?" And police have overwhelmingly resisted answering those questions, partly at the behest of the federal government, the FBI and the marshals.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Nate, we want to thank you for being with us. Nathan Freed Wessler is staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. When we come back, we go back 50 years. It was 50 years ago on June 21st that three civil rights workers—James Chaney, Mickey Schwerner and Andrew Goodman—were murdered in Mississippi. We’ll go to Jackson. Stay with us.
Mississippi Burning at 50: Relatives of Civil Rights Workers Look Back at Murders that Shaped an Era
This week marks the 50th anniversary of the murders of three young civil rights workers who traveled to Mississippi for Freedom Summer, the historic campaign to register African-American voters. On June 21, 1964, James Chaney, Andy Goodman and Michael Schwerner went missing after they visited a church in Neshoba County, Mississippi, which the Ku Klux Klan had bombed because it was going to be used as a Freedom School. Forty-four days after the trio’s disappearance, FBI agents found their bodies buried in an earthen dam. During the six-week search, the bodies of nine black men were also dredged out of local swamps. The murders in Mississippi outraged the nation and propelled the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. We are joined by family members of two of the victims: Rev. Julia Chaney-Moss, who was 17 years old when her brother was killed; Angela Lewis, Chaney’s daughter, born just 10 days before his death; and David Goodman, president of the Andrew Goodman Foundation, named after his brother.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We spend the rest of the hour on voting rights. June 21st marked the 50th anniversary of the murders of three young civil rights workers who traveled to Mississippi for Freedom Summer in 1964. The historic campaign to register African-American voters is chronicled in a new documentary called Freedom Summer that aired on PBS’s American Experience this week. This is the trailer.
JUDGE TOM P. BRADY: I don’t want the nigger, as I have known him and contacted him during my lifetime, to control the making of a law that controls me, to control the government under which I live.
UNIDENTIFIED: I don’t think people understand how violent Mississippi was. If black people try and vote, they can get hurt or killed.
FREEDOM SUMMER VOLUNTEER: You’re not a registered voter, you’re not a first-class citizen, man.
UNIDENTIFIED: They would say, "You’re right, boy. We should be registered to vote. But I ain’t going down there and messing with them white people."
BOB MOSES: We hope to send into Mississippi this summer upwards of 1,000 students from all around the country who will engage in Freedom Schools, voter registration activity, and open up Mississippi to the country.
GOV. ROSS BARNETT: We face absolute extinction of all we hold dear. We must be strong enough to crush the enemy.
REPORTER: The three civil rights workers who disappeared in Mississippi last Sunday night still have not been heard from.
UNIDENTIFIED: It was always in the back of everybody’s minds that bad things were going to happen. But if you cared about this country and cared about democracy, then you had to go down there.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the first day of Freedom Summer in 1964 began with the disappearances of the young civil rights workers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. It was on June 21st, 1964, that the men went missing after they visited a church in Neshoba County, Mississippi, which the Ku Klux Klan had bombed because it was going to be used as a Freedom School. This clip from the documentary Neshoba: The Price of Freedom picks up the story. We hear from retired FBI agent Jim Ingram and reporter Jerry Mitchell. It begins with former U.S. Assistant Attorney General John Doar.
JOHN DOAR: Three civil rights workers were missing, and they had last been seen going up to investigate a church burning in Neshoba County.
NEWS ANCHOR: It’s 35 miles from Meridian to Philadelphia, then 12 miles to Longdale, where the church had been burned. That afternoon, the three were seen at the church site and at the home of its lay leader. About 2:30, they headed west toward Philadelphia.
JIM INGRAM: Chaney was outside changing the tire. They had a flat. And there was Price. And when they pulled up, he said, "I’m arresting Chaney for speeding; Schwerner and Goodman, for investigation."
JOHN DOAR: Cecil Price, the deputy sheriff, saw them and stopped them, and he takes them into the jail. So, somehow, someway, the message gets out to the Klan, and then they have to organize.
JERRY MITCHELL: Edgar Ray Killen began to kind of coordinate things that night, kind of gathered a group of guys, had one of them go get gloves so they wouldn’t have fingerprints, told them the guys they wanted were there in the jail.
NEWS ANCHOR: By 10:00, Price says he had located a justice of the peace who fined the trio $20. Price tells what happened then.
DEPUTY CECIL PRICE: They paid the fine, and I released them. That’s the last time we saw any of them.
JOHN DOAR: The boys were driving back from the county jail, and they started down the road toward Meridian, and they were stopped by a police car. And there would be this group of Klan people.
JERRY MITCHELL: They arrested them and put them in Price’s car.
JOHN DOAR: And then turned right into a gravel, rural road.
JERRY MITCHELL: And Alton Wayne Roberts grabbed Schwerner, and he said to him, "Are you that 'n-word' lover?" And Schwerner said, "Sir, I understand how you feel." And, bam, shot him, grabbed Goodman. Goodman didn’t even get a word out. Shot Goodman. Chaney, by this point, obviously realizing what’s going down, took off. We know he was shot by several people. They also apparently beat him.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s a clip from the documentary Neshoba: The Price of Freedom.
Even after the attack on Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner, more than 700 students came to the state to register voters. Forty-four days after the trio disappeared, FBI agents found their bodies buried in an earthen dam. During the six-week search, the bodies of nine black men were also dredged out of local swamps. The murders in Mississippi outraged the nation, propelled the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
For more, we’re joined by family members of two of the victims. In Jackson, Mississippi, we’re joined by Reverend Julia Chaney-Moss. She was 17 years old in 1964 when her brother James Chaney was murdered. Also in Jackson, Angela Lewis, the daughter of James Chaney. She was born just 10 days after he was killed by the Klan. And here in New York, David Goodman, the brother of Andrew Goodman, murdered along with Chaney and Mickey Schwerner in Mississippi in 1964. He, too, was 17 years old when his older brother Andrew was killed. He’s president of the Andrew Goodman Foundation. And his mother, Carolyn Goodman, recently published a book—it was published posthumously—called My Mantelpiece: A Memoir of Survival and Social Justice.
We welcome all of you to Democracy Now! You have all been spending time in Mississippi now—Angela, you live there—relating what’s happening today around voting rights to what’s happening 50 years ago. But first, David—and then I want to ask each of you—when did you hear what had happened to your brother?
DAVID GOODMAN: Well, he was missing on June 21st, but we didn’t know he was dead for 44 days. And the FBI found their bodies in the afternoon of August 4th, 1964. I was at home by myself. My parents had gone out that evening to a concert. It was the first time they actually went out. And I believe Lee White, who was assistant to President Johnson, actually called our house to tell us that they found the bodies.
AMY GOODMAN: I think it was Bill Moyers who actually got the call, right, from Mississippi saying they had found them, when he was in the White House. Julia Chaney-Moss, can you tell us where you were on that day when you learned?
REV. JULIA CHANEY-MOSS: I was home with my—with my mother, my sister and my brother Ben.
AMY GOODMAN: And the White House called?
REV. JULIA CHANEY-MOSS: No. We did not get a presidential call.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, how did you learn of what had happened?
REV. JULIA CHANEY-MOSS: Well, I’ll preface it a bit with, before they left, before Mickey, Jay and Andy left, Jay had said to us to tell my mother that if they weren’t back at a certain hour, and given here a telephone tree, list of phone numbers that they should start—that we should start calling. So when they weren’t back, we began to make the call. It was not until the next day that—well, that we were officially informed that they were missing, because they weren’t able to be tracked anywhere.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, David Goodman, for those viewers and listeners who are younger, who don’t—weren’t alive back in 1964, could you talk about how big of a story this was nationwide, the impact it had on the country? I mean, some historians have said 1964 was a year that changed America.
DAVID GOODMAN: Yeah, well, I was 17 years old. I had just graduated from high school. I mean, my grandfather used to say, "If you have a question, ask a 17-year-old. They know everything." Well, I mean, turns out I didn’t know very much at all. But I learned a lot quickly in a way that I wouldn’t wish on anybody. And the story was huge. It was a huge story. I’ve been told that for the 44 days they were missing, it was the most watched and listened to and read about story internationally, even, because, as I subsequently read, the rest of the world viewed the United States, understandably, as the leading world democracy and could not believe that in many of our states we had policemen murdering civilians, and with a history of getting away with it, in certain instances, white policemen and white people murdering black people in certain states. And it was a shock. And this event was kind of a level of—a secondary level of shock to me and to the nation, to realize that white people could also be murdered because of black people, which had almost never happened before. So, it was an international story, it was a national story. And a really sad part of the story, in my opinion, the way I feel, is that it took two white kids to wake up white America to what was going on in our country.
AMY GOODMAN: I just visited your house where you grew up, where, after you learned of the murder of your brother and James Chaney and Mickey Schwerner, Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King came to pay condolences to your family.
DAVID GOODMAN: Yeah, we were really honored. It was after they found the bodies, so Dr. King and Coretta King came to express their deep regrets. And it was quite an event for me, personally.
AMY GOODMAN: Angela Lewis, you were not born yet. How did you learn the story of your father? You were born 10 days after James Chaney—after 10 days—when were you born, Angela?
ANGELA LEWIS: I was born June the 11th of ’64, and I was actually just 11 days old—10 days old.
AMY GOODMAN: So how did you come to understand, as you grew up, what happened to your dad?
ANGELA LEWIS: Mainly through reading for myself and through talking to my grandmother, my father’s mother. And, you know, had a couple of aunts that would tell me bits and pieces, but I was not privileged to a lot of information about my father.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So your mother, for many years, did not tell you what had happened?
ANGELA LEWIS: No.
AMY GOODMAN: So talk about, in learning for yourself and talking to your grandmother, how that shaped you and your work now around voting rights and around racial equality. You live in Meridian, Mississippi.
ANGELA LEWIS: Well, it gives me a great appreciation for not only the sacrifice that my father made, but others, as well. And it gives me the same motivation and desire to want to help, you know, young people and to just try to make people’s lives better. So, mostly, it’s just an appreciation. And I think I share the same passion that my father did, when it comes to just wanting to help people to live a better life.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Julia Chaney-Moss, I wanted to ask you, the long period of time before anybody was found guilty of these murders, could you talk about that and the impact that finally there was a conviction in the case?
REV. JULIA CHANEY-MOSS: Well, it was. It was a terrifically long period of time. And life goes on. You continue to live, even when there is an absence in your life, a present absence in your life. You continue to live. And once there was—we had—in fact, we had no idea until we were called and asked and given information about the pending pursuit of indictment of Preacher Killen. Prior to that, there seemed to have been nothing, you know, really occurring. Once that happened, again, because there was no precedence, nothing had happened before of this nature, seriously, and it was difficult, a little difficult, to rejoice or be happy about this, but to hear this, with temerity, and to just be—to be OK and kind of in waiting to see how this would unfold and what would occur.
AMY GOODMAN: In a moment, we’re also going to be joined by Jerry Mitchell, who was one of those who helped to lead to the indictment and conviction of Preacher Killen, but I wanted to go back to the day of the funeral in Mississippi. I’m sure, Reverend—were you at this funeral? Were you at the funeral, along with your brother Ben?
REV. JULIA CHANEY-MOSS: Unfortunately, unfortunately, I was not at the funeral. I was sick. I was home. But, yes, everyone left to the funeral, and there is no emptiness that can compare to the emptiness I felt, and being in the house and just wandering, knowing what was occurring—
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I wanted—
REV. JULIA CHANEY-MOSS: —it—yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Dave Dennis, who led the Congress of Racial Equality operations in Mississippi, speaking at your brother’s funeral, at James Chaney’s funeral. This is from the documentary Freedom Summer.
DAVE DENNIS: I want to talk about is really what I really grieve about. I don’t grieve for Chaney, because the fact I feel that he lived a fuller life than many of us will ever live. I feel that he’s got his freedom, and we’re still fighting for it.
BRUCE WATSON: Dave Dennis’s speech was a turning point in the summer, because everybody wanted him to say the usual things that you would say at a funeral, and Dave Dennis just couldn’t do it. He challenged the people at the memorial, and he challenged the whole movement.
DAVE DENNIS: You see, we’re all tired. You see, I know what’s going to happen. I feel it deep in my heart. When they find the people who killed those guys in Neshoba County...
All of the deep emotions, things I’d been going through leading up to this particular moment, began to come out, boil up in me, you might call this. And then looking out there and seeing Ben Chaney, James Chaney’s little brother, I lost it. I totally just lost it.
Don’t bow down anymore! Hold your heads up! We want our freedom now. I don’t want to have to go to another memorial. Tired of funerals. Tired of it! Got to stand up!
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was David Dennis of the Congress of Racial Equality at the funeral of James Chaney. Angela Lewis, I’d like to ask you, how has Mississippi changed in all of these years? And obviously we just heard the news in the last few days of many African Americans voting for Thad Cochran, the Republican, against a tea party in his own Republican primary. Could you talk a little bit about how the state has changed?
ANGELA LEWIS: I do feel that the state has changed a lot; of course, we’re not where we were in the '60s. But there's still a lot of work to be done, because now we have a generation of young people that are apathetic, because we don’t have the same challenges that we had then, so the challenge now becomes to keep our young people educated and interested in moving forward and just being aware of what’s going on in society and being a part of that.
AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about how these 50th anniversary activities that have been going on all throughout Mississippi—David, you’ve just come up from Mississippi. Julia Chaney-Moss, you live in New Jersey, and you’re helping to care for your brother Ben, who was at the funeral, but he’s ill now. You’ve gone down to Mississippi. Rita Schwerner, the wife, the widow of Mickey Schwerner, has been in Mississippi. And there’s a whole conference going on in Mississippi around Freedom Summer. How is this galvanizing, this summer, around voting rights?
REV. JULIA CHANEY-MOSS: Certainly, seeing just the volume and group of young people and their energy, commitment and enthusiasm is really heartening, and it’s really very hopeful. The challenges that lay ahead of these young people and the fact that they are so eagerly willing to inform themselves, to empower themselves and step up to the plate really portends for a future that is much brighter than the existence of Mississippi today.
AMY GOODMAN: Why did your brother risk his life, Julia Chaney-Moss? He knew the incredible danger, even more so than the white activists, of course, because he was African-American.
REV. JULIA CHANEY-MOSS: My brother was at a crossroads. At 17, we’re at a crossroads in our lives. We’re looking at our future. We’re looking at our options and the directions that we’re choosing. He made a choice. He made a very conscious choice, becoming involved with the student group and the NAACP. He wore a paper NAACP button to school, and he was expelled by the principal. And he did not stop. At the juncture that he had decided to become further involved, he had had a conversation with my mother. And his burning question, I think the driving force of his life, was: Why do we have to live this way? So that in asking that question and having those conversations with my mother, he began to share with her the choices he had made and the work that he was about to begin. And my mother, in her formidable wisdom, also shared with him. I heard her say, "Boy, do you know what you’re about to do?" And he said, "Yes, ma’am, I know what I’m about to do." And she said, "You know you’re putting your life on the line, and you can get killed for this?" He says, "Yes, ma’am, I know that I can." My mother did not forbid him. She did not, in any way, try to impede him. She was not delighted by his choice, but she certainly supported his choice.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both for joining us and traveling the hour and a half from Meridian, Mississippi, to Jackson to be with us today, Reverend Julia Chaney-Moss, sister of James Chaney, and Angela Lewis, James Chaney’s daughter, born just a few days before James Chaney was murdered. David Goodman is here in New York. He’s staying with us for this last segment. We’ll also be joined from Jackson by Jerry Mitchell, the investigative reporter who helped bring one of the Klansmen to justice for the murder of the three civil rights activists. And we’ll talk about voting rights in states today. Thanks so much for being with us. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a moment.
50 Years After Freedom Summer, U.S. Faces Greatest Curbs on Voting Rights Since Reconstruction
In a week marking the 50th anniversary of Freedom Summer, Mississippi was in the news when African-American voters crossed party lines to help Republican Sen. Thad Cochran narrowly defeat a tea party challenger to win his party’s nomination. It was just a year ago that Cochran praised a Supreme Court decision that gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act. We are joined by three guests: Jerry Mitchell, investigative reporter for The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Mississippi, whose work helped put four Klansmen behind bars, including the man who orchestrated the Klan’s 1964 killings of three civil rights activists; Ari Berman, who covers voting rights for The Nation, author of a forthcoming book to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act; and David Goodman, brother of slain civil rights activist Andrew Goodman.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We stay now in Mississippi, a state that was in the news this week when African-American voters crossed party lines to help Republican Senator Thad Cochran narrowly defeat a tea party challenger to win his party’s nomination. It was just a year ago that Cochran praised a Supreme Court decision that gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act. An editorial in today’s New York Times calls on him to now become the first Republican to cross party lines to support a new measure that would restore the act’s protections.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re staying in Jackson, Mississippi, where we’re joined by Jerry Mitchell, investigative reporter for The Clarion-Ledger. His work has helped put four Klansmen behind bars, including the man who orchestrated the Klan’s '64 killings of the three civil rights activists, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Mickey Schwerner, during Freedom Summer, as well as the assassin of NAACP leader Medgar Evers in 1963. He's writing a book on cold cases from the civil rights era called Race Against Time.
We’re also joined by Ari Berman, who covers voting rights for The Nation. His latest article, "Fifty Years After Freedom Summer, the Voting Rights Act Is Needed More Than Ever," and "Where Are the GOP Supporters of Voting Rights?" also working on a book to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.
Jerry Mitchell, as we talk about voting rights, can you just talk very briefly about this unusual race that took place, with Thad Cochran, the longtime incumbent senator, narrowly defeating a tea party challenger—
JERRY MITCHELL: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: —by appealing to black Democrats to come out and vote for him?
JERRY MITCHELL: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: In some states, it’s a closed primary, so Democrats can’t run for—vote for Republicans, and vice versa. But how does it work in Mississippi?
JERRY MITCHELL: Well, it’s the opposite of that: It’s an open primary. And so, if you vote—for example, in this case, you had a runoff. Let’s say you voted in the Democratic primary as a Democrat. You could turn right around and vote for the—in the Republican runoff. There is no restriction on that.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jerry Mitchell, on this anniversary of the killings of Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman, you were instrumental in finally getting, through your coverage, one of the Klansmen, Edgar Ray Killen, finally convicted, although it took more than 40 years. Could you talk a little bit about how you were able to uncover or finally get this story out?
JERRY MITCHELL: Well, what it was, there was an interview that—Sam Bowers, who was the head of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi, had done an interview. There had been a prosecution, federal prosecution, in 1967 for violating civil rights. Eighteen men were tried then. Seven were convicted, including Bowers, and the rest of the 18 walked. Bowers said, in this secret interview I was able to get a copy of, that he was quite delighted to be convicted and have the main instigator of the entire affair walk out of the courtroom a free man, and he was referring to Edgar Ray Killen. And so, that was what got the case reopened in 1999 and eventually led to reprosecution in 2005.
AMY GOODMAN: David Goodman, were you at the trial? What did it mean to you to have Preacher Killen actually put behind bars?
DAVID GOODMAN: Yes, I was at the trial. And you know what? It’s a good question. It’s mixed with emotion, and it’s a complicated question. I can give you the simple, quick answer that, you know, he was involved in a murder, ostensibly, it was determined—actually, he wasn’t convicted for murder; he was convicted for manslaughter, which is a lower count. But, to me—and if somebody commits a crime, they should be convicted and pay the price for that. But no one else was convicted. The people who were physically—he was not physically at the scene of the crime. The men who were physically there were never convicted of anything. They weren’t even tried. And you can’t be convicted if you’re not tried. They weren’t even indicted, which is kind of step one.
And, to me, the question is: How do you indict society? These men who killed my brother did commit a crime, but it was condoned by millions and millions and millions of people. In that movie clip you showed from Neshoba, there’s a piece where one of the relatives of one of the murderers, who was known to be there—and, by the way, that was established in a federal court—who killed my brother and James and Mickey—their Social Security number, the FBI knew. It never got to a state court, which is the only place murder can be tried. He said, "If you come into somebody’s community and you stick your nose into their business, don’t be surprised if it gets cut off." And then he paused a moment and said, "You know, they deserved it." Forty years later, he’s condoning murder to protect their way of life. And the whole society protected a way of life that resulted in murders, not just of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney, but of hundreds of people. And it was a police state, condoned.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask Ari Berman, a little time we have left, your—the status of voting rights in America today, and given this anniversary and this—these murders helped propel the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965?
ARI BERMAN: Well, right now we’re seeing the greatest restriction of voting rights since Reconstruction. And so, voting rights is an issue just like it was in 1964, 1965. It is still very relevant today. Since the 2010 election, 22 states have passed new voting restrictions, things like strict voter ID or cuts to early voting, restriction of same-day registration, things like that. And so, there’s a great need now for the Voting Rights Act. Ironically, at the same time we’re seeing this great push to restrict voting rights, the Supreme Court has taken a totally different view that the Voting Rights Act is not needed in a way that it was needed in 1965. So, there’s something of an irony. Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent in that Shelby County decision you mentioned earlier, said that Section 5, which meant that states like Mississippi had to clear their voting changes with the federal government, it was like an umbrella, and you don’t take away the umbrella when it’s not raining. And the irony is that it was pouring. There was so much voting discrimination at the time that the Supreme Court took away that decision. And so, now voting rights advocates are trying to protect voting rights without that crucial protection from the Supreme Court.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Jerry Mitchell, do you feel Mississippi is different today? I mean, you’ve been investigating these crimes for years, but you’re also attending these voting rights and Freedom Summer gatherings that are taking place in Mississippi.
JERRY MITCHELL: Right. Well, Mississippi has changed a lot. Back in—50 years ago, there were 6 percent of African Americans were even allowed to vote in Mississippi. Today, Mississippi has more African-American elected officials than any other state. So, Mississippi has come a long ways, but we have to also be honest and say it still has a long ways to go.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, and, David, as you come up from Mississippi back to New York and New Jersey where you live, do you feel progress has been made after the deaths of your brother and so many others?
DAVID GOODMAN: Well, I think Mississippi reflects the rest of the country. There was a lot of—there has been a lot of progress made all around the country. The issues now are more subtle, a different mode of restriction. And I look at the intent when people do something. The people who murdered my brother committed the worst crime, but they also assassinated the Constitution. That’s how I felt about it. And when you—whether you’re a Democrat or Republican—and both parties have done it—you’re assassinating the Constitution.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank David Goodman, Ari Berman, Jerry Mitchell. Thanks so much for being with us. That does it for our show.
I’ll be speaking tonight in Chicago at the Crown Plaza Hotel, Conference Center, Chicago O’Hare Airport area. Check our website at democracynow.org. And we have two job openings at Democracy Now! Check democracynow.org.
Headlines:
•Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant to Search Cellphones
The Supreme Court has ruled police must obtain a warrant before searching the cellphones of people they arrest. The ruling likely applies to other electronic devices, such as laptop computers. The unanimous 9-to-0 ruling overturns a decision upholding the conviction of a California man sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after police pulled him over for expired vehicle tags, found guns in his car and then searched his phone. Data from that search was then used to tie him to a shooting. The ruling is being hailed as a major victory for privacy rights in the age of smartphones. We’ll have more on this story after headlines.
•Courts Uphold Marriage Equality in Utah, Indiana
The fight for marriage equality has picked up new victories with rulings against bans in Utah and Indiana. In a 2-to-1 decision Wednesday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Utah’s ban is unconstitutional. Although lower courts have struck down a number of state bans, it is the first time a federal appeals court has done so since last year’s Supreme Court decision overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. More than 1,000 LGBT couples tied the knot in December during a brief window when a district court struck down Utah’s ban. The new ruling sets up a likely challenge before the Supreme Court with Utah planning to appeal. A federal judge, meanwhile, has struck down Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban and ordered officials to immediately begin issuing marriage licenses. In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project said: "This is a significant step in the astounding progress that has been made in just a few years toward achieving dignity for all families."
•Report: U.S. Deported Over 72,000 Parents of U.S.-Born Children in 2013
New figures revealed by The Huffington Post show U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 72,000 parents of U.S.-born children last year. The plight of parents with American children has been a key subject in the immigration reform debate, with advocates urging President Obama to take executive action to stop the separation of millions of families. The 72,000 figure includes more than 10,000 deported parents with no criminal convictions. The news comes as the Obama administration grapples with an influx of thousands of undocumented children fleeing violence and poverty in Central America. On Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson visited a federal immigration center in Arizona where he made a public appeal to the parents of child migrants. Johnson said children are making dangerous treks to the U.S. border based on false hopes of citizenship.
Jeh Johnson: "My overall message is that it is not safe to send your child on the over 1,000-mile journey into Mexico, into South Texas. If you’re a parent considering doing this, DACA is not available for your child. Comprehensive immigration reform, the earned path to citizenship is not available for your child. It is a dangerous, dangerous journey."
•Sunni Militants Seize Town Near Baghdad; Iraqi Forces Prep Battle for Water Dam
Sunni militants have seized a new Iraqi town just an hour from the capital Baghdad. Mansouriyat al-Jabal is home to four natural gas fields and is the latest in the north and west to fall under militant control. In a televised speech, the powerful Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr vowed to "shake the ground" underneath advancing Sunni militants and expressed concern about foreign involvement in Iraq. ISIS forces are reportedly setting their sights on Iraq’s second-largest dam, in Haditha. The New York Times reports Iraqi forces guarding the dam have been ordered to prepare for opening the floodgates, despite the potential for widespread damage. ISIS militants already control a major dam up the Euphrates River in neighboring Syria. Along with dangerously low water levels, that could threaten a new humanitarian crisis. On a visit to Iraq, Ertharin Cousin of the United Nations World Food Programme voiced concern for the estimated half a million Iraqis displaced in recent weeks.
Ertharin Cousin: "These people didn’t have any place else to go, and they are depending upon the international community and the generosity of the people of this community for their survival. The challenge is that we do not have the necessary resources to provide the assistance that is required for a sustained period of time. We need the international community to continue to support our efforts here so that no family who has now come to find refuge goes without the basic food, water and other assistance needs that U.N. community and WFP is working to provide to them".
•Bombing Kills 21 at Nigerian Shopping Center
At least 21 people have been killed and 17 wounded in a bombing at a shopping mall in the Nigerian capital of Abuja. The Nigerian government has blamed Boko Haram militants. The government, meanwhile, is denying reports around 90 people were kidnapped in the northern Borno state over the weekend.
•U.S. Economy Suffers Largest Contraction in Years
New figures show the U.S. economy has suffered its worst contraction since the depths of the recession five years ago. The Commerce Department says gross domestic product fell 2.9 percent in the first quarter between January and March. Major factors included an unusually cold winter, the expiration of long-term unemployment benefits, and cuts to food stamps.
•U.N. Experts: Detroit’s Mass Water Shut-Off Violates Human Rights
A United Nations panel has voiced concern over Detroit’s mass shutdown of water to city residents behind on their monthly bills. Since March, the Detroit water authority has cut the water taps of around 3,000 residents per week over unpaid bills of two months or more. In some cases, families losing their water have had their children removed and placed in foster care. In a statement, experts with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights say the disconnection of water taps constitutes "a violation of the human right to water and other international human rights." They add: "Because of a high poverty rate and a high unemployment rate, relatively expensive water bills in Detroit are unaffordable for a significant portion of the population. … The households which suffered unjustified disconnections must be immediately reconnected." The statement comes days after a coalition of human rights groups and Detroit activists submitted an appeal asking the United Nations to intervene.
•Boehner Seeks Lawsuit Against Obama Executive Actions
House Speaker John Boehner is seeking House approval to sue President Obama for overstepping his authority. Obama has angered Republicans with a series of executive orders in the face of a gridlocked Congress, with actions including raising the minimum wage, expanding LGBT protections, and stopping the deportation of undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. On Wednesday, Boehner said he will ask House colleagues to authorize a legal challenge.
House Speaker John Boehner: "You know, the Constitution makes it clear that a president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws. And in my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws. We have a system of government outlined in our Constitution, with the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Congress has its job to do, and so does the president. And when there’s conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, it’s, in my view, our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve."
Boehner declined to say which executive actions he plans to oppose. At the White House, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Republicans are approaching a new level of political obstruction.
Josh Earnest: "For a long time, we’ve seen Republicans block progress in Congress, a range of bills that would promote economic strength. But in this case, it seems that Republicans have shifted their opposition into a higher gear. Frankly, it’s a gear that I didn’t know previously existed. The fact that they are considering a taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the president of the United States for doing his job, I think, is the kind of step that most Americans wouldn’t support. I think they’re looking — I think what most Americans would say is they want their leaders in Washington, D.C., to make progress on behalf of the American people. I’m not suggesting that that is easy. Bipartisan progress, in particular, is difficult. But just lapsing into these kinds of tactics that for so long that have been employed in the legislative branch, and now appear to being applied at the judicial branch is frankly not the right way to go."
•U.S. Journalist Allan Nairn Threatened with Arrest in Indonesia
In Indonesia, the campaign of a leading presidential candidate and former military general has threatened to arrest the American journalist Allan Nairn. Nairn wrote an article quoting from a 2001 interview he conducted with the former general, Prabowo Subianto, who said: "Indonesia is not ready for democracy" and needs "a benign authoritarian regime." He also added: "Do I have the guts? Am I ready to be called a fascist dictator?" Nairn’s story has become an issue in the Indonesian presidential campaign and has put the former general on the defensive. It coincides with outrage over the release of a music video made by Prabowo supporters showing them in Nazi-like uniforms. A spokesperson for Prabowo’s campaign said the military is prepared to arrest Nairn if he is found to have re-entered Indonesia. On his website, Nairn said: "I am currently in Indonesia so if the [army] would like to capture me, they can." Nairn has reported from Indonesia for years, previously exposing government killings of civilians.
•Jailed Al Jazeera Journalist: "We Must Remain Committed to Fight This Gross Injustice"
Journalists covering the United Nations held an emergency session on Wednesday to denounce Egypt’s sentencing of three Al Jazeera journalists to between seven and 10 years in prison. Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed were convicted this week of "spreading false news" in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, deemed by the government a "terrorist group." Speaking before the United Nations Correspondents Association, Al Jazeera America President Kate O’Brien demanded the trio’s release.
Kate O’Brien: "We want our Al Jazeera journalists cleared, freed and returned to their families and colleagues, where they belong. We are doing everything in our power to achieve that. It has been 179 days since Mohamed, Peter and Baher were arrested. It is time for them to come home to their families, their colleagues and to their all-important work."
An Egyptian official attending Wednesday’s session said it may take three to four months for the journalists’ appeal to be heard. Also addressing the gathering, Robert Mahoney of the Committee to Protect Journalists called on Egypt to release all of the 14 journalists it is holding behind bars.
Robert Mahoney: "Today, as we speak, there are 14 journalists in jail in Egypt, including the three Al Jazeera journalists that we’re here to help. That makes Egypt, on our reckoning, the biggest jailer of journalists in the Arab world — more than Syria, where there are about 12. That’s not a record that any country should be happy to have. So we are working for the release of all those journalists, and we would urge the Egyptian authorities to work to their release. And the president, al-Sisi, has it within his power to free them."
In his first statement since being sentenced, Greste urged supporters to keep up pressure on the Egyptian government, saying: "The verdict confirms that our trial was never simply about the charges against us — it has been an attempt to use the court to intimidate and silence critical voices in the media. … [Public support] has kept us strong and continues to do so. We must all remain committed to fight this gross injustice for as long as necessary."
-------
"The Egyptian Counterrevolution Will Not Be Televised" by Amy Goodman
Egypt sentenced three Al-Jazeera journalists this week to severe prison terms, in court proceedings that observers described as “farcical.” Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed were charged with fabricating news footage, and thus supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which was ousted from power in a military coup a year ago and labeled a terrorist organization. Along with the three jailed journalists, three other foreign journalists were tried and convicted in absentia. Greste, who is Australian, and Fahmy, who is Canadian-Egyptian, received seven-year prison sentences. Baher Mohamed, who is Egyptian, was dealt a 10-year sentence, ostensibly because he had an empty shell casing in his possession, which is an item that many journalists covering conflicts pick up off the street as evidence. The prosecutors called that possession of ammunition. The harsh, six-month pretrial imprisonment, the absurd trial itself and now these sentences have generated global outrage. A movement is growing to demand clemency or release for these three journalists. But while the words of the Obama administration support their freedom, the U.S. government’s actions, primarily in pledging to resume military aid to Egypt, send the opposite message.
The three journalists who were sentenced in absentia to 10 years in prison are Al-Jazeera correspondent Sue Turton, along with Dominic Kane and Dutch journalist Rena Netjes. Speaking on the “Democracy Now!” news hour from Doha, Qatar, where Al-Jazeera is based, Turton told me: “The verdicts left us all here at Al-Jazeera quite stunned. We dared to believe that the verdict would be ‘not guilty,’ because we had sat and watched the court sessions over the past few months, and we’d seen absolutely no evidence that the prosecution had brought that proved in any way, shape or form the charges against us.”
Jailed journalist Greste has won awards for his work around the world for Reuters and the BBC prior to Al-Jazeera. Fahmy was working as Al-Jazeera’s Cairo bureau chief at the time of the trio’s Dec. 29, 2013, arrest. He has also worked for CNN, contributed to The New York Times and worked with “PBS NewsHour.” Margaret Warner, the chief foreign-affairs correspondent for “NewsHour,” worked with Fahmy while covering the Egyptian revolution in 2011 when her crew was attacked. She said of Fahmy’s efforts that day: “He absolutely saved our lives. I’m no legal expert, but I can tell you that Mohamed Fahmy struck me ... as nothing more and nothing less than a professional journalist.”
In a letter sent to the newly elected President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, more than 75 journalists, including “Democracy Now!” correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous, who is himself Egyptian-American, wrote: “As journalists, we support the release of all of our Egyptian or international colleagues who may be imprisoned for doing what they believed to be their jobs.”
The Committee to Protect Journalists noted, “While the focus has been on the Al-Jazeera journalists, in fact Egypt is currently holding at least 14 journalists in prison, placing the country among the world’s worst repressors.” Amnesty International is calling on people around the world to appeal to President Sisi, writing: “All three men are prisoners of conscience, imprisoned solely for the peaceful exercise of their right to free expression. Egypt must immediately drop the charges against the three journalists and let them go free.”
Of course, not all voices calling for freedom are equal. When the sentences were handed down in court this week, Mohamed Fahmy shouted from his cage, “Where is John Kerry?” It was a very important question. The day before the verdict was issued, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was in Cairo, meeting with Sisi.
Egypt has long been one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid, averaging $1.5 billion-$2 billion per year since 1979. Since the coup d’etat last year, that aid has been halted, but the U.S. says it is resuming military aid. One of Kerry’s former colleagues in the Senate, Patrick Leahy, warned, “The harsh actions taken today against journalists is the latest descent toward despotism.” So how is it that the U.S. is restoring more than $500 million in military aid right now?
From his home in Australia, Peter Greste’s father, Juris Greste, said, “Journalism is not a crime,” echoing the sentiment that has gone global. In newsrooms the world over, from the BBC and the Toronto Star to Hong Kong, journalists and staff are posting photos of their mouths covered with tape, protesting Egypt’s oppression of the press. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Kerry should take heed. A threat to the freedom of the press is a threat to the public’s right to know. It is the flow of information, not the flow of military aid, that is essential to the functioning of a democratic society.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,200 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.
© 2014 Amy Goodman
Distributed by King Features Syndicate
-------
Stories:
Counter-Revolution of 1776: Was U.S. Independence War a Conservative Revolt in Favor of Slavery?
As the United States prepares to celebrate Independence Day, we look at why July 4 is not a cause for celebration for all. For Native Americans, it may be a bitter reminder of colonialism, which brought fatal diseases, cultural hegemony and genocide. Neither did the new republic’s promise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" extend to African Americans. The colonists who declared their freedom from England did not share their newly founded liberation with the millions of Africans they had captured and forced into slavery. We speak with historian Gerald Horne, who argues the so-called Revolutionary War was actually a conservative effort by American colonists to protect their system of slavery. He is the author of two new books: "The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America" and "Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow." Horne is professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Chicago with our next guest. Juan González is in New York.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, next weekend, the United States celebrates the Fourth of July, the day the American colonies declared their independence from England in 1776. While many Americans will hang flags, participate in parades and watch fireworks, Independence Day is not a cause for celebration for all. For Native Americans, it is yet another bitter reminder of colonialism, which brought fatal diseases, cultural hegemony and full-out genocide. Neither did the new republic’s promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness extend to African Americans. As our next guest notes, the white colonists who declared their freedom from the crown did not share their newly founded liberation with the millions of Africans they had captured and forced into slavery.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Gerald Horne argues that the so-called Revolutionary War was actually a counterrevolution, in part, not a progressive step forward for humanity, but a conservative effort by American colonialists to protect their system of slavery.
For more, Professor Horne joins us here in our Chicago studio. He’s the author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America and another new book, just out, Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. Professor Horne teaches history and African American studies at the University of Houston.
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. So, as we move into this Independence Day week, what should we understand about the founding of the United States?
GERALD HORNE: We should understand that July 4th, 1776, in many ways, represents a counterrevolution. That is to say that what helped to prompt July 4th, 1776, was the perception amongst European settlers on the North American mainland that London was moving rapidly towards abolition. This perception was prompted by Somerset’s case, a case decided in London in June 1772 which seemed to suggest that abolition, which not only was going to be ratified in London itself, was going to cross the Atlantic and basically sweep through the mainland, thereby jeopardizing numerous fortunes, not only based upon slavery, but the slave trade. That’s the short answer.
The longer answer would involve going back to another revolution—that is to say, the so-called Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, which, among other things, involved a step back from the monarch—for the monarch, the king, and a step forward for the rising merchant class. This led to a deregulation of the African slave trade. That is to say, the Royal African Company theretofore had been in control of the slave trade, but with the rising power of the merchant class, this slave trade was deregulated, leading to what I call free trade in Africans. That is to say, merchants then descended upon the African continent manacling and handcuffing every African in sight, with the energy of demented and crazed bees, dragging them across the Atlantic, particularly to the Caribbean and to the North American mainland. This was prompted by the fact that the profits for the slave trade were tremendous, sometimes up to 1,600 or 1,700 percent. And as you know, there are those even today who will sell their firstborn for such a profit. This, on the one hand, helped to boost the productive forces both in the Caribbean and on the mainland, but it led to numerous slave revolts, not least in the Caribbean, but also on the mainland, which helped to give the mainlanders second thoughts about London’s tentative steps towards abolition.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Gerald Horne, one of the things that struck me in your book is not only your main thesis, that this was in large part a counterrevolution, our—the United States’ war of independence, but you also link very closely the—what was going on in the Caribbean colonies of England, as well as in the United States, not only in terms of among the slaves in both areas, but also among the white population. And, in fact, you indicate that quite a few of those who ended up here in the United States fostering the American Revolution had actually been refugees from the battles between whites and slaves in the Caribbean. Could you expound on that?
GERALD HORNE: It’s well known that up until the middle part of the 18th century, London felt that the Caribbean colonies—Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua, in particular—were in some ways more valuable than the mainland colonies. The problem was that in the Caribbean colonies the Africans outnumbered the European settlers, sometimes at a rate of 20 to one, which facilitated slave revolts. There were major slave revolts in Antigua, for example, in 1709 and 1736. The Maroons—that is to say, the Africans who had escaped London’s jurisdiction in Jamaica—had challenged the crown quite sternly. This led, as your question suggests, to many European settlers in the Caribbean making the great trek to the mainland, being chased out of the Caribbean by enraged Africans. For example, I did research for this book in Newport, Rhode Island, and the main library there, to this very day, is named after Abraham Redwood, who fled Antigua after the 1736 slave revolt because many of his, quote, "Africans," unquote, were involved in the slave revolt. And he fled in fear and established the main library in Newport, to this very day, and helped to basically establish that city on the Atlantic coast. So, there is a close connection between what was transpiring in the Caribbean and what was taking place on the mainland. And historians need to recognize that even though these colonies were not necessarily a unitary project, there were close and intimate connections between and amongst them.
AMY GOODMAN: So, why this great disparity between how people in the United States talk about the creation myth of the United States, if you will—I’m not talking about indigenous people, Native American people—and this story that you have researched?
GERALD HORNE: Well, it is fair to say that the United States did provide a sanctuary for Europeans. Indeed, I think part of the, quote, "genius," unquote, of the U.S. project, if there was such a genius, was the fact that the founders in the United States basically called a formal truce, a formal ceasefire, with regard to the religious warfare that had been bedeviling Europe for many decades and centuries—that is to say, Protestant London, so-called, versus Catholic Madrid and Catholic France. What the settlers on the North American mainland did was call a formal truce with regard to religious conflict, but then they opened a new front with regard to race—that is to say, Europeans versus non-Europeans.
This, at once, broadened the base for the settler project. That is to say, they could draw upon those defined as white who had roots from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains, and indeed even to the Arab world, if you look at people like Ralph Nader and Marlo Thomas, for example, whose roots are in Lebanon but are considered to be, quote, "white," unquote. This obviously expanded the population base for the settler project. And because many rights were then accorded to these newly minted whites, it obviously helped to ensure that many of them would be beholden to the country that then emerged, the United States of America, whereas those of us who were not defined as white got the short end of the stick, if you like.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Gerald Horne, as a result of that, during the American Revolution, what was the perception or the attitude of the African slaves in the U.S. to that conflict? You also—you talk about, during the colonial times, many slaves preferred to flee to the Spanish colonies or the French colonies, rather than to stay in the American colonies of England.
GERALD HORNE: You are correct. The fact of the matter is, is that Spain had been arming Africans since the 1500s. And indeed, because Spain was arming Africans and then unleashing them on mainland colonies, particularly South Carolina, this put competitive pressure on London to act in a similar fashion. The problem there was, is that the mainland settlers had embarked on a project and a model of development that was inconsistent with arming Africans. Indeed, their project was involved in enslaving and manacling every African in sight. This deepens the schism between the colonies and the metropolis—that is to say, London—thereby helping to foment a revolt against British rule in 1776.
It’s well known that more Africans fought alongside of the Redcoats—fought alongside the Redcoats than fought with the settlers. And this is understandable, because if you think about it for more than a nanosecond, it makes little sense for slaves to fight alongside slave masters so that slave masters could then deepen the persecution of the enslaved and, indeed, as happened after 1776, bring more Africans to the mainland, bring more Africans to Cuba, bring more Africans to Brazil, for their profit.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to historian Gerald Horne. He’s author of two new books. We’re talking about The Counter-Revolution of 1776. The subtitle of that book is Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America. And his latest book, just out, is called Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. He’s professor of history and African American studies at University of Houston. When we come back, we’ll talk about that second book about Cuba. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Slavery Days" by Burning Spear, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Chicago. Juan González is in New York. Before we talk about the book on slavery, I want to turn to President Obama’s remarks at the White House’s Fourth of July celebration last year. This is how President Obama described what happened in 1776.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: On July 4th, 1776, a small band of patriots declared that we were a people created equal, free to think and worship and live as we please, that our destiny would not be determined for us, it would be determined by us. And it was bold, and it was brave. And it was unprecedented. It was unthinkable. At that time in human history, it was kings and princes and emperors who made decisions. But those patriots knew there was a better way of doing things, that freedom was possible, and that to achieve their freedom, they’d be willing to lay down their lives, their fortune and their honor. And so they fought a revolution. And few would have bet on their side. But for the first time of many times to come, America proved the doubters wrong. And now, 237 years later, this improbable experiment in democracy, the United States of America, stands as the greatest nation on Earth.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Obama talking about the meaning of July 4th. Gerald Horne, your book, The Counter-Revolution of 1776, is a direct rebuttal of this, as you call, creation myth. Could you talk about that?
GERALD HORNE: Well, with all due respect to President Obama, I think that he represents, in those remarks you just cited, the consensus view. That is to say that, on the one hand, there is little doubt that 1776 represented a step forward with regard to the triumph over monarchy. The problem with 1776 was that it went on to establish what I refer to as the first apartheid state. That is to say, the rights that Mr. Obama refers to were accorded to only those who were defined as white. To that degree, I argue in the book that 1776, in many ways, was analogous to Unilateral Declaration of Independence in the country then known as Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, in November 1965. UDI, Unilateral Declaration of Independence, was in many ways an attempt to forestall decolonization. 1776, in many ways, was an attempt to forestall the abolition of slavery. That attempt succeeded until the experiment crashed and burned in 1861 with the U.S. Civil War, the bloodiest conflict, to this point, the United States has ever been involved in.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Gerald Horne, how does this story, this, what you call, counterrevolution, fit in with your latest book, Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow?
GERALD HORNE: Well, there’s a certain consistency between the two books. Keep in mind that in 1762 Britain temporarily seized Cuba from Spain. And one of the regulations that Britain imposed outraged the settlers, as I argue in both books. What happened was that Britain sought to regulate the slave trade, and the settlers on the North American mainland wanted deregulation of the slave trade, thereby bringing in more Africans. What happens is that that was one of the points of contention that lead to a detonation and a revolt against British rule in 1776.
I go on in the Cuba book to talk about how one of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Cuba was because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers, particularly going into the Congo River Basin and dragging Africans across the Atlantic. Likewise, I had argued in a previous book on the African slave trade to Brazil that one of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Brazil, more than any place outside of Nigeria, is, once again, because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers, who go into Angola, in particular, and drag Africans across the Atlantic to Brazil.
It seems to me that it’s very difficult to reconcile the creation myth of this great leap forward for humanity when, after 1776 and the foundation of the United States of America, the United States ousts Britain from control of the African slave trade. Britain then becomes the cop on the beat trying to detain and deter U.S. slave traders and slave dealers. It seems to me that if this was a step forward for humanity, it was certainly not a step forward for Africans, who, the last time I looked, comprise a significant percentage of humanity.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Gerald Horne, so, in other words, as you’re explaining the involvement of American companies in the slave trade in Brazil and Cuba, this—that book and also your The Counter-Revolution of 1776 makes the same point that slavery was not just an issue of interest in the South to the Southern plantation owners, but that in the North, banking, insurance, merchants, shipping were all involved in the slave trade, as well.
GERALD HORNE: Well, Juan, as you well know, New York City was a citadel of the African slave trade, even after the formal abolition of the U.S. role in the African slave trade in 1808. Rhode Island was also a center for the African slave trade. Ditto for Massachusetts. Part of the unity between North and South was that it was in the North that the financing for the African slave trade took place, and it was in the South where you had the Africans deposited. That helps to undermine, to a degree, the very easy notion that the North was abolitionist and the South was pro-slavery.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Gerald Horne, what most surprised you in your research around Cuba, U.S. slavery and Jim Crow?
GERALD HORNE: Well, what most surprised me with regard to both of these projects was the restiveness, the rebelliousness of the Africans involved. It’s well known that the Africans in the Caribbean were very much involved in various extermination plots, liquidation plots, seeking to abolish, through force of arms and violence, the institution of slavery. Unfortunately, I think that historians on the North American mainland have tended to downplay the restiveness of Africans, and I think it’s done a disservice to the descendants of the population of mainland enslaved Africans. That is to say that because the restiveness of Africans in the United States has been downplayed, it leads many African Americans today to either, A, think that their ancestors were chumps—that is to say, that they fought alongside slave owners to bring more freedom to slave owners and more persecution to themselves—or, B, that they were ciphers—that is to say, they stood on the sidelines as their fate was being determined. I think that both of these books seek to disprove those very unfortunate notions.
AMY GOODMAN: So, as we move into the Independence Day weekend next weekend, what do you say to people in the United States?
GERALD HORNE: What I say to the people in the United States is that you have proved that you can be very critical of what you deem to be revolutionary processes. You have a number of scholars and intellectuals who make a good living by critiquing the Cuban Revolution of 1959, by critiquing the Russian Revolution of 1917, by critiquing the French Revolution of the 18th century, but yet we get the impression that what happened in 1776 was all upside, which is rather far-fetched, given what I’ve just laid out before you in terms of how the enslaved African population had their plight worsened by 1776, not to mention the subsequent liquidation of independent Native American polities as a result of 1776. I think that we need a more balanced presentation of the foundation of the United States of America, and I think that there’s no sooner place to begin than next week with July 4th, 2014.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Gerald Horne, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Historian Gerald Horne is author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America as well as Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. He’s a professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston.
That does it for our broadcast. Happy birthday to Jon Randolph. Democracy Now! has two job openings — administrative director, as well as a seasoned Linux systems administrator — as well as fall internships. Check out democracynow.org/jobs for more information.
Journalist Allan Nairn Threatened for Exposing Indonesian Pres. Candidate's Role in Mass Killings
A former military strongman is running for president in Indonesia. The U.S.-trained Prabowo Subianto has been accused of extensive human rights abuses that took place in the 1990s when he was head of the country’s special forces. He was dismissed from the army in 1998 following accusations he was complicit in the abduction and torture of activists during political unrest in Jakarta that led to the ouster of longtime dictator Suharto. We go to Indonesia to speak with journalist and activist Allan Nairn, who is there to reveal the former general’s role in mass killings of civilians. In a new article that has caused an uproar in the county and prompted death threats, Nairn quotes from a 2001 interview he conducted with Prabowo, who said then, "You don’t massacre civilians in front of the world press. … Indonesia is not ready for democracy." He argued Indonesia needed "a benign authoritarian regime,” and added, "Do I have the guts? Am I ready to be called a fascist dictator?" This coincides with outrage over the release of a music video made by Prabowo supporters showing them in Nazi-like uniforms.TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn to Indonesia, where polls show support is growing for a former military strongman who is now running for president. The U.S.-trained Prabowo Subianto has been accused of extensive human rights abuses that took place in the 1990s when he was head of the country’s special forces. He was dismissed from the army in 1998 following accusations he was complicit in the abduction and torture of activists during political unrest in Jakarta that led to the ouster of longtime dictator Suharto.
AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this month, during a debate between the two candidates, Prabowo was repeatedly asked about his role then, as well as in similar abuses in East Timor when it was occupied by Indonesia. Prabowo has denied the accusations and insists he was doing his duty to protect the nation. But on Thursday in Indonesia, he faced fresh accusations of criminal behavior after his former boss revealed details of a military council’s findings that led to his discharge from the armed forces nearly, what, something like 16 years ago.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: On Thursday, Prabowo’s campaign threatened to arrest the American journalist Allan Nairn for revealing the former general’s role in human rights abuses. Nairn wrote an article quoting from a 2001 interview he conducted with Prabowo, where—who said, quote, "You don’t massacre civilians in front of the world press." Prabowo also said, quote, "Indonesia is not ready for democracy" and needs "a benign authoritarian regime," adding, "Do I have the guts? Am I ready to be called a fascist dictator?"
AMY GOODMAN: This coincides with outrage over the release of a music video made by Prabowo supporters, and endorsed by Prabowo, showing them in Nazi-like uniforms. The song called "Indonesia Bangkit," or "Awakening Indonesia," features musician Ahmad Dhani in militaristic uniform, wearing badges similar to those of SS Commander Heinrich Himmler. The Prabowo campaign initially defended the video but has since called for its removal. Prabowo’s rival in the race is Joko Widodo, the governor of the capital, Jakarta. The elections will be held on July 9th.
For more, we’re going to Indonesia, where journalist and activist Allan Nairn joins us by Democracy Now! video stream. Allan Nairn has reported from Indonesia for years, previously exposing government killings of civilians.
Allan, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you describe what is taking place in Indonesia right now and what has happened as a result of the article that you’ve just released on your blog at AllanNairn.org?
ALLAN NAIRN: Well, General Prabowo, who has been implicated in mass killings and was a close U.S. protégé—he was the most intensively U.S.-trained officer in Indonesia—may be on the verge of assuming state power. The presidential election is judged by most people to be about 50-50 right now. So he may become the next president of Indonesia.
After my piece came out, there’s been an uproar in the Indonesian press. The army declared that I am an operational target. One of the spokesmen for Prabowo said that I was an enemy of the nation. But, you know, these are kind of standard responses.
Earlier, Juan read some of the quotes of Prabowo in the—in his interviews with me. One additional thing he said, when he was talking about the Santa Cruz massacre, that you and I, Amy, both survived, the full quote was: "You don’t massacre civilians in front of the world press. Maybe commanders do it in villages where no one will ever know, but not in the provincial capital!" So he was saying it’s OK to do it, just where no one will know.
And in fact, in 1983, there was just such a massacre in a remote area around the village of Kraras in the mountains of East Timor. And the official U.N.-chartered truth commission for East Timor, in their report, published testimony indicating that Prabowo was involved.
Prabowo did that after he had been brought to the U.S., brought to Fort Bragg and given the U.S. special forces course. After the Kraras massacre and after his forces were repeatedly over the years implicated in similar mass killings, including in West Papua, in once case, where they masqueraded as the International Red Cross and then went on to shoot down civilians, the U.S. kept bringing him back for more training, and he became what Prabowo described to me as "the Americans’ fair-haired boy."
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Allan, could you talk about the—how you initially interviewed Prabowo and the—why he agreed to do the interview and under what conditions that initial interview was conducted?
ALLAN NAIRN: I went to him because I was investigating some killings that had recently occurred then. This was 2001. And I was hoping that—at that moment, Prabowo was out of power; he had lost a power struggle within the army. I was hoping he might be willing to divulge some details about those recent murders I was looking into. And I offered him off-the-record anonymity.
I don’t know exactly why Prabowo sat down with me. We were adversaries. I had publicly called for him to be tried and jailed for killing civilians. I had been involved, you know, to lead the grassroots campaign to cut off U.S. military aid to Indonesia after the Timor massacre. I don’t know his reasons, but it seemed to me that he enjoyed sitting down and talking shop with an adversary who was familiar with his—familiar with his work.
I offered him off-the-record anonymity. But as it turned out, he really didn’t disclose anything about the killings I was looking into. But we ended up speaking for more than four hours—or for nearly four hours. And he made all sorts of political comments that at the time I thought were extraneous, since he was out of power. But now that he’s on the verge of maybe becoming president of Indonesia—the Indonesian people will have to make that choice in the election on the 9th—I decided that it was my obligation to put this information on the record so that the Indonesian people could consider it in making their decision. And it’s not a decision I made lightly, because an off-the-record promise is serious. But I felt that the harm of breaking that was—would be outweighed by even the greater harm of if I did not disclose the information.
And there’s more. I’ll soon be out with some fairly extensive pieces on Prabowo’s work with the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Allan, when we survived the massacre in 1991, over 271 Timorese were killed. This was when the Indonesian military, armed with U.S. M-16s, opened fire on the people of Timor in occupied Timor at the time. When the people of Timor got to vote for their freedom in 1999, you got into East Timor, and you ultimately were arrested by the Indonesian military. In the massacre, the Indonesian military fractured your skull. Now, in this report that has just come out, well, I want to read one of the messages posted on the official Indonesian armed forces, or TNI, Twitter account. It says, quote, "Foreign journalist Allan Nairn becomes TO (operational target) of TNI." A message posted on another account says, quote, "Careful you don’t get abducted, Uncle." How real are these threats? Why have you decided to come forward with this now? And is Prabowo still in charge in any way of the military, of the TNI?
ALLAN NAIRN: No, he’s not in charge in any way, although it seems that a majority of the military and the retired military are backing him in this election. Threats like this are standard practice for the Indonesian armed forces and those who they—those on the outside they sponsor. A few years ago, Kopassus, which is the U.S.-trained special forces that Prabowo used to command, they had an internal manual, which listed as one of their methods what they described as the tactic and technique of terror. And the word "terror" has actually been moved into Indonesian. "Teror," it’s the sending of death threats to people. It’s standard practice. Anyone who speaks out against things like army killings often receives such threats.
But, of course, they’re not going to do anything to me. But over the years, the Indonesian people and the people in Papua and Aceh and Timor, who became operational targets of the army, many were tortured or assassinated. And one issue is: If Prabowo becomes president, will that increase? Today in West Papua, the Indonesian army is still using these tactics. A few years ago, I put out an internal Kopassus target list of activists in West Papua, and these included religious leaders and academics and local civic leaders, and these are the people who are in danger.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Allan, could you talk about the other candidates lined up against Prabowo? Were you surprised that he has appeared to have garnered so much support? And also, what’s been the impact on Indonesia, which is a largely Muslim country, of the Muslim extremist movements around the world?
ALLAN NAIRN: Well, this is a two-person race for president: It’s Prabowo versus Jokowi, the governor of Jakarta. Jokowi made a name for himself as governor because he actually went out and met the poor. He would go down into the street and speak to people, and he became an overnight political sensation. Jokowi, though, is surrounded by killers—generals like Wiranto and Hendropriyono. Wiranto was involved in leading the '99 massacres in Timor that Amy mentioned. Hendropriyono's men were involved in—or behind the assassination of the great human rights activist Munir. They are among the establishment figures who are supporting Jokowi, although he himself seems to be cut from a different cloth. So, on the one hand, you have Jokowi, who is backed by killers, and then, on the other hand, you have Prabowo, who is a killer himself.
As to why his support is rising, first, for years, to talk about the meddlings by the army has essentially been taboo in the Indonesian press, so the public has been deprived of information for decades. Second, money. There’s massive money behind Prabowo. The TV stations are owned by oligarchs, who directly control the political content, in fact even more directly than the owners control the political content in the U.S.
And then, in his campaign, Prabowo, who is a strong speaker, has presented himself as two things: one, the champion of the poor, and, two, the man who will fight America, the man who will not bow down to America. And those are two very popular positions in Indonesia, for very good reasons, because Indonesia has been abused and exploited by America for decades, and everyone here knows that. And, of course, the poor in Indonesia have exploited. The problem—and are still being, as happens everywhere around the world, and it’s especially intense in Indonesia, and the poor are the majority.
But the problem is that Prabowo is—that Prabowo is exactly the person who will not act on those claims. He is, himself, the main—has, himself, been the main U.S. agent over the years within the Indonesian armed forces. He has been Washington’s man. He, as he told me, was "Washington’s fair-haired boy." He’s not the person who will fight the U.S.; he is the U.S.’s man.
And secondly, in terms of rich and poor, Prabowo’s campaign is financed by his brother Hashim, who is a billionaire, who’s one of the richest men in Indonesia, who is tied in to the very multinational corporations that Prabowo rightly says are exploiting the country. Prabowo himself was in business with a whole range of multinationals. When his Kopassus—when he had his Kopassus force in West Papua, they, Kopassus, were taking payoffs from Freeport-McMoRan, the American mining giant, which has laid waste to the environment in West Papua and has helped loot Indonesia of its resources.
In response to my article, the Prabowo campaign came back with a counterattack: They said that I was part of a conspiracy by the United States government and U.S. business. So I, just today—or, yesterday, put out a response to them, saying, well, I’m—for 40 years, I’ve been an adversary of the U.S. state and of U.S. corporations, but if General Prabowo wants to say that, I have a couple challenges to him. First, I challenge Prabowo to join with me in calling for all the living U.S. presidents to be put on trial and jailed for their role in crimes against humanity and mass killing of civilians in places ranging from Central America to, in recent years, places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I challenge to Prabowo to join me in calling for that. And secondly, I challenge him to join me in calling for Freeport-McMoRan to be expelled from Indonesia. Those challenges have gotten huge coverage in the Indonesian press, and they’re being talked about a lot in the last 24 hours, but as far as I know, he hasn’t yet responded to them.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Allan, as we wrap up, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal over the weekend, U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Robert Blake said Indonesia should look into Prabowo Subianto’s complicity in human rights abuses in the '90s, when he was the general heading the country's special forces. Ambassador Blake said, quote, "We do not take a position on Indonesia’s presidential candidates. We do, however, take seriously allegations of human rights abuses, and urge the Indonesian government to fully investigate." I’m just wondering, your response to this, given the U.S. role in Indonesia, and the significance of the U.S. ambassador weighing in right now?
ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah, I think the U.S. is saying this because if Prabowo wins, it will become embarrassing for the U.S., because with Prabowo as president, Prabowo’s record will get scrutiny, and soon people will start to see the blood on the U.S. hands, because the U.S. was Prabowo’s sponsor. So, it’s a little embarrassing for the U.S. Of course, if Prabowo does win, the U.S. will welcome him with open arms. It’ll be like old times. But at the moment there’s some embarrassment. Whenever U.S. officials call for investigations of the murders by the people who they were arming, training, financing and backing politically, it staggers the—it staggers the imagination. Of course, Prabowo should be put on trial and jailed for his role in the killing of civilians, but if that is done, then the U.S. officials who backed him must also be put on trial and jailed. For the U.S. to be talking otherwise is hypocrisy.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Allan, the Prabowo forces have said that the army says they’re going to capture you if you return to Indonesia. You responded you’re in Indonesia. How are you going to protect yourself?
ALLAN NAIRN: I don’t think they’ll do anything. But, yeah, in my statement yesterday, I said—I announced, yeah, I’m here; they can capture me if they want. I also said to General Prabowo, who has—his people have reacted very angrily against my article, denying it, making all sorts of outrageous statements—that if he wants to deny it, he should face me in Indonesian court of law. He should bring charges against me under the Indonesia criminal libel law, and we can face off in the courtroom. And in court, under oath, I can talk about Prabowo’s role in murdering citizens. I can talk about the U.S. role in backing Prabowo. So, I welcome the general taking up that challenge, but he hasn’t done so yet.
AMY GOODMAN: Allan Nairn, I want to thank you for being with us. Please be safe. Allan Nairn is in Indonesia. We’ll link to your article at AllanNairn.org. That’s A-L-L-A-N-N-A-I-R-N.org.
This is Democracy Now! And as we move into Independence Day, there is a new book out that challenges the mainstream narrative about the founding of the United States of America. We’ll speak with historian Gerald Horne here in Chicago. Stay with us.
New York City Approves Municipal ID Cards for Undocumented Immigrants
The New York City Council has approved the use of municipal identification cards that will provide its nearly half a million undocumented residents with a way to prove their identity. Democracy Now! co-host and New York Daily News columnist Juan González says the progressive initiative is a big step forward for the immigrant community. He also discusses one of the Democrats’ most closely watched races. This week, 84-year-old Rep. Charles Rangel of New York declared victory over State Sen. Adriano Espaillat in a rematch of their 2012 primary, and secured his 23rd term in office.TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, New York’s City Council voted to create municipal ID cards that will give the city’s half a million undocumented immigrants a way to prove their identity. Also this week, you’ve reported on one of the Democrats’ most closely watched races, Congressmember Charles Rangel of Harlem declaring victory in a rematch of his primary race against Senator Adriano Espaillat in 2012. Charles Rangel is 84 years old. He has served in Congress for 43 years. Can you talk about both?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, Amy. Well, on the municipal ID card, obviously, with Congress still paralyzed over the issue of immigration reform, because the Republicans in the House are refusing to pass a bill to match that that was passed a year ago in the Senate, many local governments are taking matters into their own hands as best they can, and the City Council, under the new progressive leadership of Melissa Mark-Viverito, did pass this week a municipal ID law. This allows at least between 500,000 and 600,000 undocumented residents of New York City to be able now to have some kind of identification when confronted by police or other government agencies, and to be able to carry some of their day-to-day life activities without this constant threat of not even having proper ID. So, it’s a big step forward for the immigrant community here in the city.
As for the Rangel race, this was, as you said, a rematch. Back in 2012, Rangel barely defeated Adriano Espaillat, a state senator, by just about a thousand votes. It was a very bitterly fought campaign. There were a lot of charges from the Latino community of voter suppression, and there was a—many SNAFUs in the counting of the votes. So, now two years later, Espaillat challenged him again, attempted to challenge him from the left within the Democratic Party, accusing Rangel of being in the grip of a lot of the banking interests in the city. But the—and then, again, it was a close vote once again with just 1,800 votes separating the two men, with a lot bigger voter participation this time around. But Rangel prevailed once again, the "Lion of Harlem," the congressman from the Mecca of Black America, even though his district is now largely a Latino district, a majority of Latino population. He was—and he got most of his support, the bulk of his support, from the black community, while Adriano Espaillat clearly got big support in the Latino community and won the majority of the white vote. But Rangel was able to pull away a significant share of the Puerto Rican vote in East Harlem and was able, thus, to barely eke out a victory. And he will return to Congress once again.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, of course, we will continue to follow all of these stories, but now we move on to our main story today.
Headlines:
•Report: ISIS Militants Massacre Up to 190 People
Sunni militants in Iraq have reportedly executed up to 190 captives in the northern city of Tikrit. Human Rights Watch reports the massacre took place earlier this month. The news comes as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki faces increasing pressure to resign for failing to unite the country or beat back gains by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. Another round of 50 U.S. special operations troops have arrived in Iraq to act as "military advisers" on the crisis.
•Obama Requests $500 Million to Arm, Train Syrian Rebels
President Obama has asked Congress for $500 million to train and arm Syrian rebels. If approved, it would mark the most direct U.S. military role in the conflict to date, following more covert forms of support for the rebels. The request comes amidst growing concern about the influence of ISIS militants in both Iraq and Syria. Obama says the funds would go to "appropriately vetted" rebels who are fighting both President Bashar al-Assad and the ISIS militants.
•U.N. Official: 10.8 Million Need Aid in Syria
The United Nations says the Syrian government is hampering the delivery of humanitarian aid. Addressing the Security Council, U.N. humanitarian chief Valerie Amos said out of the more than 240,000 people under siege, the United Nations could only reach about 1 percent.
Valerie Amos: "Mr. President, in 2011 I told this council that one million people in Syria needed humanitarian assistance. That figure now stands at 10.8 million, 1.5 million more than there were just six months ago. The number of people in need in hard-to-reach areas now stands at 4.7 million, an increase of 1.2 million since Resolution 2139 was adopted in February."
Amos said some Syrian opposition groups have also hindered the delivery of aid by attacking or threatening humanitarian workers.
•In Blow to Abortion Access, Supreme Court Strikes Down Massachusetts Buffer Zone Law
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Massachusetts law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The law was passed in response to a history of harassment and violence, including the fatal shooting of two clinic workers in Massachusetts in 1994. The law was opposed by anti-choice protesters who gather outside clinics and attempt to convince patients not to have abortions. In a unanimous ruling, the court found the law was too broad, but it did not reject all abortion-clinic buffer zones, and left the door open for narrower protections. In a press call Thursday, Martha Walz, a former Massachusetts state legislator, now head of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said "the Supreme Court has taken away an essential measure to protect public safety and health care access in our state." Walz also raised the question of whether the Supreme Court’s own buffer zone may be unconstitutional, based on the ruling.
•Supreme Court Rejects Obama’s Recess Appointments to Labor Board
In a decision Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board made by President Obama during a three-day Senate recess in 2012. The unanimous ruling severely restricts the ability of the president to make recess appointments in order to overcome congressional opposition. The decision could impact some 100 decisions made by the labor board while the appointees were serving.
•Ukraine Signs EU Pact That Fueled Yanukovych’s Ouster
Ukraine has signed a deal to strengthen ties with Europe, seven months after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted over his decision to back away from the pact. The deal comes as a fragile ceasefire with pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine’s east expires today. European leaders are meeting in Brussels to discuss the Ukrainian crisis.
•Libyan Human Rights Activist Killed on Election Day
In Libya, a prominent human rights activist has been assassinated on the day of the country’s general election. Salwa Bugaighis was killed by gunmen who stormed her house in the city of Benghazi on Wednesday. In Washington, D.C., State Department spokesperson Marie Harf described her legacy in Libya.
Marie Harf: "She was a courageous woman and a true Libyan patriot. She was an advocate for political prisoners during the Gaddafi regime, an organizer of demonstrations against the regime during the February 17, 2011, revolution, a political activist and an original member of the Transitional National Council after the uprising began. Salwa resigned in protest over the absence of women’s voices in the council, but continued to play an active and powerful role supporting democracy, human rights and the participation of women in Libyan politics, until she was murdered on the day she and other Libyans went to the polls to elect a new government."
Marie Harf wore a "USA" sweatshirt during the press conference as the U.S. team faced Germany in the World Cup. The United States lost 0-1 but still advanced to the next round.
•Afghan Presidential Candidate Claims Victory amid Fraud Allegations
In Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, a former finance minister and World Bank official, says he has won the presidential election. The claim comes despite allegations by his opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, that Ghani colluded with Afghan officials to steal the vote. Some 10,000 Abdullah supporters marched against the alleged fraud in Kabul today.
•Canadian Supreme Court Sides with First Nations in Major Land Case
Canada’s Supreme Court has issued a landmark victory for First Nations who oppose the corporate exploitation of their land. In what has been hailed as the most significant indigenous rights case in Canadian history, the court gave the Tsilhqot’in First Nation title to nearly 700 square miles of land in British Columbia. The ruling could apply to any ancestral lands that were not signed over in government treaties, including areas where the controversial Northern Gateway oil pipeline is slated to run.
•Israel IDs Suspects in Alleged Kidnapping;NYC Activists Protest Crackdown
Israel has identified two Hamas operatives as suspects in the alleged kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers. The teens disappeared in the West Bank earlier this month. Israel has accused Hamas of abducting them, and has imposed a wide-ranging crackdown, arresting more than 370 Palestinians and killing six. In New York, peace activists, including Pam Sporn, rallied to denounce Israel’s actions.
Pam Sporn, Jewish Voice for Peace: "We called this emergency demonstration against the extreme violence that the Israeli government is raining down upon Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories on the pretext that three Israeli teenagers have been kidnapped. There’s been no concrete evidence that those teenagers have been kidnapped. But even if they have been, there is no reason for the collective punishment of millions of Palestinians. And certainly the kind of violence that is happening right now throughout the West Bank and Gaza will not bring those boys home to safety, wherever they might be."
•Report: Drone Strikes May "Create a Slippery Slope" Toward "Continual Wars"
A new report by former top government officials warns the Obama administration’s drone wars could "create a slippery slope leading to continual or wider wars." The report, released by the Stimson Center, does not call for an end to drone strikes, but it has drawn attention because of its authors, who include former Pentagon and CIA officials. The report criticizes the secrecy of the drone wars and concludes, "There is no indication that a U.S. strategy to destroy Al Qaeda has curbed the rise of Sunni Islamic extremism, deterred the establishment of Shia Islamic extremist groups or advanced long-term U.S. security interests."
•German Gov’t Cancels Contract with Verizon amid NSA Spying Concerns
The German government has cancelled its contract with the U.S. telecommunications firm Verizon amidst concerns over National Security Agency spying. Reports based on leaks by Edward Snowden revealed vast NSA spying in Germany, including on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone. Verizon provided services for German government agencies. But in a statement Thursday, Germany’s Interior Ministry said, "The links revealed between foreign intelligence agencies and firms after the NSA affair show that the German government needs a high level of security for its essential networks."
•Military Judge Upholds Order to Release Details on Secret CIA Prisons
A U.S. military judge has upheld a ruling ordering the Obama administration to release tightly held secrets about the CIA’s covert prisons overseas. The government had appealed an April ruling ordering the CIA to release details about its treatment of USS Cole bombing suspect Abd al-Nashiri, including the names of personnel at the so-called "black sites" where he says he was tortured. But in a newly disclosed ruling, Judge James Pohl upheld his original decision calling for the information to be released to defense attorneys. The Obama administration could now decide to bring the case before a military appeals court rather than comply.
•Massachusetts Governor Signs $11/Hour Minimum Wage Bill
In Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick has signed a measure to increase the minimum wage to $11 an hour by 2017, the highest of any state in the country. The measure raises the current $8-an-hour minimum wage by a dollar each year. Patrick called the wage law "great progress," but pressed for more action, saying it was still "not a livable wage."
•U.S. Judge Denies Argentina’s Plea to Delay Payments to "Vulture Funds"
A U.S. judge has denied a request by Argentina to delay repayment of $1.65 billion in debts to U.S. hedge funds led by top Republican donor Paul Singer’s NML Capital. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the so-called "vulture funds," who bought up Argentina’s debt at bargain rates after the country’s financial crisis. While 92 percent of Argentina’s creditors agreed to slash the value of their holdings following the country’s default, the hedge funds refused to do so. On Thursday, a U.S. judge refused to extend a Monday deadline for Argentina to pay the hedge funds, despite Argentina’s claim the payments could tank the economy. Argentina’s economy minister, Axel Kicillof, condemned the decision.
Axel Kicillof: "There is no doubt about the bias of the judge in favor of the vulture funds, nor their true intention, that of trying to bring the Republic of Argentina to default and ruining the 2005-to-2010 restructuring that was reached after lengthy negotiations and a consensus of 92.4 percent."
•NBC to Run "Obvious Child" Film Ad After Alleged Censorship of Word "Abortion"
NBC has responded to a Planned Parenthood petition over its handling of an ad for the film "Obvious Child" that mentioned the word abortion. More than 13,000 people signed the petition protesting reports NBC rejected the ad. In a statement, NBC said it has "no policy against accepting ads that include the word 'abortion,'" but acknowledged "feedback was mistakenly given to remove the word 'abortion'" from a video ad submitted for NBC’s digital platforms. NBC said it would accept the digital ad "as it was originally submitted." As of today, "Obvious Child" is airing in nearly 200 theaters across the United States. Click here to watch our interview with director Gillian Robespierre.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment