Missionary Renegade: Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Monday, September 26, 2016

Monday, September 26, 2016

Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Monday, September 26, 2016

Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Monday, September 26, 2016
democracynow.org
Stories:

Keith Lamont Scott's Wife is Latest Black Woman Forced to Film State Violence Against a Partner

On Friday, NBC released a gut-wrenching cellphone video by Rakeyia Scott witnessing her husband, Keith Lamont Scott, being shot and killed by Charlotte-Mecklenburg police. "She was trying to do what police somehow couldn’t do, which was de-escalate the situation. ... It’s really a remarkable act of courage and clearheadedness by his wife," says Marc Lamont Hill, journalist, distinguished professor of African American studies at Morehouse College. He notes this is not the first time an African-American wife has had to watch state violence take place in real time against her spouse, while being ignored and disrespected by officers.

TRANSCRIPT

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

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in North Carolina, where Charlotte-Mecklenburg police have yielded to pressure and released two videos of last Tuesday’s fatal police shooting of 43-year-old African American Keith Lamont Scott. One video is from a police dashboard camera, the other from an officer’s body camera. Police say they also have more video that they have not released. The Scott family is asking the police to release all of the videos. The dashboard camera video shows Scott exiting his vehicle and taking steps backwards with his arms at his sides. Police fire four shots at Scott as he falls to the ground. The body camera video shows Scott on the ground after being shot by officer Brentley Vincent, who’s also African-American. Scott family attorney Justin Bamberg responded to the footage on Sunday.

JUSTIN BAMBERG: What we see when we look at this dash cam video is Mr. Scott steps out of the vehicle. He doesn’t appear to be acting aggressive towards any of the law enforcement officers on the scene. He doesn’t appear to be making gestures or motions as though he’s arguing with anybody. He doesn’t lunge at the officers. It appears he has his hands by his side. Again, there is no definitive evidence in this video as to whether or not there is an object in his hand, and, if there is, what that object is. That question still remains. But what we do know is that the moment Mr. Scott is shot, it appears as though he is not aggressively moving towards law enforcement. He’s actually doing the opposite: He’s passively stepping back.

AMY GOODMAN: The Charlotte police have also released pictures of a handgun as well as an ankle holster and a marijuana joint they say were in Scott’s possession. They did not say where they found the gun. North Carolina is an open-carry state.

This came after NBC News obtained gut-wrenching cellphone video capturing the shooting, filmed and narrated by Scott’s wife, Rakeyia Scott. NBC released the video on Friday. In it, Scott tells officers her husband is unarmed and suffers from a traumatic brain injury, or TBI.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Don’t shoot him. Don’t shoot him. He has no weapon. He has no weapon. Don’t shoot him.

POLICE OFFICER: Gun! Gun! Drop the gun! Drop the [bleep] gun!

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Don’t shoot him! Don’t shoot him. He didn’t do anything.

POLICE OFFICER: Drop the gun! Drop the gun! Drop the gun!

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He doesn’t have a gun. He has a TBI.

POLICE OFFICER: Drop the gun!

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He’s not going to do anything to you guys. He just took his medicine.

POLICE OFFICER: Drop the gun! Let me get a [bleep] baton over here.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, don’t let them break the windows. Come on out the car!

POLICE OFFICER: Drop the gun!

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, don’t do it.

POLICE OFFICER: Drop the gun!

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, get out the car. Keith, Keith! Don’t you do it. Don’t you do it. Keith! Keith! Keith! Don’t you do it! [bleep]! Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? He better not be [bleep] dead! He better not be [bleep] dead! I know that [bleep] much. I know that much, he better not be dead! I’m not going to come near you; I’m going to record, though.

POLICE OFFICER: Back up!

RAKEYIA SCOTT: I’m not coming near you. I’m going to record, though. He better be alive, because I’m—you better be alive! How about that? Yes, we’re over here at 9453 Lexington Court. These are the police officers that shot my husband. And he better live. He better live. Because he didn’t do nothing to them.

POLICE OFFICER: Is everybody good? Are you good?

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He don’t—ain’t nobody touch nobody, so they all good.

POLICE OFFICER: You good?

RAKEYIA SCOTT: I know he better live. I know he better live. How about that? I’m not coming to you guys, but he better live. He better live. Y’all hear this and you see this, right? He better live. He better live. I swear he better live. Yup, he better live. He better [bleep] live. He better live. Where is—he better [bleep] live. And I can’t even believe—

POLICE OFFICER: Back up!

RAKEYIA SCOTT: I ain’t going nowhere! I’m in the same damn spot! The [bleep]! That’s OK. Did you all call the police? I mean, did you all call the ambulance?

AMY GOODMAN: That was cellphone video of the police killing of Keith Lamont Scott, filmed and narrated by his wife, Rakeyia Scott, in real time as he lay dying. Police claim they tased and then shot Scott because he was armed, but Scott’s family says he was not armed—except with a book in hand. They say Scott, the father of seven children, had been sitting in his car waiting to pick up his son after school.

Meanwhile, Sunday, hundreds continued to protest for a sixth straight day in Charlotte. Uniformed National Guard soldiers carrying rifles deployed outside a Carolina Panthers football game, while police in riot gear surrounded about a hundred demonstrators chanting "Black Lives Matter." Inside, Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton signaled his support during his pregame workout by wearing a T-shirt with a Martin Luther King Jr. quote: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Also on Sunday evening, Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts lifted the curfew that had been in place since Thursday.

For more, we’re joined here in studio by Marc Lamont Hill, journalist and distinguished professor of African American studies at Morehouse College. His book is titled Nobody: Casualties of America’s War on the Vulnerable, from Ferguson to Flint and Beyond.

Welcome back to Democracy Now!

MARC LAMONT HILL: Good to be here. Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: A lot has happened since our show on Friday, these three videotapes released. We begin with Rakeyia Scott’s video, the shocking, horrifying video of a wife watching as her husband is shot by police. Respond to that.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah, it’s heart-wrenching. And we saw the same thing with Philando Castile just a few months ago, where a wife has to watch state violence take place in—you know, in real time against their spouse. She was trying to explain to the police that he had a traumatic brain injury. She was saying that he didn’t have a weapon. She was trying to do what police somehow couldn’t do, which was de-escalate the situation. She was trying to offer information that would get them to back off. At the same time, she was trying to encourage her husband to stay where he was supposed to be, in the car, so that he wouldn’t be as vulnerable to state violence. It’s really a remarkable act of courage and clearheadedness by his wife. At the same time, police seemed to be completely unresponsive to her instruction, to her insights. It was really disappointing.

AMY GOODMAN: They wouldn’t even let her near him as he lay dying and they are handcuffing him.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Handcuffing him, yeah. That was the other part of this. You know, again, we watch this over and over again—and not just at the current moment, but throughout history—black women, in particular, watching their spouses killed at the hands of the state and then being thoroughly disrespected and marginalized even in real time. She couldn’t go over and attend to him. She couldn’t talk to him. They’re more worried about telling her to stay away. Same thing happened with Philando Castile: "Stay away. Don’t film. Don’t come near us." That kind of attitude and that kind of sensibility makes it difficult to believe that the police were invested in de-escalation at any point that day....Read More →

Exclusive: Freed Gitmo Prisoner Jihad Abu Wa'el Dhiab Speaks as Pres. Candidates to Debate Terrorism

Tonight, 100 million people are expected to watch the first presidential debate, where the topics will likely include foreign policy and terrorism. Eight years after President Obama vowed to close Guantánamo during his first year in office, it remains open. Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for the prison’s expansion. Today, in a Democracy Now! exclusive, we speak with a former Guantánamo prisoner who was cleared to leave under President Bush and President Obama but remained at Guantánamo for over 12 years. Jihad Abu Wa’el Dhiab has never been charged with a crime. While at Guantánamo, he launched a series of hunger strikes to demand his freedom, and was among a group of prisoners subjected to force-feeding. Now released to Uruguay, he is currently on a hunger strike to push for his demand to be allowed to reunite with his family in Turkey or in an Arabic-speaking country. Earlier this month, Dhiab slipped into a coma for nine hours while he was on a hunger and thirst fast, revived only by a hydrating IV while he was in that coma. The day after Dhiab awoke, Democracy Now! was able to speak to him in an exclusive interview. Special thanks to José María Ciganda, Alessandro Maradei and Andrés Thomas Conteris.

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. Tonight, 100 million people are expected to watch the first presidential debate—among the topics, foreign policy and terrorism. Guantánamo was not expected to still be an issue at these debates, but eight years after President Obama vowed to close the prison during his first term in office, it remains open. Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for the expansion of Guantánamo.

Well, today, in a Democracy Now! exclusive, we speak with a former Guantánamo prisoner who was cleared to leave under both President Bush and President Obama but remained at Guantánamo for over 12 years. His name is Jihad Abu Wa’el Dhiab. He has never been charged with a crime. At Guantánamo, he launched a series of hunger strikes to demand his freedom. He was among a group of prisoners subjected to force-feeding. The Obama administration is refusing to release video of the force-feeding to the public, but after a judge ordered it, the Obama administration did give the redacted [video] to the court, which reportedly shows graphic images of guards restraining Dhiab and feeding him against his will. The case is currently on appeal. Human rights groups have long said the force-feeding of Guantánamo prisoners amounts to torture.

Dhiab is currently on a hunger strike to push for his demand to be allowed to leave Uruguay in order to reunite with his family in Turkey or in an Arabic-speaking country. Dhiab’s supporters say he’s temporarily resumed drinking liquids and is gaining strength, but he plans to return to a thirst and hunger strike as soon as Tuesday if there’s no solution to his long-standing request to rejoin his family.

Earlier this month, Dhiab slipped into a coma for nine hours while he was on a hunger and thirst fast, revived only by a hydrating IV while he was in that coma. A few hours after he came out of the coma, I was able to speak with him in an exclusive Democracy Now!interview. He was exhausted. He was lying on his bed in Montevideo, Uruguay. I asked him to begin by talking about how he felt.

JIHAD ABU WA’EL DHIAB: I feel really very, very worse. All my body hurt me, and my kidney, my headache, my stomach, my right side really bad. Many things. But I feel all my body hurt me.

AMY GOODMAN: There’s a battle in court in the United States to release the videotape of your force-feeding in Guantánamo. Can you describe what that force-feeding was like for you?

JIHAD ABU WA’EL DHIAB: Like the United States always say in the media, "Human rights, human rights, human rights." There’s never in Guantánamo, don’t have any human rights. Never, never, never. He took the video from first time go to me in my cell to move me to chair and give me the tube for give me forced feeding. But if you see this video and see the guard, how treatment with me, how beat me, how make with me, that’s not human.

AMY GOODMAN: Dhiab, in Guantánamo, one nurse refused to force-feed the prisoners. Can you talk about that nurse?

JIHAD ABU WA’EL DHIAB: This nurse, from first time come into Guantánamo, me and my brother spoke with him many time. "Why you come in here? This your job, this human right job, a good job. Why come in here for torture the person, the detainee?" He think, think, think too much. After that, he said, "Give me couple days. I take decision for that."

He, after two days or three days, come and tell me, "Jihad, there I don’t leave anyone tell me my number, because I am not number, I have name." He tell me, "Jihad, I take decision." I tell him, "What?" He said, "Now I stop give any force-feed for anyone. I refuse to give any. And I spoke with the government in the Guantánamo about this." I tell him, "Me and all my brothers said for you, thank you very much for that," because I respect this person very—he helped me, and he a gentle man. He treatment with us there—only him, treatment with us from first day coming there. I see him always, he not all right. And he treatment with us very, very well. And after that, I tell him, "Thank you very much about this." He said, "What’s happened after that, I don’t care, but I don’t—I refuse give any force-feeding."

And after that, he move from there. And I hear after that in the news they want to take him to court about he refused—because he refused the Army order. But I respect this person. I need all the person make like him and treatment like him, because this all right idea.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama says he wants to close Guantánamo. Do you believe that will happen?

JIHAD ABU WA’EL DHIAB: If he wants to close Guantánamo, he can. He can now. Now. He can give order, close Guantánamo. He can close Guantánamo. But he coward. He can’t take this decision, because he scared. But Guantánamo supposed to close, should be closed, Guantánamo, because Guantánamo, that’s not good for the United States. Never.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Jihad Abu Wa’el Dhiab, a Syrian prisoner at Guantánamo for more than 12 years. He was released to Uruguay. He was speaking to us in English from his bed in Montevideo, Uruguay. He’s been on a hunger strike. At the time of our interview, he had just come out of a nine-hour coma after refusing water, as well. Throughout our interview, which we did just after he revived, he was very tired and weak. He would sometimes switch into Arabic from the English, the language of course he felt more comfortable in. This is Dhiab speaking about why the U.S. wouldn’t want to release the video of his force-feeding at Guantánamo and more.

JIHAD ABU WA’EL DHIAB: [translated] The U.S. does not want the world to see the truth about what happens in Guantánamo. They want to keep the black box closed and to show instead that the black box is full. But it is indeed actually empty and a lie. They can’t let the world see the video and know the truth, because the truth will contradict the reasons the U.S. is holding the prisoners.

For example, I have papers showing to be innocent since 2006, since the time of George Bush, yet they kept me in Guantánamo. And again, I had papers proving my innocence in 2009 with Obama now president, but they still kept me in Guantánamo. I ended up staying until December 2014. And even the media started to report on me, saying that I was a victim and that I was an innocent man that didn’t do anything wrong. In Guantánamo, they said I will not get out until I admit a crime. This is the fact of America. You have to admit to any crime. Why? I said I will not admit to anything. I didn’t do anything. That is number one. But they will not say up front to their people, "We caught innocent people who didn’t commit any crime." They had to create anything. They must force us to admit anything. They offered multiple choices for us to admit something. Is that justice? The issue is, the United States knows it’s wrong and implicated in Guantánamo, but the U.S. does not want to apologize and go back and stop this injustice and solve this problem.

With this, I want to send a message to the American people about the American government’s policy, with Muslims and non-Muslims, because their policies with Muslims will bring a lot of problems. America is who creates enemies for themselves. America is who creates terrorism and hostility toward themselves.

AMY GOODMAN: Dhiab, are you willing to die on this hunger strike?

JIHAD ABU WA’EL DHIAB: [translated] I can only see two solutions: Either I am reunited with my family or I will have to pay with my life. I want to reach my family, that I have not seen for 15 years. I didn’t see any of them—my mother, father or brothers and sisters. I lost my son in war in Syria, and 28 others of my family died, as well. My entire family is spread out in different countries, leaving no one with my parents. This is a very complicated issue. I want my right to live a good life and to be free.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Jihad Abu Wa’el Dhiab. He was held at Guantánamo for more than 12 years, has not seen his family for between 15 and 20 years, speaking to us exhausted from his bed in Montevideo, Uruguay. He’s on a hunger strike, had just come out of a coma extremely weak and tired, after refusing water, and he had been hydrated through an IV during the coma. Less than a week ago, he lifted his dry fast at the behest of his support group. He says he’s going to go back to a thirst and hunger strike if he cannot reunite with his family.

When we come back, we’ll speak with one of the lawyers who helped to negotiate his release to Uruguay. Stay with us.... Read More →

Activism Works: Charlotte Police Release Dashboard & Body Camera Video in Keith Lamont Scott Killing

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police have yielded to days of protests and released two videos of the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. One video is from a police dashboard camera, the other from an officer’s body camera. Police say they also have more video that they have not released. The Scott family is asking the police to release all of the videos. The dashboard camera video shows Scott exiting his vehicle and taking steps backward with his arms at his sides. Police fire four shots at Scott, and he falls to the ground. The body camera video shows Scott on the ground after being shot. "The lesson is: Activism works. Organizing works. Grassroots efforts work," says Marc Lamont Hill, journalist and distinguished professor of African American studies at Morehouse College. This comes after NBC on Friday released the gut-wrenching cellphone video of Scott’s wife witnessing her husband shot and killed at the hands of police.

TRANSCRIPT

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

AMY GOODMAN: Unlike in Tulsa, where they released the, to say the least, extremely damning footage—

MARC LAMONT HILL: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —damning to the Tulsa police, of the police shooting, here in Charlotte, it took days of protest. And then, finally, it seemed that the release of Rakeyia Scott’s video, the wife—

MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —definitely forced the hand of the Charlotte police chief in releasing—I don’t know why they haven’t released all, because you assume they’re going to release the videotape that vindicates them the most.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: But they released two videotapes—one a body cam on an officer and one dash cam on a police vehicle.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Absolutely. So, the first thing here is the lesson is: Activism works. Organizing works. Grassroots efforts work. Too often people say, you know, "Why are they out there?" The truth is, if there weren’t a spectacle, if there weren’t a dramatic kind of protest, we don’t see that video come out. The state was committed to not releasing the video. They said it obstructs the investigation. They said it undermines the process of justice. That’s unimaginable to me how that could be possible, but that’s what—that was their argument.

But they also said that once you see this tape—you know, I spoke to police officers in the state and in that police department—they said, "When you see this tape, you will completely understand that the protesters were wrong and that we were completely in the right here." And to your point, Amy, if they had anything exculpatory, they would have offered it, right? They would have offered the most positive representation of themselves on tape as soon as possible. They were unable to do so. At best, they could offer a tape that was wildly inconclusive.

And this isn’t just an issue with this particular case. This is a—the state Legislature is putting forward legislation to stop these tapes from being released. They have no commitment to doing that.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, this is key, because I heard on the networks, repeatedly wrong last week—

MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —saying a law is right now in place that prevents the police chief from releasing the video.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, it is going into effect—it was passed, and it was signed into law by Governor McCrory—on October 1st.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: So it is not in place right now.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Absolutely not. They could absolutely release this video right now. The fact that they have one in the future suggests that they have no intention of releasing such a video, that they don’t believe that that’s the right thing to do, but they could do it right now. There’s no legal protection.

AMY GOODMAN: It is very frightening, though, this law that’s going into effect, because the point of the body cams and the dash cams, that the police departments have gotten millions of dollars to equip themselves with—

MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —is to make them more publicly accountable.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: But now if that information is kept by the police, it only empowers the police further. They’re the only ones that will have this information.

MARC LAMONT HILL: That’s exactly right. And again, that law would presume that police always act in the public interest, that there’s a level of honesty and transparency, and a lack of corruption within police departments around the country. And we see repeatedly that that is not the case. Oftentimes when you file a report against police, whether there’s a citizen complaint review board or whether you just go through a normal kind of internal affairs process, the police take your report, they look at it, and then write their report in response to what you wrote. They give the officer who’s being complained about the opportunity to respond to what you said. So if the video comes in and they’re able to rewatch the video, they can then construct a narrative ostensibly to respond to what they saw as opposed to what actually happened.

AMY GOODMAN: And the fact that along with the video cam and the body cam tape, they released these three pictures. One, a gun that they say that Scott had in his possession—they’re not saying how, and, again, it’s an open-carry state.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: The other, an ankle holster. Could it have been in an ankle holster? Would they have even known he had it? Because they are saying it is not clear that he had the gun in his hand. And the other, a marijuana blunt.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, showing the marijuana cigarette seems to show how desperate the police are to implicate in any way they could. What does that have to do with anything?

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right. It’s a bizarre kind of thing. But again, they’re trying to shape public opinion, because there’s an idea that there is a criminal class out there, and criminal class deserves to be in prison, criminal class deserves to be on the other end of state violence. And so, if we can show that this is a guy with a criminal record who’s smoking weed in a car, then he must have done something wrong. The truth is, lots of people smoke weed, and most people don’t shoot cops. The idea that he was in his car rolling a blunt and somehow still holding a weapon, and they could witness all of this while pursuing someone else in a criminal investigation, is somewhat implausible to me anyway.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s talk about the police narrative, the statement they put out, saying that they had come to execute an arrest warrant—not for him, for someone else.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And here’s this man in his car, privately, and they say that they see him rolling a marijuana cigarette, and they see that he has a gun. So they leave the scene. They decide not to execute the arrest warrant at that moment. They dress themselves up—I don’t know if it’s putting on the bullet-proof vests—

MARC LAMONT HILL: The vest. Well, it was an identifying vest to show that they were police.

AMY GOODMAN: Identifying vest.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: So they clearly are—now must be talking to a supervisor: "We’re not going to do what we planned to do."

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: "We’re going to do this other thing."

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Not clear what was wrong, again, even if he had a gun.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: They come back, and then they go after Mr. Scott.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And you have, interestingly, though the dash cam and the body cam tape doesn’t show the moment he dies, you do hear Rakeyia Scott, his wife, so that means they can hear her, because it’s on their bodies, this body cam.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: You hear her shouting not to shoot her husband.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Exactly. Now, of course, an officer would say, "Well, just because she tells us not to shoot, we can’t not shoot if we feel like there is a lethal threat." But when you look at the video, it’s hard to imagine how there was a lethal threat. He gets out of the car. He opens the door. He’s using his right hand; he’s right-handed. So, if he’s holding a weapon, he’s holding it in his left hand, which is somewhat implausible if he’s about to get into a shootout with police. And he’s backing away, and there’s no indication that he was making an aggressive move. We’ve watched white citizens, with guns, be subdued and arrested without any gunfire, yet somehow a black person, with or without a gun, always seems to end up in this—with this outcome.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you have the Charlotte protester who said, you have a man who set off a bomb in New York, who you call a terrorist.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: He then is caught by police in New Jersey, and he shoots two of them. And even him, they do not kill, they bring in for questioning.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And she says, "We’re not like worth even asking a question of?"

MARC LAMONT HILL: And this is the point. And this is where we have to get into a deeper level of analysis, because the simple response from some people is: "Well, these cops didn’t put on their vests this morning. They didn’t get dressed this morning and say, ’We’re going to go execute some guy.’ They didn’t see some guy in a car and say, ’Let’s just go and kill a black guy.’" And I agree. That’s not the issue.

The issue is there is something about black bodies, particularly in public space, that make them viewed as more violent, that make them more prone to violence, that make them seen as a heightened threat than other people. So, the police officer intuitively thinks that this person needs lethal force, intuitively thinks that this person needs a greater level of aggressiveness. And even the fact, as you said, in an open-carry state, that they see a guy with a gun—they didn’t see a guy with a gun, they saw a black person with a gun. A white guy in his car with a gun, and particularly with a holster—a holster suggests that you—oftentimes, that you actually bought the gun legally and that you’re simply carrying it. They see this, and they don’t say, "Oh, maybe this is a citizen who has a gun." They say, "Oh, no, this must be a criminal." That type of presumption goes to a psychological level of racism. It may not be racism at the level of intent—"We want to go arrest or shoot a black guy"—but it is a level of racism that says that when we see this person, we presume that they’re violent, we presume that they’re criminal, and we can’t see any other way out of this than lethal force.

And then the dangerous part about that is that they will then go into a courtroom at some point, and a jury of their peers will invoke a reasonable man standard or, maybe even under statute now, a reasonable officer statute—right?—for a police officer, reasonable officer standard, and say, "What would I do under the same circumstances?" And the problem is, because so many of us have a kind of narrative of fear of black bodies in our psyches, we’ll sit there and say, "You know what? I would have done that, too. I would have made the same decision as those officers," not because it’s ethical, not because it’s moral, not because it was the only way out, but because we have kind of codified a irrational and unacceptable fear of black bodies. And that’s what’s so terrifying about this. This is why they keep getting off.... Read More →

Marc Lamont Hill Responds to Trump: "We Can't Arrest Our Way Out of a Problem of State Violence"

Marc Lamont Hill, journalist, distinguished professor of African American studies at Morehouse College, responds to calls by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to expand the controversial police tactic of stop-and-frisk in order to reduce crime. "We keep adding more hay to the stack ... more people to stop-and-frisk to find nothing," Hill says. He argues a range of factors have caused crime to go down already, and concludes: "We can’t arrest our way out of a problem of state violence."

TRANSCRIPT

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

AMY GOODMAN: Right before we break, I want to bring in what Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump responded to a question about violence in the black community during a town hall meeting in a black church in Cleveland hosted by Fox News.

RICARDO SIMMS: There’s been a lot of violence in the black community. I want to know what would you do to help stop that violence, you know, black-on-black crime.

DONALD TRUMP: Right. Well, one of the things I’d do, Ricardo, is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York. It worked incredibly well. And you have to be proactive.

AMY GOODMAN: There you have Donald Trump’s response. Before we wrap up, tonight 100 million people are expected to watch the first presidential debate. Can you talk about, first, his response, and what you want to hear him and Hillary Clinton have to say on these issues?

MARC LAMONT HILL: I think Donald Trump has made his position very clear. At the convention in August—or in July, rather, and also last week, he has repeatedly said that more police officers work, more arrests work, stop-and-frisk works, broken windows policing works. That’s his approach. I hope that Hillary Clinton—since we can’t have fact-checking moderators anymore, I’m hoping that Hillary Clinton can say, "Look, this just untrue."

Stop-and-frisk didn’t—it didn’t work unless your goal is to stop black people from smoking weed. Most people who were stopped were black. Most people didn’t have any guns or drugs, and those who did had small amounts of marijuana. We’ve essentially tried to find a needle in a haystack, and we keep adding more hay to the stack, right? We just keep adding more people to stop and frisk, to find nothing. Broken windows policing, this whole narrative that it worked is empirically untrue. There are states where—that did not deploy broken windows policing and still managed to have crime reductions.

Also, it’s a very messy mixture of things, from the rise of CompStat in New York, which is a more advanced method of investigation, the sort of 20-year spread of—or reduction of lead in gasoline and in paint. All these things, kind of environmental factors, there are a range of things that caused crime to go down, not stop-and-frisk and not broken windows policing, which has never been deployed in the way that it was intended. So, I think Donald Trump’s narrative itself is wrong, and his approach is wrong. He’s essentially saying we can arrest our way out of this problem. And we can’t arrest our way out of a problem of state violence.

AMY GOODMAN: In North Carolina, it’s an open-carry state. Who does that apply to?

MARC LAMONT HILL: Gun laws have never applied to the vulnerable. They’ve never applied to black people. They’ve never applied to poor people. They’ve never applied to Latinos. Maybe on paper they have, but as a practical matter they have not. As soon as black people were freed, there’s been attempt to disarm them. As soon as black people have been freed from the sort of legal restrictions in places like Illinois and in the South, as well, there have been attempts to say, "Hey, we need to—we need to keep a grip on these people in terms of gun access." We’ve always tried to disarm black people. And so, as a practical matter, going through the world, because black people are read as criminal, the assumption is if a black person has a gun, then they probably don’t have a legal weapon. They’ve lost their right because they’re a felon. They are about to commit an act of crime, even if they’re just walking down the street.

Now, people will say, well, in this case, this guy did lose his right to access a weapon, because in 2005 he had a felony conviction. That is in fact true. However, the police didn’t know that. They didn’t run a rap sheet before they ran up on this car. They had no idea who this man was. They assumed who and what he was, because of that. And that plays into the mix with Alton Sterling, with Philando Castile. After the fact, they say, "Oh, this person had a permit; this person didn’t. This person was a criminal; this person wasn’t." In the moment, the police knew nothing except this was a person in his car minding his own business, not bothering anybody, armed really only—that we know for sure—with some weed. And everything I know about weed, both from my empirical investigation and from reading about it, is that weed doesn’t charge people up and make them want to go shoot police. If anything, it makes them want to eat some nachos. So, if it were up to me, they would have stepped back and engaged differently.

And that’s the last piece of this, Amy. We have to have a different tactical approach. If this guy is really sitting in a car with a gun, why do you want to bash the window in? Why do you want to encroach so quickly? The same thing with Tamir Rice in Cleveland, right? The kid’s standing outside. If he is allegedly holding a gun, why do you roll up two feet from him and jump out and start shooting within milliseconds?

AMY GOODMAN: Another open-carry state, by the way.

MARC LAMONT HILL: Another open-carry state, again. And they thought he was 20, even though he was 12. So, again, there is this narrative that the police did all they could to protect themselves, but tactically it doesn’t make sense, reasonably it doesn’t make sense. The narrative is implausible, and yet we keep believing it because it’s black bodies. We have to have a different approach.

AMY GOODMAN: Marc Lamont Hill, I want to thank you for being with us, journalist and distinguished professor of African American studies at Morehouse College. His book,Nobody: Casualties of America’s War on the Vulnerable, from Ferguson to Flint and Beyond.

When we come back, a Democracy Now! exclusive. Stay with us.... Read More →

Lawyer for Gitmo Prisoners Released to Uruguay: They Haven't Seen Their Families in 15 Years

We speak with a lawyer who helped to represent the six Guantánamo prisoners who the U.S. government released to Uruguay, including Jihad Abu Wa’el Dhiab. CUNY law professor Ramzi Kassem has been to Guantánamo about 50 times. He discusses his client Dhiab’s case, what he is asking for and what the situation is overall at Guantánamo. "They’ve been in Uruguay for almost two years," Kassem says. "And for that entire time, Mr. Dhiab and the other prisoners have been asking this question. You know, when are we going to see our families? Is that going to happen? How is that going to happen?"

TRANSCRIPT

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

AMY GOODMAN: We just brought you our exclusive interview with a former Guantánamo prisoner who was cleared to leave under both Presidents Bush and Obama but remained at Guantánamo for over 12 years. His name, Jihad Abu Wa’el Dhiab. He has never been charged with a crime.

Well, last week, Democracy Now! spoke to Ramzi Kassem, professor of law at City University of New York Law School—that’s the CUNY Law School—where he directs the Immigrant & Non-Citizen Rights Clinic and has represented many Guantánamo prisoners. He has been to Guantánamo about 50 times, one of the lawyers who represented the six Guantánamo prisoners who the U.S. government released to Uruguay. I began by asking Ramzi Kassem to tell us about Dhiab’s case, why he hasn’t been able to see his family, what he’s been asking for, what he was promised, and what the situation is overall at Guantánamo.

RAMZI KASSEM: Yeah, so I’m among the people who negotiated. Obviously, there were U.S. government officials involved, Uruguayan government officials involved. And then, on the defense lawyer side, I was one of those who partook in that negotiation, primarily on behalf of my client, Abdelhadi Faraj, who’s another Syrian who was resettled in Uruguay, just like Dhiab. Ultimately, what happened was that four Syrians, one Palestinian, one Tunisian—all Guantánamo refugees—were resettled in Uruguay.

And, you know, I have to stress that the Uruguayan government’s attitude towards these men was commendable. They viewed them and treated them as refugees under international law. They resisted, you know, the United States’ insistence that their movement be restricted, that they be treated as something else, that they be placed under surveillance, for example. All of these things, according to public media reports, are standard when it comes to how the United States negotiates these repatriations or resettlements from Guantánamo. And to their credit, the Uruguayan government said, in large part because the rulers of Uruguay at the time, the president and his Cabinet, were themselves former political prisoners—

AMY GOODMAN: President Mujica.

RAMZI KASSEM: President Mujica had spent over a decade in prison under that very label, as a terrorist, in solitary confinement, so he understood, and the men in his Cabinet understood, what that meant. And so, to their credit, they treated these men like refugees. And they said—they said that they would allow them to reunite with their families in Uruguay, that they would facilitate family reunification. So all of the right things were said.

Unfortunately, the problem was in the implementation. When the men arrived in Uruguay, you know, less preparation had been done than what we had expected and what we had hoped. And one of the main shortcomings is on this front—family reunification. In other words, you know, the government of Uruguay, with the help of the Red Cross, is offering families of men like Dhiab and men like my client to come from places like Syria or refugee camps in Turkey. But they’re only offering temporary visits, and they’re not giving the men the means to actually support those families in Uruguay. So, the net result, and I’ll tell you the case that I—I’ll tell you about the case that I know best, my client, Mr. Abdelhadi Faraj. His family is in war-torn Syria. He would love to see his parents. He hasn’t seen them in 15 years. If he were to agree to have the Red Cross somehow try to bring them, make that very dangerous journey out of Syria and to Uruguay, he can only keep them there for a couple of weeks. His parents are elderly. They live in a very dangerous place. The trip itself would be life-threatening. So he doesn’t want to subject them to that risk, unless he has the ability to actually have them live with him in Uruguay. So, that’s where the shortcoming has been. No one, not the Uruguayan government and certainly not the United States, has stepped up to make that happen.

And I mention the United States because I think the Uruguayans have gone above and beyond the call, in many ways, despite the shortcomings of in preparation for the arrival of these men as refugees from Guantánamo. They have gone above and beyond the call. The bulk, the lion’s share, of responsibility still rests with our country. It still rests with the United States. Our country is responsible for what happened to men like Dhiab. They’re the ones—the United States took Dhiab and put him at Guantánamo and subjected him to torture there, of different forms. And the United States is the one that—

AMY GOODMAN: And he was put at Bagram first.

RAMZI KASSEM: And he was at Bagram first. And that’s common. The majority of Guantánamo prisoners, or a large number of them, at least, went through Bagram or other sites before arriving at Guantánamo. So the primary share of responsibility still rests with the United States. I believe that our country has a moral and historical duty to try to make these men whole. Other countries have. Canada has paid compensation. The United Kingdom has paid compensation. The United States has not accepted responsibility or compensated these men for what they have been through. And they continue to suffer from it—for it, and their families continue to suffer. And Dhiab is just one example among many.

AMY GOODMAN: Dhiab was—wanted to be at his daughter’s wedding. I mean, he hasn’t seen his children and his parents in between 15 and 20 years. Could he leave Uruguay? I mean, he actually attempted to. He went to Venezuela. He was taken by the secret police of Venezuela, and he was deported back to Uruguay. I mean, it’s not a crime for him to leave Uruguay, but he was deported back. What can he do? I mean, he is just using the only thing he has, which is his body, to try to demand, by going on a hunger strike, which he did for so long at Guantánamo, to demand some kind of action. He says, "If I am free, why cannot I see my family?"

RAMZI KASSEM: And it’s especially tragic that he’s had to revert to that mode of communication, the mode of communication that he had when he was at Guantánamo. In other words, the only form of expression and protest available to many of the prisoners is to go on hunger strike, is to refuse food and sustenance from their captors. And that isn’t a crime, right? It’s a form of peaceful protest. And it is tragic that now that he’s in Uruguay, supposedly a free man, he feels that he has no choice but to do that in order to be heard, because, you know, he’s been clamoring for a while. They’ve been in Uruguay for almost two years. And for that entire time, Mr. Dhiab and the other prisoners have been asking this question. You know, when are we going to see our families? Is that going to happen? How is that going to happen?

The Uruguayans, when these men arrived, because they were considering them refugees, the Uruguayan government issued them what’s called a cedula, which is basically a national ID card, which allows them to travel in certain countries in South America and some countries in Central America, perhaps. So that’s how Dhiab, earlier in his tenure in Uruguay, went to Argentina, for example, and gave a press conference there. And that’s probably part of the explanation of how he eventually got to Venezuela and was then sent back to Uruguay. The rub is in that for him to go to Turkey, the Turkish government would have to acquiesce. Someone would have to facilitate that travel. He’d have to be issued travel papers, which obviously he’s not going to get from the Syrian government, given what’s going on in Syria right now, and, ultimately, the United States government, whether or not they’re going to publicly recognize it. My view, my opinion, is that the United States government probably has a say, as well.

Now, still, the right thing to do here is to find some way to reunite Mr. Dhiab with his family. And it’s either by bringing his family over from that refugee camp in Turkey to Uruguay in a sustainable fashion, where they can live with him in Uruguay and make a life for themselves there, or the other solution would be for him to go to Turkey and join his family there. It is—it’s compounding the injury that these men have suffered to keep them apart from their families after everything that they’ve been through. And again, this doesn’t just hold for Mr. Dhiab. He is being vocal, vocal and brave, in expressing his protest in that way. But I can tell you that my client, Mr. Faraj, who does not want to be in the media limelight, feels the same way. And the other prisoners that he’s still in touch with in Uruguay, former Guantánamo prisoners, they feel the same way, as well. And it’s really—it shouldn’t be shocking to anyone that these men, after all of these years, wish to see their families. Guantánamo is not a prison where families can visit. It’s not like a facility here in the United States where there are visitation privileges and people can come over the weekend. These men have literally not seen their families for over a decade and a half.

AMY GOODMAN: Have some of the men seen their families brought to Uruguay, and then they have to leave?

RAMZI KASSEM: You know, I’m not familiar with the cases of all six of the Guantánamo refugees in Uruguay. I can tell you that for Mr. Dhiab that hasn’t happened, and I can tell you that for my client, Mr. Faraj, that has not happened, for the reason that I explained earlier.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you have been to Guantánamo for what? Like 50 times now, representing your clients. How many do you represent?

RAMZI KASSEM: At this point, I have three clients remaining at Guantánamo. Over time, since 2005, I’ve represented over a dozen Guantánamo prisoners.

AMY GOODMAN: That, what, you added it up to what? Being how much time at Guantánamo that you’ve spent?

RAMZI KASSEM: Sadly, I did that math last time I was at Guantánamo a couple of months ago. It adds up to, I think, over a year at this point.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve spent over a year at Guantánamo.

RAMZI KASSEM: Yeah, which obviously pales in comparison to what my clients have spent, what they have gone through. But it was still shocking to me. I mean, if you told me 10 years ago, in 2006, when I made my first trip to Guantánamo, that a decade later I’d still be traveling there, I would have called you crazy.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama just said, once again, he wants it closed by the end of his term. Do you think this will happen? What is happening at Guantánamo right now?

RAMZI KASSEM: You know, President Obama, unfortunately, has been saying that since he was candidate Obama in 2007. You know, I agree with Mr. Dhiab on this. I believe that, unfortunately, our president has had that authority. He was elected, actually, on that basis. He had a mandate coming into office in 2009 to close that prison. For political reasons, not policy reasons, but for political reasons, he chose not to make it a priority. He gave the opposition time to mobilize and make it more difficult for him. Still, despite those obstacles, ultimately, he has the authority to close that prison. When President Bush opened Guantánamo on January 11, 2002, he didn’t seek congressional approval; he just did it unilaterally as a president of the United States. President Obama could do the same. He is choosing not to do it. He’s choosing not to take what he believes is a political risk.

AMY GOODMAN: To see the full interview with Ramzi Kassem, CUNY law professor, go to democracynow.org. Special thanks to José María Ciganda, Alessandro Maradei and Andrés Conteris.

Tune in tonight. Democracy Now! will be broadcasting the first presidential debate at democracynow.org, or check your station if it’s broadcasting our special live broadcast, 8:30 to 11:30 Eastern Standard Time, with scholars, activists and analysts you won’t hear anywhere else. Tomorrow, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein will answer the questions put to the major-party candidates. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.... Read More →
Headlines:

Charlotte, NC: Police Release Videos of Keith Lamont Scott Killing

In North Carolina, Charlotte-Mecklenburg police have released two videos of Tuesday’s police shooting of 43-year-old African American Keith Lamont Scott. One of the videos is from a police dashboard camera, and the other is from an officer’s body camera. The dashboard camera video shows Scott exiting his vehicle and taking steps backward with his arms at his sides. Police fire four shots at Scott, and he falls to the ground. The body camera video shows Scott on the ground after being shot. The Charlotte police have also released pictures of a handgun, marijuana and an ankle gun holster they say were in Scott’s possession. But even the police chief admits the videos do not show Scott clearly holding a gun. North Carolina is an open-carry state. Scott family attorney Justin Bamberg responded to the footage Sunday.

Justin Bamberg: "What we see when we look at this dash cam video is Mr. Scott steps out of the vehicle. He doesn’t appear to be acting aggressive towards any of the law enforcement officers on the scene. He doesn’t appear to be making gestures or motions as though he’s arguing with anybody. He doesn’t lunge at the officers. It appears he has his hands by his side."

On Friday, NBC News also obtained cellphone video capturing the shooting, filmed and narrated by Scott’s wife, Rakeyia Scott. In the video, she tells officers that her husband is unarmed and suffers from a traumatic brain injury, or TBI.

Rakeyia Scott: "He doesn’t have a gun. He has a TBI."

Police officer: "Drop the gun!"

Rakeyia Scott: "He’s not going to do anything to you guys. He just took his medicine."

Police officer: "Drop the gun! Let me get a [bleep] baton over here."

Rakeyia Scott: "Keith, get out the car. Keith, Keith! Don’t you do it. Don’t you do it. Keith! Keith! Keith! Don’t you do it! [bleep]! Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him?"

Police Arrest Charlotte Man in Protester Justin Carr's Death

Meanwhile, Charlotte police have arrested a man they accuse of shooting and killing a protester during demonstrations over Keith Lamont Scott’s death. Twenty-six-year-old Justin Carr was apparently shot in the head near a line of riot police during protests last Wednesday in uptown Charlotte. He died in the hospital on Thursday. On Friday, officers charged Rayquan Borum with Carr’s murder. Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney said extensive video evidence was used to identify Borum, though the department has not made those videos public. Several eyewitnesses dispute the police’s explanation. Charlotte public defender Eddie Thomas told The Guardian he believes the protester was shot by a tear gas canister, pepper ball or other police projectile that caused him to stumble back and hit his head on the brick sidewalk. But Daily Beast reporter Ryan James says he witnessed a civilian firing a pistol into a crowd, leaving Carr lying on the ground in a pool of blood.

Protests Continue Across Charlotte for Sixth Straight Day

Meanwhile, hundreds continued to protest for a sixth straight day in Charlotte. Uniformed National Guard soldiers carrying rifles were deployed outside a Carolina Panthers football game, while police in riot gear surrounded about 100 demonstrators who were chanting "Black Lives Matter." On Sunday evening, Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts lifted the curfew that had been in place since Thursday.

Tulsa: Hundreds Pack Funeral of Terence Crutcher, Man Shot by Police

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, hundreds packed the Antioch Baptist Church on Saturday for the funeral of Terence Crutcher, a 40-year-old African-American man who was shot dead by a police officer on September 16. Crutcher was remembered by his cousin, Shea Seals.

Shea Seals: "Terence’s death is being mourned by an entire city. He was that special. The irony here is that Terence loved everyone. He had the incredible gift of putting others before himself."

Police video showed Crutcher being shot while his hands were in the air. His family says hisSUV stalled as he was driving home from a music appreciation class. The killing sparked protests across the country. Officer Betty Shelby was booked and released last week on felony manslaughter charges for Crutcher’s death. If convicted, Shelby faces between four years and life in prison.

National Museum of African American History and Culture Opens

In Washington, D.C., thousands gathered on the National Mall Saturday as the country’s first black president helped dedicate the National Museum of African American History and Culture. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama joined the daughter of an enslaved person, 99-year-old Ruth Bonner, ringing a bell to signal the opening of the museum. The 400,000-square-foot museum will house some 37,000 artifacts, including relics from a slave ship, a shawl owned by Harriet Tubman, Emmett Till’s casket, shards of glass from the 1963 Birmingham church bombing, a dress owned by Rosa Parks, Louis Armstrong’s trumpet and Muhammad Ali’s boxing gloves. President Obama said the museum helps to tell a richer and fuller story of who Americans are.

President Barack Obama: "By knowing this other story, we better understand ourselves and each other. It binds us together. It reaffirms that all of us are America, that African-American history is not somehow separate from our larger American story, it’s not the underside of the American story, it is central to the American story."

Clinton and Trump Debate Could Be Most Watched in U.S. History

In news from the campaign trail, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are set to face off tonight in what’s expected to be the most watched presidential debate in U.S. history. Some TV network executives predict as many as 100 million people will tune in. Third-party candidates, including Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein, will be excluded under stringent rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties. Tonight’s 90-minute debate will be held at Hofstra University on Long Island. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt will serve as moderator. Ahead of the debate, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said Holt should act as a fact checker and call out Trump’s lies and false statements. This is Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook speaking Sunday on ABC’s "This Week."

Robby Mook: "All that we’re asking is that if Donald Trump lies, that it’s pointed out. It’s unfair to ask for Hillary both to play traffic cop with Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people."

Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway fired back, telling ABC, "I really don’t appreciate campaigns thinking it is the job of the media to go and be these virtual fact checkers and that these debate moderators should somehow do their bidding." The head of the Commission on Presidential Debates later agreed that moderators should not fact-check during debates. This is the commission’s executive director, Janet Brown, speaking on CNN.

Janet Brown: "If you start getting into fact checking, I’m not sure what is a big fact, what’s a little fact, and if you and I have different sources of information, does your source about the unemployment rate agree with my source? I don’t think it’s a good idea to get the moderator into essentially serving as the Encyclopedia Britannica."

Donald Trump had said that the moderator of tonight’s debate, Lester Holt of NBC News, is a Democrat. In fact, he’s a registered Republican. Meanwhile, Donald Trump also said Saturday he might bring Gennifer Flowers to sit in the front row of tonight’s debate. Flowers had an affair with Bill Clinton in the 1970s. The Trump campaign later said it had not extended an invitation to Flowers and that she would not attend.

Ted Cruz Endorses Trump Despite Bitter Rivalry

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has endorsed Donald Trump for president. Friday’s endorsement came despite a bitter primary season that saw the pair hurl invective at one another. During the campaign, Trump suggested Cruz’s wife was not as attractive as his own, and linked Ted Cruz’s father to the plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Cruz previously called Trump a "pathological liar," a "narcissist," a "bully," "utterly amoral" and someone who "lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth." In July, Cruz was booed off the RNCstage after telling delegates to "vote your conscience" rather than voicing support for Trump. But on Friday, Cruz said prayer and careful consideration led him to an endorsement, citing Trump’s likely Supreme Court nominees.

Israeli PM Netanyahu Meets Trump, Clinton in New York

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on Sunday in closed-door meetings. Trump hosted Netanyahu at his New York penthouse, where his campaign said Trump compared Israel’s separation wall favorably with his proposed wall along the Mexican border. Netanyahu later met with Hillary Clinton, whose campaign said she expressed support for the new U.S. military aid package to Israel of $38 billion over 10 years.

New York: Gov. Andrew Cuomo Aides Indicted for Bribery, Corruption

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is seeking to distance himself from a corruption scandal that saw two of his closest aides indicted last week on federal corruption charges. Prosecutors say Joseph Percoco and Todd Howe took bribes, using their positions to help companies receive hundreds of millions of dollars in state contracts and other official state benefits. Both are proclaiming their innocence. Cuomo said over the weekend he wasn’t in charge of the contracts involved and that he had "no idea" about the alleged bribery and contract rigging laid out by prosecutors.

Brazil: President Temer Under Investigation for Corruption

Brazil’s Supreme Court has opened a corruption investigation into newly installed President Michel Temer. The inquiry stems from allegations Temer solicited bribes in return for contracts with Brazil’s oil company Petrobras. Temer was sworn in three weeks ago, after lawmakers voted to impeach his predecessor, President Dilma Rousseff. On Thursday, Temer told business and foreign policy leaders in New York that he worked to impeach Rousseff after she refused to implement his party’s economic plan, which included cuts to health, education and welfare spending. That contradicts the official reason for her impeachment—accusations she tampered with government accounts to hide a budget deficit.

Britain: Jeremy Corbyn Wins Re-election as Labour Party Leader

In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn will remain head of the Labour Party after winning 62 percent of the vote in a leadership contest. The win strengthens Corbyn’s position as head of Labour, which has grown dramatically under his leadership to more than 500,000 members.

Washington State Police Charge Man with Mass Murder

In Washington state, 20-year-old Arcan Cetin will be arraigned on murder charges today after a shooting spree in a Burlington shopping mall Friday left five people dead. Cetin used a rifle to fatally shoot four women and a man at a Macy’s department store, leaving the weapon at the crime scene. He was arrested on Saturday after police identified him from surveillance video. There’s no known motive for the killings.

Iowa: 12 Arrested at Direct Action Targeting Dakota Access Pipeline

In southeastern Iowa, 12 activists were arrested Saturday as they disrupted efforts by the Dakota Access pipeline company to drill under the Mississippi River, fearing a possible oil spill could contaminate the water. Three of the protesters chained themselves to a backhoe just before the start of the workday, delaying construction at the site for several hours. They were charged with criminal trespass and interference with official acts.

Berks Detention Center: Detainees Say Asylum Seeker Denied Adequate Healthcare

And in news from the Berks Family Detention Center in Pennsylvania, a woman from El Salvador who has been detained for 400 days reportedly fainted last week after she suffered headaches, dizziness and vomiting. She was taken to a hospital Thursday to undergo gall bladder surgery, only to be returned to detention on Friday. Her fellow Berks detainees issued a statement Saturday that the woman had no nurse to tend to her in her room and was relying on her two teenage daughters who are detained with her. They say the woman’s prescribed medical diet has yet to be approved and that she wasn’t allowed a visit with her sister because she was in too much pain to walk down stairs to the visiting room. Women at Berks have called for the mother to be "immediately let go so that she can be taken care of by actual trained and professional staff." Officials have so far refused to release the mother and the two girls while their asylum claim is being appealed in federal court.