DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Who CAN you trust?
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13396--------------------------------------------------
Re: Creeping Police State
By: AGelbert Date: August 25, 2019, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=350]
HTML https://www.cartoonmovement.com/depot/cartoons/2019/08/05/source_of_inspiration__antonio__rodrguez.jpeg[/img][img<br
/>width=270]
HTML https://www.cartoonmovement.com/depot/cartoons/2019/08/05/give_me_your_tired_your_poor_your_huddled_masses_year__glen_le_lievre.jpeg[/img][/center]
[quote] Hate : source of inspiration
Give me your tired... [/quote]
#Post#: 13503--------------------------------------------------
The 5 Biggest 😈 Corporate Lies About Unions
By: AGelbert Date: September 5, 2019, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Robert Reich: The 5 Biggest 😈 Corporate Lies
About Unions[/center]
61,767 views
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/UwwymqpS45c[/center]
Robert Reich
Published on Sep 2, 2019
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich debunks the biggest myths
about unions spread by corporations.
[center]Watch More: Why Unions Matter to You
►►[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/402m57yFjTM[/center]
Category News & Politics
#Post#: 13505--------------------------------------------------
How to Prevent Future 🦀 Trumps
By: AGelbert Date: September 5, 2019, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]How to Prevent Future🦀 Trumps
►►[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/F_OxSZp1m_4[/center]
For more videos like these, be sure to subscribe. If you'd like
to support our work, you can do so here:
www.inequalitymedia.org/donate
Follow Robert Reich:
Facebook: facebook.com/RBReich
Twitter: twitter.com/RBReich
Instagram: instagram.com/rbreich/
Category News & Politics
#Post#: 13513--------------------------------------------------
Re: Creeping Police State
By: AGelbert Date: September 5, 2019, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-260718150100.jpeg[/center]
Are Donald 🦀 Trump's Appointed 🐍 Judges
Protecting Him?
1,815 views
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/gxDdresHGLI[/center]
Thom Hartmann Program
Published on Sep 4, 2019
A federal Judge has hidden Trump's taxes from the one person who
has the right to view them and release them
Donald 🦀Trump appointed this 🐍 Judge to the
Federal Court...
➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...
SUPPORT THE PROGRAM
► Join us on Patreon:
HTML http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann<br
/>where you can also watch a re-run of the three-hour program at
any time
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/styles/renewablerevolution/files/804_3-190218175943.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 13534--------------------------------------------------
Calling BS on the 'Bad Apples' Theory of Police Misconduct €
544;
By: AGelbert Date: September 7, 2019, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Calling BS on the 'Bad Apples' Theory of Police
Misconduct 😠[/center]
10,313 views
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/O0Im3X_6Gk0[/center]
The Real News Network
Premiered Sep 5, 2019
On this episode of The Police Accountability Report, we tell a
harrowing tale of a firsthand experience with drug dealing cops
reveals the long and troubling history of police selling
narcotics, and calls into question the idea that police
corruption is limited to a few bad actors.
Subscribe to our page and support our work at
HTML https://therealnews.com/donate.
Category News & Politics
#Post#: 13541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Creeping Police State
By: AGelbert Date: September 7, 2019, 7:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Could [img
width=60]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301216165623.jpeg[/img]<br
/>Trump be Crueler Than We Thought?[/center]
8,014 views
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/xOQrp-kefFo[/center]
Thom Hartmann Program
Published on Sep 6, 2019
Donald Trump may be crueler than we had all thought but the
people around the world are better than we ever believed.
Thom breaks down two stories that showcase both the greatest
extremes of human cruelty as brought to us by Donald Trump and
the best of us, as seen in every day people.
➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...
SUPPORT THE PROGRAM
► Join us on Patreon:
HTML http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann<br
/>where you can also watch a re-run of the three-hour program at
any time
AUDIO PODCASTS
► Subscribe today:
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/podcast
EMAIL NEWSLETTER
► Free subscription:
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/podcast
FOLLOW THOM
► AMAZON :
HTML http://amzn.to/2hS4UwY
► BLOG :
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/thom/blog
► FACEBOOK :
HTML http://www.facebook.com/ThomHartmannP...
► INSTAGRAM :
HTML http://www.instagram.com/Thom_Hartmann
► PATREON :
HTML http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann
► TWITTER :
HTML http://www.twitter.com/thom_hartmann
► WEBSITE :
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com
► YOUTUBE :
HTML http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
ABOUT THE PROGRAM
The Thom Hartmann Program is the leading progressive political
talk radio show for political news and comments about Government
politics, be it Liberal or Conservative, plus special guests and
callers
#MoreFromThom
✔ Amazon links are affiliate links
Category News & Politics
#Post#: 13557--------------------------------------------------
The Biggest Danger of the Trump Administration Revealed
By: AGelbert Date: September 9, 2019, 6:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]The Biggest [img
width=90]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif[/img]<br
/>Danger of the Trump [img
width=25]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718205137.gif[/img]<br
/>[img
width=20]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718205808.gif[/img]<br
/>Administration Revealed[/center]
1,922 views
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/NTUcvDy625U[/center]
Thom Hartmann Program
Published on Sep 9, 2019
What is the worse thing Donald Trump and his administration have
left us?
Thom Hartmann reveals the most damaging thing Donald Trump has
done, one that could turn our democracy into a banana republic!
➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...
[center][img
width=300]
HTML https://78.media.tumblr.com/f763599d30eaeb44b0c2eee92a26a8c5/tumblr_palizer1YQ1tsf68ao1_400.gif[/img][/center]
#Post#: 13578--------------------------------------------------
Re: Creeping Police State
By: AGelbert Date: September 12, 2019, 7:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Are Homeless People the Next Victims of [img
width=60]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301216165623.jpeg[/img]<br
/>Trump?[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/FJgUil1P6S8[/center]
2,529 views•Published on Sep 11, 2019
Thom Hartmann Program
171K subscribers
#Post#: 13586--------------------------------------------------
🦍 Police Use Ignorance of the Law as a Defense, But You
Can’t 😠
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2019, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-130919155324.png[/img][/center]
[center]🦍 Police Use Ignorance of the Law as a Defense
[img
width=70]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img],<br
/>But You Can’t [img
width=40]
HTML https://media.tenor.com/images/aefc857b17366c1a4e85eefb2d502b5f/tenor.gif[/img][/center]
September 12, 2019
On this episode we take a critical look at the obstacles to
holding police accountable, and expose how both politicians and
judges defend an institution that is often at odds with
communities.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/xnofT3WJhsU[/center]
[center][font=times new roman]Story Transcript[/font][/center]
TAYA GRAHAM: Hello. My name is Taya Graham and welcome to the
Police Accountability Report.
As we said before, the show has a single purpose: holding the
politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do
so, we dig deep and examine not just police misconduct, but the
politics that makes it possible. And I want you watching to know
that if you have evidence of police misconduct or brutality,
please share it with us and we might be able to investigate.
Please reach out to us either in the comments or message us at
the Police Accountability Report on Facebook or @Eyesonpolice on
Twitter. And of course, you can message me directly
@Tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook.
Now, today we’re going to actually expand on a topic we
discussed last week with my co-host Stephen Janis. It’s the Bad
Apples Theory. It’s the idea that police corruption is limited
to a few bad actors and not emblematic of the problems with the
system itself. The Bad Apples Theory, as we pointed out, fails
to take into account aspects of policing that gave individual
cops almost catastrophic powers. And that bad apples not only
ruin hundreds if not thousands of lives, but grow and thrive in
a veritable orchard of corruption, namely our criminal justice
system.
But this week, there were dual developments that make this point
even more resonate. Allow us to show, not tell you, why the Bad
Apples Theory is simply not just false, but destructive. Just to
make a finer point on the consequences of so-called bad apples,
we’ll talk about a new development in the Gun Trace Task Force
scandal. Now this is just a reminder, the GTTF was a group of
eight Baltimore police officers, who robbed residents, dealt
drugs, and stole over time. So Stephen, this week in the
Baltimore State’s Attorney, they made a request. What was this
request?
STEPHEN JANIS: Well, they asked for over 800 cases to be thrown
out that were tied to some members of the Gun Trace Task Force.
Cases have been tainted by false testimony, or planting drugs,
or whatever. It’s a massive number of cases when you think about
it— 800. It touches thousands of lives, so it was a pretty
stunning request that there were that many cases, and there’s
still this incredible fallout from the scandal involving just
eight officers.
TAYA GRAHAM: And even as prosecutors tried to clean up this
mess, there was a new set of indictments in the case. In fact,
the latest set of charges illustrate just how ill-conceived the
Bad Apples Theory is. But that in fact, the GTTF had help— and
lots of it. So Stephen, can you talk about the type of help and
support they received?
STEPHEN JANIS: Yeah. In fact, just as this was happening,
another officer was indicted who had helped one of the
ringleaders, Sargent Wayne Jenkins of the GTTF, plant a BB gun
on a person he ran over. Because he was trying to criminalize
him or just – he got angry and he just ran him over. So after he
runs him over, he gets scared, and he calls Sergeant Gladstone,
who shows up with a BB gun to plant on the guy, so they can say
the guy had a gun and Sergeant Wayne Jenkins is in the clear. It
turns out, another officer who was in that car lied to a Federal
Grand Jury, and he has since been indicted for lying, but what
that tells you is that there was nobody – everyone knew what was
going on.
TAYA GRAHAM: Right.
STEPHEN JANIS: Number one, there were lots of people that knew
what was going on, knew they were planting BB guns on people to
criminalize them, and they didn’t say anything. And not only did
they not say anything, but they lied to a Federal Grand Jury
about it, and so this is just the latest fallout from showing
that Sergeant Wayne Jenkins had a support system around him. He
had people that would help him, and they’re willing to lie to a
Federal Grand Jury for him. Even after he’d been convicted and
charged with incredible crimes, these people are still lying for
him.
TAYA GRAHAM: But with all these revelations of systemic
corruption and hundreds if not thousands of lives destroyed, and
the brazen abetting of police malfeasance by other cops, one
would think there would be some sort of questioning about the
unfettered power of police. That in a democracy, a community
roiled by an ever burgeoning scandal would push back and hold
police accountable, but in fact, the opposite has happened. Not
only did the new revelations fail to elicit comment from city
and state officials alike, but those same elected
representatives actually doubled down with a big new dose of law
enforcement. That’s right. They decided to give more power and
more money to police. Stephen, how did the police department end
up with more money after it was proven that they had bad actors?
STEPHEN JANIS: Well, they did one of those things that we, as a
press, continually fall for. They got a bunch of cops together
who were already working for the police, and gave them a whole
new name, and spun it out and called it a strike force. So this
new thing, that they already had all these cops, they’re already
working with the police department, they try it out at a press
conference, “We’re going to create a strike force.” But it
wasn’t just reorganizing cops and creating alliances with
federal officers and local. They also like came up with a ton of
money— $17 million to rent 75,000 square feet in West Baltimore,
so that they could have a headquarters for this new strike
force, which is going to be empowered to do what? Militarize
policing. What was the GTTF doing? Militarize policing. So it’s
like – it’s just trotting out the same old thing in new clothes.
Look, “Hey, don’t look here. It’s the same thing,” but the thing
is that no one said, “That really hasn’t been working out, has
it?” So that’s something we wanted to look at.
TAYA GRAHAM: But to delve deeper into showing what this means,
we decided to take a look at one of the neighborhoods that will
be the target of this new strike force. It’s an area that was
the former home of our colleague, Darrell Lewis. Last week, he
discussed his encounter with a group of drug-dealing cops named
Antonio Murray and William King. But this week, he took us on a
walking tour of what had been left in the wake of this
aggressive policing, and why he thinks it will only make things
worse.
STEPHEN JANIS: The reason we wanted to come out here is because
we had that discussion last week about the bad apples, and now
we heard they’re going to be some sort of strike force at the
police department. But I wanted to come back to your old
neighborhood because has anything really changed here after
30-40 years of this intense drug war? When you take us around
here, what do you see? What’s changed?
DARYL LEWIS: The only thing I see changed is more poverty. More
hardship, more sadness, less hope. I haven’t seen any change.
Number one, if you have no job to go to in the morning when you
get up and come outside, only thing you have is what you see out
here. So you say to yourself, “How do I start my day? I’m not
able to go to work because I don’t have a job. So now I’m forced
to feed my family, feed myself, so now I have to do what I have
to do.
STEPHEN JANIS: So let me ask you a question, when you were in
that position, did you feel like there was any form of
government or anything that was out there to help you to say,
“Hey, Daryl, there’s another way?” Or was it just trapped in
isolation? I mean, was there ever a point where you thought,
other than the police, was there anything you saw that could
have helped you?
DARYL LEWIS: No, nothing. I felt hopeless to be perfectly honest
with you, Steve. I felt hopeless.
TAYA GRAHAM: But we didn’t stop there. We also visited an expert
on the consequences of unlimited police powers. His name is A.
Dwight Pettit, he’s the Civil Rights Attorney and Real News
Board Member, who’s represented victims in hundreds of brutality
cases. And the story he tell us is even more disturbing because
it goes to the core idea of the show: accountability. That’s
because Pettit is in the middle of a battle with city officials
who’ve made a stunning argument: that the city which gave
badges, guns, and arrest powers to out of control cops, are not
responsible for their actions; that same government, which armed
and paid them, owes nothing to the victims of their criminal
behavior.
A. DWIGHT PETTIT: Their argument, in my opinion, is just so
ridiculous. That the only thing that you can raise is the fact
that what you’ve just raised, that he’s a police officer, he’s
clothed with authority, he’s acting under color of law. Citizens
are responding to him as a police officer. There’s no such thing
as outside of the scope of employment. And how do you say it’s
coming out now? How do you say in the cases of the Gun Trace
Task Force, who operated with impunity, that the supervisors and
the authorities did not know that all this was going on? How do
you raise that defense?
TAYA GRAHAM: Stephen, what does Mr. Pettit’s struggle tell us
about the relationship between politicians and police?
STEPHEN JANIS: It just shows us how the idea of policing can
corrupt a government to the point where because you have people
with badges and guns, exercising this power over the
impoverished part of the city, and become part of a larger
narrative of a city beset with crime, which is really beset with
poverty and failing schools, but become that cover for
politicians who don’t know how to fix complex problems, can
infiltrate the thinking of a city government where they were
literally saying, “We’re not responsible for these people.”
But you armed them. You gave them badges. You gave them guns.
You gave them the color of law, to shoot, kill, arrest, detain,
take away the constitutional rights, and you’re saying you’re
not responsible just because they misbehaved? What did you think
would happen? I mean, these cops were accused of stealing
overtime. These cops were accused of robbing residents. These
things were going on. As the previous case pointed out, there
were other cops helping them who knew what was happening.
TAYA GRAHAM: Exactly.
STEPHEN JANIS: And you’re still saying you’re not responsible.
It’s a freaking paramilitary organization, and it’s run by the
mayor. So I think it just shows how difficult it’s going to be—
it is— in this country to hold police accountable in any way,
shape, or form.
TAYA GRAHAM: And Mr. Pettit also addresses a central theme of
the show. Later in the interview, he talks about how the courts
and the politicians literally conspire to hold policing
harmless.
STEPHEN JANIS: Police keep getting away with it. Why can’t they
be held accountable, for real? Why do you think?
A. DWIGHT PETTIT: Because the courts have protected them, the
legislative bodies have protected them, and so then we have a
president that comes in and tells the police, “You do what you
want to do. I got your back.” Then this reinforces this and
politically reinforces it throughout the spectrum, from the top
all the way down.
TAYA GRAHAM: So Stephen, Mr. Pettit also told us something
really shocking about how police are defending themselves in
court.
STEPHEN JANIS: Well, so basically, in civil suits and even cases
of wrongful death, police are making an argument that they were
ignorant of the law, and therefore they can’t be held harmless,
they can’t be held liable, or be held to even account criminally
because he didn’t know it.
TAYA GRAHAM: Okay, wait. Let me just stop you there for one
second.
STEPHEN JANIS: Yeah.
TAYA GRAHAM: You’re telling me that law enforcement officers are
pleading ignorance of the law to get out of any sort of
responsibility for their actions?
STEPHEN JANIS: Yeah. He actually told us in cases that he has
tried or that cases he has sued or litigated, the police have
said, “I didn’t know the law.” And police have been held
harmless, and the Supreme Court has upheld that. Let’s just take
a listen to what he had to say.
STEPHEN JANIS: Just to repeat, the police officer is saying,
their defense is, “I didn’t know the law.”
A. DWIGHT PETTIT: Right. “I didn’t know the law,” and therefore,
a derivative of what they call immunity— immunity from
prosecution, immunity from civil liability— because of their
ignorance of the law. This defense is being used and has gone
all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has
upheld that as good defense. So it’s the courts, it’s the
legislators, and it’s the politicians in terms of big cities and
so forth, and small cities where all this police – is being
tolerated.
STEPHEN JANIS: But, the citizens can’t use it. We can’t say we
were ignorant. [crosstalk]
A. DWIGHT PETTIT: No, for us, it’s no defense whatsoever, but
for the police—
STEPHEN JANIS: If you had a client who stole a car and said, “I
didn’t know it was illegal.”
A. DWIGHT PETTIT: Right, you’d go to jail.
TAYA GRAHAM: So let me ask a fairly pointed question. What sort
of institution can not only fail at its core mission, but
flagrantly wreak havoc on a community, and yet still garner
unwavering support from politicians, who supposedly represent
the people that they harmed? What makes policing so singular and
so above reproach, that even when it destroys hundreds of lives,
the institution itself does not change? Maybe there’s a larger
lesson here, an example of the precarious balance between
maintaining a healthy democracy and empowering people to enforce
arbitrary and often destructive laws.
If we can’t hold the people who have life and death power over
us to account, what does that say about the civic health of this
country? If a single person, empowered by the state can
literally destroy hundreds of lives and the government that gave
him that power says it’s not responsible, then are we really
living in a government by and for the people? These are
questions that must be answered in the wake of what we reported
today, and it’s incumbent upon us as journalists to keep asking
these critical questions, and we hope you who are watching will
continue to push even further.
I want to thank my co-host, Stephen Janis. And remember, if you
have evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it
with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out to
us either in the comments or message us at the Police
Accountability Report on Facebook or @Eyesonpolice on Twitter.
And of course, you can message me directly @Tayasbaltimore on
Twitter or Facebook. And of course, please like and subscribe. I
will be there in the comments section.
I’m your host Taya Graham. Thank you for joining me on the
Police Accountability Report.
HTML https://therealnews.com/stories/police-use-ignorance-of-the-law-as-a-defense-but-you-cant
#Post#: 13591--------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court’s Asylum Ruling Is Incomprehensible {unless you ar
e a Racist Fascist!)
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2019, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert COMMENT: It's NOT incomprehensible; it's the CREEPING
POLICE STATE ROUTINE FASCIST CRUELTY, STUPID!
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-210818163124-16672489.gif
[center]Supreme [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif[/img]<br
/>Court’s Asylum Ruling Is Incomprehensible[/center]
September 12, 2019
The US Supreme Court temporarily approved President Trump's new
asylum rule, which makes it almost impossible for anyone from
Central America to gain asylum in the US. The court's support
puts thousands of lives in grave danger and violates US law and
international law
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/nF6brTkh-B0[/center]
[center]Story Transcript[/center]
GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg
Wilpert.
In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump
administration to prevent most Central American migrants from
seeking asylum in the United States. This is actually a
temporary ruling. The Supreme Court was responding to an
emergency appeal from the Trump administration to set aside
decisions that California judges had made which blocked the
President’s new asylum rule. This new asylum rule, which Trump
issued last July, would allow asylum applications only from
immigrants who have been denied asylum in other countries or
have been victims of “severe human trafficking.”
Immediately following the Supreme Court’s announcement, Trump
Tweeted: “BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on
Asylum!” Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg were the only two dissenters. Sotomayor stated that the
new asylum rule “topples decades of settled asylum practices and
affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western
Hemisphere—without affording the public a chance to weigh in.”
Joining me now to discuss the implications of this court
decision are Laura Carlsen and Matt Cameron. Laura is the
director of the Americas Program of the Center for International
Policy in Mexico City and a frequent contributor to The Real
News Network. And Matt is an immigration attorney specializing
in asylum and deportation defense and is the managing partner of
Cameron Micheroni and Silva. Laura joins us from Mexico City and
Matt from Boston. Thanks for being here today.
LAURA CARLSEN: Thanks.
MATT CAMERON: Thank you, Greg.
GREG WILPERT: Matt, I want to start with you. What’s at stake
here? A final court decision has not been made, as I mentioned,
but there are many who are saying that the right to asylum is in
danger. What do you say? And where’s this right to asylum
enshrined in the U.S. Constitution anyway?
MATT CAMERON: What is at stake is the future of asylum itself.
As you said, this is a temporary decision. But politically, this
could be permanent; legally, this could be permanent. Certainly
the court is letting us know where they’re going. That’s what
they do when they grant a stay. Even with this current
composition, I think the court may very well uphold the ban and
it may be very difficult to reverse at that point. Asylum itself
is not in the Constitution, but it’s enshrined in international
treaty and it’s enshrined in our own domestic law. And we have
an obligation to offer it, most especially–I’d say–in this case,
where we have a strong moral obligation to Central America.
GREG WILPERT: Just say a little bit more about that. Why is that
particularly the case with Central America?
MATT CAMERON: Greg, I think if I burned your house down, I’d
have an obligation to help you rebuild your house or at least
give you a place to stay in the meantime. And that’s what we’re
looking at. After more than a century of meddling, and most
especially in the last few decades– foreign, military, economic,
social policy, all of it–we have brought these countries to
where they are today in many real ways. I think if this were
Iraq or Afghanistan instead of Central America, Americans might
understand a little better. But we have such short memories.
GREG WILPERT: I think that’s a very good point. Laura, you
recently visited Tijuana for us, where you spoke to people who
are trying to apply for asylum in the United States. I just
wanted to run a clip briefly of what Trump said about the asylum
applicants and refugees. And he said this at rally a few months
ago.
DONALD TRUMP: You have people coming out. You know, they’re all
met by the lawyers. And they come out, and they’re met by the
lawyers. And they say, “Say the following phrase: I am very
afraid for my life. I am afraid for my life.” OK. And then I
look at the guy. He looks like he just got out of the ring. He’s
a heavyweight champion of the world and he’s afraid for his
life. It’s a big fat con job, folks. It’s a big fat con job.
GREG WILPERT: So Laura, what did you see in Tijuana? And what is
your response to Trump’s comments?
LAURA CARLSEN: I… It almost brings me to tears because of the
distance between the disdain, the hatred, the racism that’s
behind it, that you can hear in his voice when he talks about
people he’s never even met, whose stories he doesn’t know. I
have talked to those people and I know that they are among the
most desperate on Earth. They’re families, they’re men, they’re
women, they’re children, and they’ve just left situations that
are indeed life-threatening. Sometimes they’ve had 24 hours to
leave everything in their homes because of threats from gangs or
from repressive governments. They’ve set out on a journey that
goes through Mexico, obviously, to the United States because
they don’t have the funds and they can’t get the visas to take
any other route. That’s very, very dangerous. That implies a
huge degree of uncertainty and a lot of sacrifices; a lot of
crimes committed against them on the journey.
You have cases like in El Salvador, an army soldier who was
threatened by the gangs; a woman who rescued her brother from a
safe house and the gangs gave her 24 hours to get out of town
with her whole family; a taxi driver who’s being extorted by
five different gangs, and if he ceases to pay even one of them,
he’ll be dead the next day. These are the situations that
they’re facing. The international law of asylum is protection.
What it says is that human beings on this earth have a right to
be safe no matter what the national borders are. If they’re
fleeing persecution and they can make their case for fleeing
persecution, they have an international right for a country to
accept them. It says nothing about where they have to seek that.
They have the right to seek asylum in the country where they
feel safest.
This rule that says that they cannot even request asylum in the
United States–where many of them have families, by the way–and
says that they have to request asylum in the first country
considered by the Trump administration safe. And of course it’s
ridiculous because you have Hondurans coming through Guatemala,
and yet Guatemala is one of the primary sending countries
because of the conditions there. There’s no sense to it and it’s
extremely inhumane. It’s a cruel policy and it’s very, very
disappointing that the court has made this decision which
effectively makes this the policy on the border even as hundreds
of thousands of people–or at least thousands, because we don’t
want to exaggerate the numbers either–are coming up from these
countries that, as Matt said, are in a state of almost total
collapse.
GREG WILPERT: As I mentioned in the introduction, the case is
not over. But it will take a few months now until it winds its
way through the courts again and presumably ends up again at the
Supreme Court for a final decision. Matt, can you reconstruct a
little bit for us what the arguments on the two sides are?
particularly, what is the Trump administration saying in order
to justify this denial of asylum, essentially? What is the
response that you, as a lawyer, or other lawyers for the asylum
seekers have?
MATT CAMERON: First of all, to get a stay like this before any
court on appeal, you have to show imminent harm. You have to
show that there’s something that’s really going to happen if
this isn’t granted. And honestly, it’s very hard for me.
Usually, I can see the other side, but I do not see imminent
harm to the U.S. government. I see imminent harm to thousands
and thousands of people who will die. People will die during
this period and possibly going forward permanently.
That, to me, is where I see it. But essentially, the Trump
administration says it has a right to impose this rule. On the
other side, those of us who are more familiar with asylum
law–I’m sorry to say–I think generally think that they don’t
have that right because they’re essentially making this up.
That’s what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent, is that this
is not really asylum law at all. This is just a completely new
thing that they’ve made up. The lower court actually found this
was arbitrary and capricious, and to get to that standard is not
easy. That’s a difficult thing for a court to find. Sotomayor
suggested that she agreed with that, and I think very, very
rightly. I really don’t understand and I’m still in a state of
shock, honestly, that the Supreme Court has allowed this to go.
GREG WILPERT: How do you think it will play out once it returns,
basically, to the Supreme Court? What’s surprising is that the
two other liberal judges–or presumably liberal judges, that is,
Breyer and Kagan–voted in favor along with the majority on this
case. Is that an indication that that will happen again? What do
you think?
MATT CAMERON: It certainly is when you look at a stay.
Obviously, they haven’t heard the full argument. We haven’t seen
full oral argument briefing before them. Certainly their
opinions could change. But what really concerns me is we didn’t
actually get a decision in this case, which is a little unusual
with a stay of this import. I think, honestly, we’re owed one.
I’d really like to know where they were coming from and we never
will, at least not until this gets a little further.
GREG WILPERT: Laura, the people that you saw there… I mean, what
do you think about how they are going to deal with this
situation? You saw people who clearly were very frustrated that
they had spent already many weeks at the border, weren’t allowed
to enter the United States, and presumably were forced to
return, perhaps even, to Central America or stay in Mexico. What
does that mean for them?
LAURA CARLSEN: As Matt said, we’re talking about deaths. We’re
talking about deaths through deportation, through people who are
forced to stay in dangerous situations in their countries. I
also just got back from Honduras, and there’s demonstrations in
the streets. The repression is killing people as well and the
general rate of crime and collusion with a corrupt Narco
government is making it impossible for people to live in their
own neighborhoods.
The people who get returned are at risk of death. The people who
stay in the border cities in Mexico are at risk of death. Some
of them are the most dangerous cities in the country. What it
means for them, we have to sort it out a little bit because
there’s one group that’s the group that’s already gone into the
United States and been sent back to await their asylum hearings.
Presumably, they can’t throw those people out of asylum hearings
that they’re already a part of. They could eventually go through
the hearing and deny them asylum, which is what they’ll probably
do, but they can’t just cut off–according to this rule–cut off
their process. Those are the remaining Mexico people.
And then you have these safe third country people. And there’s
something that should be said about this agreement, which is not
an agreement, this rule that Trump made. Safe third country
agreements exist in other parts of the world. We did a report on
them. They’ve been challenged legally and repeatedly and,
generally speaking, don’t hold up very well. But they’re
different from what’s happening here in the sense that they are
agreements. A developed country that for racist reasons or
whatever reasons doesn’t want to take in its fair share of the
world’s migrants–despite having contributed to the causes, which
is very true–can say, “Okay, you, other country that they’re
going through first, take these people. But we will contribute
because we recognize the need for international protection and
their right to international protection. We will contribute,
usually financially, to the efforts to receive these people.”
Here, we don’t even have that. We have nothing. We have, once
again, a ruling by Donald Trump, who’s been chiseling away at
asylum, who’s been using immigration as an electoral issue to
mobilize a racist base with a white supremacist agenda. And
Mexico, because of its economic dependence, is just saying,
“Well, okay, can you do something maybe about stopping arms at
the border?” That’s their big stand for national sovereignty on
these issues.
Who’s going to stand up for the migrants? That’s the big
question now. The shelters are overwhelmed, the lawyers are
overwhelmed. Every time they try to stop an illegal ruling like
this, they get hit with another. And so it’s being tied up in
the court and now this will be tied up again in the court. But
in the meantime, by granting them the right–when we still don’t
know the legality of the ruling, and it’s very likely not legal
according to international law–by granting them the right to
continue to do it, they’re killing people in the meantime.
GREG WILPERT: Matt, finally, I just want to know… Part of the
problem, of course, that many people who are watching this
probably will face, is that the Supreme Court seems very far
removed from people in terms of being able to influence, that
you don’t elect any high court judges. What would you say can
people do who are concerned about this issue? Is there anything
that can be done that is from an ordinary citizen perspective?
MATT CAMERON: Certainly. There are amazing organizations working
on this right now. You can help them out; they’re pretty easy to
find. And just continue to tell people this is catastrophic.
This is really something that we as Americans, if we accept this
now, there’s a very good chance that politically and legally,
this will become the status quo. We just need to continue to
tell each other that this is not normal, that this is not how it
should be.
I just very quickly want to look back to your question because
I’m having a little trouble actually articulating the
government’s argument. I think I just want to mention that the
government’s argument really is that migrants should be seeking
asylum in the first country that they reach, which in the case
of Central America… Really, if you’re coming from another
Central American country, what you’re saying is that the fire is
safer than the frying pan. Because that’s what you’re doing if
you’re going from somewhere like El Salvador to Guatemala or the
other way around.
There are right now 10, as I understand it, asylum officers in
Guatemala, and that’s where they want to send these people. It’s
a travesty. I think the safe third country agreement that Laura
mentioned is illegal on both sides. I’m convinced of that, but
this is even far and above beyond that. This is just another
level of the war on asylum, just kicked up to another gear. It’s
just been a really hard day, I think, for all of us who do this
work.
LAURA CARLSEN: Yeah. And I want to mention that if we… In terms
of what people can do, look what happened when Trump imposed the
Muslim ban. The airports filled up with people protesting. This
is essentially a ban on all asylum refugee seekers from Central
America; in fact, from all of Latin America, because almost
everyone has to come up by land. They can’t get a plane ticket
to the United States without first going through their hearing
and getting a legal status there. It’s essentially a ban on all
Latin American refugees, on all African refugees who are coming
through Latin America–which is a considerable proportion–and on
all Caribbean refugees, practically. It’s very, very major and
people should be reacting much more strongly than what we’ve
seen so far.
GREG WILPERT: One last point that I also saw. Actually, I think
it is quite interesting that the spokesperson for the union that
represents asylum officers also came out very strongly against
this ruling, saying that it’s clearly incompatible with the law.
Even they are saying that this doesn’t make any sense.
Unfortunately, we’re going to have to leave it there for now,
but we’ll continue to cover the story as it develops. Thank you
again, Laura Carlsen and Matt Cameron, for having joined us
today.
LAURA CARLSEN: Thank you, Greg.
MATT CAMERON: Thank you, Greg.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
HTML https://therealnews.com/stories/supreme-courts-asylum-ruling-is-incomprehensible
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-130818183343.png[/img]
[/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page