npr--2020-01-07--Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Iran's Foreign Minister

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif talks to All Things Considered 's Mary Louise Kelly in Iran about heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington after the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Here 's the full transcript of their conversation .
Mary Louise Kelly : Foreign Minister , thank you .
Our time is short , so I will be direct .
Does Iran consider the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani an act of war ?
Mohammad Javad Zarif : It 's an act of terrorism and an act of war .
It is both — Terrorism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. ?
Yes .
But it has three basically characteristics .
One against Iraq .
It violated territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq .
And it also violated the agreement that they had with the Iraqis .
And that is why the Iraqis decided to kick them out .
It hurt the feeling of many people across Iran and the rest of the world .
And the reaction to that would be to make it almost impossible for the U.S. to continue to stay in this region .
That is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States in our region are numbered .
Third is they attacked a citizen and a senior official of Iran .
We 're responsible under international law for protection of our citizens .
This was an act of aggression , an armed attack , albeit a cowardly armed attack , against an Iranian official in foreign territory .
It amounts to war , and we will respond according to our own timing and choice .
But we were on the streets in Tehran yesterday , we saw flags , banners with the words deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that look like ?
Well , that looks like the United States has committed a grave error .
A grave error .
And it will pay for that grave error .
Can you be specific ?
Well , I was very specific .
The Parliament of Iraq asked them to leave .
The people of the region are asking them to leave .
And the people of Iran are asking their government to do what it takes for the United States to pay for its crimes .
But what would Iran 's response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide .
We will decide .
The United States , you see — There 's nothing on or off the table ?
Well , you see , in exercising our right to self-defense , we are only bound by international law , unlike the United States , which is not bound by international law .
The U.S. would differ .
But go on .
U.S. would differ ?
Well , tell them to explain how they want to attack cultural sites .
That 's a war crime .
How do they want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the record .
These are statements made by the president of the United States .
Disproportionate manner .
The defense secretary , as you well know , Mark Esper has said in the United States , the U.S. will not be attacking cultural sites .
Well , I 've heard that the president in the United States is the commander in chief .
And as you say , the buck stops here .
So , unless President Trump changes his own threats , I do n't think that .
...
The defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not as a as an independent entity .
But the point is , the United — the secretary of state , of all people , has said if Iran wants its people to eat , it has to listen to the United States .
That 's a crime against humanity .
Starvation is a crime against humanity , creating individual responsibility before the International Criminal Court .
These are the statements that are being made .
I 'm not making them up .
I mean , the Newsweek headlines — they 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States .
You were supposed to have — They can differ with me .
But I do n't think they have any grounds to differ with me .
You were supposed to be able to make this case in New York , at the United Nations this week , you were set to address the United Nations Security Council .
Not this case .
Actually , the president of the Security Council invited me over 20 days ago .
The current president .
Will you be able to go ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided that I was too dangerous for the United States .
How did — has he communicated that directly to you ?
How did you find out ?
Not to us , to the secretary-general of the United States [ sic ] .
He has said we did n't have enough time to issue a visa .
I do n't know how terrible bureaucracy the State Department has that in 25 days , they could n't issue a visa for a foreign minister .
I 'm not an unknown entity .
But you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is definite ?
Because I know there has been confusion in past about visas .
From his point of view it is .
And I 'm not that crazy about going to the United States anyway .
You 're just , just happy to skip this trip .
Well , I 'm not happy to skip this trip because that was part of my obligation as the foreign minister of Iran to go to that session of the Security Council and talk about the need to respect international law , because that 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the principles of the U.N. Charter .
Secretary Pompeo , in past , when this has been an issue with Iranian diplomats such as yourself coming to the United Nations in New York and visa issues have been difficult , has said a nation that has killed U.S. citizens , that has knowingly killed hundreds of Americans — why should they be allowed to come to the U.S. ?
Why should a nation that knowingly supports international terrorist groups , why should they be allowed to come address the United Nations ?
Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations are easy to make .
But when we see who is killing and who is maiming and who has killed a thousand Iraqi scientists -- Iran has sent weapons that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq .
You know this .
Who killed — who killed 290 Iranians , civilians in a civil airliner ?
Yes .
The record is clear .
The record of the United States in this region is clear .
They have killed a lot of Iraqis .
They 've killed a lot of Afghanis .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this region .
They are killing a lot of people in Yemen .
The weapons that the United States provides to Saudi Arabia is killing and maiming people .
Many sides are killing a lot of people in Yemen , unfortunately .
Unfortunately , it 's a war that the United States — The Houthis have always asked — they did n't start a war .
They 're defending themselves .
You can not equate somebody who 's defending themselves , but with somebody who 's attacking them .
May I turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have heard from Iran that Iran will suspend compliance with the remaining limits in the nuclear deal .
Is this the end of the deal ?
No , we did n't say we will suspend complying with the remaining limits .
We said that we have taken four steps .
Our fifth step would be to suspend compliance with the limit on the number of centrifuges .
That means effectively that all limits on our centrifuge program are now suspended .
Why do this now ?
Because it 's it 's at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if the Europeans do not comply with their own obligations , we will take measures .
You see , JCPOA was negotiated not in an -- You 're using the formal name for the nuclear deal .
Go on .
Yeah .
Not in an atmosphere of trust , but in an atmosphere of mistrust .
That is why we put in place the mechanisms for dealing with violations .
And that mechanism was triggered by Iran after U.S. withdrawal .
And in November of 2018 , we informed that we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no other choice but to start reducing our level of compliance .
But we made it very clear that we are ready to go back to full compliance the minute they start complying with their own .
Does n't mean that the United States should comply .
Means that Europe should comply .
MLK : Still , it 's not good news for the nuclear deal which you personally negotiated .
Well , it 's not good news .
Certainly not .
And we 're not happy about this , but it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or you imprison somebody for committing an offense , you certainly are not happy for depriving somebody of their life or their liberty .
But you have to do it because it 's a remedy that the law has provided in order to prevent lawlessness .
This is a remedy provided in the deal .
So this is not — No .
If we wanted to build a nuclear bomb , we would have to be , would have done it a long time ago .
Iran does not want a nuclear bomb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create security for anybody .
And we believe it 's time for everybody to disarm rather than to arm .
Last question .
There 's something like five U.S. citizens still being detained in Iran , including the aging Baquer Namazi , who is in ill health .
He 's here , yet he — He would probably prefer not to be .
Is there hope for future exchanges ?
Well , I do n't think that this action by the United States helped .
We had proposed a universal exchange of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good faith .
We released an American citizen for an Iranian citizen .
That could have continued .
But now — You 're talking about the recent exchange of a Princeton graduate student who is an American held here .
-- who had been held without — And those channels are still open ?
I do n't think at this time we can discuss those issues .
We have to deal with the present issue at hand , unfortunately .
If I 'm hearing you correctly , you 're saying there will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so tense between Washington -- Well I think those talks are certainly suspended now .
Foreign Minister Zarif , thank you for your time .
Thank you for being here .
Editor 's note : NPR 's Mary Louise Kelly described a 1988 attack on an Iranian civil airplane as a bombing .
The U.S. Navy actually fired missiles at Iran Air Flight 655 .
Earlier in the conversation , Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif mentioned the secretary-general of the United States .
He was referring to the United Nations secretary-general .

Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Iran's Foreign Minister
Enlarge this image toggle caption Elias Williams for NPR Elias Williams for NPR
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif talks to All Things Considered's Mary Louise Kelly in Iran about heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington after the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Here's the full transcript of their conversation.
Mary Louise Kelly: Foreign Minister, thank you. Our time is short, so I will be direct. Does Iran consider the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani an act of war?
Mohammad Javad Zarif: It's an act of terrorism and an act of war.
It is both —
Both.
Terrorism and war, you believe, on behalf of the U.S.?
Yes. But it has three basically characteristics. One against Iraq. It violated territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq. And it also violated the agreement that they had with the Iraqis. And that is why the Iraqis decided to kick them out.
It hurt the feeling of many people across Iran and the rest of the world. And the reaction to that would be to make it almost impossible for the U.S. to continue to stay in this region. That is why I say the days of the United States in our region are numbered.
Third is they attacked a citizen and a senior official of Iran. We're responsible under international law for protection of our citizens. This was an act of aggression, an armed attack, albeit a cowardly armed attack, against an Iranian official in foreign territory. It amounts to war, and we will respond according to our own timing and choice.
But we were on the streets in Tehran yesterday, we saw flags, banners with the words deep revenge written across them.
Yes.
What does that look like?
Well, that looks like the United States has committed a grave error. A grave error. And it will pay for that grave error.
Can you be specific?
Well, I was very specific. The Parliament of Iraq asked them to leave. The people of the region are asking them to leave. And the people of Iran are asking their government to do what it takes for the United States to pay for its crimes.
But what would Iran's response look like?
Well, we will decide. We will decide. The United States, you see —
There's nothing on or off the table?
Well, you see, in exercising our right to self-defense, we are only bound by international law, unlike the United States, which is not bound by international law.
The U.S. would differ. But go on.
U.S. would differ? Well, tell them to explain how they want to attack cultural sites. That's a war crime. How do they want to — I mean, these are not off the record. These are statements made by the president of the United States. Disproportionate manner.
The defense secretary, as you well know, Mark Esper has said in the United States, the U.S. will not be attacking cultural sites.
Well, I've heard that the president in the United States is the commander in chief. And as you say, the buck stops here. So, unless President Trump changes his own threats, I don't think that. ... The defense secretary works on behalf of the president, not as a as an independent entity. But the point is, the United — the secretary of state, of all people, has said if Iran wants its people to eat, it has to listen to the United States. That's a crime against humanity. Starvation is a crime against humanity, creating individual responsibility before the International Criminal Court. These are the statements that are being made. I'm not making them up. I mean, the Newsweek headlines — they're, I mean, they're headlines in the United States.
You were supposed to have —
They can differ with me. But I don't think they have any grounds to differ with me.
You were supposed to be able to make this case in New York, at the United Nations this week, you were set to address the United Nations Security Council.
Not this case. Actually, the president of the Security Council invited me over 20 days ago. The current president.
Will you be able to go?
No, unfortunately, because Mike Pompeo decided that I was too dangerous for the United States.
How did — has he communicated that directly to you? How did you find out?
Not to us, to the secretary-general of the United States [sic]. He has said we didn't have enough time to issue a visa. I don't know how terrible bureaucracy the State Department has that in 25 days, they couldn't issue a visa for a foreign minister. I'm not an unknown entity.
But you are — this is final, this is definite? Because I know there has been confusion in past about visas.
From his point of view it is. And I'm not that crazy about going to the United States anyway.
You're just, just happy to skip this trip.
Well, I'm not happy to skip this trip because that was part of my obligation as the foreign minister of Iran to go to that session of the Security Council and talk about the need to respect international law, because that's the title: the need to respect the principles of the U.N. Charter.
Secretary Pompeo, in past, when this has been an issue with Iranian diplomats such as yourself coming to the United Nations in New York and visa issues have been difficult, has said a nation that has killed U.S. citizens, that has knowingly killed hundreds of Americans — why should they be allowed to come to the U.S.? Why should a nation that knowingly supports international terrorist groups, why should they be allowed to come address the United Nations?
Well, now, I mean, these allegations are easy to make. But when we see who is killing and who is maiming and who has killed a thousand Iraqi scientists --
Iran has sent weapons that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. You know this.
Who killed — who killed 290 Iranians, civilians in a civil airliner?
You're referring to an airplane bombing.
Yes. The record is clear. The record of the United States in this region is clear. They have killed a lot of Iraqis. They've killed a lot of Afghanis. They've killed a lot of people elsewhere in this region. They are killing a lot of people in Yemen. The weapons that the United States provides to Saudi Arabia is killing and maiming people.
Many sides are killing a lot of people in Yemen, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, it's a war that the United States —
Including the Houthis, who Iran backs.
The Houthis have always asked — they didn't start a war. They're defending themselves. You cannot equate somebody who's defending themselves, but with somebody who's attacking them.
May I turn you to the nuclear deal? We have heard from Iran that Iran will suspend compliance with the remaining limits in the nuclear deal. Is this the end of the deal?
No, we didn't say we will suspend complying with the remaining limits. We said that we have taken four steps. Our fifth step would be to suspend compliance with the limit on the number of centrifuges. That means effectively that all limits on our centrifuge program are now suspended.
Why do this now?
Huh?
Why?
Because it's it's at the two-month period that we have said before that if the Europeans do not comply with their own obligations, we will take measures.
You see, JCPOA was negotiated not in an --
You're using the formal name for the nuclear deal. Go on.
Yeah. Not in an atmosphere of trust, but in an atmosphere of mistrust. That is why we put in place the mechanisms for dealing with violations. And that mechanism was triggered by Iran after U.S. withdrawal. And in November of 2018, we informed that we have exhausted that mechanism, and we have no other choice but to start reducing our level of compliance. But we made it very clear that we are ready to go back to full compliance the minute they start complying with their own. Doesn't mean that the United States should comply. Means that Europe should comply.
MLK: Still, it's not good news for the nuclear deal which you personally negotiated.
Well, it's not good news. Certainly not. And we're not happy about this, but it's a remedy. When you execute somebody or you imprison somebody for committing an offense, you certainly are not happy for depriving somebody of their life or their liberty. But you have to do it because it's a remedy that the law has provided in order to prevent lawlessness. This is a remedy provided in the deal.
So this is not —
Unpleasant.
-- Iran racing to build a nuclear bomb.
No. If we wanted to build a nuclear bomb, we would have to be, would have done it a long time ago. Iran does not want a nuclear bomb, does not believe that nuclear bombs create security for anybody. And we believe it's time for everybody to disarm rather than to arm.
Last question. There's something like five U.S. citizens still being detained in Iran, including the aging Baquer Namazi, who is in ill health.
He's not detained.
He's here.
He's here, yet he —
He would probably prefer not to be.
Well, he's an Iranian citizen.
Is there hope for future exchanges?
Well, I don't think that this action by the United States helped. We had proposed a universal exchange of all prisoners and we were doing that in good faith. We released an American citizen for an Iranian citizen. That could have continued. But now —
You're talking about the recent exchange of a Princeton graduate student who is an American held here.
And an Iranian professor —
Yes.
-- who had been held without —
And those channels are still open?
I don't think at this time we can discuss those issues. We have to deal with the present issue at hand, unfortunately.
If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying there will not be future exchanges while the situation is so tense between Washington --
Well I think those talks are certainly suspended now.
Foreign Minister Zarif, thank you for your time.
Thank you for being here.
Thank you.
Editor's note: NPR's Mary Louise Kelly described a 1988 attack on an Iranian civil airplane as a bombing. The U.S. Navy actually fired missiles at Iran Air Flight 655. Earlier in the conversation, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif mentioned the secretary-general of the United States. He was referring to the United Nations secretary-general.


npr--2020-01-08--Progress On Lung Cancer Drives Historic Drop In U.S. Cancer Death Rate

Progress On Lung Cancer Drives Historic Drop In U.S. Cancer Death Rate Cancer death rates in the United States took their sharpest drop on record between 2016 and 2017 , according to an analysis by the American Cancer Society .
Cancer death rates in the U.S. have been falling gradually for about three decades , typically about 1.5 % a year .
But during the latest study period , the cancer mortality rate dropped 2.2 % , `` the biggest single-year drop ever , '' says Rebecca Siegel , scientific director for surveillance research at the cancer society .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declines in lung cancer mortality , '' Siegel says .
That 's `` very encouraging , because lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. , causing more deaths than breast , colorectal and prostate cancers combined . ''
What 's behind the decline ?
In part , smoking rates have fallen steadily , which means the biggest risk factor for lung cancer has fallen appreciably .
New cancer treatments are also playing a role , Siegel says .
Advanced lung cancer , however , remains deadly .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere in the body have only a 5 % chance of surviving for five years .
And many smokers and former smokers are not following the advice to get screened with a low-dose CT scan to catch cancer early .
In fact , a recent study found that only 4.4 % of people eligible for this screening test ( which under the Affordable Care Act is available at no cost ) actually got screened in 2015 .
Nearly twice as many people instead got a test that has been found to be unsuited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chest X-ray .
And others who did n't fit the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations took the CT screening test anyway .
`` The number of adults inappropriately screened for lung cancer greatly exceeds the number screened according to the USPSTF recommendations , '' the study notes .
Screening for cancer has played a controversial role in cancer trends .
Mammography and the PSA blood test for prostate cancer do identify some cancers early , when treatment is usually more effective .
But the tests also identify many growths that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` overdiagnosis . ''
A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October delves into that issue to help distinguish between cancer trends that are true improvements and trends simply due to changes in screening practices .
Do n't see the graphic above ?
Click here .
That issue plays out in the latest statistics .
The reported number of prostate cancers surged in the 1980s as doctors started detecting it with the PSA test .
That led to treating many prostate cancers that would never have turned deadly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of cancers , and the death rate from prostate cancer fell at about 4 % per year .
No longer .
`` The rapid declines in death rates over the past couple of decades actually halted , '' Siegel says .
Siegel says that 's partly because reduced PSA screening , while preventing many unnecessary treatments , is also finding fewer treatable cancers .
`` I think there is a big need for a better test , '' she says .
Improvements in cancer treatment are apparent when it comes to melanoma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less common than prostate or lung cancer .
The new statistics show that melanoma death rates have been dropping by 7 % per year .
The report attributes this largely to anti-cancer drugs called checkpoint inhibitors and other new drugs .
Some 92 % of people diagnosed with this cancer are still alive five years later ( compared with 19 % of those diagnosed with lung cancer ) .
While the report measures trends in cancer rates ( which are measured as deaths per 100,000 people ) , that 's not the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases and deaths .
Cancer is mostly a disease of older people , and the U.S. population is aging rapidly .
So while rates are declining , the absolute number of cancer deaths is not .
`` We have more than 600,000 deaths from cancer in this country every year , and that number continues to grow , '' Siegel says .
And with treatments getting progressively more expensive , that 's a challenge not just for individuals but for the entire health care system .
A detailed analysis of the statistics is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cancer Journal for Clinicians .
You can contact NPR science correspondent Richard Harris at rharris @ npr.org .

Progress On Lung Cancer Drives Historic Drop In U.S. Cancer Death Rate
Enlarge this image toggle caption VIEW press/Corbis via Getty Images VIEW press/Corbis via Getty Images
Cancer death rates in the United States took their sharpest drop on record between 2016 and 2017, according to an analysis by the American Cancer Society.
Cancer death rates in the U.S. have been falling gradually for about three decades, typically about 1.5% a year. But during the latest study period, the cancer mortality rate dropped 2.2%, "the biggest single-year drop ever," says Rebecca Siegel, scientific director for surveillance research at the cancer society.
"It seems to be driven by accelerating declines in lung cancer mortality," Siegel says. That's "very encouraging, because lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., causing more deaths than breast, colorectal and prostate cancers combined."
"This is unambiguously good news," says Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, senior investigator with the Center for Surgery and Public Health, at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. He was not involved in the analysis.
What's behind the decline? In part, smoking rates have fallen steadily, which means the biggest risk factor for lung cancer has fallen appreciably. New cancer treatments are also playing a role, Siegel says.
Advanced lung cancer, however, remains deadly. People diagnosed with lung cancer that has spread elsewhere in the body have only a 5% chance of surviving for five years. And many smokers and former smokers are not following the advice to get screened with a low-dose CT scan to catch cancer early.
In fact, a recent study found that only 4.4% of people eligible for this screening test (which under the Affordable Care Act is available at no cost) actually got screened in 2015. Nearly twice as many people instead got a test that has been found to be unsuited as a screen for lung cancer: a chest X-ray.
And others who didn't fit the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations took the CT screening test anyway. "The number of adults inappropriately screened for lung cancer greatly exceeds the number screened according to the USPSTF recommendations," the study notes.
Screening for cancer has played a controversial role in cancer trends. Mammography and the PSA blood test for prostate cancer do identify some cancers early, when treatment is usually more effective. But the tests also identify many growths that would never turn deadly — a phenomenon called "overdiagnosis."
A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October delves into that issue to help distinguish between cancer trends that are true improvements and trends simply due to changes in screening practices.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
That issue plays out in the latest statistics. The reported number of prostate cancers surged in the 1980s as doctors started detecting it with the PSA test. That led to treating many prostate cancers that would never have turned deadly. Even so, the test caught a lot of cancers, and the death rate from prostate cancer fell at about 4% per year.
No longer. "The rapid declines in death rates over the past couple of decades actually halted," Siegel says.
Siegel says that's partly because reduced PSA screening, while preventing many unnecessary treatments, is also finding fewer treatable cancers. "I think there is a big need for a better test," she says.
That plateau doesn't surprise Welch, at Brigham and Women's, who agrees that it might be time to reevaluate screening for prostate cancer. "I think we've gotten about the decline we're going to get from screening and treatment," he says. Some types of prostate cancer are more treatable than others and with recent improvements, he says, "we've gotten the low-hanging fruit."
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
Improvements in cancer treatment are apparent when it comes to melanoma, a skin cancer that's far less common than prostate or lung cancer. The new statistics show that melanoma death rates have been dropping by 7% per year. The report attributes this largely to anti-cancer drugs called checkpoint inhibitors and other new drugs. Some 92% of people diagnosed with this cancer are still alive five years later (compared with 19% of those diagnosed with lung cancer).
While the report measures trends in cancer rates (which are measured as deaths per 100,000 people), that's not the same as tracking the actual number of cancer cases and deaths. Cancer is mostly a disease of older people, and the U.S. population is aging rapidly. So while rates are declining, the absolute number of cancer deaths is not.
"We have more than 600,000 deaths from cancer in this country every year, and that number continues to grow," Siegel says.
And with treatments getting progressively more expensive, that's a challenge not just for individuals but for the entire health care system.
A detailed analysis of the statistics is being published Wednesday in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
You can contact NPR science correspondent Richard Harris at rharris@npr.org.


npr--2020-01-08--The Day That Never Happened

The Day That Never Happened

The Day That Never Happened Have you ever had a memory , but you are n't sure if you dreamed it or read it or saw it in a movie ?
Have you ever had a day that changed life as you knew it , but no one ever spoke about it again ?
For me , that day started early on a Sunday morning in June 2005 .
I had just turned 12 .
Half-asleep , I heard footsteps surround the corners of my bed .
My mother 's voice flooded in from the doorway .
`` Please , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake her . ''
But it was a stranger 's hand that shook me awake .
He had one hand on a gun strapped to his waist , and the other wrapped tightly around my arm .
He was dressed from head to toe in what looked like black SWAT gear .
I do n't remember much about his face .
`` Get up and go downstairs , '' the man said .
He was not alone .
There were at least six other men , all dressed in black .
My mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marched down our pink carpeted staircase .
The men trailed close behind .
They seemed more prepared for the frontlines of a warzone than our picturesque home in Orange County , Calif .
They moved throughout our house almost soundlessly .
When they spoke , it was to give orders .
`` Sit down , '' one of them said , motioning to the cream-colored couch in the living room .
It was the only piece of furniture we had purchased since moving in a few weeks before .
My father was already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t-shirt .
I tried to meet his eye , hoping he would make a joke , be his usual , reassuring self .
But that morning he said nothing — did n't look at any of us .
When I sat down next to him , I noticed he was wearing handcuffs .
The shades in the living had n't been installed yet , so the morning sun glared in our eyes .
I remember realizing , as I looked out on the street , that anyone could see inside .
I prayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just to witness what was happening .
But no one seemed to be walking their dog or grabbing the mail .
I felt like screaming for help , but I did n't .
None of us did .
We simply watched as the men rummaged through our drawers and flipped through our photo albums .
They used the VCR in my parents ' room to watch our home videos .
The sounds of old birthdays , family ski trips , and Persian New Years echoed throughout our mostly empty house .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house with memories of its own .
At one point , another man arrived , dressed in regular clothing .
He began to sort through letters we kept in drawers in the guest room .
I could hear him reading out loud , first in Farsi and then English , the words on the faded postcards family and friends from Iran .
Family recipes .
Pleas for us to return .
Love notes between my mom and dad , starting from when they met at university in Tehran .
Eventually , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take me and my brother out of the house .
He said they wanted to speak to my dad alone .
`` Where do you want me to take them ? ''
my mom asked .
There were bags under her eyes .
`` Poru , '' she whispered under her breath .
Rude , in Farsi .
She , too , had been uncharacteristically reserved up until that point .
For a few minutes , my mother , brother and I stood on the front porch in our pajamas .
I counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cul-de-sac .
We did n't know where to go .
If we went to a friend 's house we would have to explain why we were there — a question we could n't answer .
So we went where many people in our town went when not much was open : Denny 's .
We sat in a faux-leather booth , the song `` Send Me On My Way '' from my favorite movie , Matilda , played throughout the half-empty restaurant .
I stared at pancakes while my mom tried to fill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for camp this week ? ''
she asked .
I looked at my brother .
He did n't look up from his Game Boy .
It felt like hours had passed when a private number called my mom 's phone .
`` You can come back , '' a man said .
Then he hung up .
When we returned , the black cars were gone .
Inside , my dad sat in the same position that we had left him in — staring at the bare wall where a TV would eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides .
The house looked untouched .
The men had put everything back .
It was as if they had never been there .
The four of us sat on the couch for what felt like a long time .
My dad was the first to get up .
He went to my parent 's room and closed the door .
My mom stayed .
When it was dinnertime , she threw some things together for noon o panir , a traditional Persian breakfast .
We ate bread and goat cheese ; walnuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lemon juice .
We drank hot tea with sugar .
My dad did n't join us .
But eating that meal made it feel , if only for a little while , like everything was normal .
No one spoke about what had happened that morning .
We did n't talk about it the next day either .
Or the day after that .
My dad would go back to work .
My brother and I would go to camp .
My mom would show up at her morning jogging group , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motions , same as always .
And as the days came and went , none of us would mention that day .
At all .
Ever .
For more than a decade , it was the day that never happened .
But it changed our family , even if we never discussed it .
We no longer spoke Farsi in public .
My mom stopped saying hello to our neighbors as she got the mail .
My dad lowered the Persian dance music from his car stereo before turning onto our street .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ go by `` Rob . ''
And I borrowed the interests of my white peers : Lunchables , cheerleading and country music .
I changed the way I dressed to fit in with the Abercrombie & Fitch-girls in my class .
I chemically straightened my thick , curly hair until it flowed straight down my back in sleek strands .
I second-guessed the food I ate at lunchtime : Persian stews served with rice were swapped in for PB & J sandwiches in brown paper bags .
I could n't completely remove my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right hobbies and accessories and slang , I figured I could help mask it .
Every aspect of my family 's Iranian identity became toned down , softened , put away for years at a time .
It was until years later and 3,000 miles away , in graduate school in New York City , that I was able to revisit that day .
In the absence of any explanation , I 'd thought up wild theories : That my dad was filtering money to a terrorist organization ; that there was something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that had followed us here ; or , more realistically , that we simply were n't trusted in our white , conservative neighborhood .
And I did research , trying to find out if anything similar has happened to families like mine .
What I found was examples of extreme policing that dated back decades .
In the 1990s , the FBI 's `` Operation Vulgar Betrayal , '' allowed for years of surveillance of a Muslim community in the suburbs of Chicago .
After the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of mosques and businesses deemed `` hot spots . ''
( That six-year surveillance campaign of Muslims spread into parts of New Jersey and was later deemed a breach of the FBI 's own rules . )
In 2011 , the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit based in Michigan , alleging the FBI had a secret racial and ethnic mapping program in parts of the state that gathered intelligence on specific Muslim and Arab American communities .
It was clear that Muslim and Arab communities in many parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
But I still have n't found an example quite like what happened to my family , in Southern California .
I still do n't know for sure what happened .
I still do n't know if I want to know exactly what happened .
But not talking about that day with the only other people who had witnessed it eventually became unbearable .
It felt like we were enlisted in the witness protection program , but the only people we were protecting were the men who came into our house .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I did n't want to do that anymore .
So finally last March , for the first time in 14 years , I brought it up .
I decided to ask my father first because , as the one who was questioned — the one who was handcuffed — I felt like he was the only one of us who might have really understood what had happened .
`` I want to talk about that day , '' I texted him .
`` The day that those men came into our house .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ off work ? ''
A part of me felt scared about what he might say .
What if I had made this whole thing up ?
What if the reason no one spoke about it was because it did n't happen ?
Or worse , what if it was because it did ?
When he answered the phone later that night , I could tell he was nervous , too .
But when I asked him to go through the details of the day , he patiently answered my questions about what had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much he knew .
He told me the men identified themselves as federal agents but never specified what agency they were from .
He said they forced him to open the door , hands on their holsters .
When he asked if they had permission to search the house , they said they did n't need it .
`` I was new to this country , '' he told me .
`` It was a couple of years after 9/11 , and I am Middle Eastern , so I thought I 'd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them too many questions .
I did n't know my rights at that time . ''
He described how he watched the men march up the stairs , heading to my and my brother 's rooms .
His voice began to tremble as he explained to me how he begged them not to scare us .
But when I asked my dad why we never talked about that day , he sounded more ashamed than afraid .
`` I did n't want to remind you guys , '' he said .
`` You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad memory of policing in this country , that because you are foreigners , they hate you . ''
Because you are foreigners , they hate you .
I had n't realized until I heard my dad say it , how this feeling had morphed into my need to conform .
I was afraid that if I did n't , that day would happen again .
Those men would come again .
Over the phone , my dad added , `` I worried this might be a bad memory forever . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ memory of that day floods over me whenever I speak my native language on the subway ; when I walk to work and pass the men dressed in similar SWAT gear patrolling the World Trade Center .
I am reminded of it each time my flight lands at LAX , when I fly home to visit .
Despite missing my family , I frequently make excuses not to go home .
It 's too expensive , I say , or , The flight is too long .
What I do n't say is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filled with artifacts of the day that never happened .
`` You might hate this country because of that [ day ] . ''
This was my dad 's biggest fear — that the country he had uprooted my family for , the place he had sacrificed everything to bring us to , might become the object of our hatred .
Despite everything , I do n't hate this country ; even when it 's made me feel small ; even though I am entitled to .
I have changed my appearance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that one of the worst days of my life never happened , all in service of loving this country .
One day I hope this country will try as hard to love me back .
Farnoush Amiri is a journalist at The Associated Press , based in New York City .
Previously , she worked as a digital reporter at NBC News and now serves on the board of the South Asian Journalists Association .
You can find her on Twitter .

The Day That Never Happened
Enlarge this image Atieh Sohrabi for NPR Atieh Sohrabi for NPR
Have you ever had a memory, but you aren't sure whether you dreamed it or read it or saw it in a movie? Have you ever had a day that changed life as you knew it, but no one ever spoke about it again?
For me, that day started early on a Sunday morning in June 2005. I had just turned 12.
Half-asleep, I heard footsteps surround the corners of my bed.
My mother's voice flooded in from the doorway. "Please," she said. "Let me wake her."
But it was a stranger's hand that shook me awake. He had one hand on a gun strapped to his waist and the other wrapped tightly around my arm. He was dressed from head to toe in what looked like black SWAT gear. I don't remember much about his face.
"Get up and go downstairs," the man said. He was not alone. There were at least six other men, all dressed in black.
My mother, younger brother and I were marched down our pink carpeted staircase. The men trailed close behind. They seemed more prepared for the front lines of a war zone than our picturesque home in Orange County, Calif.
They moved throughout our house almost soundlessly. When they spoke, it was to give orders.
"Sit down," one of them said, motioning to the cream-colored couch in the living room. It was the only piece of furniture we had purchased since moving in a few weeks before.
My father was already sitting, wearing boxers and a ragged T-shirt. I tried to meet his eye, hoping he would make a joke, be his usual, reassuring self. But that morning he said nothing — didn't look at any of us. When I sat down next to him, I noticed he was wearing handcuffs.
The shades in the living room hadn't been installed yet, so the morning sun glared in our eyes. I remember realizing, as I looked out on the street, that anyone could see inside. I prayed one of our neighbors would walk by, just to witness what was happening. But no one seemed to be walking their dog or grabbing the mail.
I felt like screaming for help, but I didn't. None of us did. We simply watched as the men rummaged through our drawers and flipped through our photo albums. They used the VCR in my parents' room to watch our home videos. The sounds of old birthdays, family ski trips and Persian New Year's echoed throughout our mostly empty house. We hadn't yet gotten to fill the house with memories of its own.
At one point, another man arrived, dressed in regular clothing. He began to sort through letters we kept in drawers in the guest room. I could hear him reading out loud, first in Farsi and then English, the words on the faded postcards from family and friends in Iran. Family recipes. Pleas for us to return. Love notes between my mom and dad, starting from when they met at university in Tehran.
Eventually, one of the black-clad men asked my mom to take me and my brother out of the house. He said they wanted to speak to my dad alone.
"Where do you want me to take them?" my mom asked. There were bags under her eyes.
"I don't care," he responded.
"Poru," she whispered under her breath. Rude, in Farsi. She, too, had been uncharacteristically reserved up until that point.
For a few minutes, my mother, brother and I stood on the front porch in our pajamas. I counted their black SUVs parked discreetly around the cul-de-sac. We didn't know where to go. If we went to a friend's house, we would have to explain why we were there — a question we couldn't answer.
So we went where many people in our town went when not much was open: Denny's. We sat in a faux-leather booth, the song "Send Me On My Way" from my favorite movie, Matilda, played throughout the half-empty restaurant. I stared at pancakes while my mom tried to fill the silence.
Atieh Sohrabi for NPR
"Are you excited for camp this week?" she asked. I looked at my brother. He didn't look up from his Game Boy.
It felt like hours had passed when a private number called my mom's phone. "You can come back," a man said. Then he hung up.
When we returned, the black cars were gone. Inside, my dad sat in the same position that we had left him in — staring at the bare wall where a TV would eventually go. His hands were by his sides.
The house looked untouched. The men had put everything back. It was as if they had never been there.
The four of us sat on the couch for what felt like a long time. My dad was the first to get up. He went to my parents' room and closed the door. My mom stayed.
When it was dinnertime, she threw some things together for noon o panir, a traditional Persian breakfast. We ate bread and goat cheese; walnuts, tomatoes and cucumbers seasoned with fresh lemon juice. We drank hot tea with sugar. My dad didn't join us. But eating that meal made it feel, if only for a little while, as if everything was normal. No one spoke about what had happened that morning.
Atieh Sohrabi for NPR
We didn't talk about it the next day either. Or the day after that.
My dad would go back to work. My brother and I would go to camp. My mom would show up at her morning jogging group, on time. We would go through the motions, same as always. And as the days came and went, none of us would mention that day. At all. Ever.
For more than a decade, it was the day that never happened.
But it changed our family, even if we never discussed it. We no longer spoke Farsi in public. My mom stopped saying hello to our neighbors as she got the mail. My dad lowered the Persian dance music from his car stereo before turning onto our street. My brother, Sohrab, began to go by "Rob." And I borrowed the interests of my white peers: Lunchables, cheerleading and country music. I changed the way I dressed to fit in with the Abercrombie & Fitch girls in my class. I chemically straightened my thick, curly hair until it flowed straight down my back in sleek strands. I second-guessed the food I ate at lunchtime: Persian stews served with rice were swapped out for PB&J sandwiches in brown paper bags.
I couldn't completely remove my "otherness," but with the right hobbies and accessories and slang, I figured I could help mask it.
Every aspect of my family's Iranian identity became toned down, softened, put away for years at a time.
It was until years later and 3,000 miles away, in graduate school in New York City, that I was able to revisit that day.
In the absence of any explanation, I'd thought up wild theories: My dad was filtering money to a terrorist organization; there was something from my parents' past in Iran that had followed us here; or, more realistically, we simply weren't trusted in our white, conservative neighborhood.
And I did research, trying to find out whether anything similar has happened to families like mine.
What I found was examples of extreme policing that dated back decades. In the 1990s, the FBI's "Operation Vulgar Betrayal" allowed for years of surveillance of a Muslim community in the suburbs of Chicago. After the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, the New York Police Department began to surveil hundreds of mosques and businesses deemed "hot spots." (That six-year surveillance campaign of Muslims spread into parts of New Jersey and was later deemed a breach of the FBI's own rules.) In 2011, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit based in Michigan, alleging the FBI had a secret racial and ethnic mapping program in parts of the state that gathered intelligence on specific Muslim and Arab American communities.
It was clear that Muslim and Arab communities in many parts of the country had been under government surveillance for years. But I still haven't found an example quite like what happened to my family, in Southern California. I still don't know for sure what happened. I still don't know if I want to know exactly what happened.
But not talking about that day with the only other people who had witnessed it eventually became unbearable. It felt as if we were enlisted in the witness protection program, but the only people we were protecting were the men who came into our house. We were helping keep their secret. I didn't want to do that anymore.
So finally last March, for the first time in 14 years, I brought it up. I decided to ask my father first because, as the one who was questioned — the one who was handcuffed — I felt like he was the only one of us who might have really understood what had happened.
"I want to talk about that day," I texted him. "The day that those men came into our house. Can I call you when you get off work?"
A part of me felt scared about what he might say. What if I had made this whole thing up? What if the reason no one spoke about it was because it didn't happen? Or worse, what if it was because it did?
When he answered the phone later that night, I could tell he was nervous, too. But when I asked him to go through the details of the day, he patiently answered my questions about what had happened, how he was feeling, how much he knew.
Atieh Sohrabi for NPR
He told me the men identified themselves as federal agents but never specified what agency they were from. He said they forced him to open the door, hands on their holsters. When he asked whether they had permission to search the house, they said they didn't need it. "I was new to this country," he told me. "It was a couple of years after 9/11, and I am Middle Eastern, so I thought I'd rather be quiet, don't ask them too many questions. I didn't know my rights at that time."
He described how he watched the men march up the stairs, heading to my and my brother's rooms. His voice began to tremble as he explained to me how he begged them not to scare us.
But when I asked my dad why we never talked about that day, he sounded more ashamed than afraid.
"I didn't want to remind you guys," he said. "You were so young. And that was a bad memory of policing in this country, that because you are foreigners, they hate you."
Because you are foreigners, they hate you. I hadn't realized until I heard my dad say it, how this feeling had morphed into my need to conform. I was afraid that if I didn't, that day would happen again. Those men would come again.
Over the phone, my dad added, "I worried this might be a bad memory forever."
Again, he was right. The memory of that day floods over me whenever I speak my native language on the subway; when I walk to work and pass the men dressed in similar SWAT gear patrolling the World Trade Center. I am reminded of it each time my flight lands at LAX, when I fly home to visit. Despite missing my family, I frequently make excuses not to go home. It's too expensive, I say, or, The flight is too long. What I don't say is that my house feels like a museum filled with artifacts of the day that never happened.
"You might hate this country because of that [day]."
This was my dad's biggest fear — that the country he had uprooted my family for, the place he had sacrificed everything to bring us to might become the object of our hatred.
Despite everything, I don't hate this country; even when it has made me feel small; even though I am entitled to. I have changed my appearance and lowered my voice, even tried to believe that one of the worst days of my life never happened, all in service of loving this country. One day I hope this country will try as hard to love me back.
Farnoush Amiri is a journalist at The Associated Press, based in New York City. Previously, she worked as a digital reporter at NBC News and now serves on the board of the South Asian Journalists Association. You can find her on Twitter: @FarnoushAmiri .


npr--2020-01-08--President Trump To Deliver Statement On Iran

President Trump is expected to make a statement Wednesday morning , hours after Iran launched missile strikes against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq in apparent retaliation for the killing of Qassem Soleimani , the Iranian military commander .
`` All is well !
Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq , '' Trump said in a tweet late Tuesday .
`` Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now .
So far , so good ! ''
If there are no American casualties , there could be a way for the two countries to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speculation about an armed conflict .
Trump had previously warned that `` if Iran wants to fight , that will be the official end of Iran . ''
The president 's Tuesday night tweet follows days of tensions that began last week as Iraqi militiamen and their supporters targeted the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad , setting fires and damaging a perimeter gatehouse at the complex .
Days later , the U.S. killed Soleimani , who was visiting Baghdad , along with a senior leader of a Shia militia group .
Earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would strike Iranian sites , including cultural ones , if the Islamic Republic retaliated .
The Pentagon and other officials have since walked back those remarks .
In the days after the Soleimani strike , the Trump administration faced domestic political criticism over the lack of transparency following the operation .
The administration maintained that the U.S. faced an imminent threat , however .
`` If you 're looking for imminence , you need look no further than the days that led up to the strike , '' U.S. Secretary of State Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent protests outside the U.S. embassy .
Relations between the U.S. and Iran have been fraught since the 1979 Islamic Revolution , but they have deteriorated sharply since the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear deal that Tehran signed with the world 's powers in 2015 .
The Trump administration maintained that the agreement gave Iran too much in exchange for too little — and subsequently imposed harsh sanctions designed to squeeze Iran 's already moribund economy .
Since Soleimani 's killing , Iran has said it will no longer abide by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deal , but added that its decision is reversible if the other signatories to the accord — Britain , China , France , Germany , Russia and the European Union — provide it economic benefits .

Trump Says Iran Is 'Standing Down,' Vows To Continue Pressure
Enlarge this image toggle caption Evan Vucci/AP Evan Vucci/AP
Updated at 5 p.m. ET
President Trump said that Iran appears "to be standing down" after Tuesday night's missile attack in Iraq and that "the American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed."
Trump, in a nationally televised address from the White House, also announced a new round of what he termed "punishing economic sanctions" against the Iranian government. And he called on NATO to become "much more involved in the Middle East process."
Later in the day, Trump spoke by phone with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. According to a White House statement, "The President emphasized the value of NATO increasing its role in preventing conflict and preserving peace in the Middle East."
The missile strikes against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq were in apparent retaliation for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian military commander.
Soleimani "should have been terminated long ago," Trump said, calling him "the world's top terrorist."
Watch his full remarks.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced that the House will vote Thursday on a measure that would limit Trump's abilities to order a possible military strike against Iran. Democrats have argued that Congress should have been notified ahead of the U.S. strike that killed Soleimani in Iraq.
Trump shifts blame to Obama
Trump essentially blamed the Obama administration, which reached an agreement limiting Iran's ability to pursue nuclear weapons in return for — among other things — billions of dollars of Iranian assets that had been held by the U.S., for the Tuesday night missile strike.
"The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration," he charged.
Trump withdrew from that 2015 agreement in 2018, and on Wednesday, he called on the nation's European allies along with Russia and China to do so as well.
Asked about Trump's allegation, former Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Here & Now, "I think the president, when he's caught in a corner, always winds up blaming President Obama for whatever's happening, but the reality is that this president does not have a clear or comprehensive strategy in dealing with the Middle East. It's obvious from his own remarks."
Relations between the U.S. and Iran have been fraught since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but they have deteriorated sharply since the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear deal.
Assessing the damage
Initial satellite images of Ain al-Assad air base, in western Iraq, suggested that Iran's strike targeted aircraft repair shelters and other such facilities.
It wasn't immediately clear what effect the damage might have on American military capabilities in Iraq, but the United States has other air bases and vast forces arrayed throughout the Middle East.
Late Tuesday night, Trump had acknowledged the attacks by tweeting, "All is well!"
"Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good!" he added.
All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2020
Trump credited the dispersal of forces at the base "and an early warning system that worked very well" for the lack of casualties. A defense official told reporters in a statement that U.S. early warning systems "detected the incoming ballistic missiles well in advance, providing US and Coalition forces adequate time to take appropriate force protection measures."
Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, called Tuesday night's missile strike "proportionate measures in self-defense."
"We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression," he said on Twitter.
Before the attacks, he also told NPR's Mary Louise Kelly, who is in Tehran, that Soleimani's killing "amounts to war."
Background briefing
Wednesday's address followed days of tensions that began last week as Iran-backed Iraqi militiamen and their supporters targeted the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, setting fires and damaging a perimeter gatehouse at the complex.
Days later, the U.S. killed Soleimani, who was visiting Baghdad, along with a senior leader of a Shiite militia group.
Earlier this week, Trump said the U.S. would strike Iranian sites, including cultural ones, if the Islamic Republic retaliated. The Pentagon and other officials have since walked back those remarks.
In the days after the Soleimani strike, the Trump administration faced domestic political criticism over the lack of transparency following the operation. The administration maintained that the U.S. faced an imminent threat.
"If you're looking for imminence, you need look no further than the days that led up to the strike," U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday, alluding to the violent protests outside the U.S. Embassy.
Members of Congress who were briefed Wednesday by Trump administration officials about the killing of Soleimani had mixed responses, largely reflecting partisan divisions.
Trump supporter Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said, "It leaves little doubt in my mind — and certainly should leave little doubt in any member's mind — that not only did the president make the right call, but that this was a clear and present danger for American interests and American individuals."
But another Republican, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, called the briefing "insulting," and "probably the worst briefing at least on a military issue I've seen." Lee said he now intends to support a war powers resolution expected to come up for a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks.
Rep. Anthony Brown, D-Md., a veteran, said he did not hear "a single factual predicate that was offered in that briefing that supports the conclusion that the threat was imminent, nor did we get a real flavor and feel for the nature of the intelligence. So it was really disappointing. I mean everything I heard there you all have been reporting on for the last week or so."
And California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee insisted that Congress should reassert "its role in exercising our constitutional responsibility."
"If in fact any president wants to use force or conduct military strikes, then they must, he or she must, come to Congress for that authorization," she said.
Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman contributed to this report.


npr--2020-01-08--Stakes High For Democrats And Republicans In Bid To Rush ACA To Supreme Court

Stakes High For Democrats And Republicans In Bid To Rush ACA To Supreme Court You 're forgiven if in the holiday blur you missed that a federal appeals court in New Orleans has once again put the future of the Affordable Care Act in doubt .
Or if you missed the news last week that a group of Democratic state attorneys general has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in this term — which ends in June .
That would mean a decision could come right in the middle of the 2020 presidential and congressional campaigns .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high court will take the case at this point ( although it is seeking a response from Republican attorneys general , the plaintiffs in the case , by this Friday ) .
The court does not generally accept cases that come to it before lower-court rulings are complete .
However , writing recently in the New England Journal of Medicine , Nicholas Bagley , a University of Michigan law professor , suggests that the four liberals on the court may opt to roll the dice and vote to take the case because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Roberts , who has twice turned back more substantial challenges to the law and is unlikely to embrace a lawsuit as weak as this one . ''
Still , while it takes only four votes for the court to hear a case , it takes five to hear it on an expedited basis .
That would mean the liberal justices would have to entice Roberts or another conservative to hear it this term .
The stakes could not be higher .
Republicans , who originally rode their spirited criticism of President Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of Congress , suffered serious election defeats in 2018 .
Democrats that year won the day by raising fears that people with chronic medical issues might not be able to get health insurance if Republicans prevailed or that patients who gained Medicaid eligibility through the ACA could lose their Medicaid coverage .
Republicans are unlikely to want another fight about preexisting conditions and other popular provisions of the health law , just weeks before the next election .
Recent polling shows that some of the major provisions of the law are highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Democrats there are pitfalls in pushing for a court decision this term .
They risk the court overturning the law or their creating the impression that they are trying to gin up a campaign issue .
What happens next will affect both politics and policy in a major way .
Democrats seem confident they want the case heard now .
`` Every day that Republicans ' anti-health care lawsuit is allowed to endure is a day that American families will be forced to live in uncertainty and fear , '' House Speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week .
`` Unless the Supreme Court acts , families will continue to face needless disruption in their coverage and premiums , states will be unable to plan for the future and protections for people with pre-existing conditions will remain in peril . ''
And Republicans are content with the appeals court decision .
`` The individual mandate is the centerpiece of Obamacare , and I am glad the Fifth Circuit recognized that it is unlawful , '' said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton , when the 5th Circuit decision came down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this law will be a victory for all Americans , '' Paxton said .
But let 's back up a minute .
How can the ACA once again come before the Supreme Court ?
Did n't the court uphold it in 2012 ?
And again in 2015 ?
Yes and yes .
Yet that did n't stop Republicans from campaigning to disable the law .
In 2017 , after Republicans had captured the House , Senate and White House , Congress rather famously failed to `` repeal and replace '' Obama 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as part of the year-end tax bill , abolish the ACA 's tax penalty for not having health insurance .
Early in 2018 , a group of Republican state attorneys general got an idea , in the words of one of them , `` to rev up the base '' for that year 's midterm elections .
If the 2012 Supreme Court ruling upholding the law found it constitutional because the provision requiring people to have coverage was based on Congress ' ability to impose a tax penalty , then would n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the law unconstitutional ?
The Republican argument was dismissed by many legal scholars .
But U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth , Texas , shocked legal and health policy circles in December 2018 when he ruled that the entire law should be struck down .
He said zeroing out the penalty rendered unconstitutional the provisions most closely related to the penalty — those requiring insurers to sell policies to everyone at the same price , even if they had preexisting health conditions .
The Democratic attorneys general appealed ( joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
And the Trump administration changed its position .
Originally it argued that eliminating the penalty should invalidate only the preexisting condition provisions .
But last March , the Justice Department announced it was advocating for the entire law to be struck down .
The three-judge appeals court panel heard the case in July .
When the panel 's decision was released in December , two judges agreed that , without the penalty , the remaining `` individual mandate '' was unconstitutional .
But rather than explicitly agree or disagree with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remainder of the enormous health law , the majority opted to send the case back to the lower court `` to employ a finer-toothed comb '' regarding which parts of the law should be allowed to continue and which would need to go .
That , of course , could take at least another year , possibly more .
So , the Democrats defending the law decided to seek Supreme Court review now .
`` We 're asking the Supreme Court to swiftly resolve this repeal lawsuit for the sake of saving lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system , '' said a statement from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra , who is leading the coalition .
In the meantime , the issue of health care , already top of mind for many voters , could become bigger regardless of what happens .
The irony is that the best-case scenario for each party , at least politically , is the one it does n't actually want — because the loser in major court cases often gets the biggest political bounce by energizing an angry base .
For the Democrats , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were struck down , while the Republicans could benefit if the law were upheld .
The Supreme Court 's decision on whether to take the case this term could come in the next few weeks .
Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation .
KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente .

Stakes High For Democrats And Republicans In Bid To Rush ACA To Supreme Court
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jacquelyn Martin/AP Jacquelyn Martin/AP
You're forgiven if in the holiday blur you missed that a federal appeals court in New Orleans has once again put the future of the Affordable Care Act in doubt. Or if you missed the news last week that a group of Democratic state attorneys general has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in this term — which ends in June. That would mean a decision could come right in the middle of the 2020 presidential and congressional campaigns.
It is not at all clear that the high court will take the case at this point (although it is seeking a response from Republican attorneys general, the plaintiffs in the case, by this Friday).
The court does not generally accept cases that come to it before lower-court rulings are complete.
However, writing recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, suggests that the four liberals on the court may opt to roll the dice and vote to take the case because they "can probably count on Chief Justice John Roberts, who has twice turned back more substantial challenges to the law and is unlikely to embrace a lawsuit as weak as this one."
Still, while it takes only four votes for the court to hear a case, it takes five to hear it on an expedited basis. That would mean the liberal justices would have to entice Roberts or another conservative to hear it this term.
The stakes could not be higher. Republicans, who originally rode their spirited criticism of President Barack Obama's signature health law to take control of Congress, suffered serious election defeats in 2018. Democrats that year won the day by raising fears that people with chronic medical issues might not be able to get health insurance if Republicans prevailed or that patients who gained Medicaid eligibility through the ACA could lose their Medicaid coverage.
Republicans are unlikely to want another fight about preexisting conditions and other popular provisions of the health law, just weeks before the next election. Recent polling shows that some of the major provisions of the law are highly popular, even among Republicans.
But for Democrats there are pitfalls in pushing for a court decision this term. They risk the court overturning the law or their creating the impression that they are trying to gin up a campaign issue.
What happens next will affect both politics and policy in a major way.
Democrats seem confident they want the case heard now. "Every day that Republicans' anti-health care lawsuit is allowed to endure is a day that American families will be forced to live in uncertainty and fear," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted in a statement released last week. "Unless the Supreme Court acts, families will continue to face needless disruption in their coverage and premiums, states will be unable to plan for the future and protections for people with pre-existing conditions will remain in peril."
And Republicans are content with the appeals court decision. "The individual mandate is the centerpiece of Obamacare, and I am glad the Fifth Circuit recognized that it is unlawful," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, when the 5th Circuit decision came down before Christmas. "Finally being rid of this law will be a victory for all Americans," Paxton said.
But let's back up a minute. How can the ACA once again come before the Supreme Court? Didn't the court uphold it in 2012? And again in 2015?
Yes and yes. Yet that didn't stop Republicans from campaigning to disable the law.
In 2017, after Republicans had captured the House, Senate and White House, Congress rather famously failed to "repeal and replace" Obama's signature health law. But Congress did, as part of the year-end tax bill, abolish the ACA's tax penalty for not having health insurance.
Early in 2018, a group of Republican state attorneys general got an idea, in the words of one of them, "to rev up the base" for that year's midterm elections. If the 2012 Supreme Court ruling upholding the law found it constitutional because the provision requiring people to have coverage was based on Congress' ability to impose a tax penalty, then wouldn't eliminating the penalty render the entire rest of the law unconstitutional?
The Republican argument was dismissed by many legal scholars. But U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, shocked legal and health policy circles in December 2018 when he ruled that the entire law should be struck down. He said zeroing out the penalty rendered unconstitutional the provisions most closely related to the penalty — those requiring insurers to sell policies to everyone at the same price, even if they had preexisting health conditions.
The Democratic attorneys general appealed (joined by the now Democratic-led House of Representatives).
And the Trump administration changed its position. Originally it argued that eliminating the penalty should invalidate only the preexisting condition provisions. But last March, the Justice Department announced it was advocating for the entire law to be struck down.
The three-judge appeals court panel heard the case in July.
When the panel's decision was released in December, two judges agreed that, without the penalty, the remaining "individual mandate" was unconstitutional. But rather than explicitly agree or disagree with the lower-court ruling about the fate of the remainder of the enormous health law, the majority opted to send the case back to the lower court "to employ a finer-toothed comb" regarding which parts of the law should be allowed to continue and which would need to go.
That, of course, could take at least another year, possibly more. So, the Democrats defending the law decided to seek Supreme Court review now.
"We're asking the Supreme Court to swiftly resolve this repeal lawsuit for the sake of saving lives and ending uncertainty in our health care system," said a statement from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is leading the coalition.
In the meantime, the issue of health care, already top of mind for many voters, could become bigger regardless of what happens. The irony is that the best-case scenario for each party, at least politically, is the one it doesn't actually want — because the loser in major court cases often gets the biggest political bounce by energizing an angry base. For the Democrats, that would likely occur if the health law were struck down, while the Republicans could benefit if the law were upheld.
The Supreme Court's decision on whether to take the case this term could come in the next few weeks.
Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation. KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.


npr--2020-01-08--Florida Faces A Rocky Rollout To Restore Voting Rights After Felony Convictions

Florida passed an amendment in 2018 , promising to restore voting rights for over a million Floridians with felony convictions .
But that hope turned to confusion soon after .
The state Legislature followed up with a law clarifying that in order to get their voting rights back , felons needed to pay off all fines and fees related to their convictions .
Hundreds of millions of dollars in fines are owed across the state , including $ 278 million in Miami-Dade County alone .
But the same law also offers a way out .
It allows the courts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer require completion '' of things that were originally required .
Under that law , money owed can be waived or lowered , and other requirements like community service hours can be reduced .
Now , the implementation is playing out in very different — and partisan — ways across the state .
In counties under Democratic control , more people are getting their voting rights back .
And in counties under Republican control , many potential voters are missing out .
On an afternoon in November , 17 people from across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have their voting rights restored .
The hearing would be an early indication that party politics are playing a role in how a controversial state law is being rolled out .
They waited to receive a document from the court that would clear them of the only obstacle that stood between them and the voting booth : a declaration from the court that they no longer owed money for their crimes , and they could now register to vote .
`` I feel excited about moving forward in life , '' said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ballot in 10 years , ever since she was convicted of a felony .
Cray filled out a voter registration form on the spot and vowed that her voice would be heard .
`` We got Donald Trump in that presidency .
We ca n't keep having that foolishness .
I vote because I do n't want another Trump , '' she said .
Andre Williams had n't cast a ballot since he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 .
`` The next election is gon na be fun .
... '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be made .
Donald Trump ?
...
I 'll put it like this : You send your own companies into bankruptcy , you wo n't send this country into bankruptcy . ''
Out of the four counties across the state that have launched similar programs , every one of them is Democratic-leaning .
Those include Miami-Dade , Broward , Palm Beach and Hillsborough counties , which together include more than a third of the state 's total population .
All of those counties voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2018 governor 's race .
There is no corollary for Republican-leaning counties .
`` I think the effect certainly could be dramatic , '' said Kathryn DePalo-Gould , a political science professor at Florida International University .
`` Some of these other counties , including some of these very , very red counties who had huge turnouts for Trump in 2016 could be missing out on some of these felons . ''
The first county to fully roll out its process for restoring the voting rights of people with felony convictions was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference , the Miami-Dade State Attorney 's Office , Public Defender 's Office , Clerk of Courts and the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Courts jointly announced how the new process would be carried out .
In collaboration , the different parts of the government would help identify people who are too poor to pay their outstanding debts .
Once identified , the people 's cases would be fast-tracked through the court , upon which time they would be given other options to payment .
Meanwhile , they would be issued court orders stating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them the right to vote .
`` Those who can pay should pay , and those who can not can work out something else , like community service hours , '' Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said at the time .
`` It is not a waiver . ''
`` At the end of the day , it 's the law '' Before the provision allowing courts to waive or reduce fees , some activists likened the law to a `` poll tax . ''
The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition , led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get Amendment 4 on the ballot in 2018 to address those concerns .
The section only got written into the statute because of Republicans Rep. Jamie Grant and Sen. Jeff Brandes , in addition to a push from Democrats , Meade said .
`` When the Legislature first introduced their legislation , we did not cry foul , we did not point fingers , we did not do anything to create a vibe , '' he said .
`` Rather , what we did is we rolled up our sleeves and we went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood with us as we engaged with the Legislature to make sure that the initial legislation that was introduced was fixed and got closer to the will of the people . ''
The result was something Meade said his group could work with and expand upon .
`` Make no mistake about it — that this will be rolled out in every judicial circuit in the state of Florida , because at the end of the day , it is the law , '' said Meade .
Miami-Dade Public Defender Carlos Martinez reiterated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` following the plain language of the statute , '' and that the result could mean many new potential voters gaining access to the ballot box .
`` The estimate for Miami-Dade County is that there are about 150,000 people — that 's not just cases , that 's people — that will qualify under this process , '' he said .
Martinez acknowledged it will be difficult getting in touch with everyone who might qualify for the process , and said that some people who qualify might still have some other requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could still prevent them from being eligible to vote .
State Rep. Grant said he was frustrated that no Republican-leaning counties have developed a process for waiving financial obligations and granting voting rights to people with felony convictions .
`` I mean , I did n't create the waivers not to be used , '' Grant said .
But Grant also said the fact that only Democratic counties are using the provision absolves him of much of the criticism he faced when writing and debating , and then later passing the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he was creating a racist poll tax to make it harder for poor Floridians to cast votes in a way that would benefit the Republican Party .
`` If I 'm trying to suppress the vote , and if I am Jim Crow Jamie , why did I create the waivers that Democrats have been turning around and using ?
Which one is it ? ''
Grant said .
`` If what the effect of what I passed flips the state blue — so be it , I 'm good with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the same time , Grant cast doubt on the legality of how the process is playing out in Hillsborough County , which he represents .
There , State Attorney Andrew Warren has started a process that will waive fines and fees that are owed only in connection with the right to vote — but that money can still be sent to collections .
`` He does n't know what he is doing , '' Grant said .
`` When he says that he 's going to waive the obligation for the purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to affect the amount of money that the returning citizen owes government , or it 's not going to affect the amount of money that the government collects from returning citizens , what he is doing is promising to violate state law . ''
That owed money would have to be waived entirely under the new law , argued Grant .
Warren told WLRN that the process in Hillsborough was methodically developed in close coordination with other parts of the local government , including the 13th Judicial Circuit of Courts , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compliance with state law .
The program took into account a federal court ruling in a lawsuit related to SB 7066 , the law authored by Grant .
`` Our office carefully developed a process with local judicial partners to implement Amendment 4 as the voters wanted in accordance with state and federal law , '' Warren said .
`` We are committed to ensuring that the inability to pay outstanding fines and fees is not a roadblock to have voting rights restored .
Any suggestion to the contrary reveals a troubling lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 , and the U.S .
Constitution . ''
In his ruling , federal District Judge Robert Hinkle wrote that plaintiffs can not be barred from voting if they are `` genuinely unable '' to pay the money owed .
`` Successful reentry and rehabilitation is a public safety issue , full stop .
But more importantly this is an issue of fairness , '' Warren told WLRN .
`` You ca n't have two classes of voters — people who can afford their right to vote and people who ca n't , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point it 's really just a determination that once someone has an inability to pay off their fines and fees , then they 're eligible to have their right to vote restored . ''
A federal trial on the constitutionality of some parts of SB 7066 is scheduled for April .
Warren said his office is aware that Hillsborough County might have to adjust its process depending on the outcome of that trial , or any laws passed during the 2020 legislative session .
In the meantime , Miami-Dade , Broward , Palm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their programs .
The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition is accepting online applications from people who want to see if they are able to receive help in the participating counties to get their voting rights restored .
The lack of participation in Republican-leaning Florida could be a political liability later this year , especially if local Republicans do n't take efforts to help restore voting rights for white and Latino voters , said DePalo-Gould , the FIU professor .
`` If they 're missing out on those votes , you know — we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Florida , '' she said .
`` This could mean a huge difference going into 2020 . ''

Florida Faces A Rocky Rollout To Restore Voting Rights After Felony Convictions
Enlarge this image toggle caption Daniel Rivero/WLRN Daniel Rivero/WLRN
Florida passed an amendment in 2018, promising to restore voting rights for over a million Floridians with felony convictions. But that hope turned to confusion soon after.
The state Legislature followed up with a law clarifying that in order to get their voting rights back, felons needed to pay off all fines and fees related to their convictions. Hundreds of millions of dollars in fines are owed across the state, including $278 million in Miami-Dade County alone.
But the same law also offers a way out.
It allows the courts to modify the original criminal sentences to "no longer require completion" of things that were originally required. Under that law, money owed can be waived or lowered, and other requirements like community service hours can be reduced.
Now, the implementation is playing out in very different — and partisan — ways across the state. In counties under Democratic control, more people are getting their voting rights back. And in counties under Republican control, many potential voters are missing out.
"Moving forward"
On an afternoon in November, 17 people from across Miami-Dade County gathered in a Miami courtroom to have their voting rights restored. The hearing would be an early indication that party politics are playing a role in how a controversial state law is being rolled out.
They waited to receive a document from the court that would clear them of the only obstacle that stood between them and the voting booth: a declaration from the court that they no longer owed money for their crimes and they could now register to vote.
"I feel excited about moving forward in life," said Cynthia Cray, who hadn't cast a ballot in 10 years, ever since she was convicted of a felony.
Cray filled out a voter registration form on the spot and vowed that her voice would be heard.
"We got Donald Trump in that presidency. We can't keep having that foolishness. I vote because I don't want another Trump," she said.
Andre Williams hadn't cast a ballot since he voted for Barack Obama in 2008.
"The next election is gonna be fun. ..." he said. "Changes are going to be made. Donald Trump? ... I'll put it like this: You send your own companies into bankruptcy, you won't send this country into bankruptcy."
Out of the four counties across the state that have launched similar programs, every one of them is Democratic-leaning. Those include Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Hillsborough counties, which together include more than a third of the state's total population. All of those counties voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and for Democrat Andrew Gillum in the 2018 governor's race.
There is no corollary for Republican-leaning counties.
"I think the effect certainly could be dramatic," said Kathryn DePalo-Gould, a political science professor at Florida International University. "Some of these other counties, including some of these very, very red counties who had huge turnouts for Trump in 2016, could be missing out on some of these felons."
The first county to fully roll out its process for restoring the voting rights of people with felony convictions was Miami-Dade. In a July press conference, the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, Public Defender's Office, Clerk of Courts and the 11th Judicial Circuit Courts jointly announced how the new process would be carried out.
In collaboration, the different parts of the government would help identify people who are too poor to pay their outstanding debts. Once identified, the people's cases would be fast-tracked through the court, upon which time they would be given other options to payment. Meanwhile, they would be issued court orders stating their sentence has been completed, granting them the right to vote.
"Those who can pay should pay, and those who cannot can work out something else, like community service hours," Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said at the time. "It is not a waiver."
"At the end of the day, it's the law"
Before the provision allowing courts to waive or reduce fees, some activists likened the law to a "poll tax."
The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, led by executive director Desmond Meade, helped get Amendment 4 on the ballot in 2018 to address those concerns.
The section only got written into the statute because of Republicans Rep. Jamie Grant and Sen. Jeff Brandes, in addition to a push from Democrats, Meade said.
"When the Legislature first introduced their legislation, we did not cry foul, we did not point fingers, we did not do anything to create a vibe," he said. "Rather, what we did is we rolled up our sleeves and we went into the offices of Republican legislators that stood with us as we engaged with the Legislature to make sure that the initial legislation that was introduced was fixed and got closer to the will of the people."
The result was something Meade said his group could work with and expand upon. "Make no mistake about it — that this will be rolled out in every judicial circuit in the state of Florida, because at the end of the day, it is the law," said Meade.
Miami-Dade Public Defender Carlos Martinez reiterated that the process he helped develop is "following the plain language of the statute," and that the result could mean many new potential voters gaining access to the ballot box.
"The estimate for Miami-Dade County is that there are about 150,000 people — that's not just cases, that's people — that will qualify under this process," he said.
Martinez acknowledged it will be difficult getting in touch with everyone who might qualify for the process and said that some people who qualify might still have some other requirements — like owing money for restitution — that could still prevent them from being eligible to vote.
State Rep. Grant said he was frustrated that no Republican-leaning counties have developed a process for waiving financial obligations and granting voting rights to people with felony convictions.
"I mean, I didn't create the waivers not to be used," Grant said.
But Grant also said that the fact that only Democratic counties are using the provision absolves him of much of the criticism he faced when writing and debating, and then later passing, the state law. Activists and some Democrats suggested that he was creating a racist poll tax to make it harder for poor Floridians to cast votes in a way that would benefit the Republican Party.
"If I'm trying to suppress the vote, and if I am Jim Crow Jamie, why did I create the waivers that Democrats have been turning around and using? Which one is it?" Grant said. "If what the effect of what I passed flips the state blue — so be it, I'm good with that. I did my job."
At the same time, Grant cast doubt on the legality of how the process is playing out in Hillsborough County, which he represents. There, State Attorney Andrew Warren has started a process that will waive fines and fees that are owed only in connection with the right to vote — but that money can still be sent to collections.
"He doesn't know what he is doing," Grant said. "When he says that he's going to waive the obligation for the purpose of voting, but it's not going to affect the amount of money that the returning citizen owes government, or it's not going to affect the amount of money that the government collects from returning citizens, what he is doing is promising to violate state law."
That owed money would have to be waived entirely under the new law, argued Grant.
"An issue of fairness"
Warren told WLRN that the process in Hillsborough was methodically developed in close coordination with other parts of the local government, including the 13th Judicial Circuit of Courts, in order to make sure it was in compliance with state law. The program took into account a federal court ruling in a lawsuit related to SB 7066, the law authored by Grant.
"Our office carefully developed a process with local judicial partners to implement Amendment 4 as the voters wanted in accordance with state and federal law," Warren said. "We are committed to ensuring that the inability to pay outstanding fines and fees is not a roadblock to have voting rights restored. Any suggestion to the contrary reveals a troubling lack of understanding of our process, Amendment 4, and the U.S. Constitution."
In his ruling, federal District Judge Robert Hinkle wrote that plaintiffs cannot be barred from voting if they are "genuinely unable" to pay the money owed.
"Successful reentry and rehabilitation is a public safety issue, full stop. But more importantly this is an issue of fairness," Warren told WLRN.
"You can't have two classes of voters — people who can afford their right to vote and people who can't," Warren said. "At this point it's really just a determination that once someone has an inability to pay off their fines and fees, then they're eligible to have their right to vote restored."
A federal trial on the constitutionality of some parts of SB 7066 is scheduled for April. Warren said his office is aware that Hillsborough County might have to adjust its process depending on the outcome of that trial, or any laws passed during the 2020 legislative session.
In the meantime, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Hillsborough counties are moving forward with their programs.
The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition is accepting online applications from people who want to see whether they are able to receive help in the participating counties to get their voting rights restored.
The lack of participation in Republican-leaning Florida could be a political liability later this year, especially if local Republicans don't take efforts to help restore voting rights for white and Latino voters, said DePalo-Gould, the FIU professor.
"If they're missing out on those votes, you know — we have very close elections in the state of Florida," she said. "This could mean a huge difference going into 2020."