therealnews--2020-02-25--Afro-Feminist Resistance in Brazil’s Carnival

This is the scene televised into most homes across the country and the world .
Massive floats and carnival blocks in the Samba stadiums of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro .
But on the streets nearby , there ’ s another carnival .
Blocos Afro , or Afro group have been performing in Brazil since the 1970s .
They were born in Salvador , Bahia , in 1974 , with the legendary group Ilê Ayê .
And they have spread across the country , even far to the south .
Their music has its roots in Afro-Brazilian religion and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are about honoring black Brazilian culture , history , and resistance , which is at the heart of carnival .
“ We , blacks , are the ones who really made carnival .
And carnival is an opportunity to be in the streets and lift our voices and celebrate our dances and song.
” Here , in Florianopolis , the Afro group Cores de Aide is taking it a step further .
It ’ s composed of all women .
They march and dance in defense of women , who have been particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-right president Jair Bolsonaro .
They were joined in the streets by allies and members of other groups and social movements .
“ The goal of this carnival block is to unite the women in struggle in Florianopolis , and to highlight our daily struggles here.
” “ We are here to honor the women of the leaves .
Those who are marginalized by society .
Women healers .
Women from traditional black communities .
Women small farmers .
Indigenous women .
Candomblé priestesses .
Women of the Landless Workers Movement .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And each of us who is present today.
” Before performing they held a minute of silence in honor of Elenir de Siqueira Fontão , the director of a local state school who was brutally killed last week .
Brazil is the fifth-worst country in the world for violence against women .
Over the last three years , 3200 women here were victims of femicides .
“ This act is important , principally at this moment when this country is not well , when public policies are weaker than ever .
When women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being killed daily.
” “ This is an act of political resistance , to give a counterweight to this chauvinista , racist , homophobic and LGBT-phobic society , that is only focused on the appearance .
That ’ s why we are here fight .
Everyone should feel welcomed here on this planet , which belongs to all of us .
”

In Southern Brazil, the all women’s carnival block Cores de Aide is marching for political resistance and in defense of women, who have been particularly under attack during the far-right presidency of Jair Bolsonaro.
Story Transcript
Carnival.
Brazil’s biggest celebration of the year.
This is the scene televised into most homes across the country and the world.
Massive floats and carnival blocks in the Samba stadiums of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.
But on the streets nearby, there’s another carnival.
Blocos Afro, or Afro group have been performing in Brazil since the 1970s.
They were born in Salvador, Bahia, in 1974, with the legendary group Ilê Ayê.
And they have spread across the country, even far to the south.
Their music has its roots in Afro-Brazilian religion and culture.
These groups and their performances are about honoring black Brazilian culture, history, and resistance, which is at the heart of carnival.
Angela Maria:
“We, blacks, are the ones who really made carnival. And carnival is an opportunity to be in the streets and lift our voices and celebrate our dances and song.”
Here, in Florianopolis, the Afro group Cores de Aide is taking it a step further. It’s composed of all women. They march and dance in defense of women, who have been particularly under attack, amid the government of far-right president Jair Bolsonaro.
They were joined in the streets by allies and members of other groups and social movements.
Eliro, social worker:
“The goal of this carnival block is to unite the women in struggle in Florianopolis, and to highlight our daily struggles here.”
Sarah Massí, Cores de Aide:
“We are here to honor the women of the leaves. Those who are marginalized by society. Women healers. Women from traditional black communities. Women small farmers. Indigenous women. Candomblé priestesses. Women of the Landless Workers Movement. All of these women who are resisting. And each of us who is present today.”
Before performing they held a minute of silence in honor of Elenir de Siqueira Fontão, the director of a local state school who was brutally killed last week. Brazil is the fifth-worst country in the world for violence against women. Over the last three years, 3200 women here were victims of femicides.
Eliro, social worker:
“This act is important, principally at this moment when this country is not well, when public policies are weaker than ever. When women are dying. When LGBT people are being killed daily.”
Sarah Massí, Cores de Aide:
“This is an act of political resistance, to give a counterweight to this chauvinista, racist, homophobic and LGBT-phobic society, that is only focused on the appearance. That’s why we are here fight. Everyone should feel welcomed here on this planet, which belongs to all of us.”
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-25--Police Arrest Indigenous Land Defenders After Trudeau Demands an End to Blockades

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Dimitri Lascari… : This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for the Real News Network from Montreal , Canada .
As the Real News reported last week , blockades of critical infrastructure have been erected across Canada in solidarity with land defenders on Wet ’ suwet ’ en territory .
Those land offenders have been peacefully resisting the construction of the fracked gas pipeline on their lands , situated in Northern British Columbia .
For days , federal and provincial law-enforcement reacted to these solidarity blockades with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed on Friday , February 21st , when prime minister Justin Trudeau demanded that the blockades be dismantled .
Here ’ s what the Prime Minister had to say on that day .
Justin Trudeau : Canadians have been patient .
Our government has been patient , but it has been two weeks and the barricades need to come down now .
Dimitri Lascari… : This morning , February 24th , Ontario Provincial Police forcibly arrested indigenous land defenders in Tyendinaga Mohawk territory , which lies between Toronto and Montreal .
Their indigenous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blockade , which among other things had brought passenger rail traffic between Canada ’ s two largest cities to a standstill for weeks .
Now here to discuss these latest developments with us as Pam Palmater .
Pam is a Mi ’ kmaq lawyer and a member of the Eel River Bar First Nation .
She currently holds the Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University .
She ’ s also a frequent media commentator , author and former spokesperson and educator for the Idle No More Movement .
Thank you so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pam Palmater : Thanks for covering this .
Dimitri Lascari… : Pam , I would like to start by getting your overall reaction to the developments of the past few days .
Trudeau claimed in his press conference last Friday that his government had been patient .
He claimed to have engaged in dialogue with indigenous land defenders .
He claimed that his government had “ come to the table ” or that the hereditary chiefs at the Wet ’ suwet ’ en had failed to come to the table .
What do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the prime minister ?
Pam Palmater : Well , this was a lot of propaganda for the benefit of Canadians , knowing full well what was going to happen .
The Wet ’ suwet ’ en people ’ s and the hereditary leaders and clan members have been asking for a nation-to-nation meeting with Canada , the Prime Minister and the BC Premier John Horgan since January .
They have been asking for a real nation-to-nation discussion , but they had said they can ’ t have this discussion at gunpoint .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their territories so that they could engage in a way with , there ’ s no violence or intimidation .
Canada refused to meet those demands .
While the RCNP said that they were going to leave the territory , they never did .
We saw the pictures and videos .
You have a situation where the Prime Minister sends a very strong message to the police forces in this country .
These blockades must come down , when in effect , governments are supposed to have no role in how different police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that point , like you said in your introduction , the OPP , the Ontario Provincial Police had shown some degree of restraint .
So , that message comes out and it ’ s no shocker then that they move into arrest the Mohawks at Tyendinaga Mohawk territory .
But at the same time the RCMP , were also rolling into Wet ’ suwet ’ en territory , and both of those are being reported at the same time .
This is really , really inappropriate .
It ’ s undue influence on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that should never happened .
You know what else ?
It sounds eerily familiar to what happened during the Ipperwash crisis , and if you ’ ll recall an OPP officer shot and killed an unarmed land defender .
So , the OPP of course should never have done what they did , but it ’ s this undue influence by political leaders saying , “ Get the Indians on the park .
Remove the blockades .
Enforce the rule of law.
” But no rule of law for indigenous peoples .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems rather a fortuitous that the police moved in so shortly after the Prime Minister declared that the blockades must come down .
Hard to believe that the two events are unrelated .
But , I want to talk to you about another aspect of the narrative , Pam , that is being promulgated by the mainstream media , and particularly the right-leaning politicians in this country .
They , some of them have derided the notion that the hereditary chiefs speak of the Wet ’ suwet ’ en speak for the Wet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have implied that there ’ s something vaguely anti-democratic about giving precedents to the will of hereditary decision-makers .
I ’ ve even seen some people , including persons who would describe themselves as progressive , described the hereditary chiefs as royalty as though they ’ re not unlike European monarchies .
Could you talk to us about why in indigenous culture , the voices of hereditary chiefs are authoritative and whether in fact , they bear any resemblance at all to traditional European monarchies ?
Pam Palmater : Right .
I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to monarchies , first of all .
But I mean that ’ s a really good comparison .
If you ’ re going to complain about something , you need to look at your own systems .
But for indigenous nations across the country , like the traditional indigenous nations , there ’ s all different kinds of traditional governing systems .
Some have hereditary systems , others have systems of matriarchs .
Others have others have systems where the leaders are identified at birth .
There ’ s a whole bunch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not all the same , but in the hereditary system , it ’ s not like someone is just anointed and then they ’ re there for life .
If they don ’ t do the will of the people , if they don ’ t follow their traditional laws , if they ’ re not looking out for the entire nation , they can be removed .
In fact in the Wet ’ suwet ’ en nation , hereditary leaders have been removed for not acting accordingly .
There ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws and rules and regulations around it .
It ’ s not at all like the monarchy and it ’ s about traditional laws and customs .
There ’ s something far more democratic about traditional laws that work on the basis of consensus and trying to get everybody on board , versus a 51 % rule .
I mean , that ’ s not even a real majority in any sense of the word .
Then when you take into account , so few people vote , you ’ re really talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , really it ’ s about everyone getting a voice , everybody working towards consensus .
If you can ’ t get 100 % consensus that are working to accommodate concerns in a fair way , and that takes time .
Democracy skips all that for convenience .
I think these traditional forms of governance are far more effective and far more representative of the people .
If you think about democracies in general , it ’ s supposed to be about governance by the people , for the people , and traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral system .
Dimitri Lascari… : Now , on February 19th , two days before Trudeau ’ s tough guy , press conference on Friday , the polling firm , Ipsos Reid issued a poll showing that 61 % of Canadians say they disagree that the protesters are conducting justified and legitimate protest while 39 % take the opposite view , agreeing that the protests are both legitimate and justified .
Ipsos Reid noted that in 2013 , a poll of Canadians reacting to indigenous blockades taking place at that time showed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to 69 % who didn ’ t .
So , support appears to have risen significantly in the past seven years .
Moreover , the corporate community hasn ’ t shied away from painting the blockades as the work of extremists , but when nearly 40 % of the Canadians appear to agree with what they ’ re doing , can they fairly be characterized as extremists .
What do you make these polling numbers overall ?
Pam Palmater : Well , I mean polls are problematic because it tends to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are polls .
So , people who have access to cell phones and computers .
You think about all of the remote territory ’ s who won ’ t be accessed .
You think of all of the people who are homeless or precariously-housed people in prison , all of the most impoverished , tend not to be the ones that are polled .
It ’ s a small group of people that are constantly pulling themselves .
So , I always take that with a grain of salt .
Second of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not a popularity contest .
If they were , women wouldn ’ t be in politics right now .
If it had been left to waiting for a majority of men who agree that women should have rights , we would still be fighting it .
And that ’ s what human rights are .
It ’ s meant to be a pushback against the majority who are oppressing and anti-human rights .
It ’ s the same thing with native rights , except at a much , at a much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , the people involved in this are not extremists .
I ’ m involved .
I ’ m a lawyer .
I have four university degrees .
There are academics .
There are lawyers .
There are doctors .
There are massive numbers of unions , teachers groups , standing on these protests .
There ’ s Canadians .
There ’ s kids that are doing this .
I mean these , even some of the rail workers were saying that they were offering support .
This is not about extremism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that they are worried .
It ’ s a lot easier when it ’ s just a few native people because it ’ s easier to vilify people and cut out their voices in the mainstream media .
But when you ’ re talking about thousands and thousands of Canadians , protesting in Toronto , protesting at the Parliament today , doing rolling barricades , shutting down ports and legislatures , that they ’ re quite worried about the fact that Canadians continue to grow in support of us and well they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Native rights are human rights and they ’ ve been denied for far too long .
This kind of extremist language is really just showing their fear around it .
Finally , Pam , I ’ m going to ask you to prognosticate again , which is always a dicey proposition , but based on what you ’ ve seen from the public today , for example , there was a protest in solidarity with the Wet ’ suwet ’ en in the nation ’ s Capitol .
I ’ m sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
Where do you expect things to go from here ?
Are the blockades over or do you envision an escalation in the resistance ?
I don ’ t think the solidarity actions are over at all .
Because when you think about it , the Mohawks from Tyendinaga territory , they were doing their actions in solidarity , very peacefully , not even on the rail , but a fire on the side of the rail .
So , not technically blocking anything and they get arrested .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Wet ’ suwet ’ en , now you have all of these solidarity actions in solidarity with the Mohawks from the Tyendinaga territory .
There ’ s one thing that that is really , really important here .
Of course , there ’ s going to be more solidarity actions .
There ’ s going to be more actions all across the country and not just by indigenous peoples , by Canadians .
I mean , there ’ s letters being issued by senators and MPS and the lawyers today saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
But I think it ’ s important for the viewers to note that United Nations has already called on Canada to stand down , stop violence against indigenous peoples , remove the police officers and their weapons and work towards consent on these projects and not move ahead with them without consent .
So , everything has changed as far as I ’ m concerned .
Canada reached a tipping point .
They promised reconciliation .
They brought their law enforcement out with their weapons , and now we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What gives me hope is that Canadians are trying to keep it alive , and I think if there ’ s going to be any success here , it ’ s going to be the push of Canadians on politicians who can not get their minds out of the colonial mindset .
Dimitri Lascari… : Well , we ’ ve been speaking again to indigenous lawyer , activist and scholar Pam Palmater about the most recent maneuvers of the Trudeau government and response to solidarity blockades .
Thank you so much for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palmater : Thank you for having me .
Dimitri Lascari… : This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for the Real News Network .

Indigenous lawyer Pamela Palmater says Canada’s government is unduly influencing law enforcement.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Dimitri Lascari…: This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for the Real News Network from Montreal, Canada. As the Real News reported last week, blockades of critical infrastructure have been erected across Canada in solidarity with land defenders on Wet’suwet’en territory. Those land offenders have been peacefully resisting the construction of the fracked gas pipeline on their lands, situated in Northern British Columbia. For days, federal and provincial law-enforcement reacted to these solidarity blockades with relative restraint. But all of that changed on Friday, February 21st, when prime minister Justin Trudeau demanded that the blockades be dismantled. Here’s what the Prime Minister had to say on that day.
Justin Trudeau: Canadians have been patient. Our government has been patient, but it has been two weeks and the barricades need to come down now.
Dimitri Lascari…: This morning, February 24th, Ontario Provincial Police forcibly arrested indigenous land defenders in Tyendinaga Mohawk territory, which lies between Toronto and Montreal. Their indigenous land defenders had set up a rail blockade, which among other things had brought passenger rail traffic between Canada’s two largest cities to a standstill for weeks. Now here to discuss these latest developments with us as Pam Palmater. Pam is a Mi’kmaq lawyer and a member of the Eel River Bar First Nation. She currently holds the Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University. She’s also a frequent media commentator, author and former spokesperson and educator for the Idle No More Movement. Thank you so much for joining us again, Pam.
Pam Palmater: Thanks for covering this.
Dimitri Lascari…: Pam, I would like to start by getting your overall reaction to the developments of the past few days. Trudeau claimed in his press conference last Friday that his government had been patient. He claimed to have engaged in dialogue with indigenous land defenders. He claimed that his government had “come to the table” or that the hereditary chiefs at the Wet’suwet’en had failed to come to the table. What do you make of all of these claims by the prime minister?
Pam Palmater: Well, this was a lot of propaganda for the benefit of Canadians, knowing full well what was going to happen. The Wet’suwet’en people’s and the hereditary leaders and clan members have been asking for a nation-to-nation meeting with Canada, the Prime Minister and the BC Premier John Horgan since January. They have been asking for a real nation-to-nation discussion, but they had said they can’t have this discussion at gunpoint. So, the RCMP had to leave their territories so that they could engage in a way with, there’s no violence or intimidation. Canada refused to meet those demands. While the RCNP said that they were going to leave the territory, they never did. We saw the pictures and videos. You have a situation where the Prime Minister sends a very strong message to the police forces in this country. These blockades must come down, when in effect, governments are supposed to have no role in how different police agencies conduct their business.
Up until that point, like you said in your introduction, the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police had shown some degree of restraint. So, that message comes out and it’s no shocker then that they move into arrest the Mohawks at Tyendinaga Mohawk territory. But at the same time the RCMP, were also rolling into Wet’suwet’en territory, and both of those are being reported at the same time. This is really, really inappropriate. It’s undue influence on the police, and it’s something that should never happened. You know what else? It sounds eerily familiar to what happened during the Ipperwash crisis, and if you’ll recall an OPP officer shot and killed an unarmed land defender. So, the OPP of course should never have done what they did, but it’s this undue influence by political leaders saying, “Get the Indians on the park. Remove the blockades. Enforce the rule of law.” But no rule of law for indigenous peoples.
Dimitri Lascari…: So yes, it seems rather a fortuitous that the police moved in so shortly after the Prime Minister declared that the blockades must come down. Hard to believe that the two events are unrelated. But, I want to talk to you about another aspect of the narrative, Pam, that is being promulgated by the mainstream media, and particularly the right-leaning politicians in this country. They, some of them have derided the notion that the hereditary chiefs speak of the Wet’suwet’en speak for the Wet’suwet’en people. Some have implied that there’s something vaguely anti-democratic about giving precedents to the will of hereditary decision-makers. I’ve even seen some people, including persons who would describe themselves as progressive, described the hereditary chiefs as royalty as though they’re not unlike European monarchies. Could you talk to us about why in indigenous culture, the voices of hereditary chiefs are authoritative and whether in fact, they bear any resemblance at all to traditional European monarchies?
Pam Palmater: Right. I don’t think they bear any resemblance to monarchies, first of all. But I mean that’s a really good comparison. If you’re going to complain about something, you need to look at your own systems. But for indigenous nations across the country, like the traditional indigenous nations, there’s all different kinds of traditional governing systems. Some have hereditary systems, others have systems of matriarchs. Others have others have systems where the leaders are identified at birth. There’s a whole bunch of different traditional systems. We’re not all the same, but in the hereditary system, it’s not like someone is just anointed and then they’re there for life. If they don’t do the will of the people, if they don’t follow their traditional laws, if they’re not looking out for the entire nation, they can be removed. In fact in the Wet’suwet’en nation, hereditary leaders have been removed for not acting accordingly.
There’s a whole bunch of culture and traditions and laws and rules and regulations around it. It’s not at all like the monarchy and it’s about traditional laws and customs. There’s something far more democratic about traditional laws that work on the basis of consensus and trying to get everybody on board, versus a 51% rule. I mean, that’s not even a real majority in any sense of the word. Then when you take into account, so few people vote, you’re really talking about a fraction, where traditional governments, really it’s about everyone getting a voice, everybody working towards consensus. If you can’t get 100% consensus that are working to accommodate concerns in a fair way, and that takes time. Democracy skips all that for convenience. I think these traditional forms of governance are far more effective and far more representative of the people. If you think about democracies in general, it’s supposed to be about governance by the people, for the people, and traditional governments do that far better than the electoral system.
Dimitri Lascari…: Now, on February 19th, two days before Trudeau’s tough guy, press conference on Friday, the polling firm, Ipsos Reid issued a poll showing that 61% of Canadians say they disagree that the protesters are conducting justified and legitimate protest while 39% take the opposite view, agreeing that the protests are both legitimate and justified. Ipsos Reid noted that in 2013, a poll of Canadians reacting to indigenous blockades taking place at that time showed that 31% thought the blockades were justified compared to 69% who didn’t. So, support appears to have risen significantly in the past seven years. Moreover, the corporate community hasn’t shied away from painting the blockades as the work of extremists, but when nearly 40% of the Canadians appear to agree with what they’re doing, can they fairly be characterized as extremists. What do you make these polling numbers overall?
Pam Palmater: Well, I mean polls are problematic because it tends to be those with some degree of affluence who are polls. So, people who have access to cell phones and computers. You think about all of the remote territory’s who won’t be accessed. You think of all of the people who are homeless or precariously-housed people in prison, all of the most impoverished, tend not to be the ones that are polled. It’s a small group of people that are constantly pulling themselves. So, I always take that with a grain of salt. Second of all, human rights are not … They’re not a popularity contest. If they were, women wouldn’t be in politics right now. If it had been left to waiting for a majority of men who agree that women should have rights, we would still be fighting it. And that’s what human rights are.
It’s meant to be a pushback against the majority who are oppressing and anti-human rights. It’s the same thing with native rights, except at a much, at a much higher level. And no, of course, the people involved in this are not extremists. I’m involved. I’m a lawyer. I have four university degrees. There are academics. There are lawyers. There are doctors. There are massive numbers of unions, teachers groups, standing on these protests. There’s Canadians. There’s kids that are doing this. I mean these, even some of the rail workers were saying that they were offering support. This is not about extremism. But these comments show something very clearly, that they are worried. It’s a lot easier when it’s just a few native people because it’s easier to vilify people and cut out their voices in the mainstream media. But when you’re talking about thousands and thousands of Canadians, protesting in Toronto, protesting at the Parliament today, doing rolling barricades, shutting down ports and legislatures, that they’re quite worried about the fact that Canadians continue to grow in support of us and well they should.
This is about human rights. Native rights are human rights and they’ve been denied for far too long. This kind of extremist language is really just showing their fear around it.
Finally, Pam, I’m going to ask you to prognosticate again, which is always a dicey proposition, but based on what you’ve seen from the public today, for example, there was a protest in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en in the nation’s Capitol. I’m sure there’ve been numerous others around the country. Where do you expect things to go from here? Are the blockades over or do you envision an escalation in the resistance?
I don’t think the solidarity actions are over at all. Because when you think about it, the Mohawks from Tyendinaga territory, they were doing their actions in solidarity, very peacefully, not even on the rail, but a fire on the side of the rail. So, not technically blocking anything and they get arrested. So, because theirs was done in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en, now you have all of these solidarity actions in solidarity with the Mohawks from the Tyendinaga territory. There’s one thing that that is really, really important here. Of course, there’s going to be more solidarity actions. There’s going to be more actions all across the country and not just by indigenous peoples, by Canadians. I mean, there’s letters being issued by senators and MPS and the lawyers today saying, Oh, what Canada’s doing wrong. But I think it’s important for the viewers to note that United Nations has already called on Canada to stand down, stop violence against indigenous peoples, remove the police officers and their weapons and work towards consent on these projects and not move ahead with them without consent.
So, everything has changed as far as I’m concerned. Canada reached a tipping point. They promised reconciliation. They brought their law enforcement out with their weapons, and now we’re in a scenario where reconciliation looks dead. What gives me hope is that Canadians are trying to keep it alive, and I think if there’s going to be any success here, it’s going to be the push of Canadians on politicians who cannot get their minds out of the colonial mindset.
Dimitri Lascari…: Well, we’ve been speaking again to indigenous lawyer, activist and scholar Pam Palmater about the most recent maneuvers of the Trudeau government and response to solidarity blockades. Thank you so much for joining us again today Pam.
Pam Palmater: Thank you for having me.
Dimitri Lascari…: This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for the Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-25--Israel Harbors Alleged American Terrorists

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Host, The Marc Steiner Show
Marc Steiner is the host of "The Marc Steiner Show" on TRNN. He is a Peabody Award-winning journalist who has spent his life working on social justice issues. He walked his first picket line at age 13, and at age 16 became the youngest person in Maryland arrested at a civil rights protest during the Freedom Rides through Cambridge. As part of the Poor People’s Campaign in 1968, Marc helped organize poor white communities with the Young Patriots, the white Appalachian counterpart to the Black Panthers. Early in his career he counseled at-risk youth in therapeutic settings and founded a theater program in the Maryland State prison system. He also taught theater for 10 years at the Baltimore School for the Arts. From 1993-2018 Marc's signature “Marc Steiner Show” aired on Baltimore’s public radio airwaves, both WYPR—which Marc co-founded—and Morgan State University’s WEAA.
marc@therealnews.com
@marcsteiner


therealnews--2020-02-25--The Rwanda Genocide’s Origins Are in Resource Extraction and US Militarism

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Jacqueline Luqm… : This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network .
The scramble between global powers to control resources on the African continent is the cause of as much suffering today as colonization caused in the past .
Judi Rever has written the book In Praise of Blood : The Crimes of the Patriotic Front to highlight one chapter of that modern scramble for resources and the suffering it ’ s caused and to set the record straight about it .
Judi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacqueline Luqm… : So I think we have to get a clear understanding of why this issue is important today .
First , because we are talking about the Rwandan genocide that happened back in the ’ 90s .
So I think we have to start with a little bit of history to set the stage .
Now , the US under president Bill Clinton and please correct me if I ’ m wrong , at any point .
The US under president , Bill Clinton began to pave the way for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is the most resource rich country on the planet basically , in the early 90s .
And back the Rwandan Patriotic Front or the RPF forces that were led by Paul Kagame who was then trained in intelligence at Fort Leavenworth here in the United States and the RPS takeover of Rwanda .
I ’ m I on track so far ?
Judi Rever : That ’ s a pretty good synthesis .
We had Paul Kagame and his rebel troops invading Northern Rwanda in 1990 and there was already , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trained in the United States .
So the US had decided that this was someone that it was willing and very interested in supporting .
So we had already in the late ’ 80s , early ’ 90s the US very interested in militarily and politically supporting Uganda .
It was through Uganda that the United States ended up supporting Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic army , which enabled him of course to invade Rwanda in 1990 engaged in a scorched earth campaign for almost four years .
That created the context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course we know we have enough evidence now know that Paul Kagame and is true having assassinated the Hutu president on April 6 , 1994 .
That was the act that triggered the Rwandan genocide .
So all the while getting very solid support from the US .
Jacqueline Luqm… : So you mentioned the assassination of the Hutu president , the former president of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and that was president Juvenal Habyarimana .
I think we need to put this in a little bit of context because the reason this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was becoming a big economic driver in global markets .
And much like European great powers after the 1885 Berlin conference wanted to control and exploit the resources of African continents for their own economic needs .
The same was true about the quest for resources in the Congo , so the assassination of president Habyarimana was done because he would not step down at the request of president Bush .
This campaign to install a more US friendly government in Rwanda was continued under Clinton and it is largely believed that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was shot down as they were returning from a peace conference .
In which they had signed a peace treaty between the Hutus and the Tutsis was the plane was shot down over Kigali returning from that peace conference as a way to get rid of the former president .
Does that sound like that ’ s accurate ?
Judi Rever : Well , in terms of a strategy of , I would say US militarism and global capitalism , if you want to look at the root of some of the drivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go back .
We ’ ve talked a little bit about the 1980s and the 1990s what you ’ re seeing in the 1990s is… Well , actually it started in ’ 89 with the coup in Sudan .
So you had the United States becoming very interested in containing Islamic insurgency or Islamic power on the continent with the coup and with the rise of Omar El Bashir in 1999 .
At the same time we saw in the 1990s certainly copper and cobalt plummet .
The production of those two strategic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So we have a set of circumstances which was of concern to the United States and the United States at that time in the late ’ 80s and 1990s decided to play chess in the sense they decided on who their strategic players would be .
Who were the guys that they were going to support .
So number one , Yoweri Museveni president of Uganda .
He was going to help contain the rise of Islam in Africa because of his strategic placements in Uganda next to Sudan .
Of course Sudan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the United States .
Now in Congo where there is 24 million , excuse me , in Congo where there is an estimated $ 24 trillion in untapped mineral wealth , it ’ s almost unfathomable .
The United States was very interested there .
As I said in the early 1990s we saw copper and cobalt climate under Mobutu .
So it was becoming impossible for the United States and for Western nations to do business in Congo under Mobutu , he was becoming intractable , he was becoming an obstacle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do business .
The United States wanted Congo open for business .
So that was part of the larger strategy .
So supporting Museveni , supporting Paul Kagame who was at that time , Paul Kagame was a rebel and he was already waging war in Northern Rwanda .
It was clear that I think the United States had a plan to support these men and make central Africa a place where it was easier to do business .
Jacqueline Luqm… : That groundwork , that foundation and that history is incredibly important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathway to the Rwandan genocide in which more than 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus died .
Now where does your book come in to this history ?
Because what we understand in the United States , Judi , is that Paul Kagame , who was the current president of Rwanda was the hero of the conflict .
We ’ re told that he ended the Rwandan genocide , but your book reveals a different perspective on that narrative .
So what is that perspective ?
Judi Rever : My book fundamentally challenges the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrative .
What my book says , my research says is that Paul Kagame , did not stop the genocide .
He did not stop the violence .
He ignited the genocide by killing Juvenal Habyarimana , the Hutu president .
He also fueled the genocide against Tutsi by sending in his Tutsi commandos .
Infiltrating the Hutu militia and assisting directly in the killing of Tutsi .
So he augmented .
He potentiated , the Tutsi genocide .
I also say in my book based on years and years of research that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hutus as well and this was not in retaliation .
These were operations that will preemptive and proactive .
As soon as the Hutu president Habyarimana was killed and those operations to systematically kill Hutu leaders and Hutu peasant from the North down the Eastern coast or down the Eastern border in the South and then back up to the Northwest .
That that was highly orchestrated , very organized and the killings of Hutus continued after the genocide .
Jacqueline Luqm… : Right now that narrative is not only being challenged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but here in the United States you have been going on some speaking tours , promoting the book , talking about this issue .
There are sometimes people in attendance and I attended one of these events who will directly challenge of the information that you are revealed in your book .
They say that there was no genocide , that Kagame committed .
They say that your information is false .
They said that you ’ re spreading lies .
What is your response to those allegations that the information you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a hero ending the Rwandan genocide , but he participated and that he committed genocide himself , what ’ s your response to those allegations that that information is not true ?
Judi Rever : Well as you said , Jackie , you were there in Washington and one of Kagame supporters mentioned the Byumba Stadium massacre , which occurred in April , 1994 .
I talk about this briefly massacre by the Rwandan Patriotic Front of Hutus civilians , men , women , children and babies .
He said it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of people were shocked .
I said to him that there was so much evidence , incredible amount of evidence of this massacre at the Byumba Soccer Stadium in 1994 .
There was evidence that was in the UN documents… Documented at the UN tribunals .
One of the investigators that I spoke to who worked at the UN tribunals that set up to prosecute the most serious crimes of the genocide said never in his life had he collected so much evidence on a massacre that it was a mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He had people who were members of the RPA stationed outside the stadium .
He had collected testimony from them .
He collected testimony from some of the soldiers inside the stadium who killed these Hutu civilians .
He had testimony .
This is a UN investigator I ’ m talking about , had testimony from soldiers who brought the bodies , the corpses out of the stadium , transported them on trucks to bury them .
I mean it was incredible .
Never in his life as an investigator at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and of course I interviewed a number of people who were at the scene of the crime as well .
Jacqueline Luqm… : The interesting thing about the exchange that you ’ re talking about that I was a witness to .
But that I ’ ve also seen critics of your book use online and the response that you give and that you document in your book is that this is not information that is hearsay .
There are eye witness accounts that have been documented not just by you in interviewing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has documented .
Collected this evidence have interviewed survivors .
I have confirmed that these people they have interviewed are survivors and the evidence according to the UN is insurmountable .
But still there are critics who decry the idea that Kagame was not the hero that the United States and other Western nations make him out to be .
To the point that now Judi , there is repression of people who are openly challenging Kagame in Rwanda who are being targeted by his administration .
Can you talk a little bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sadly this is the ongoing , his repression , his terror inside the country ever since he took power .
But increasingly Tutsi and Hutus , but interior Tutsi survivors are targeted in Paul Kagame Rwanda .
Within the last few days a very much loved Tutsi survivor , a gospel singer named Kizito Mihigo died in a military detention , police detention .
It is believed that he was murdered .
Most people believe he was murdered .
This man was very much admired and talked about the importance of ethnic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrative .
He said that Hutus died as well during the genocide and their deaths mattered .
Remember he was a Tutsi survivor .
He lost many family members during the genocide .
So people saw him as a symbol of hope and reconciliation and millions of Rwanda ’ s inside the country and abroad are crying this week .
Their son that Paul Kagame and his henchments could stoop so low as to apparently murder this person .
So Rwandans in general , especially those who tried to speak out or might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country are very much living in fear .
We have Kagame death squads operating outside the country .
Many people have called the RPF and Kagame criminals without borders and so no one is beyond his limits .
Jacqueline Luqm… : That is absolutely horrifying that people just recently as a few days ago are still being targeted by this regime and it truly is a regime that ’ s not a word I use lightly .
Judi , what does these issues , what does this information mean ?
What should it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ?
Why should people be concerned about what happened in the Rwanda and the ongoing legacy of the Kagame regime ?
Why should the people be concerned about this in their everyday life right now ?
Judi Rever : It ’ s very serious .
I mean , I ’ ve studied these questions of the political and security issues , plaguing Central Africa for a few decades now .
I ’ m very much concerned , but I think we should all be concerned as global citizens .
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that there are so many troubling… There has been a history of troubling concealing , hiding Kagame crime .
Oppressing them , dismissing them , minimizing them , and even justifying those times by our Western governance , particularly by the United States government .
I think as American citizens and people who are listening to your interviews , I would think that people should be concerned about what their government does and how US policies have fueled the conflict in central Africa .
Remember , by supporting militarily and politically supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the genocide .
And by giving them tremendous amount of support and cover for the invasion of Congo , overthrowing Mobutu ’ s and waging wars there , over the last 23 years .
Where millions of people have died and that conflict is still raging .
So these are all pressing issues .
They ’ re burning issues that I think enlightened Americans should be concerned about .
Jacqueline Luqm… : Yes , definitely .
Especially , since the resources that are coming out of the region that is affected by these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are on our desks every day .
We watch them every day .
Cell phones , laptops , televisions , other kinds of electronics , batteries , even electric motor cars .
So Judi , how can people , number one , support the journalists , dissidents , and activists who are actively speaking out against the Kagame regime , both in Rwanda and outside of the country ?
What can people do also , if they want to participate in bringing accountability to the Kagame regime ?
Judi Rever : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are interested in these issues to press Congress and speak up about the military cooperation agreement that the United States government has with Rwanda .
Press Congress to halt that agreement .
We know that through Africom , the United States has more operations in Africa and is using Rwanda as an integral part of Africom , more operations in Africa than it does in the middle East .
The United States has to draw back , diminish Africom and stop funding and militarily supporting Rwanda .
The other thing that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrative , get people to understand that the official narrative is in on a number of levels based on lies .
Kagame did not stop the genocide .
He ignited the genocide and continues to destabilize the region .
I also think it ’ s important for Americans and for media to listen to people who flee .
Rwandans who flee the country .
It ’ s only in fleeing that Rwandans have been able to talk about what ’ s really going on .
So doing research and prosecuting crimes inside Rwanda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give us a real picture , a complete picture of what went on in the genocide and what continues to go on in the country .
Jacqueline Luqm… : Judi Rever thank you so much for taking this time to talk about this very , very important issue and to talk about your book In Praise of Blood : The Crimes of The Patriotic Front .
I absolutely encourage all of our viewers to secure a copy of this book and read it .
Thank you so much , Judi , for joining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
Judi Rever : Thanks Jacqueline for having me .
Jacqueline Luqm… : Thank you for watching .
This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network in Washington , DC .

Judi Rever’s book “In Praise of Blood” connects the modern scramble for control of African resources to the Rwandan genocide and sets the record straight about its alleged hero, Paul Kagame.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Jacqueline Luqm…: This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network. The scramble between global powers to control resources on the African continent is the cause of as much suffering today as colonization caused in the past. Judi Rever has written the book In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Patriotic Front to highlight one chapter of that modern scramble for resources and the suffering it’s caused and to set the record straight about it. Judi, thanks so much for joining me.
Judi Rever: Thank you Jacqueline.
Jacqueline Luqm…: So I think we have to get a clear understanding of why this issue is important today. First, because we are talking about the Rwandan genocide that happened back in the ’90s. So I think we have to start with a little bit of history to set the stage. Now, the US under president Bill Clinton and please correct me if I’m wrong, at any point. The US under president, Bill Clinton began to pave the way for a giant resource grab in the Congo, which is the most resource rich country on the planet basically, in the early 90s. And back the Rwandan Patriotic Front or the RPF forces that were led by Paul Kagame who was then trained in intelligence at Fort Leavenworth here in the United States and the RPS takeover of Rwanda. I’m I on track so far?
Judi Rever: That’s a pretty good synthesis. We had Paul Kagame and his rebel troops invading Northern Rwanda in 1990 and there was already, as you mentioned. Paul Kagame had been trained in the United States. So the US had decided that this was someone that it was willing and very interested in supporting. So we had already in the late ’80s, early ’90s the US very interested in militarily and politically supporting Uganda.
It was through Uganda that the United States ended up supporting Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic army, which enabled him of course to invade Rwanda in 1990 engaged in a scorched earth campaign for almost four years. That created the context for the Rwandan genocide. And of course we know we have enough evidence now know that Paul Kagame and is true having assassinated the Hutu president on April 6, 1994. That was the act that triggered the Rwandan genocide. So all the while getting very solid support from the US.
Jacqueline Luqm…: So you mentioned the assassination of the Hutu president, the former president of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and that was president Juvenal Habyarimana. I think we need to put this in a little bit of context because the reason this was done was at the time technology was becoming a big economic driver in global markets. And much like European great powers after the 1885 Berlin conference wanted to control and exploit the resources of African continents for their own economic needs.
The same was true about the quest for resources in the Congo, so the assassination of president Habyarimana was done because he would not step down at the request of president Bush. This campaign to install a more US friendly government in Rwanda was continued under Clinton and it is largely believed that the plane that was carrying the former president was shot down as they were returning from a peace conference. In which they had signed a peace treaty between the Hutus and the Tutsis was the plane was shot down over Kigali returning from that peace conference as a way to get rid of the former president. Does that sound like that’s accurate?
Judi Rever: Well, in terms of a strategy of, I would say US militarism and global capitalism, if you want to look at the root of some of the drivers of the conflict, you have to go back. We’ve talked a little bit about the 1980s and the 1990s what you’re seeing in the 1990s is… Well, actually it started in ’89 with the coup in Sudan. So you had the United States becoming very interested in containing Islamic insurgency or Islamic power on the continent with the coup and with the rise of Omar El Bashir in 1999.
At the same time we saw in the 1990s certainly copper and cobalt plummet. The production of those two strategic minerals plummet in Congo. Okay. So we have a set of circumstances which was of concern to the United States and the United States at that time in the late ’80s and 1990s decided to play chess in the sense they decided on who their strategic players would be. Who were the guys that they were going to support.
So number one, Yoweri Museveni president of Uganda. He was going to help contain the rise of Islam in Africa because of his strategic placements in Uganda next to Sudan. Of course Sudan had oil resources and that was interesting for the United States. Now in Congo where there is 24 million, excuse me, in Congo where there is an estimated $24 trillion in untapped mineral wealth, it’s almost unfathomable. The United States was very interested there. As I said in the early 1990s we saw copper and cobalt climate under Mobutu.
So it was becoming impossible for the United States and for Western nations to do business in Congo under Mobutu, he was becoming intractable, he was becoming an obstacle and multinationals were no longer able to do business. The United States wanted Congo open for business. So that was part of the larger strategy. So supporting Museveni, supporting Paul Kagame who was at that time, Paul Kagame was a rebel and he was already waging war in Northern Rwanda. It was clear that I think the United States had a plan to support these men and make central Africa a place where it was easier to do business.
Jacqueline Luqm…: That groundwork, that foundation and that history is incredibly important because that is the foundation or the pathway to the Rwandan genocide in which more than 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus died. Now where does your book come in to this history? Because what we understand in the United States, Judi, is that Paul Kagame, who was the current president of Rwanda was the hero of the conflict. We’re told that he ended the Rwandan genocide, but your book reveals a different perspective on that narrative. So what is that perspective?
Judi Rever: My book fundamentally challenges the official narrative. Maybe it defeats the narrative. What my book says, my research says is that Paul Kagame, did not stop the genocide. He did not stop the violence. He ignited the genocide by killing Juvenal Habyarimana, the Hutu president. He also fueled the genocide against Tutsi by sending in his Tutsi commandos. Infiltrating the Hutu militia and assisting directly in the killing of Tutsi. So he augmented. He potentiated, the Tutsi genocide.
I also say in my book based on years and years of research that Paul Kagame Tutsi army committed genocide against Hutus as well and this was not in retaliation. These were operations that will preemptive and proactive. As soon as the Hutu president Habyarimana was killed and those operations to systematically kill Hutu leaders and Hutu peasant from the North down the Eastern coast or down the Eastern border in the South and then back up to the Northwest. That that was highly orchestrated, very organized and the killings of Hutus continued after the genocide.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Right now that narrative is not only being challenged by the Kagame administration in several different ways, but here in the United States you have been going on some speaking tours, promoting the book, talking about this issue. There are sometimes people in attendance and I attended one of these events who will directly challenge of the information that you are revealed in your book. They say that there was no genocide, that Kagame committed. They say that your information is false. They said that you’re spreading lies. What is your response to those allegations that the information you’re providing that Kagame was actually not a hero ending the Rwandan genocide, but he participated and that he committed genocide himself, what’s your response to those allegations that that information is not true?
Judi Rever: Well as you said, Jackie, you were there in Washington and one of Kagame supporters mentioned the Byumba Stadium massacre, which occurred in April, 1994. I talk about this briefly massacre by the Rwandan Patriotic Front of Hutus civilians, men, women, children and babies. He said it was a myth that it never happened and a lot of people were shocked. I said to him that there was so much evidence, incredible amount of evidence of this massacre at the Byumba Soccer Stadium in 1994. There was evidence that was in the UN documents… Documented at the UN tribunals. One of the investigators that I spoke to who worked at the UN tribunals that set up to prosecute the most serious crimes of the genocide said never in his life had he collected so much evidence on a massacre that it was a mass killing. Thousands of victims were killed.
He had people who were members of the RPA stationed outside the stadium. He had collected testimony from them. He collected testimony from some of the soldiers inside the stadium who killed these Hutu civilians. He had testimony. This is a UN investigator I’m talking about, had testimony from soldiers who brought the bodies, the corpses out of the stadium, transported them on trucks to bury them. I mean it was incredible. Never in his life as an investigator at the tribunals did he collect so much evidence and of course I interviewed a number of people who were at the scene of the crime as well.
Jacqueline Luqm…: The interesting thing about the exchange that you’re talking about that I was a witness to. But that I’ve also seen critics of your book use online and the response that you give and that you document in your book is that this is not information that is hearsay. There are eye witness accounts that have been documented not just by you in interviewing survivors, but also the United Nations has documented.
Collected this evidence have interviewed survivors. I have confirmed that these people they have interviewed are survivors and the evidence according to the UN is insurmountable. But still there are critics who decry the idea that Kagame was not the hero that the United States and other Western nations make him out to be. To the point that now Judi, there is repression of people who are openly challenging Kagame in Rwanda who are being targeted by his administration. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Judi Rever: Well, sadly this is the ongoing, his repression, his terror inside the country ever since he took power. But increasingly Tutsi and Hutus, but interior Tutsi survivors are targeted in Paul Kagame Rwanda. Within the last few days a very much loved Tutsi survivor, a gospel singer named Kizito Mihigo died in a military detention, police detention. It is believed that he was murdered. Most people believe he was murdered. This man was very much admired and talked about the importance of ethnic reconciliation. He also challenged the official narrative. He said that Hutus died as well during the genocide and their deaths mattered.
Remember he was a Tutsi survivor. He lost many family members during the genocide. So people saw him as a symbol of hope and reconciliation and millions of Rwanda’s inside the country and abroad are crying this week. Their son that Paul Kagame and his henchments could stoop so low as to apparently murder this person. So Rwandans in general, especially those who tried to speak out or might be seen as potential dissidents inside the country are very much living in fear. We have Kagame death squads operating outside the country. Many people have called the RPF and Kagame criminals without borders and so no one is beyond his limits.
Jacqueline Luqm…: That is absolutely horrifying that people just recently as a few days ago are still being targeted by this regime and it truly is a regime that’s not a word I use lightly. Judi, what does these issues, what does this information mean? What should it mean to people watching this interview right now? Why should people be concerned about what happened in the Rwanda and the ongoing legacy of the Kagame regime? Why should the people be concerned about this in their everyday life right now?
Judi Rever: It’s very serious. I mean, I’ve studied these questions of the political and security issues, plaguing Central Africa for a few decades now. I’m very much concerned, but I think we should all be concerned as global citizens. One of the things I’d like to say is that there are so many troubling… There has been a history of troubling concealing, hiding Kagame crime. Oppressing them, dismissing them, minimizing them, and even justifying those times by our Western governance, particularly by the United States government.
I think as American citizens and people who are listening to your interviews, I would think that people should be concerned about what their government does and how US policies have fueled the conflict in central Africa. Remember, by supporting militarily and politically supporting Paul Kagame and his troops to unleash the genocide. And by giving them tremendous amount of support and cover for the invasion of Congo, overthrowing Mobutu’s and waging wars there, over the last 23 years. Where millions of people have died and that conflict is still raging. So these are all pressing issues. They’re burning issues that I think enlightened Americans should be concerned about.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Yes, definitely. Especially, since the resources that are coming out of the region that is affected by these conflicts are in our hands every day, are on our desks every day. We watch them every day. Cell phones, laptops, televisions, other kinds of electronics, batteries, even electric motor cars. So Judi, how can people, number one, support the journalists, dissidents, and activists who are actively speaking out against the Kagame regime, both in Rwanda and outside of the country? What can people do also, if they want to participate in bringing accountability to the Kagame regime?
Judi Rever: It’s very important for people who are interested in these issues to press Congress and speak up about the military cooperation agreement that the United States government has with Rwanda. Press Congress to halt that agreement. We know that through Africom, the United States has more operations in Africa and is using Rwanda as an integral part of Africom, more operations in Africa than it does in the middle East. The United States has to draw back, diminish Africom and stop funding and militarily supporting Rwanda.
The other thing that’s important to do is to change the narrative, get people to understand that the official narrative is in on a number of levels based on lies. Kagame did not stop the genocide. He ignited the genocide and continues to destabilize the region. I also think it’s important for Americans and for media to listen to people who flee. Rwandans who flee the country. It’s only in fleeing that Rwandans have been able to talk about what’s really going on. So doing research and prosecuting crimes inside Rwanda based on testimony there doesn’t give us a real picture, a complete picture of what went on in the genocide and what continues to go on in the country.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Judi Rever thank you so much for taking this time to talk about this very, very important issue and to talk about your book In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of The Patriotic Front. I absolutely encourage all of our viewers to secure a copy of this book and read it. Thank you so much, Judi, for joining me today to talk about all of this.
Judi Rever: Thanks Jacqueline for having me.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Thank you for watching. This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network in Washington, DC.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-25--How Trump Legally Undermines the Law

How Trump Legally Undermines the Law

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wolpert : It ’ s The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wolpert in Arlington , Virginia .
Last week , President Trump pardoned or commuted the prison sentences of 11 people .
Included in his list of pardons and commutations were the junk bond manager Michael Milken , who had been convicted for racketeering and securities fraud , former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik , convicted on tax fraud and lying to the government , and former Illinois governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wire fraud , and attempted extortion .
The Daily Beast even reported that in one instance , the family of a pardon recipient had provided donations to Trump ’ s reelection campaign just before Trump issued the pardons .
Here ’ s what Trump had to say about the pardons .
Donald Trump : We have commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich .
He served eight years in jail .
It ’ s a long time .
That ’ s a tremendously powerful , ridiculous sentence in my opinion .
When you look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendation of prosecution and you look at all of these other people and then you look at what happened to General Flynn , a highly respected man .
Look at , I mean , his life has been destroyed .
You look at a Roger Stone for a tweet and some other things .
I ’ m actually , I guess the chief law enforcement officer of the country .
Greg Wolpert : Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren criticized Trump via Twitter .
Sanders tweeted , quote , “ Today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street crooks , billionaires , and corrupt government officials .
Meanwhile , thousands of poor working class kids sit in jail for nonviolent drug convictions .
This is what a broken and racist criminal justice system looks like.
” Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted , “ It looks like in the Trump White House , you can buy a pardon .
This is corruption , plain and simple.
” Joining me now to analyze what Trump ’ s pardons mean for the US justice system is Austin Sarat .
He is an associate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College .
His most recent book is The Death Penalty on the Ballot , American democracy and the fate of capital punishment .
Thanks for joining us today , professor Sarat .
Austin Sarat : Thanks for having me .
Greg Wolpert : So before we get into the issue of Trump ’ s use of power to pardon and commute sentences , let ’ s put this into context .
That is , why do presidents and governors usually too , have this power in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clemency power actually unlimited ?
Austin Sarat : The clemency power is found in the constitution itself .
The Constitution branch to the president , the exclusive right to grant pardons and reprieves .
At the time the clemency power was put into the Constitution , it was a vestige of the monarchical prerogative to grant pardons .
The framers of the American Constitution thought that the clemency power that the president could wield would be useful in redressing injustices that had not been redressed in the court system .
And they also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political tool .
Indeed , in the Federalist Papers , they said clemency would be particularly useful in times of insurrection , meaning they looked to clemency , they looked to pardon , they looked to amnesty as a way of bringing political opponents back into the fold .
And the clemency power from the framing of the Constitution today has been among , if not the single most discretionary power that the president of the United States has .
Greg Wolpert : Now , you recently wrote an article for The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of clemency undermines the rule of law .
Now , if his use of this power is lawful , how can it be undermining the rule of law ?
And is the president ’ s clemency power having unintended side effects ?
Austin Sarat : Clemency is a kind of a lawful lawlessness .
It ’ s a power granted by the Constitution , but not subject really to effective legal regulation .
The question though of how clemency is used is still a live and important one .
And I believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly to reward people whose crimes have gone to the integrity of the legal system itself .
So the president is particularly merciful , particularly interested in granting clemency to people , for example , who have been jailed for contempt of court or been convicted of perjury or been convicted of lying to Congress .
So it ’ s not just that the exercise of the power is incompatible with the rule of law , it ’ s the purpose of the clemencies that he ’ s granted that I think are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And Trump is not the first president to grant pardons to people that he likes .
He ’ s not the first president to grant pardons to people who are as political allies , but what is really striking in Trump ’ s grants of clemency is the extent to which he seems to think that people who have done things that undermine the integrity of the legal system itself , those people are the people that he thinks are most deserving of mercy .
Greg Wolpert : Now , if you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so unwilling , sorry , who is so willing to use his power in this such a way , in a way that wasn ’ t necessarily intended by the Constitution ’ s framers , what could be done ?
I mean , should the president ’ s clemency power be modified or even abolished in some way ?
Austin Sarat : I don ’ t believe so .
What the courts have said about the president ’ s clemency power is that presidents can grant clemencies for a good reason or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the redress that we have against abusive uses of the clemency power , that redress is political , not legal .
So the best remedy to ensure that a president doesn ’ t use his or her clemency power in an abusive way is found through the ballot box in choosing people whose judgments we trust , whose sense of propriety we respect .
And really in a sense , the clemency power is a wonderful example of a power that can really only be controlled through the political process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see any longterm consequences of Trump ’ s use of clemency , the way he has been applying it and to the kinds of people that he ’ s been applying it ?
Austin Sarat : Trump is not the first president whose exercises of clemency have been controversial .
That ’ s just the case .
You go back to Bill Clinton .
Clinton granted a pardon to someone named Mark Rich , who was one of his supporters , and there were allegations of corruption that surrounded it .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clemency , but the talk about clemency tends to arise only in these situations where there is a controversial brand of clemency .
You ’ ll seldom , if ever , hear a presidential candidate asked to explain the philosophy that they would bring to bear in their exercise of the clemency power .
I don ’ t think that there is a remedy in particular that I would support .
I think the ability of a president to have this broad clemency power in cases of abuse or miscarriages of justice is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not want to see it limited .
The best protection against abuses of the clemency power is a vital , responsible and attentive exercise of democratic politics .
Greg Wolpert : Okay .
Well , on that note , we ’ re going to leave it there .
I was speaking to Austin Sarat , professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College .
Thanks again for having joined us today .
Austin Sarat : Thank you .
Thanks for having me .
Greg Wolpert : And thank you for joining The @ @ @ @

Trump’s grants of clemency for his cronies and Fox News friends have almost exclusively gone to people who are themselves accused of violating the justice system.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wolpert: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wolpert in Arlington, Virginia. Last week, President Trump pardoned or commuted the prison sentences of 11 people. Included in his list of pardons and commutations were the junk bond manager Michael Milken, who had been convicted for racketeering and securities fraud, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, convicted on tax fraud and lying to the government, and former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of bribery, wire fraud, and attempted extortion. The Daily Beast even reported that in one instance, the family of a pardon recipient had provided donations to Trump’s reelection campaign just before Trump issued the pardons. Here’s what Trump had to say about the pardons.
Donald Trump: We have commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich. He served eight years in jail. It’s a long time. That’s a tremendously powerful, ridiculous sentence in my opinion. When you look at what happened to McCabe with a recommendation of prosecution and you look at all of these other people and then you look at what happened to General Flynn, a highly respected man. Look at, I mean, his life has been destroyed. You look at a Roger Stone for a tweet and some other things. I’m actually, I guess the chief law enforcement officer of the country.
Greg Wolpert: Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren criticized Trump via Twitter. Sanders tweeted, quote, “Today, Trump granted clemency to tax cheats, Wall Street crooks, billionaires, and corrupt government officials. Meanwhile, thousands of poor working class kids sit in jail for nonviolent drug convictions. This is what a broken and racist criminal justice system looks like.” Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted, “It looks like in the Trump White House, you can buy a pardon. This is corruption, plain and simple.” Joining me now to analyze what Trump’s pardons mean for the US justice system is Austin Sarat. He is an associate provost and William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College. His most recent book is The Death Penalty on the Ballot, American democracy and the fate of capital punishment. Thanks for joining us today, professor Sarat.
Austin Sarat: Thanks for having me.
Greg Wolpert: So before we get into the issue of Trump’s use of power to pardon and commute sentences, let’s put this into context. That is, why do presidents and governors usually too, have this power in the first place? And why is this clemency power actually unlimited?
Austin Sarat: The clemency power is found in the constitution itself. The Constitution branch to the president, the exclusive right to grant pardons and reprieves. At the time the clemency power was put into the Constitution, it was a vestige of the monarchical prerogative to grant pardons. The framers of the American Constitution thought that the clemency power that the president could wield would be useful in redressing injustices that had not been redressed in the court system. And they also thought that it would be useful as a political tool. Indeed, in the Federalist Papers, they said clemency would be particularly useful in times of insurrection, meaning they looked to clemency, they looked to pardon, they looked to amnesty as a way of bringing political opponents back into the fold. And the clemency power from the framing of the Constitution today has been among, if not the single most discretionary power that the president of the United States has.
Greg Wolpert: Now, you recently wrote an article for The Guardian titled Donald Trump’s use of clemency undermines the rule of law. Now, if his use of this power is lawful, how can it be undermining the rule of law? And is the president’s clemency power having unintended side effects?
Austin Sarat: Clemency is a kind of a lawful lawlessness. It’s a power granted by the Constitution, but not subject really to effective legal regulation. The question though of how clemency is used is still a live and important one. And I believe that the president has used his clemency power particularly to reward people whose crimes have gone to the integrity of the legal system itself. So the president is particularly merciful, particularly interested in granting clemency to people, for example, who have been jailed for contempt of court or been convicted of perjury or been convicted of lying to Congress. So it’s not just that the exercise of the power is incompatible with the rule of law, it’s the purpose of the clemencies that he’s granted that I think are incompatible with the rule of law.
And Trump is not the first president to grant pardons to people that he likes. He’s not the first president to grant pardons to people who are as political allies, but what is really striking in Trump’s grants of clemency is the extent to which he seems to think that people who have done things that undermine the integrity of the legal system itself, those people are the people that he thinks are most deserving of mercy.
Greg Wolpert: Now, if you have a president or a governor who is so unwilling, sorry, who is so willing to use his power in this such a way, in a way that wasn’t necessarily intended by the Constitution’s framers, what could be done? I mean, should the president’s clemency power be modified or even abolished in some way?
Austin Sarat: I don’t believe so. What the courts have said about the president’s clemency power is that presidents can grant clemencies for a good reason or a bad reason or no reason at all. And the redress that we have against abusive uses of the clemency power, that redress is political, not legal. So the best remedy to ensure that a president doesn’t use his or her clemency power in an abusive way is found through the ballot box in choosing people whose judgments we trust, whose sense of propriety we respect. And really in a sense, the clemency power is a wonderful example of a power that can really only be controlled through the political process.
Greg Wolpert: Now finally, do you see any longterm consequences of Trump’s use of clemency, the way he has been applying it and to the kinds of people that he’s been applying it?
Austin Sarat: Trump is not the first president whose exercises of clemency have been controversial. That’s just the case. You go back to Bill Clinton. Clinton granted a pardon to someone named Mark Rich, who was one of his supporters, and there were allegations of corruption that surrounded it. There’s a lot of talk about clemency, but the talk about clemency tends to arise only in these situations where there is a controversial brand of clemency. You’ll seldom, if ever, hear a presidential candidate asked to explain the philosophy that they would bring to bear in their exercise of the clemency power. I don’t think that there is a remedy in particular that I would support. I think the ability of a president to have this broad clemency power in cases of abuse or miscarriages of justice is a very important one. I would not want to see it limited. The best protection against abuses of the clemency power is a vital, responsible and attentive exercise of democratic politics.
Greg Wolpert: Okay. Well, on that note, we’re going to leave it there. I was speaking to Austin Sarat, professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College. Thanks again for having joined us today.
Austin Sarat: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Greg Wolpert: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-28--Bloomberg Banks on Black Political Elites Selling Out

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-02-28--Real Talk Tho: What Does a Journalist Do?

You 've probably read a ton of news stories , but do you really know what a journalist does ?
@ @ @ @ @ , storytellers , and challengers of the status quo .
We all read , listen @ @ @ @ @ news to find out information about our world , but do we know how the @ @ @ @ @ Baltimore-based reporters have the details and they 'll sit down for a conversation to shed @ @ @ @ @ what they do .
Panelists : Erica L. Green , correspondent in Washington who covers @ @ @ @ @ for The New York Times .
Sameer K. Rao , A & E reporter for @ @ @ @ @ Snowden-McCray , editor of Baltimore Beat .
Real Talk Tho is The Real News ' @ @ @ @ @ at Ida B 's Table in downtown Baltimore .

You’ve probably read a ton of news stories, but do you really know what a journalist does?
Journalists can be record keepers, storytellers, and challengers of the status quo. We all read, listen to, or watch the news to find out information about our world, but do we know how the reporting process works?
Three Baltimore-based reporters have the details and they’ll sit down for a conversation to shed light on how they do what they do.
Panelists:
Erica L. Green, correspondent in Washington who covers the U.S. Department of Education for The New York Times.
Sameer K. Rao, A&E reporter for The Baltimore Sun.
Lisa Snowden-McCray, editor of Baltimore Beat.
Real Talk Tho is The Real News’ bi-monthly public newsroom, held at Ida B’s Table in downtown Baltimore.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-01--Biden Wins SC Primary, But Voters Have Doubts

Host & Producer
Taya Graham is an award-winning investigative reporter who has covered U.S. politics, local government, and the criminal justice system. She is the host of TRNN's "Police Accountability Report," and producer and co-creator of the award-winning podcast "Truth and Reconciliation" on Baltimore's NPR affiliate WYPR. She has written extensively for a variety of publications including the Afro American Newspaper, the oldest black-owned publication in the country, and was a frequent contributor to Morgan State Radio at a historic HBCU. She has also produced two documentaries, including the feature-length film "The Friendliest Town." Although her reporting focuses on the criminal justice system and government accountability, she has provided on the ground coverage of presidential primaries and elections as well as local and state campaigns. Follow her on Twitter.


therealnews--2020-03-01--Biden Takes South Carolina, but Sanders Looks Towards Super Tuesday

Jaisal is currently the Democracy Initiative Manager at the Solutions Journalism Network and is a former TRNN host, producer, and reporter. He mainly grew up in the Baltimore area and studied modern history at the University of Maryland, College Park. Before joining TRNN, he contributed print, radio, and TV reports to Free Speech Radio News, Democracy Now! and The Indypendent. Jaisal's mother has taught in the Baltimore City Public School system for the past 25 years. Follow him on Twitter @jaisalnoor.


therealnews--2020-02-29--Sorry, Dem Establishment: Black Voters Actually Like Progressive Policies

Host & Producer
Stephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.
He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.


therealnews--2020-03-02--Super Tuesday Live Coverage – Rising Up With Sonali

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=https://vimeo.com/394318299
Rising Up With Sonali presents a “Super Tuesday” special 3-hour live program for television and radio stations to broadcast nationwide. On Tuesday March 3rd, the day that more than a dozen states including California will vote in primary elections, we will bring listeners and viewers around the country the kind of progressive, fact-based, social justice-centered analysis you won’t find in corporate media outlets.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-02--Trump Voters Aren’t Scared of Bernie—They’re Scared of His Base