therealnews--2020-03-16--Chelsea Manning Released But Still Faces Massive Fine

Greg Wilpert : It ’ s The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
If federal judge ordered the release of whistleblower Chelsea Manning on Thursday after having been in prison for a full year , the judge ’ s order came one day after Manning had attempted suicide while in prison .
The reason for the release is that the grand jury that is investigating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been dismissed , and so Manning ’ s testimony is no longer needed .
Manning was imprisoned and fined $ 256,000 when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom the United States is currently trying to extradite from Britain .
The U.S. government is arguing that Assange have helped Manning to copy databases of information about the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , as well as the state department ’ s internal communications .
Manning , though , always denied that she received help from anyone .
Joining me now to discuss Manning ’ s release is Kevin Gosztola .
He is a writer and publisher for the website shadowproof.com , and co-hosts a weekly podcast called Unauthorized Disclosure .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases for a long time now .
Thanks for joining us again , Kevin .
Kevin Gosztola : Thanks .
It ’ s good to talk to you .
Greg Wilpert : So let ’ s start with Chelsea Manning ’ s suicide attempt .
What can you tell us about what happened and what led up to the suicide attempt ?
Kevin Gosztola : Well , what we know is that around the time that she attempted suicide , the grand jury had apparently ramped up its effort to try and coerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jury .
Her lawyers had challenged a summons that was issued to bring her before the grand jury on March 10th , and it appears that the grand jury was going to intensify its effort to coerce her into testifying .
So far , they had failed to break her in such a way that she begged for mercy and came back to them and agreed to provide testimony about her involvement and what she did with the disclosures .
Again , these disclosures that we ’ re talking about are the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is the collateral murder video , this is the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs , the U.S. diplomatic cables , which numbered around 250,000 .
They ’ re the Guantanamo detainee files , and they wanted her to speak about how … They were hoping they could get testimony that would show Julian Assange solicited these leaks from her .
They were hoping she would speak about him helping her to crack a password , allegedly , and this goes back to the allegations that she has faced that Julian Assange is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately , if he ’ s brought to United States , it would be during his trial .
So , this ever had ramped up and we already know that she was going through a lot of trauma and struggling with what we can call psychological torture because of the fact that she was in jail .
She was released almost exactly a year after this all started , that the grand jury subpoenaed her , and then she was jailed for civil contempt .
I should add that this isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide in confinement .
When she was serving her military sentence at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas in September 2016 , and maybe August , September 2016 , she was going through an ordeal and was actually punished because she attempted suicide .
So rather than giving her help with her mental health , she received 14 days of solitary confinement for attempting suicide .
She had books that the military didn ’ t want her to have .
There were other materials that they confiscated from her .
So they accused her of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the fact that she attempted suicide .
So this has happened before .
She ’ s somebody who people have been concerned about with their mental health .
And , of course , after she had her sentence commuted , there were times in which people who were her supporters were concerned that she might be having suicidal ideations .
So , it ’ s clear that the release comes , for her , at an important time because this was escalating … these issues with her suicidal thoughts were escalating .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the issue of what this release means for the trial also against Assange , but first I want to ask , now the federal judge , Anthony Trenga , who released Manning , said that she still must pay the $ 256,000 fine that had accumulated during her imprisonment .
Now , according to U.S. law , the imprisonment and the fine are there to coerce her testimony , not meant as a punishment .
However , now that the grand jury has been disbanded , there doesn ’ t seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , why is she being required to pay the fine if she can ’ t be coerced for anything ?
Kevin Gosztola : That is a good question , and I think that ’ s for Judge Trenga to answer , that ’ s for the court to answer , that ’ s for the United States government to answer because it is , as you say , supposed to be coercive and if they don ’ t need her testimony , which by the way , in my view , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to issue indictments against Julian Assange without getting testimony from Chelsea Manning .
And so , all along , and obviously , as this WikiLeaks grand jury has been dismissed , what I have said all along is proven that what they were doing was punishment , it was abusive , and it served no legitimate purpose to keep her in jail for all of these months .
And in fact , that ’ s what her legal team argued , that there was no legitimate purpose for keeping her in jail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the indictments , she should have been released because at that moment they were in a position where they needed to put her on the list of prosecution witnesses and simply wait until Julian Assange was brought to the United States and put on trial , if that were to happen .
So , the fact that these fines , which is $ 256,000 , exist , that she is still expected to pay is cruel .
And , to be clear , for most of the time that she was in jail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a day .
For 30 of those days , she was fined $ 500 per day , and that ’ s how it all added up .
And she leaves jail essentially in destitution and a complete state of poverty .
She had lost her home or apartment , she had most of her items and possessions in a storage locker .
She is fortunate to have such a good support network of people who have looked after her , but she leaves , in this moment , and she has to entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money in her own account .
And the court never conducted a basic assessment of whether she had the financial ability to pay these fines .
What they presumed is because she has so many people who support her around the world in what she ’ s doing to stand up on principle , they ’ ve presumed that she can just launch a GoFundMe account and raise the money .
And so , because she could easily do this , then she can be fined this incredible amount , this amount that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s approaching what corporations are fined in order to coerce them into cooperating with federal grand juries .
It ’ s probably on par with the way someone would charge people who were wealthy and powerful in order to make them bend to a government prosecution .
It ’ s not the way to treat somebody like Chelsea Manning who has a low income , but they never wanted to respect this fact that she really doesn ’ t make that much money being Chelsea Manning .
Greg Wilpert : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little bit into the background .
I mean , why did Manning actually refuse to testify ?
And what role would her testimony have played in the Assange extradition , which is still going on in Britain ?
And then , finally , what does the jury disabandonment mean for the government ’ s case against Assange ?
Kevin Gosztola : Chelsea Manning , in her resistance , essentially what she was doing was making it hard for the government to turn her against Julian Assange and she understood that what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal team called it , get her in a perjury trap , but also what they wanted to do was impeach her credibility and make it seem like the statement that she had given to the military corps about the timeline of events was not credible .
And the reason why the prosecutors want to make her statement to the court seem not credible is because it doesn ’ t match up with the theory of the case that they ’ re bringing against Julian Assange .
Essentially , she says that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of these documents to WikiLeaks .
I went around , I tried to first go to The New York Times , I contacted wanting to contact the Washington post , but they didn ’ t want my disclosures , and so I went and submitted documents to WikiLeaks.
” On the other hand , what the government is trying to say , and so why they need to break Chelsea Manning and bend her in such a way that they get testimony that ’ s useful to them , they wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work on behalf of WikiLeaks and that she was inside the military going around on the network , the secret network , going through databases , finding sets of documents and picking them out because WikiLeaks told her that they wanted these particular sets of documents to be disclosed to the world .
And that doesn ’ t match up , unless you ’ re able to show that what she said to the military court isn ’ t the truth .
So , going forward here , we know that the WikiLeaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in not only Chelsea Manning being released , but Jeremy Hammond , who had been subpoenaed to appear before this grand jury , was released and he was serving a federal prison sentence related to the Stratfor hack and then the leak of that information that was published by WikiLeaks , and he returns , he ’ s going to be completing his prison sentence .
However , had he not been subpoenaed , he would have been released from prison back in December 2019 .
So , he goes back to prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more … It ’ s a crisis moment now because all of these prisons and everyone inside of them are hugely vulnerable to the spread of the coronavirus .
And so , it ’ s something to consider here that , had the grand jury not subpoenaed him , he would not be in the situation right now where he ’ s vulnerable to the spread of this virus .
But going forward here , the critical issue is the grand jury is no more .
It could have continued on .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have 18-month terms .
In fact , Chelsea Manning , last year , was in jail , the grand jury elapsed .
She was out for a week and then they subpoenaed her again and she re-entered jail , and so this time , it was dismissed .
The grand jury just ended .
That suggests to me that there are no further indictments .
That means there ’ s no additional charges against Julian Assange .
There ’ s no charges against any other associates or staffers of WikiLeaks , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of this … involved with any of these leaks .
And so , that suggests to me that if you ’ re a part of WikiLeaks and the legal team representing WikiLeaks , that you might breathe a sigh of relief .
And for people who are concerned about the implications for press freedom that Julian Assange ’ s case poses , you breathe a sigh of relief that it isn ’ t expanding to other people who were involved in this work in publishing the information .
But you know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United Kingdom and upcoming , we have this hearing for three weeks where witnesses will be called for the defense and for the prosecution or for the people and the crown prosecution service that are going to be arguing for the extradition and that they are going to have this major hearing .
And so , all of the focus now has to be on a Julian Assange ’ s case and what ’ s at stake for press freedom and journalists throughout the world as the United States government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jail , even though Jeremy Hammond is out of jail , even though they may have abandoned the grand jury investigation that they are still pressing onward with this case that has dangerous implications for press freedom .
Greg Wilpert : Okay .
Well , we ’ re going to leave it there for now .
Of course , we always continued to follow this story .
I was speaking to Kevin Gosztola , writer and publisher for the website , shadowproof.com .
Thanks again , Kevin , for all of this information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining The Real News Network .
Speaker 3 : Thanks a lot for watching .
Appreciate it .
But do us one more solemn favor .
Hit the Subscribe button below .
You know you went to .
Stay up on new videos

A judge released Manning from prison the day after her third suicide attempt because the grand jury inquiry has been disbanded. The massive fine shows this was about teaching her a lesson, not just about coercing her testimony against Assange.
Update March 16,2020: Supporters of Chelsea Manning managed to raise enough money with a GoFundMe campaign over the weekend, shortly after this interview was conducted. As a result, she no longer needs to pay this fine.
Story Transcript
Greg Wilpert: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. If federal judge ordered the release of whistleblower Chelsea Manning on Thursday after having been in prison for a full year, the judge’s order came one day after Manning had attempted suicide while in prison. The reason for the release is that the grand jury that is investigating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been dismissed, and so Manning’s testimony is no longer needed.
Manning was imprisoned and fined $256,000 when she refused to testify against Assange, whom the United States is currently trying to extradite from Britain. The U.S. government is arguing that Assange have helped Manning to copy databases of information about the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the state department’s internal communications. Manning, though, always denied that she received help from anyone.
Joining me now to discuss Manning’s release is Kevin Gosztola. He is a writer and publisher for the website shadowproof.com, and co-hosts a weekly podcast called Unauthorized Disclosure. He has been covering Manning and the Assange cases for a long time now. Thanks for joining us again, Kevin.
Kevin Gosztola: Thanks. It’s good to talk to you.
Greg Wilpert: So let’s start with Chelsea Manning’s suicide attempt. What can you tell us about what happened and what led up to the suicide attempt?
Kevin Gosztola: Well, what we know is that around the time that she attempted suicide, the grand jury had apparently ramped up its effort to try and coerce her into providing testimony to the grand jury. Her lawyers had challenged a summons that was issued to bring her before the grand jury on March 10th, and it appears that the grand jury was going to intensify its effort to coerce her into testifying.
So far, they had failed to break her in such a way that she begged for mercy and came back to them and agreed to provide testimony about her involvement and what she did with the disclosures. Again, these disclosures that we’re talking about are the most well known disclosures that WikiLeaks published. This is the collateral murder video, this is the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, the U.S. diplomatic cables, which numbered around 250,000.
They’re the Guantanamo detainee files, and they wanted her to speak about how … They were hoping they could get testimony that would show Julian Assange solicited these leaks from her. They were hoping she would speak about him helping her to crack a password, allegedly, and this goes back to the allegations that she has faced that Julian Assange is facing in his extradition case, and ultimately, if he’s brought to United States, it would be during his trial.
So, this ever had ramped up and we already know that she was going through a lot of trauma and struggling with what we can call psychological torture because of the fact that she was in jail. She was released almost exactly a year after this all started, that the grand jury subpoenaed her, and then she was jailed for civil contempt. I should add that this isn’t the first time that she has tempted suicide in confinement. When she was serving her military sentence at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas in September 2016, and maybe August, September 2016, she was going through an ordeal and was actually punished because she attempted suicide.
So rather than giving her help with her mental health, she received 14 days of solitary confinement for attempting suicide. She had books that the military didn’t want her to have. There were other materials that they confiscated from her. So they accused her of these violations, and then there were also the fact that she attempted suicide. So this has happened before. She’s somebody who people have been concerned about with their mental health.
And, of course, after she had her sentence commuted, there were times in which people who were her supporters were concerned that she might be having suicidal ideations. So, it’s clear that the release comes, for her, at an important time because this was escalating … these issues with her suicidal thoughts were escalating.
Greg Wilpert: I want to get into the issue of what this release means for the trial also against Assange, but first I want to ask, now the federal judge, Anthony Trenga, who released Manning, said that she still must pay the $256,000 fine that had accumulated during her imprisonment. Now, according to U.S. law, the imprisonment and the fine are there to coerce her testimony, not meant as a punishment. However, now that the grand jury has been disbanded, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to coerce her anymore. So, why is she being required to pay the fine if she can’t be coerced for anything?
Kevin Gosztola: That is a good question, and I think that’s for Judge Trenga to answer, that’s for the court to answer, that’s for the United States government to answer because it is, as you say, supposed to be coercive and if they don’t need her testimony, which by the way, in my view, they never her testimony. They were able to issue indictments against Julian Assange without getting testimony from Chelsea Manning.
And so, all along, and obviously, as this WikiLeaks grand jury has been dismissed, what I have said all along is proven that what they were doing was punishment, it was abusive, and it served no legitimate purpose to keep her in jail for all of these months. And in fact, that’s what her legal team argued, that there was no legitimate purpose for keeping her in jail to provide testimony.
When they issued the indictments, she should have been released because at that moment they were in a position where they needed to put her on the list of prosecution witnesses and simply wait until Julian Assange was brought to the United States and put on trial, if that were to happen. So, the fact that these fines, which is $256,000, exist, that she is still expected to pay is cruel. And, to be clear, for most of the time that she was in jail, she was being fined $1,000 a day. For 30 of those days, she was fined $500 per day, and that’s how it all added up.
And she leaves jail essentially in destitution and a complete state of poverty. She had lost her home or apartment, she had most of her items and possessions in a storage locker. She is fortunate to have such a good support network of people who have looked after her, but she leaves, in this moment, and she has to entirely rebuild her life with next to no money in her own account. And the court never conducted a basic assessment of whether she had the financial ability to pay these fines. What they presumed is because she has so many people who support her around the world in what she’s doing to stand up on principle, they’ve presumed that she can just launch a GoFundMe account and raise the money.
And so, because she could easily do this, then she can be fined this incredible amount, this amount that it’s not quite there, but it’s approaching what corporations are fined in order to coerce them into cooperating with federal grand juries. It’s probably on par with the way someone would charge people who were wealthy and powerful in order to make them bend to a government prosecution. It’s not the way to treat somebody like Chelsea Manning who has a low income, but they never wanted to respect this fact that she really doesn’t make that much money being Chelsea Manning.
Greg Wilpert: Now, I just want to dig a little bit into the background. I mean, why did Manning actually refuse to testify? And what role would her testimony have played in the Assange extradition, which is still going on in Britain? And then, finally, what does the jury disabandonment mean for the government’s case against Assange?
Kevin Gosztola: Chelsea Manning, in her resistance, essentially what she was doing was making it hard for the government to turn her against Julian Assange and she understood that what they wanted to do was, as her legal team called it, get her in a perjury trap, but also what they wanted to do was impeach her credibility and make it seem like the statement that she had given to the military corps about the timeline of events was not credible.
And the reason why the prosecutors want to make her statement to the court seem not credible is because it doesn’t match up with the theory of the case that they’re bringing against Julian Assange. Essentially, she says that, “Independently, I decided to disclose all of these documents to WikiLeaks. I went around, I tried to first go to The New York Times, I contacted wanting to contact the Washington post, but they didn’t want my disclosures, and so I went and submitted documents to WikiLeaks.”
On the other hand, what the government is trying to say, and so why they need to break Chelsea Manning and bend her in such a way that they get testimony that’s useful to them, they wanted to say Julian Assange recruited Chelsea Manning to work on behalf of WikiLeaks and that she was inside the military going around on the network, the secret network, going through databases, finding sets of documents and picking them out because WikiLeaks told her that they wanted these particular sets of documents to be disclosed to the world.
And that doesn’t match up, unless you’re able to show that what she said to the military court isn’t the truth. So, going forward here, we know that the WikiLeaks grand jury was dismissed. It resulted in not only Chelsea Manning being released, but Jeremy Hammond, who had been subpoenaed to appear before this grand jury, was released and he was serving a federal prison sentence related to the Stratfor hack and then the leak of that information that was published by WikiLeaks, and he returns, he’s going to be completing his prison sentence.
However, had he not been subpoenaed, he would have been released from prison back in December 2019. So, he goes back to prison and it’s obviously a much more … It’s a crisis moment now because all of these prisons and everyone inside of them are hugely vulnerable to the spread of the coronavirus. And so, it’s something to consider here that, had the grand jury not subpoenaed him, he would not be in the situation right now where he’s vulnerable to the spread of this virus. But going forward here, the critical issue is the grand jury is no more. It could have continued on. It was not done with its term, they have 18-month terms.
In fact, Chelsea Manning, last year, was in jail, the grand jury elapsed. She was out for a week and then they subpoenaed her again and she re-entered jail, and so this time, it was dismissed. The grand jury just ended. That suggests to me that there are no further indictments. That means there’s no additional charges against Julian Assange. There’s no charges against any other associates or staffers of WikiLeaks, no individuals who were related or involved to any of this … involved with any of these leaks. And so, that suggests to me that if you’re a part of WikiLeaks and the legal team representing WikiLeaks, that you might breathe a sigh of relief.
And for people who are concerned about the implications for press freedom that Julian Assange’s case poses, you breathe a sigh of relief that it isn’t expanding to other people who were involved in this work in publishing the information. But you know that the focus now becomes this extradition case in the United Kingdom and upcoming, we have this hearing for three weeks where witnesses will be called for the defense and for the prosecution or for the people and the crown prosecution service that are going to be arguing for the extradition and that they are going to have this major hearing.
And so, all of the focus now has to be on a Julian Assange’s case and what’s at stake for press freedom and journalists throughout the world as the United States government, even though Chelsea Manning is out of jail, even though Jeremy Hammond is out of jail, even though they may have abandoned the grand jury investigation that they are still pressing onward with this case that has dangerous implications for press freedom.
Greg Wilpert: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now. Of course, we always continued to follow this story. I was speaking to Kevin Gosztola, writer and publisher for the website, shadowproof.com.
Thanks again, Kevin, for all of this information and for having joined us today.
Kevin Gosztola: Thank you.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Speaker 3: Thanks a lot for watching. Appreciate it. But do us one more solemn favor. Hit the Subscribe button below. You know you went to. Stay up on new videos
Studio: Cameron Granadino, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-16--Russia’s Putin Opens Option for Running Again

Greg Wilpertt : It ’ s the Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
Russia ’ s President Vladimir Putin announced on Tuesday that he is in support of a constitutional change that would allow him to remain president of Russia until 2036 .
Putin has already served as President or Prime Minister of Russia for 20 years now .
The existing constitutional term limit provision prevents Putin from running for President again when his current six year term expires in 2024 .
However , in January his party proposed a series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was planning to remain in power beyond 2024 .
Now the cat is out of the bag .
A last minute change to the constitutional reform proposal included a provision to reset the the two presidential term limit clock at the end of Putin ’ s current term .
Here ’ s what Putin himself had to tell Russia ’ s Parliament , The Duma , on March 10th Vladimir Putin : Technically today we could lift the Presidential term limits , especially because such precedents exist in other countries including our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there in the election procedure of a Head of State .
In principle , this option would be possible .
But on one condition , if the constitutional court gives an official ruling that such an amendment would not contradict the principles and the main provisions of the constitution.Greg Wilpert : Joining me now to analyze Putin ’ s recent maneuvers is Tony Wood .
He ’ s a member of the Editorial Board of The New Left Review .
Also , he is the author of the book , Russia without Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the New Cold War .
Thanks for joining us again Tony .
Greg Wilpert : So how do you interpret the Putin supposedly reluctant acceptance of this resetting of the term limit clock ?
I mean , what does it mean for Russia and its political system ?
Tony Wood : So the last few months have been really a choreographed process that we can now see that has unfolded .
First of all , Putin announced in January this package of ambiguous constitutional reforms that you mentioned .
And then earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spontaneously from Valentina Tereshkova , the first woman in space , who is currently a member of the Russian parliament that we could in fact reset the term limit clock and puts in , could therefore extend his rule to 2036 .
I think one of the things that this reform does , apart from allowing Putin to run for another several years , is actually a multiplies the options available to him .
And I think we do need to bear in mind that that Putin ’ s real purpose in doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay in power indefinitely himself , but to increase the range of options available .
And I think up until now , the problem has really been what is he going to do in 2024 will he stay or will he go ?
And that problem been obsessing the Russian political elite for the past several years now .
And we thought he had answered that question in January with this constitutional reform , but actually it seems to have clouded the picture .
So this is him really clarifying the picture for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around until 2036 if that ’ s what you want .
But within that we can ’ t exclude the idea that he could at some point say , actually , you know what ?
I found a viable successor and I ’ m backing out of this .
So I don ’ t think we should see this as being firm intention on his part to stay until 2036 it ’ s just that , that ’ s one of many scenarios that is now available to him .
Greg Wilpertt : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful leaders from the days of the Tsars and then of course , the leaders of the Soviet union , especially under Stalin and now with Putin .
Now talk a little bit about the history , this history and what does it indicate ?
Does it mean that this has to do with Russian culture that that Putin has this very strong position is essentially , it looks like he ’ s strengthening it .
Tony Wood : Yeah .
I think there is to a certain extent , the cult of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the term in Russian that people use , but I think we can get a little bit too carried away by that in the West certainly .
I mean during the Cold War there was a lot of scholarship focused on the Kremlin and what was happening there .
And then 20 years later we had to then reevaluate everything we knew because actually Russian and Soviet society was a lot more complicated than the whims and desires of one man .
And this is certainly true today that Putin himself is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very centralized system .
But there is a lot going on in Russia in nearly power circles and I think we ’ d really need to think about Putin not as a kind of all powerful puppet master but rather as a central kind of arbitrating figure in a kind of interplay of elite interests .
And so the reason he has been there for so long is that he is a convenient figure for all of those different interest groups within the Russian elite and he is able to resolve conflicts or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other figures could not .
And I think this is also true by the way of previous Russian leaders .
I mean obviously Stalin is a different case .
He actually nullified conflict by killing people .
But a figure like Brezhnev , for example , who was around for a very long time was convenient to the Soviet nomenclature elite as the person to have at the top .
So I think we need to see Putin really in those terms that he is a strong leader , but actually because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s laying down the line to everybody below him in a kind of vertical chain .
Greg Wilpert : Now there ’ s no doubt that what happens in Russia also happens in the international context .
As a matter of fact , the Kremlin and Putin cited unspecified international threads as a reason for the constitutional change .
What are these threats and what role do you think that they play in creating such a potentially long lasting precedence ?
Tony Wood : I think certainly the Russian economy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current fears of recession especially , I met the coronavirus epidemic , the collapsing oil prices , another major factor in the health of the Russian economy .
And so Putin has clearly seen that that his announcement in January , which somewhat muddied the waters now , looks like it actually could multiply in stability within Russia and that ’ s the main thing that he wants to avoid .
So this is his way of putting a dampen on all of that possible speculation and reassuring people that there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message he ’ s trying to convey .
And I think the other important factor behind this mention of crisis is that he ’ s really trying to provide some legitimacy for what he ’ s doing in a global context .
And I mean , one of are the examples he cited , interestingly , was that over Roosevelt saying actually there were no term limits in the US until the 1950s and Roosevelt stayed in power for three terms because there was a global economic crisis happening in the 1930s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s interesting that that ’ s really a legitimating tactic on his part again , rather than a pre-thought through ideological commitment on his part .
I think we have to see this in terms of how he ’ s trying to play with the population as a whole .
Greg Wilpert : Now this constitutional change is still going to be approved in a referendum that is scheduled for April 22nd .
Now the change though also includes a ban on gay marriage , which some speculate was included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do you think that is true and if so , will it work or will the opposition actually have an opportunity to perhaps stop it ?
Tony Wood : Yeah , I think that there ’ s definitely some truth in that actually the package of constitutional reforms that is being presented is actually quite a mixture of things .
I think it ’ s both the change in the term limits and changes to the eligibility of candidates for the Presidency .
There ’ s changes to the powers of the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of major things .
And then within that additional elements have been thrown in including this ban on gay marriage and also much more , there ’ s a mention of God in the constitution for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union and even before .
There is also a reference to the Russian people as the state forming people , which seems like it ’ s actually a kind of gesture to the Russian nationalists sector opinion .
But then there are also quite sort of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language at least and for example , there is a commitment to a , a certain level of the minimum wage and to and and maintenance of the social welfare state in Russia .
And so I think part of the purpose of throwing in all of these measures is actually both to motivate people to come out and participate and vote as you say , but also to make it very , very difficult for people to reject the package as a block .
This is a complicated set of things to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that is what voters are going to be asked to do .
I think another important factor to bear in mind , which is quite technical , but I think important is that this is not the vote that you mentioned on April 22nd is not a referendum .
It ’ s called nationwide voting , which is a kind of euphemism that they ’ ve adopted recently in Russia because a referendum , according to Russian law , has a whole set of regulations that apply to it in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV , in terms of being able to adopt a position for and against and be allotted space on national television .
And the one thing the Russian elite doesn ’ t want to do with this package of reforms is to allow a really serious open debate and be obliged to do that legally .
So this is why they ’ ve called it nationwide voting rather than a referendum .
And so what is going to happen I think is that they ’ re going to boost turnout with these kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society that will be motivated by them and hope for a large turnout that gets them over the 50 % barrier in terms of turnout and then a majority will think , yes , this is absolutely fine and most of the measures are not controversial and unfortunately I think in rush today , the ban on gay marriage , while there will be a certainly a strong and embattled and in many ways heroic lobby of opinion that thinks that that is a horrific thing to put in a constitution , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get the whole package turned down .
Greg Wilpert : Okay .
Well , we ’ re going to leave it there for now .
We ’ ll see how it turns out .
I was speaking to Tony Wood , author of the book , Russia Without Putin , Money , Power and the Myths of the New Cold War .
Thanks again , Tony for having joined us today .
Tony Wood : My pleasure , Greg .
Thank you .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanks a lot for watching .
Appreciate it .
But do us one more song favor .
Hit the subscribe button below .
You know you want .
Stay up on the videos .

Greg Wilpertt: It’s the Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced on Tuesday that he is in support of a constitutional change that would allow him to remain president of Russia until 2036. Putin has already served as President or Prime Minister of Russia for 20 years now. The existing constitutional term limit provision prevents Putin from running for President again when his current six year term expires in 2024. However, in January his party proposed a series of ambiguous constitutional changes that unleashed speculation that he was planning to remain in power beyond 2024. Now the cat is out of the bag. A last minute change to the constitutional reform proposal included a provision to reset the the two presidential term limit clock at the end of Putin’s current term. Here’s what Putin himself had to tell Russia’s Parliament, The Duma, on March 10th
Vladimir Putin: Technically today we could lift the Presidential term limits, especially because such precedents exist in other countries including our neighbors. There are no term limits there in the election procedure of a Head of State. In principle, this option would be possible. But on one condition, if the constitutional court gives an official ruling that such an amendment would not contradict the principles and the main provisions of the constitution.Greg Wilpert: Joining me now to analyze Putin’s recent maneuvers is Tony Wood. He’s a member of the Editorial Board of The New Left Review. Also, he is the author of the book, Russia without Putin, Money, Power and the Myths of the New Cold War. Thanks for joining us again Tony.
Tony Wood: My pleasure Greg.
Greg Wilpert: So how do you interpret the Putin supposedly reluctant acceptance of this resetting of the term limit clock? I mean, what does it mean for Russia and its political system?
Tony Wood: So the last few months have been really a choreographed process that we can now see that has unfolded. First of all, Putin announced in January this package of ambiguous constitutional reforms that you mentioned. And then earlier this week, the suggestion comes apparently spontaneously from Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space, who is currently a member of the Russian parliament that we could in fact reset the term limit clock and puts in, could therefore extend his rule to 2036. I think one of the things that this reform does, apart from allowing Putin to run for another several years, is actually a multiplies the options available to him. And I think we do need to bear in mind that that Putin’s real purpose in doing these reforms is not per se to stay in power indefinitely himself, but to increase the range of options available. And I think up until now, the problem has really been what is he going to do in 2024 will he stay or will he go?
And that problem been obsessing the Russian political elite for the past several years now. And we thought he had answered that question in January with this constitutional reform, but actually it seems to have clouded the picture. So this is him really clarifying the picture for the elite saying, I could stay around until 2036 if that’s what you want. But within that we can’t exclude the idea that he could at some point say, actually, you know what? I found a viable successor and I’m backing out of this. So I don’t think we should see this as being firm intention on his part to stay until 2036 it’s just that, that’s one of many scenarios that is now available to him.
Greg Wilpertt: Now Russia has a long history of powerful leaders from the days of the Tsars and then of course, the leaders of the Soviet union, especially under Stalin and now with Putin. Now talk a little bit about the history, this history and what does it indicate? Does it mean that this has to do with Russian culture that that Putin has this very strong position is essentially, it looks like he’s strengthening it.
Tony Wood: Yeah. I think there is to a certain extent, the cult of the strong leader, the strong hand is the term in Russian that people use, but I think we can get a little bit too carried away by that in the West certainly. I mean during the Cold War there was a lot of scholarship focused on the Kremlin and what was happening there. And then 20 years later we had to then reevaluate everything we knew because actually Russian and Soviet society was a lot more complicated than the whims and desires of one man. And this is certainly true today that Putin himself is obviously a very powerful individual in a very centralized system. But there is a lot going on in Russia in nearly power circles and I think we’d really need to think about Putin not as a kind of all powerful puppet master but rather as a central kind of arbitrating figure in a kind of interplay of elite interests.
And so the reason he has been there for so long is that he is a convenient figure for all of those different interest groups within the Russian elite and he is able to resolve conflicts or to nullify them in a way that other figures could not. And I think this is also true by the way of previous Russian leaders. I mean obviously Stalin is a different case. He actually nullified conflict by killing people. But a figure like Brezhnev, for example, who was around for a very long time was convenient to the Soviet nomenclature elite as the person to have at the top. So I think we need to see Putin really in those terms that he is a strong leader, but actually because he is a strong intermediary figure rather than he’s laying down the line to everybody below him in a kind of vertical chain.
Greg Wilpert: Now there’s no doubt that what happens in Russia also happens in the international context. As a matter of fact, the Kremlin and Putin cited unspecified international threads as a reason for the constitutional change. What are these threats and what role do you think that they play in creating such a potentially long lasting precedence?
Tony Wood: I think certainly the Russian economy is not doing very well. I think the current fears of recession especially, I met the coronavirus epidemic, the collapsing oil prices, another major factor in the health of the Russian economy. And so Putin has clearly seen that that his announcement in January, which somewhat muddied the waters now, looks like it actually could multiply in stability within Russia and that’s the main thing that he wants to avoid. So this is his way of putting a dampen on all of that possible speculation and reassuring people that there will be stability. That’s the message he’s trying to convey. And I think the other important factor behind this mention of crisis is that he’s really trying to provide some legitimacy for what he’s doing in a global context. And I mean, one of are the examples he cited, interestingly, was that over Roosevelt saying actually there were no term limits in the US until the 1950s and Roosevelt stayed in power for three terms because there was a global economic crisis happening in the 1930s.
And make of that what you will but it’s interesting that that’s really a legitimating tactic on his part again, rather than a pre-thought through ideological commitment on his part. I think we have to see this in terms of how he’s trying to play with the population as a whole.
Greg Wilpert: Now this constitutional change is still going to be approved in a referendum that is scheduled for April 22nd. Now the change though also includes a ban on gay marriage, which some speculate was included in order to boost voter turnout. Do you think that is true and if so, will it work or will the opposition actually have an opportunity to perhaps stop it?
Tony Wood: Yeah, I think that there’s definitely some truth in that actually the package of constitutional reforms that is being presented is actually quite a mixture of things. I think it’s both the change in the term limits and changes to the eligibility of candidates for the Presidency. There’s changes to the powers of the President and the Prime Minister is quite a lot of major things. And then within that additional elements have been thrown in including this ban on gay marriage and also much more, there’s a mention of God in the constitution for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union and even before. There is also a reference to the Russian people as the state forming people, which seems like it’s actually a kind of gesture to the Russian nationalists sector opinion. But then there are also quite sort of, you could say progressive social commitments in language at least and for example, there is a commitment to a, a certain level of the minimum wage and to and and maintenance of the social welfare state in Russia.
And so I think part of the purpose of throwing in all of these measures is actually both to motivate people to come out and participate and vote as you say, but also to make it very, very difficult for people to reject the package as a block. This is a complicated set of things to just say yes or no to, but that is what voters are going to be asked to do. I think another important factor to bear in mind, which is quite technical, but I think important is that this is not the vote that you mentioned on April 22nd is not a referendum. It’s called nationwide voting, which is a kind of euphemism that they’ve adopted recently in Russia because a referendum, according to Russian law, has a whole set of regulations that apply to it in terms of campaigning, in terms of airtime on TV, in terms of being able to adopt a position for and against and be allotted space on national television.
And the one thing the Russian elite doesn’t want to do with this package of reforms is to allow a really serious open debate and be obliged to do that legally. So this is why they’ve called it nationwide voting rather than a referendum. And so what is going to happen I think is that they’re going to boost turnout with these kind of gestures to different parts of Russian society that will be motivated by them and hope for a large turnout that gets them over the 50% barrier in terms of turnout and then a majority will think, yes, this is absolutely fine and most of the measures are not controversial and unfortunately I think in rush today, the ban on gay marriage, while there will be a certainly a strong and embattled and in many ways heroic lobby of opinion that thinks that that is a horrific thing to put in a constitution, I think that will probably not be enough to get the whole package turned down.
Greg Wilpert: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now. We’ll see how it turns out. I was speaking to Tony Wood, author of the book, Russia Without Putin, Money, Power and the Myths of the New Cold War. Thanks again, Tony for having joined us today.
Tony Wood: My pleasure, Greg. Thank you.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Speaker 4: Thanks a lot for watching. Appreciate it. But do us one more song favor. Hit the subscribe button below. You know you want. Stay up on the videos.


therealnews--2020-03-16--Thinking Outside the Box: Do More Humane Prisons Exist?

Eddie Conway : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Eddie Conway coming to you from Baltimore .
In 1975 , a French philosopher analyzed the prisons as an authoritarian institution based on dominance , violence , and control , scandal after scandal from violence between guards and prisoners , unsanitary and toxic conditions and prison overcrowdedness .
The prison system in the United States is constantly trying to really legitimatize itself to reform measures that change the dynamics of incarceration in name only , not in practice .
For example , the New York City Council proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace the notorious Rickers Island prison .
To discuss alternatives to incarceration and what a world without prisons look like .
We are joined by two guests , Shelly Davis Roberts and Brandi Mack .
Shelley Davis Roberts is an architectural associate at Designing Justice and Designing Spaces , a visual artists and the former San Francisco chapter president of the National Organization of Minority Architects and joins us today from Oakland , California .
Brandi Mack is the community liaison at Designing Justice and Designing Spaces as well as a holistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us today from Detroit , Michigan .
Thank you for joining me today .
Let ’ s start with the problem .
The US prison system houses one fourth of the world ’ s prison populations .
We know that it ’ s grossly inadequate and the criminal justice system incarcerates more people of color in the United States than any other populations .
We know from the beginning , the system on the ground has contact in arrests more people of color .
We know that they go into the prison system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their jobs , et cetera .
We know that they failed to get adequate legal defense and have to rely on public defenders .
We know that once they are in front of judges , they don ’ t receive fair and equal treatment or once they ’ re incarcerated , they get more time .
When they go up for parole , they ’ re denied over and over again and when they ’ re released , there ’ s no wrap around service that really takes care of them and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So we know all that and we know it not just from experience , but we know it from Michelle Alexander ’ s book , Mass Incarceration : The New Jim Crow .
And since that book , politicians and prison officials had been advocating prison reform , how to build more humane prisons .
And that ’ s the trend that we ’ ve faced now in the 21st century .
And so my question is , can prison reform and more humane prisons actually address the problems of the prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So Designing Justice Designing Spaces , we are abolitionists of the prison system .
We don ’ t spend time thinking about how to build prettier boxes for black and brown folks to be housed in .
What we believe is that when starting at the community level , when communities are resourced and meaning that they have access to education , they have access to jobs , health care , all the things that are really basic human rights , housing , all those things that when you don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so those are the things that we need to be investing in the community , is to make sure that people have access to those things .
And I think what people don ’ t realize is actually huge disparities that are happening in access to those things .
When you have those things , you tend to live in a bubble when you think that everybody ’ s living at the same standard , and that ’ s not what is happening .
And so more investment in prisons is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So when you continue to do that , you just continue to feed into that never ending circle of trauma and violence .
The trauma that happens when you don ’ t have resources that leads to crime that you end up in the punishment , the punitive punishment system , you ’ re traumatized there and then you ’ re let back out right back into a lack of resources , as you mentioned before , Eddie .
I mean it ’ s just a vicious cycle and so it just investing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to perpetuate that .
Eddie Conway : Well now some of the pushback has been that state officials , and prison officials now attempting to change the trend of where prisons are going instead of the warehousing and mass incarceration .
They are now talking about turning prisons into treatment programs .
They are talking about building inside the prison drug treatment programs .
They ’ re talking about building mental health facility treatment programs .
Just recently in LA , a $ 2 billion effort was stopped to build a treatment program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jail in LA and turn it into a treatment center .
Here in Merlin , there ’ s a $ 400 million effort to turn to replace the detention center with a drug treatment mental health facility run by the department of correction .
These trends to do this is going to put people under the control of the department of correction .
So is there a problem with that ?
Brandi Mack : I ’ ll jump in .
This is Brandy .
I want to channel our beloved Michelle who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to begin to design around it .
And I also want to invoke our wonderful ancestor Harriet Tubman who said free or die .
And what we understand is that nature does not have a design of locking anything up and as a biomimic designer with the Designing Justice team and working with the beloved community , we understand that you can put a new skirt on something but it doesn ’ t change the intention of it causing harm .
So when we talk about creating new treatment prisons , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not equate to freedom where we are steeled talking about caging people and offering service from a level of [ inaudible 00:08:20 ] using a colonial design of helping those poor people .
When we understand , again , when we talk about treatment , if people were resource-rich , meaning the amount of community based organizations that we have from mentorship to drug rehabilitation , if they had the actual resources to do the work , we would not need to cage individuals with the assumption that this is what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we be living in a more a reciprocity designed , a lifestyle where folks are mad as equal .
So we can put a new name on it .
But again , if the design is still saying we ’ re going to lock some folks up in order to make you better , when we also understand that our laws have been created , quite frankly , to continue the industrial system of slavery .
So there ’ s a direct connection there .
So we have to be very mindful of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a correctional treatment prison facility because there ’ s this thing again that here he would say free or die , there ’ s still this ability to lock people up .
Shelly Davis Roberts : I also just wanted to add that when projects like this are initiated , you have to ask who ’ s in the room when these kinds of decisions are being made .
And what kind of work has been done with the people who are living in these communities where these prisons are located or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are located .
What work is being done with the people who live around these facilities to ask , is this really the right solution ?
And I think there ’ s a level of arrogance and even ignorance that I think people have because they don ’ t even think to ask .
I think there ’ s a notion that , “ Oh well these , those people are , they ’ re poor , they ’ re , there ’ s , there ’ s , they ’ re violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They don ’ t know what they need.
” So here ’ s what we ’ re , here ’ s what we ’ re going to do .
And that also needs to stop , there needs to be more engagement with communities to determine what are some real solutions that can help with these kinds of issues that are happening in the communities .
Again , prisons exist , at this point in time and until they are completely phased out .
Yes , there does need to be prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the charge for Designing Justice Designing Spaces .
And we are not spending time thinking about how to improve prisons .
But there is something to be said about when you say treatment , treatment and then incarceration as we know it to be , that just doesn ’ t add up to a good outcome .
And so there really needs to be some rethinking and re-engagement around that idea .
Eddie Conway : Yeah .
Well , and that ’ s so what ’ s happening here in Baltimore .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ input from the community .
The location is in the heart of the black community and the people that ’ s going to be most impacted people of color and very few , if any , was around the table when those things happen .
Well , let ’ s move though to solutions like Designing Justice and Designing Space has been doing this work and you ’ ve been doing work in Oakland and you ’ ve been doing work in Atlantic city .
Could you talk a little bit about your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to transform the prison industrial complex into a restorative justice model ?
Shelly Davis Roberts : Our projects are always centered around addressing the repositories in both mass incarceration .
So there ’ s a focus on a restorative justice approach , a holistic approach to design and it always starts with community engagement .
One of our projects restore Oakland .
It ’ s located in Fruitvale in East Oakland .
It ’ s an 18,000 square foot facility .
That is one of the first restorative economic and restorative justice centers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Council who suggests because they address housing and immigrant rights and also Restaurant Opportunities United , which deals with equity in the restaurant industry and helping black and brown folks be able to work in a front of house jobs and to be able to work and gain a living wage income to be able to survive , particularly out here in the Bay Area where it is just astronomically expensive to live .
And so it ’ s a social justice hub .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community input , particularly around the restorative justice space that exists in the building .
It was done with the community partners and we were practicing restorative justice and they had an important part in the design of that space as well as the design of many of the spaces that are in the building .
There ’ s a restaurant on the ground floor that colors restaurant and they run workforce development programs where they have a training kitchen .
There ’ s a food incubator program Lacocina that they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re doing things to be able to provide people to be able to be able to start their own businesses , again to gain training and jobs so they can earn a living wage to be able to come .
And there ’ s conflict resolution that ’ s happening .
There ’ s human rights and policy change that ’ s happening there in the building .
And one of the most important things is that Restore Oakland actually owns that building .
So Designing Justice Designing Spaces is also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help them to purchased that building .
And with new markets , tax credits and fundraising , they were able to construct the building .
And so ownership in communities like Oakland , which are being gentrified is huge .
And so there ’ s as a multilayer process in terms of creating a restorative are starting to invest in restorative cities , if you will .
And that and restore Oakland is just the start of that Brandi Mack : Coming from the lands of working with our beloved community , doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , one thing that we recognize as agents of the built environment is that we don ’ t have a shortage of amazing programs that are looking to support our community to heal themselves from anti-blackness and racist systems .
But what we do have a shortage of are the actual infrastructures for that to take place .
And so we have been graciously brought on the team that our mayor , Keisha Bottoms has put together with our community partners who spent five years working policy to say let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rise and the racial justice action network .
Again , the most important part of our work is listening deep and working with community in order to make this holistic process happening .
We understand that it is our work to look at the built environment .
We often hear in history about red lining and all of the things that have caused black and brown marginalized .
And so as we began to reimagine that , it ’ s not just about the building , the policy and the program are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we start our engagement with the folks who are most harmed by the space because who else knows better what a space of equity should look like .
What I think is amazing about our project in Atlanta is that Mayor Keisha Bottoms after listening deeply to our partners , the Racial Justice Action Network and Women On The Rise ban five years outside of the jail saying close down these jails , this is not what ’ s needed .
And the mayor was able to listen after our partners were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This isn ’ t okay , ” and she put together a task force of beloved community leaders throughout the city of Atlanta to say , “ What does it look like if we were to reimagine the Atlanta City Detention Center as a center of equity ?
What does that look like ?
” It ’ s all that process though very layered is some of this style and the design that we have to do to undesigned this environment that essentially was designed to keep us in slavery .
When I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So again , we have the pedagogy and the degrees and we ’ ve created mentor programs and we continue to get grants and funding .
But what does it look like , as Shelly said to have ownership to work in cooperation as Africans in America at one time had wall streets and different communities that were intentionally burned down .
So as we begin to rebuild the built environment is important for us to work with folks who are doing the program .
There ’ s also a learning curve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often we ’ re not taught to think about the built environment and development is a process .
It can be very uncomfortable .
It requires capital , it requires engaging with all of the different players , even those who may not agree with what we ’ re doing , because the whole ecosystem has to be a part of it .
But it has been an honor to work at those intersections with program , with people , with our city government who ’ s saying , “ You know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it really means to create sovereignty in this nation that we call the United States.
” Eddie Conway : Well tell me this , how can other people get involved and… I can see in Oakland and Atlanta apparently there has been at least a friendly city government if not friendly , at least not hostile .
How can other people in other cities get involved in a process like this ?
Creating that space that will give all those wrap around services to the population and prevent them from being snatched in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give us some insight or contacts or suggestions on what people might do to duplicate the process ?
Brandi Mack : As with any new thing , we ’ re excited that we ’ ve created a concept development process that you can visit our website at www.designingjustice.org and reach out to us because what we also understand is that we go fast alone , but we go far together and again , we have amazing programs who are doing great , great work , but the built environment hasn ’ t come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently working in Atlanta .
We ’ re working with Just City in Los Angeles .
We ’ re tentatively working on projects in Jackson , Mississippi .
Again , really being clear that architects , designers and developers is what we do .
But also the importance of working with our community who are working in programs because it ’ s an intersection .
We , as Shelley said , are joyous that our co-founder Kyle Rawlins is working on what does it look like to have ownership , because what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not necessarily a regenerative model for black and brown people .
It can support , but is it a liberatory tool ?
So having a team that is versed in development to give back ownership and create cooperation is also a big part as we reimagine what does the world look like without prisons and what can it look like with the spaces that are already existing if they were resource rich .
And so we ’ re always looking for partners who are available to imagine a development is a long process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be in it for the long haul .
It ’ s uncomfortable , but that ’ s what anything that ’ s good and growing is going to be uncomfortable .
But what ’ s great about it is that we get to live in the lane of abolitionist .
Shelly Davis Roberts : It ’ s really important to be able to feel free , as Brandy said , to talk to one another .
That ’ s simply the only way that it ’ s going to happen is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross pollination that ’ s happening around this topic .
So doing the research , reaching out to each other , talking to each other .
And really this process has been about transparency and the city of Atlanta has recognized the process that we have done through community engagement by building equity into the process by reaching out to the community , building trust within the community .
That has been one of the most transparent processes at the day they ’ ve had around a city project like this .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developing tools , community engagement tools that would help people to really understand what the project is about , how the design process works , what are some of the things that they need to understand about the development process , how projects get funded , understanding basics of design and space planning .
I mean , so all of those things help the community to be able to engage in the process and to be able to do it in a meaningful way , and one where they can start to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so it ’ s really , really important that we all stay connected , that we get the word out and that people talk to each other about what ’ s going on and put prep and steady to put pressure on their local government to be transparent about what they ’ re doing .
And to always say , “ Who ’ s in the room , we need to have a seat at this table to talk about this .
You know , we ’ re on the ground we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And you just simply need to ask .
And so you ’ ve got to just keep fighting that good fight and again , it ’ s just asking for transparency and asking them to be at the table to help make decisions .
Brandy Mac : I also just wanted to add that… Brandi Mack : Eddie , you talked about , how do we get this everywhere ?
And what I value about our team is the respect of local ecosystems .
Again , the idea of just , taking this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlanta and going there , we understand that every single place has an ecosystem .
There is overarching design of anti-blackness in America , but we also know that every single ecosystem has a way that it works , and part of our intention is it respecting a local ecosystem so that we can design in a regenerative way .
Eddie Conway : Okay .
Thank you Brandi and Shelly from Designing Justice and Designing Spaces for giving us that insight .
And thank you for joining me at The Real News .

Eddie Conway: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Eddie Conway coming to you from Baltimore. In 1975, a French philosopher analyzed the prisons as an authoritarian institution based on dominance, violence, and control, scandal after scandal from violence between guards and prisoners, unsanitary and toxic conditions and prison overcrowdedness. The prison system in the United States is constantly trying to really legitimatize itself to reform measures that change the dynamics of incarceration in name only, not in practice. For example, the New York City Council proposed to create better and more humane prisons to replace the notorious Rickers Island prison.To discuss alternatives to incarceration and what a world without prisons look like. We are joined by two guests, Shelly Davis Roberts and Brandi Mack. Shelley Davis Roberts is an architectural associate at Designing Justice and Designing Spaces, a visual artists and the former San Francisco chapter president of the National Organization of Minority Architects and joins us today from Oakland, California. Brandi Mack is the community liaison at Designing Justice and Designing Spaces as well as a holistic health educator and motivational speaker and joins us today from Detroit, Michigan.Thank you for joining me today. Let’s start with the problem. The US prison system houses one fourth of the world’s prison populations. We know that it’s grossly inadequate and the criminal justice system incarcerates more people of color in the United States than any other populations. We know from the beginning, the system on the ground has contact in arrests more people of color. We know that they go into the prison system and failed to get bail, lose their jobs, et cetera. We know that they failed to get adequate legal defense and have to rely on public defenders. We know that once they are in front of judges, they don’t receive fair and equal treatment or once they’re incarcerated, they get more time.When they go up for parole, they’re denied over and over again and when they’re released, there’s no wrap around service that really takes care of them and they end up back in the prison system. So we know all that and we know it not just from experience, but we know it from Michelle Alexander’s book, Mass Incarceration: The New Jim Crow. And since that book, politicians and prison officials had been advocating prison reform, how to build more humane prisons. And that’s the trend that we’ve faced now in the 21st century. And so my question is, can prison reform and more humane prisons actually address the problems of the prison industrial complex?Shelly Davis Roberts: So Designing Justice Designing Spaces, we are abolitionists of the prison system. We don’t spend time thinking about how to build prettier boxes for black and brown folks to be housed in. What we believe is that when starting at the community level, when communities are resourced and meaning that they have access to education, they have access to jobs, health care, all the things that are really basic human rights, housing, all those things that when you don’t have them lead to crime and to violence. And so those are the things that we need to be investing in the community, is to make sure that people have access to those things.And I think what people don’t realize is actually huge disparities that are happening in access to those things. When you have those things, you tend to live in a bubble when you think that everybody’s living at the same standard, and that’s not what is happening. And so more investment in prisons is just less investment in human rights. So when you continue to do that, you just continue to feed into that never ending circle of trauma and violence.The trauma that happens when you don’t have resources that leads to crime that you end up in the punishment, the punitive punishment system, you’re traumatized there and then you’re let back out right back into a lack of resources, as you mentioned before, Eddie. I mean it’s just a vicious cycle and so it just investing in prisons just is going to continue to perpetuate that.Eddie Conway: Well now some of the pushback has been that state officials, and prison officials now attempting to change the trend of where prisons are going instead of the warehousing and mass incarceration. They are now talking about turning prisons into treatment programs. They are talking about building inside the prison drug treatment programs. They’re talking about building mental health facility treatment programs. Just recently in LA, a $2 billion effort was stopped to build a treatment program that would replace the men’s jail in LA and turn it into a treatment center. Here in Merlin, there’s a $400 million effort to turn to replace the detention center with a drug treatment mental health facility run by the department of correction. These trends to do this is going to put people under the control of the department of correction. So is there a problem with that?Brandi Mack: I’ll jump in. This is Brandy. I want to channel our beloved Michelle who’s invoked the conversation deeper for us to begin to design around it. And I also want to invoke our wonderful ancestor Harriet Tubman who said free or die. And what we understand is that nature does not have a design of locking anything up and as a biomimic designer with the Designing Justice team and working with the beloved community, we understand that you can put a new skirt on something but it doesn’t change the intention of it causing harm.So when we talk about creating new treatment prisons, there’s one big piece there that does not equate to freedom where we are steeled talking about caging people and offering service from a level of [inaudible 00:08:20] using a colonial design of helping those poor people. When we understand, again, when we talk about treatment, if people were resource-rich, meaning the amount of community based organizations that we have from mentorship to drug rehabilitation, if they had the actual resources to do the work, we would not need to cage individuals with the assumption that this is what’s better for them.In fact, we be living in a more a reciprocity designed, a lifestyle where folks are mad as equal. So we can put a new name on it. But again, if the design is still saying we’re going to lock some folks up in order to make you better, when we also understand that our laws have been created, quite frankly, to continue the industrial system of slavery. So there’s a direct connection there. So we have to be very mindful of saying that we’re going to create a correctional treatment prison facility because there’s this thing again that here he would say free or die, there’s still this ability to lock people up.Shelly Davis Roberts: I also just wanted to add that when projects like this are initiated, you have to ask who’s in the room when these kinds of decisions are being made. And what kind of work has been done with the people who are living in these communities where these prisons are located or where the jails or these treatment facilities are located. What work is being done with the people who live around these facilities to ask, is this really the right solution? And I think there’s a level of arrogance and even ignorance that I think people have because they don’t even think to ask. I think there’s a notion that, “Oh well these, those people are, they’re poor, they’re, there’s, there’s, they’re violent, they’re out of control. They don’t know what they need.”So here’s what we’re, here’s what we’re going to do. And that also needs to stop, there needs to be more engagement with communities to determine what are some real solutions that can help with these kinds of issues that are happening in the communities. Again, prisons exist, at this point in time and until they are completely phased out. Yes, there does need to be prison reform. But again, that is not the charge for Designing Justice Designing Spaces. And we are not spending time thinking about how to improve prisons. But there is something to be said about when you say treatment, treatment and then incarceration as we know it to be, that just doesn’t add up to a good outcome. And so there really needs to be some rethinking and re-engagement around that idea.Eddie Conway: Yeah. Well, and that’s so what’s happening here in Baltimore. That design has been formulated without any input from the community. The location is in the heart of the black community and the people that’s going to be most impacted people of color and very few, if any, was around the table when those things happen. Well, let’s move though to solutions like Designing Justice and Designing Space has been doing this work and you’ve been doing work in Oakland and you’ve been doing work in Atlantic city. Could you talk a little bit about your work, and how you actually intend to transform the prison industrial complex into a restorative justice model?Shelly Davis Roberts: Our projects are always centered around addressing the repositories in both mass incarceration. So there’s a focus on a restorative justice approach, a holistic approach to design and it always starts with community engagement. One of our projects restore Oakland. It’s located in Fruitvale in East Oakland. It’s an 18,000 square foot facility. That is one of the first restorative economic and restorative justice centers in the country. It is home to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Council who suggests because they address housing and immigrant rights and also Restaurant Opportunities United, which deals with equity in the restaurant industry and helping black and brown folks be able to work in a front of house jobs and to be able to work and gain a living wage income to be able to survive, particularly out here in the Bay Area where it is just astronomically expensive to live.And so it’s a social justice hub. And the way that it was designed was with community input, particularly around the restorative justice space that exists in the building. It was done with the community partners and we were practicing restorative justice and they had an important part in the design of that space as well as the design of many of the spaces that are in the building. There’s a restaurant on the ground floor that colors restaurant and they run workforce development programs where they have a training kitchen. There’s a food incubator program Lacocina that they’re also working with. And so they’re doing things to be able to provide people to be able to be able to start their own businesses, again to gain training and jobs so they can earn a living wage to be able to come.And there’s conflict resolution that’s happening. There’s human rights and policy change that’s happening there in the building. And one of the most important things is that Restore Oakland actually owns that building. So Designing Justice Designing Spaces is also a developer. So we were able to help them to purchased that building. And with new markets, tax credits and fundraising, they were able to construct the building. And so ownership in communities like Oakland, which are being gentrified is huge. And so there’s as a multilayer process in terms of creating a restorative are starting to invest in restorative cities, if you will. And that and restore Oakland is just the start of that
Brandi Mack: Coming from the lands of working with our beloved community, doing community based organizing for the last 20 years, one thing that we recognize as agents of the built environment is that we don’t have a shortage of amazing programs that are looking to support our community to heal themselves from anti-blackness and racist systems. But what we do have a shortage of are the actual infrastructures for that to take place. And so we have been graciously brought on the team that our mayor, Keisha Bottoms has put together with our community partners who spent five years working policy to say let’s close down these jails, women on the rise and the racial justice action network.
Again, the most important part of our work is listening deep and working with community in order to make this holistic process happening. We understand that it is our work to look at the built environment. We often hear in history about red lining and all of the things that have caused black and brown marginalized. And so as we began to reimagine that, it’s not just about the building, the policy and the program are at ease. So as Shelly assertive, we start our engagement with the folks who are most harmed by the space because who else knows better what a space of equity should look like.
What I think is amazing about our project in Atlanta is that Mayor Keisha Bottoms after listening deeply to our partners, the Racial Justice Action Network and Women On The Rise ban five years outside of the jail saying close down these jails, this is not what’s needed. And the mayor was able to listen after our partners were able to continue to say, “This isn’t okay,” and she put together a task force of beloved community leaders throughout the city of Atlanta to say, “What does it look like if we were to reimagine the Atlanta City Detention Center as a center of equity? What does that look like?”
It’s all that process though very layered is some of this style and the design that we have to do to undesigned this environment that essentially was designed to keep us in slavery. When I say us, black and brown people. So again, we have the pedagogy and the degrees and we’ve created mentor programs and we continue to get grants and funding. But what does it look like, as Shelly said to have ownership to work in cooperation as Africans in America at one time had wall streets and different communities that were intentionally burned down. So as we begin to rebuild the built environment is important for us to work with folks who are doing the program.
There’s also a learning curve for folks who are doing program because often we’re not taught to think about the built environment and development is a process. It can be very uncomfortable. It requires capital, it requires engaging with all of the different players, even those who may not agree with what we’re doing, because the whole ecosystem has to be a part of it. But it has been an honor to work at those intersections with program, with people, with our city government who’s saying, “You know what? We do need to reimagine what it really means to create sovereignty in this nation that we call the United States.”
Eddie Conway: Well tell me this, how can other people get involved and… I can see in Oakland and Atlanta apparently there has been at least a friendly city government if not friendly, at least not hostile. How can other people in other cities get involved in a process like this? Creating that space that will give all those wrap around services to the population and prevent them from being snatched in the prison industrial complex. Can you give us some insight or contacts or suggestions on what people might do to duplicate the process?
Brandi Mack: As with any new thing, we’re excited that we’ve created a concept development process that you can visit our website at www.designingjustice.org and reach out to us because what we also understand is that we go fast alone, but we go far together and again, we have amazing programs who are doing great, great work, but the built environment hasn’t come into play. So we’re currently working in Atlanta. We’re working with Just City in Los Angeles. We’re tentatively working on projects in Jackson, Mississippi. Again, really being clear that architects, designers and developers is what we do. But also the importance of working with our community who are working in programs because it’s an intersection.
We, as Shelley said, are joyous that our co-founder Kyle Rawlins is working on what does it look like to have ownership, because what we also understand is that our nonprofit was not necessarily a regenerative model for black and brown people. It can support, but is it a liberatory tool? So having a team that is versed in development to give back ownership and create cooperation is also a big part as we reimagine what does the world look like without prisons and what can it look like with the spaces that are already existing if they were resource rich. And so we’re always looking for partners who are available to imagine a development is a long process. So we also say be ready to be in it for the long haul. It’s uncomfortable, but that’s what anything that’s good and growing is going to be uncomfortable. But what’s great about it is that we get to live in the lane of abolitionist.
Shelly Davis Roberts: It’s really important to be able to feel free, as Brandy said, to talk to one another. That’s simply the only way that it’s going to happen is that there has to be a lot of cross pollination that’s happening around this topic. So doing the research, reaching out to each other, talking to each other. And really this process has been about transparency and the city of Atlanta has recognized the process that we have done through community engagement by building equity into the process by reaching out to the community, building trust within the community. That has been one of the most transparent processes at the day they’ve had around a city project like this.
We spent a great amount of effort in developing tools, community engagement tools that would help people to really understand what the project is about, how the design process works, what are some of the things that they need to understand about the development process, how projects get funded, understanding basics of design and space planning. I mean, so all of those things help the community to be able to engage in the process and to be able to do it in a meaningful way, and one where they can start to have agency and ownership over the process.
And so it’s really, really important that we all stay connected, that we get the word out and that people talk to each other about what’s going on and put prep and steady to put pressure on their local government to be transparent about what they’re doing. And to always say, “Who’s in the room, we need to have a seat at this table to talk about this. You know, we’re on the ground we do know what needs to happen.” And you just simply need to ask. And so you’ve got to just keep fighting that good fight and again, it’s just asking for transparency and asking them to be at the table to help make decisions.
Brandy Mac: I also just wanted to add that…
Eddie Conway: Okay, Go ahead.
Brandi Mack: Eddie, you talked about, how do we get this everywhere? And what I value about our team is the respect of local ecosystems. Again, the idea of just, taking this, what we’re doing in Atlanta and going there, we understand that every single place has an ecosystem. There is overarching design of anti-blackness in America, but we also know that every single ecosystem has a way that it works, and part of our intention is it respecting a local ecosystem so that we can design in a regenerative way.
Shelly Davis Roberts: That’s so important.
Eddie Conway: Okay. Thank you Brandi and Shelly from Designing Justice and Designing Spaces for giving us that insight. And thank you for joining me at The Real News.


therealnews--2020-03-16--It’s Our Spring Fundraising Campaign!

It’s Our Spring Fundraising Campaign!

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

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--2020-03-17--Palestine Knows the Difference between Apartheid and Quarantine

No Israeli city is facing closure, even though the coronavirus is more widespread in Israel than in Palestinian cities. The Israeli siege has protected the Gaza Strip from coronavirus so far, but what if the infection crosses the fence?
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Kim Brown: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Kim Brown. Has the Coronavirus been exploited for populistic political gains? Has the fear of infection been harnessed to incite hatred against people of certain nationalities, race or religion? In one place it certainly has, in Israel, Palestine.
As of Tuesday, there were 50 confirmed cases of Coronavirus infection in Israel and 25 in Palestine. Israel closed the borders, announcing no incoming flights will be allowed to land starting on Friday. Over 70,000 people are kept in quarantine inside of Israelis’ borders.
Now, quarantine is one thing, but the inhumanity of ongoing apartheid is quite another. Last week, a 10-year-old girl named [Muriel 00:00:49] died of cancer in a hospital in the occupied West Bank. She died alone because her parents who live in another part of occupied Palestine in the Gaza Strip were not allowed to be by her side.
This week, the Israeli government put the entire city of Bethlehem under lockdown, claiming that the reason is the Coronavirus, but cities in Israel with Coronavirus cases have not been closed. And also this week the Israeli government announced a new road which they call a “sovereignty road” to serve only Jewish Israelis and connect illegal colonies deep in the West Bank with each other in order to prepare the ground for annexation.
Apartheid, hospitals, apartheid roads and apartheid quarantine, these are not the policies of the Israeli Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Transportation, but rather the policies of the Ministry of Defense, specifically, Defense Minister Naftali Bennett.
And today we are now joined with Rifat Kassis. He is the director of GRIP Consulting Company. He’s also founder of Defense for Children International, the Palestine section; and the coauthor of the Kairos Palestine document; and he’s also the general coordinator of Kairos Palestine and Global Kairos for Justice Movement. In addition to being an author, he’s published two books and has contributed to 16 others. He joins us today from just outside of Bethlehem.
Rifat, good day. Thank you so much for being here.
Rifat Kassis: Thank you for hosting me.
Kim Brown: The Palestinian government actually announced that it will not allow tourists to enter, although it doesn’t really have the ability to control its own borders. Is this something that Palestinians can actually enforce in order to control the infections and preclude outsiders from spreading the coronavirus further?
Rifat Kassis: Actually, the Palestinian authority doesn’t control any of the borders entrances or exits. Everything is monitored and controlled by the Israeli authorities. But having said that, last week it was a real crisis in Bethlehem because there was some infected cases which created a lot of fears among the people. The infected cases actually they came from hotels, which hosted tourists in the past week. This was maybe one of the reasons why they are trying to stop entering tourists to Bethlehem.
But in general, and as I said earlier, they are unable to control the influx of tourists coming from abroad. It’s everything is in the hands of the Israelis. So if the Israelis will stop the tourists from entering, then of course Bethlehem will not be able to have any tourists. But what I’m trying to say that the issue is real and people are frightened in Bethlehem.
Kim Brown: Countries with 20 times more cases of infection like Germany have not undertaken such extreme measures of restricting the freedom of movement, the freedom of assembly as the Israeli government has taken. In your opinion, are there connections between the way Israel fortifies itself with building walls, fences, checkpoints, et cetera. Is that mentality seeping into the very way that Israeli society sees the world, and starts thinking of separation and isolationism as a policy to deal with not just all problems but health problems as well?
Rifat Kassis: Yeah. I mean, Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza, it was this way all the time, isolating us, trying to create [inaudible 00:04:52] in the West Bank. And if I want to talk about Bethlehem, Bethlehem was all the time targeted by such policies. Israel tried to isolate Bethlehem for the past 30 years in a very intensive way. They introduced this permit regime that we cannot take exit Jerusalem without a permit, and this had isolated Bethlehem from its twin city, Jerusalem. And I think this was maybe one of the few incidents in the history of Bethlehem that Bethlehem was completely disconnected.
Furthermore, Israel had managed to build more than 20 different settlements around Bethlehem, surrounding this Bethlehem, disconnecting the city of Bethlehem from its villages, isolating Bethlehem from its southern sister city, which is Hebron. The Wall itself surrounding Bethlehem, confiscating as much land as they want. So all the time Bethlehem was targeted by this policy.
And definitely, today, I mean, this corona thing, it comes as a good reason for them to intensify the isolation of Bethlehem from the rest of the world. What I’m trying to say, Bethlehem was all the time targeted and of course this corona. And as you said it earlier, sometimes regimes, they use medical issues to highlight their policies and to intensify it.
Kim Brown: Which is ironic because more cases of Coronavirus have been found in Israel rather than in Palestine, so this is just a reason, as you said, for the Israeli government to be more cruel into enact more stringent policies upon the Palestinian people.
But Rifat, you live in the West Bank. But the Gaza Strip, also part of Palestine, has had a very different experience with the coronavirus. We’ve seen Gazans make jokes on social media that the Israeli siege has protected them from the coronavirus. And there are two million people living in effective quarantine; and indeed so far, no cases of coronavirus infection were detected in Gaza. But if one person brings the coronavirus to Gaza and it starts to spread, in your opinion, what do you think is going to happen?
Rifat Kassis: Yeah. Well, I mean, Gaza was under quarantine for the past 12 years. It’s sealed off completely. And as you know, Israel just besieged Gaza and everything again. It’s logged off and any anything will go out or in from Gaza, it needs permits from Israel. Maybe this had protected Gaza so far from having the virus. But as you say, if one case coming from Egypt for instance, or from Israel, I think it will be a disastrous situation in Gaza and it will be even heavier than in the West Bank given the long siege around Gaza.
And Gaza lacks everything. Lacks medicine, lacks stocks, lacks goods, lacks food, everything. And as you know, Gaza, according to many United Nations reports, Gaza is unlivable in a few years. The water is polluted. If the virus will spread in Gaza, God forbid, this means a disastrous situation for the people of Gaza because Gaza is very much in need of all… I mean, even without this corona thing, Gaza was in complete in need of everything.
Kim Brown: Indeed, we’re looking at a pretty tenuous situation for a vulnerable population susceptible to the spread of this tragic disease that has become a pandemic according to the World Health Organization. Do you believe that Israel will help its neighbors in any way if the coronavirus becomes an epidemic in Palestine? Will they step in perhaps for their own self-interest to preclude the virus from spreading in the region?
Rifat Kassis: I mean, to be realistic if the virus will spread in the West Bank, Israel also will be touched because there are some certain places where there are… I mean, integration like in for instance in Hebron. The settlers, they live in the hearts of Hebron. They are connected to Palestinians, at the checkpoints, the soldiers, the settlers in the West Bank.
If the virus will spread, Israel definitely will be affected. And here, I mean, many people are saying that the virus had really created a one state where everyone is afraid of this virus and also is affected. I think Israel has the interest to stop this virus because they will be affected.
And on the other hand Israel has all the time, its plans to continue fragmenting the West Bank. And if there is any way to fragment West Bank more, they will do it. So they are now in between. First they want to stop this virus, but on the other side, I think their political plans will continue.
Kim Brown: Indeed. We have been speaking with Rifat Kassis. He is the director of GRIP Consulting Company, also the founder of the Defense for Children International, the Palestine section. We’ve been speaking about the steps that the Israeli government has taken in defense of the coronavirus. However, there are more documented cases of coronavirus in Israel rather than Palestine. And yet the clamping down on Palestinians has grown more intense with the spread of this disease. Rifat, we want to thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us. Thank you.
Rifat Kassis: Thank you. Thank you.
Kim Brown: Thank you for watching The Real News Network.
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Will Arenas
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Will Arenas, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-17--‘Bernie Bro’ Reign of Terror Is a Myth, According to Science


therealnews--2020-03-18--2020 This Is Not a Drill

2020 This Is Not a Drill

Left organizers have remade the electoral terrain in 2020, but not under conditions of their own choosing. They face a new set of challenges as movements chart the road ahead in the 2020 elections. Join hosts Rishi Awatramani and Adam Gold, in conversation with Marisa Franco from Mijente, Rachel Gilmer from Dream Defenders, Maurice Moe Mitchell from Working Families Party, and Natalia Salgado from CPD Action as they discuss left strategy at this critical moment.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.