truthout--2020-06-19--Supreme Court DACA Win Shows “Sustained Pressure of Activism” Works

In a 5-4 decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts , the Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Trump ’ s attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , or DACA .
The federal program created by President Obama in 2012 protects from deportation about 700,000 immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children .
Luis Cortes , one of the lawyers who defended DACA at the Supreme Court , says the key to the victory was being able to share the stories of DACA recipients .
“ What moved Chief Justice Roberts in our case was the stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a DACA recipient himself .
We also speak with Erika Andiola , advocacy chief at RAICES , the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services , and host of the podcast “ Homeland Insecurity.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : In a massive win for immigrant rights , the Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump ’ s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects nearly 700,000 immigrants from deportation .
In 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was created by President Obama in 2012 .
But in a 5-to-4 decision Thursday , led by Chief Justice John Roberts , the court concluded Trump ’ s move to end DACA was “ arbitrary and capricious.
” The decision follows the court ’ s ruling Monday barring workplace discrimination against LGBTQ people and prompted Trump to tweet , quote , “ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn ’ t like me ?
” unquote .
Trump called the decisions , quote , “ shotgun blasts into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call themselves Republicans or Conservatives , ” and wrote , quote , “ We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd Amendment & everything else .
Vote Trump 2020 !
” unquote .
Trump can still try to end DACA in other ways , based on the court ’ s narrow ruling , but that could alienate voters in key election battleground states .
Meanwhile , presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden issued a statement Thursday promising to send a bill to Congress on his first day in office that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to citizenship for Dreamers and 11 million undocumented people who are already strengthening our nation , ” he said .
For now , DACA recipients are still protected from deportation and have authorization to work in the United States .
For more , we ’ re joined in Seattle by one of the lawyers who defended DACA in the Supreme Court .
Luis Cortes is an attorney with the Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center .
He ’ s also a DACA recipient himself .
Also with us , in Phoenix , Arizona , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services , host of the podcast Homeland Insecurity .
Well , let ’ s go to you first , Luis .
Congratulations on your victory , on this victory for the United States .
Luis Cortes , what was it like to be in the Supreme Court ?
And explain the court ’ s decision .
LUIS CORTES : [ inaudible ] where we had hundreds of people there .
AMY GOODMAN : Luis , if you could begin again ?
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mic on .
LUIS CORTES : Oh , not a problem .
I ’ m so sorry about that .
Good morning , and thank you for having me on .
You know , one of the things that I recall vividly about the day of the Supreme Court arguments was actually right before entering the Supreme Court and the hundreds of people that were outside demonstrating on behalf and in support of not just DACA , but broader immigration protection , because it reminded me of what got us DACA to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of activism to get us protection against deportation .
So , being able to share the stories with the Supreme Court justices , I think , was very , very important with the case , because , ultimately , that seemed what moved Chief Justice Roberts in our case , was the stories , and we see that throughout his opinion .
AMY GOODMAN : So , explain exactly what this ruling says .
LUIS CORTES : Yeah , so , the ruling really strikes down President Trump ’ s decision to terminate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not saying that he can ’ t do the program — or , he can ’ t end the program .
He ’ s saying that the way in which he ultimately terminated the program was unlawful .
So , he can come and now terminate the program following the Administrative Procedure Act ; however , we know that that ’ s going to take some time .
It ’ s going to take him into the November election .
And what he ultimately would have to do , if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is terminate a program that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people , during a pandemic , and justify his reasons doing so .
And I think that people are going to make some decisions come November if he decides to do so again .
AMY GOODMAN : So , would you describe this as a narrow ruling ?
And what exactly does it mean , in terms of can people apply today for DACA ?
LUIS CORTES : Well , it ’ s a narrow ruling in that it terminates his decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will restore the program .
Now , the timeline is something that we still need to see how it plays out .
The Department of Homeland Security has had some very strong words against the decision , but nothing concrete yet in terms of the actual mechanics of how it ’ s going to work .
We know that they ’ re going to have to comply with the court order , but the timing of it is still left to be seen , and so we ’ re going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that .
And so , we ’ ll wait to see in the next few days to see what they say .
AMY GOODMAN : This is not only a significant national victory for you , and you are part of the team that argued the case before the Supreme Court .
You , yourself , are a DACA recipient .
Can you talk about that ?
LUIS CORTES : Yeah .
You know , one of the things that we set out to do here in the case was , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UC regents played a very important role in helping us crack the case , but we wanted to make sure that the stories of the DACA recipients , who our lives were the ones who were impacted by this , are told to the — not just the justices , but the judges who were deciding the case initially .
It was such an honor to be able to help represent the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients .
But we ’ re not just talking about the DACA recipients .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities .
It ’ s teachers and their students , doctors and their patients , lawyers and their clients .
We ’ re talking about millions of people here .
And for someone like me who has really learned to , as a lawyer , trust the American court system to do the just thing , it was really a great honor to be involved in this case .
AMY GOODMAN : And can you talk about your own personal story ?
It also seems that Chief Justice Roberts was particularly moved by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeah .
So , I was born in Mexico , and I came to the United States when I was about 1 year old .
And I grew up in California , and so I consider myself a California guy .
And really , my life — and I think this is a common experience for a lot of people who are undocumented — is a series of events of trying to — I knew that I was undocumented from a young age , but I was figuring out what that really meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the limitations that are there , the types of restrictions that we have , either from not getting driver ’ s licenses or not being able to apply for financial aid .
So , really , that stemmed all the way up into my adult life , when I was in law school .
I went to law school before there was DACA , and I knew that it might prohibit me from being able to practice law .
And it wasn ’ t until my last year in law school that DACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timing couldn ’ t have been better , and it ’ s one of the things that allowed me to really advocate for other clients .
And so , I am so grateful that , you know , we had a lot of the young activists early on that pushed President Obama to protect — stop the deportations of young people .
Now , it ’ s not a perfect solution .
Obviously , we would want protection for all of the undocumented community here .
But it was a good step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wanted to bring Erika Andiola into this , of RAICES .
You , too , a DACA recipient , can you talk about what your reaction was yesterday when you heard the news ?
ERIKA ANDIOLA : Oh my god !
I mean , I was really surprised .
I honestly was not expecting this .
Unlike Luis , I wasn ’ t in the ins and outs of the case .
I was just really pessimistic because of the court makeup , and I was really gearing up for something negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear that , you know , this was — this was great news .
And , you know , just I was really proud .
I was feeling really proud , because , you know , I tweeted — I tweeted , you know , basically , the first thing that came out of my mind was we pushed Obama , and we defeated Trump in court .
I mean , this is all because of movement building , of organizing , of the courage of millions of people , I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our family members , who have come out and said , “ We ’ re undocumented and unafraid.
” We took the step to come out of the shadows , you know , in 2009 , 2010 , and some people even before that , and it ’ s been worth it .
It paid off .
I was feeling really proud in the morning , and also understanding that , you know , we ’ re a bigger community .
Our family members , our community members are also struggling .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a step in the right direction , and it ’ s something that we have to celebrate .
And then we have to keep fighting for more .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you respond to Trump ’ s tweet and then what Vice President Biden said , the former vice president , who is running for president against Trump , of course ?
Trump said this is a “ shotgun blast in the face , ” and he asked if the Supreme Court likes him anymore .
And Biden talked about what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
Your response to both , Erika ?
ERIKA ANDIOLA : I mean , on the Trump side , you know , I think he — it didn ’ t work out for him .
What he wanted to do was to use DACA recipients as a bargaining chip to try to get his anti-immigrant agenda enacted .
And we saw this since the very beginning .
In 2017 , when he took the program away , the first thing he said , you know , “ I have a great heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I still remember the phrase that he used — because he thought that , you know , by taking away the program and then taking it back to Congress and saying , you know , “ If you want to support and you want to help DACA recipients , then here ’ s everything that I want to do with asylum .
This is everything that I want to do to cut immigration and get people who I don ’ t want out of the country.
” And so , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
And , you know , again , we won .
We won against him in court , which is really incredible .
And , you know , on Biden , I understand that there is a need right now to talk about legislation in Congress , and we want Congress to act .
But it is important , because we all saw what happened with Obama in — you know , when he was running in 2008 , that he was talking about doing immigration reform the first day in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
And he deported 3 million people or more .
And so , what we want to hear also from Biden is what is he going to do to undo everything that the Obama administration and the Trump administration have done with the deportation machine , and that he can , in day one , do so much with executive power .
And so , we ’ re hoping that not only is he talking about that and he ’ s talking about policy , but also that he actually does it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Erika , talk about what this means for you on the ground .
You ’ re a DACA recipient .
I attended your virtual news conference yesterday as you talked about your mother being in deportation proceedings .
Can you talk about that and other cases you ’ re focused on right now ?
ERIKA ANDIOLA : Yeah .
I mean , you know , I think it ’ s a big relief for me .
It ’ s a big relief for my little brother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are able to work right now .
We ’ re able to be safe from deportation .
But it ’ s also painful to still experience our family members — you know , my mom is in deportation proceedings .
My house was raided in 2013 , right after I had gotten my DACA for the first time .
And so , you know , this is a bigger fight .
We are fighting right now , you know , to abolish ICE .
And we say this all the time , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — you know , as we ’ re talking about defunding the police , that has to happen , too .
We ’ re standing in solidarity with that ask from the Black Lives Matter movement .
We want that to happen .
And we ’ re also asking for , you know , ICE to be defunded , as well , as a first step to abolish it .
And I think right now even Democrats can do that right now in the House .
It is time to start taking money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking our own family members .
Even though we ’ re protected , a lot of — you know , more than 11 million people in this country are not .
They ’ re still vulnerable , like my mom .
AMY GOODMAN : And finally , Luis Cortes , United We Dream tweeted , “ Supreme Court has said new applications must be accepted , but DHS ” — the Department of Homeland Security — “ has NOT confirmed they are accepting them yet.
” What should people do at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
LUIS CORTES : I think the people need to get ready .
The initial applications , you know , there are a lot of paperwork you need to show .
There ’ s a lot of evidence that you need to show for initial applications .
So , we know that there was a mini-generation that was left out of the DACA program who are now graduating from high school or maybe have already graduated from high school .
And so , get your documents ready , would be my very first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know , most of the time , DACA applications can not be prepared in one day , and so get everything ready so that when the agency provides some guidance as to when they ’ re going to accept applications , which should be soon , then they ’ ll be ready to do so .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Luis Cortes , we want to thank you for being with us , and congratulations , Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center , DACA recipient , argued — was part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court ; and Erika Andiola , who is advocacy head of RAICES and has just launched the podcast Homeland Insecurity .

In a 5-4 decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Trump’s attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The federal program created by President Obama in 2012 protects from deportation about 700,000 immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. Luis Cortes, one of the lawyers who defended DACA at the Supreme Court, says the key to the victory was being able to share the stories of DACA recipients. “What moved Chief Justice Roberts in our case was the stories,” says Cortes, who is a DACA recipient himself. We also speak with Erika Andiola, advocacy chief at RAICES, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, and host of the podcast “Homeland Insecurity.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: In a massive win for immigrant rights, the Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects nearly 700,000 immigrants from deportation. In 2017, Trump tried to end DACA, which was created by President Obama in 2012. But in a 5-to-4 decision Thursday, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court concluded Trump’s move to end DACA was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The decision follows the court’s ruling Monday barring workplace discrimination against LGBTQ people and prompted Trump to tweet, quote, “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” unquote. Trump called the decisions, quote, “shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives,” and wrote, quote, “We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!” unquote. Trump can still try to end DACA in other ways, based on the court’s narrow ruling, but that could alienate voters in key election battleground states.
Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden issued a statement Thursday promising to send a bill to Congress on his first day in office that, quote, “creates a clear roadmap to citizenship for Dreamers and 11 million undocumented people who are already strengthening our nation,” he said.
For now, DACA recipients are still protected from deportation and have authorization to work in the United States.
For more, we’re joined in Seattle by one of the lawyers who defended DACA in the Supreme Court. Luis Cortes is an attorney with the Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center. He’s also a DACA recipient himself. Also with us, in Phoenix, Arizona, Erika Andiola, advocacy chief at RAICES, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, host of the podcast Homeland Insecurity.
Well, let’s go to you first, Luis. Congratulations on your victory, on this victory for the United States. Luis Cortes, what was it like to be in the Supreme Court? And explain the court’s decision.
LUIS CORTES: [inaudible] where we had hundreds of people there.
AMY GOODMAN: Luis, if you could begin again? I’m sorry. We just got your mic on.
LUIS CORTES: Oh, not a problem. I’m so sorry about that. Good morning, and thank you for having me on.
You know, one of the things that I recall vividly about the day of the Supreme Court arguments was actually right before entering the Supreme Court and the hundreds of people that were outside demonstrating on behalf and in support of not just DACA, but broader immigration protection, because it reminded me of what got us DACA to begin with, which was a sustained pressure of activism to get us protection against deportation.
So, being able to share the stories with the Supreme Court justices, I think, was very, very important with the case, because, ultimately, that seemed what moved Chief Justice Roberts in our case, was the stories, and we see that throughout his opinion.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain exactly what this ruling says.
LUIS CORTES: Yeah, so, the ruling really strikes down President Trump’s decision to terminate DACA on a procedural ground. He’s not saying that he can’t do the program — or, he can’t end the program. He’s saying that the way in which he ultimately terminated the program was unlawful. So, he can come and now terminate the program following the Administrative Procedure Act; however, we know that that’s going to take some time. It’s going to take him into the November election. And what he ultimately would have to do, if he was going to do it again, is terminate a program that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people, during a pandemic, and justify his reasons doing so. And I think that people are going to make some decisions come November if he decides to do so again.
AMY GOODMAN: So, would you describe this as a narrow ruling? And what exactly does it mean, in terms of can people apply today for DACA?
LUIS CORTES: Well, it’s a narrow ruling in that it terminates his decision to end DACA. And so, it will restore the program. Now, the timeline is something that we still need to see how it plays out. The Department of Homeland Security has had some very strong words against the decision, but nothing concrete yet in terms of the actual mechanics of how it’s going to work. We know that they’re going to have to comply with the court order, but the timing of it is still left to be seen, and so we’re going to have to wait to see some agency guidance on that. And so, we’ll wait to see in the next few days to see what they say.
AMY GOODMAN: This is not only a significant national victory for you, and you are part of the team that argued the case before the Supreme Court. You, yourself, are a DACA recipient. Can you talk about that?
LUIS CORTES: Yeah. You know, one of the things that we set out to do here in the case was, we know that the state of California and the UC regents played a very important role in helping us crack the case, but we wanted to make sure that the stories of the DACA recipients, who our lives were the ones who were impacted by this, are told to the — not just the justices, but the judges who were deciding the case initially. It was such an honor to be able to help represent the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients. But we’re not just talking about the DACA recipients. We’re talking about them and their communities. It’s teachers and their students, doctors and their patients, lawyers and their clients. We’re talking about millions of people here. And for someone like me who has really learned to, as a lawyer, trust the American court system to do the just thing, it was really a great honor to be involved in this case.
AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about your own personal story? It also seems that Chief Justice Roberts was particularly moved by individuals’ stories.
LUIS CORTES: Yeah. So, I was born in Mexico, and I came to the United States when I was about 1 year old. And I grew up in California, and so I consider myself a California guy. And really, my life — and I think this is a common experience for a lot of people who are undocumented — is a series of events of trying to — I knew that I was undocumented from a young age, but I was figuring out what that really meant throughout the course of my life — the limitations that are there, the types of restrictions that we have, either from not getting driver’s licenses or not being able to apply for financial aid.
So, really, that stemmed all the way up into my adult life, when I was in law school. I went to law school before there was DACA, and I knew that it might prohibit me from being able to practice law. And it wasn’t until my last year in law school that DACA came out. And so, the timing couldn’t have been better, and it’s one of the things that allowed me to really advocate for other clients.
And so, I am so grateful that, you know, we had a lot of the young activists early on that pushed President Obama to protect — stop the deportations of young people. Now, it’s not a perfect solution. Obviously, we would want protection for all of the undocumented community here. But it was a good step in the right direction.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Erika Andiola into this, of RAICES. You, too, a DACA recipient, can you talk about what your reaction was yesterday when you heard the news?
ERIKA ANDIOLA: Oh my god! I mean, I was really surprised. I honestly was not expecting this. Unlike Luis, I wasn’t in the ins and outs of the case. I was just really pessimistic because of the court makeup, and I was really gearing up for something negative. And I woke up really early to hear that, you know, this was — this was great news.
And, you know, just I was really proud. I was feeling really proud, because, you know, I tweeted — I tweeted, you know, basically, the first thing that came out of my mind was we pushed Obama, and we defeated Trump in court. I mean, this is all because of movement building, of organizing, of the courage of millions of people, I mean, DACA recipients and even some of our family members, who have come out and said, “We’re undocumented and unafraid.” We took the step to come out of the shadows, you know, in 2009, 2010, and some people even before that, and it’s been worth it. It paid off.
I was feeling really proud in the morning, and also understanding that, you know, we’re a bigger community. Our family members, our community members are also struggling. But, as Luis said, it is a step in the right direction, and it’s something that we have to celebrate. And then we have to keep fighting for more.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to Trump’s tweet and then what Vice President Biden said, the former vice president, who is running for president against Trump, of course? Trump said this is a “shotgun blast in the face,” and he asked if the Supreme Court likes him anymore. And Biden talked about what he would do on his first day in office. Your response to both, Erika?
ERIKA ANDIOLA: I mean, on the Trump side, you know, I think he — it didn’t work out for him. What he wanted to do was to use DACA recipients as a bargaining chip to try to get his anti-immigrant agenda enacted. And we saw this since the very beginning. In 2017, when he took the program away, the first thing he said, you know, “I have a great heart” for DREAMers — I mean, I still remember the phrase that he used — because he thought that, you know, by taking away the program and then taking it back to Congress and saying, you know, “If you want to support and you want to help DACA recipients, then here’s everything that I want to do with asylum. This is everything that I want to do to cut immigration and get people who I don’t want out of the country.” And so, you know, it didn’t work out for him. And, you know, again, we won. We won against him in court, which is really incredible.
And, you know, on Biden, I understand that there is a need right now to talk about legislation in Congress, and we want Congress to act. But it is important, because we all saw what happened with Obama in — you know, when he was running in 2008, that he was talking about doing immigration reform the first day in office, and he didn’t do it. And he deported 3 million people or more. And so, what we want to hear also from Biden is what is he going to do to undo everything that the Obama administration and the Trump administration have done with the deportation machine, and that he can, in day one, do so much with executive power. And so, we’re hoping that not only is he talking about that and he’s talking about policy, but also that he actually does it, if he’s elected as president.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Erika, talk about what this means for you on the ground. You’re a DACA recipient. I attended your virtual news conference yesterday as you talked about your mother being in deportation proceedings. Can you talk about that and other cases you’re focused on right now?
ERIKA ANDIOLA: Yeah. I mean, you know, I think it’s a big relief for me. It’s a big relief for my little brother, who — you know, we are able to work right now. We’re able to be safe from deportation. But it’s also painful to still experience our family members — you know, my mom is in deportation proceedings. My house was raided in 2013, right after I had gotten my DACA for the first time.
And so, you know, this is a bigger fight. We are fighting right now, you know, to abolish ICE. And we say this all the time, but this is the perfect time for Congress — you know, as we’re talking about defunding the police, that has to happen, too. We’re standing in solidarity with that ask from the Black Lives Matter movement. We want that to happen. And we’re also asking for, you know, ICE to be defunded, as well, as a first step to abolish it. And I think right now even Democrats can do that right now in the House. It is time to start taking money away from a deportation force that is taking our own family members. Even though we’re protected, a lot of — you know, more than 11 million people in this country are not. They’re still vulnerable, like my mom.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Luis Cortes, United We Dream tweeted, “Supreme Court has said new applications must be accepted, but DHS” — the Department of Homeland Security — “has NOT confirmed they are accepting them yet.” What should people do at this point, with this major Supreme Court ruling?
LUIS CORTES: I think the people need to get ready. The initial applications, you know, there are a lot of paperwork you need to show. There’s a lot of evidence that you need to show for initial applications. So, we know that there was a mini-generation that was left out of the DACA program who are now graduating from high school or maybe have already graduated from high school. And so, get your documents ready, would be my very first suggestion. It takes some time. You know, most of the time, DACA applications cannot be prepared in one day, and so get everything ready so that when the agency provides some guidance as to when they’re going to accept applications, which should be soon, then they’ll be ready to do so.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Luis Cortes, we want to thank you for being with us, and congratulations, Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center, DACA recipient, argued — was part of the team that argued the case before the Supreme Court; and Erika Andiola, who is advocacy head of RAICES and has just launched the podcast Homeland Insecurity.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-06-19--Protesters Disrupt McConnell’s Sleep to Protest Police Killing of Breonna Taylor

Dozens of youth protesters descended on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s home Louisville Friday morning armed with bullhorns and banners to disrupt the Kentucky Republican ’ s sleep in order to call for justice for Breonna Taylor and for new leadership .
“ I don ’ t think , especially with our generation , that we ’ ve ever had this chance to take over our future , ” 23-year-old Bowling Green for Peace organizer Derik Overstreet told the Courier Journal .
“ And it ’ s really important that this doesn ’ t turn into a summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this doesn ’ t fade away.
” Demonstrators arrived at McConnell ’ s home in the upscale Cherokee Road area of the Highlands district in Louisville just before 6am .
Carrying signs calling for the police officers who killed Breonna Taylor in the city during a no-knock raid in March to be arrested , the protesters made commotion and delivered speeches outside of the majority leader ’ s home .
Local Sunrise Movement organizer Maxwell Farrar , 29 , said that the demonstration was aimed not only at calling attention to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public in an age of police brutality and racism , the coronavirus pandemic , and economic and climate crisis .
“ We ’ re not here to just complain on the internet , ” said Farrar .
“ We ’ re here to get the solutions we need .
We know , from the hood to the holler , Kentuckians know we need change right now.
” It was unclear at press time whether McConnell was at home at the time of the demonstration .
Sunrise Movement on Twitter called on Kentuckians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state ’ s primary on June 23 to defeat McConnell in the general election set for November .
“ We ’ ve got four days to make him the Democratic nominee , ” the group tweeted .

Dozens of youth protesters descended on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home Louisville Friday morning armed with bullhorns and banners to disrupt the Kentucky Republican’s sleep in order to call for justice for Breonna Taylor and for new leadership.
“I don’t think, especially with our generation, that we’ve ever had this chance to take over our future,” 23-year-old Bowling Green for Peace organizer Derik Overstreet told the Courier Journal. “And it’s really important that this doesn’t turn into a summer trend. It’s really important that this doesn’t fade away.”
Demonstrators arrived at McConnell’s home in the upscale Cherokee Road area of the Highlands district in Louisville just before 6am.
No justice, no sleep Mitch. You let our economy tumble into free-fall, our people be gunned down in the streets by killer cops, & our planet be ravaged by your oil CEO friends. This #Juneteenth , we’re wide awake. In November when we vote you out, maybe you’ll wake up, too. pic.twitter.com/M6sRiNbFDu — Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) June 19, 2020
Carrying signs calling for the police officers who killed Breonna Taylor in the city during a no-knock raid in March to be arrested, the protesters made commotion and delivered speeches outside of the majority leader’s home.
Local Sunrise Movement organizer Maxwell Farrar, 29, said that the demonstration was aimed not only at calling attention to the problems but also the solutions faced by the public in an age of police brutality and racism, the coronavirus pandemic, and economic and climate crisis.
“We’re not here to just complain on the internet,” said Farrar. “We’re here to get the solutions we need. We know, from the hood to the holler, Kentuckians know we need change right now.”
It was unclear at press time whether McConnell was at home at the time of the demonstration.
Sunrise Movement on Twitter called on Kentuckians to support progressive state legislator Charles Booker in the state’s primary on June 23 to defeat McConnell in the general election set for November.
“We’ve got four days to make him the Democratic nominee,” the group tweeted.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-06-19--Trump Says Masks Are Worn to Spite Him, Fauci Warns Against “Anti-Science Bias”

President Donald Trump says he doesn ’ t trust masks or facial coverings , believing they ’ re possibly exacerbating , not limiting , the spread of coronavirus across the United States .
The president made comments indicating his mistrust of masks in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal , which was published this week on Thursday .
Trump said he believes masks and facial coverings don ’ t work to prevent COVID-19 infections because people fidget with them too much .
“ They put their finger on the mask , and they take them off , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touching their nose and their mouth , ” he explained .
“ And then they don ’ t know how they caught it ?
” Trump also told the publication that he believes some Americans who wear masks are doing so out of spite toward him , perhaps to signal disapproval of his presidency more than out of legitimate concern for preventing the spread of the disease .
The president notoriously doesn ’ t wear a mask in public for what appears to be reasons of vanity , telling reporters earlier this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceived while speaking to world leaders if he had a covering on his face .
“ I just don ’ t want to be doing — I don ’ t know , somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk , the great Resolute Desk , I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents , prime ministers , dictators , kings , queens .
I don ’ t know , somehow , I don ’ t see it for myself , ” Trump said in April .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or facial covering runs counter to recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) .
That agency says that masks should be worn whenever possible , if one has to venture out into public .
Yet , in spite of these warnings from the CDC , some have viewed Trump ’ s refusal to wear a mask and have adopted it for themselves , whether out of vanity too , or for a number of other reasons , including as part of a new culture war issue .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters are less likely to wear a facial covering in public than are members of the general public .
Scientific study on the use of masks couldn ’ t be clearer , however — they absolutely work to stop the spread of COVID-19 .
One study found that , between the dates of April 8 and May 15 , between 230,000 and 450,000 cases of the disease may have been prevented due to mandates in areas where masks were required .
Trump and many of his supporters refuse to adhere to what scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Such disdain for science , according to White House coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci , is troubling and becoming too common among Americans overall .
Speaking on the Department of Health and Human Services ’ podcast “ Learning Curve , ” Fauci , who also serves as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said he believes adherence to the advice of health experts ( such as stay-at-home orders in a number of states ) has saved “ millions of lives ” over the past few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science in a general sense , he added .
“ One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately , there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are — for reasons that sometimes are , you know , inconceivable and not understandable — they just don ’ t believe science and they don ’ t believe authority , ” Fauci said on the program .
Fauci has frequently contradicted the president ’ s rosy outlook on coronavirus .
As Trump has suggested over the past few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spite of tens of thousands of Americans contracting it on a daily basis — Fauci has issued more serious warnings about COVID-19 .
“ In a period of four months , it has devastated the whole world .
And it isn ’ t over yet , ” Fauci said last week , with the added warning given that the disease wouldn ’ t “ burn itself out.
” On masks specifically , Fauci is in support of people wearing them when they ’ re out and about , noting in an interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing so might result in dire outcomes .
“ When you have crowds of people together and you have the lack of wearing a mask , that increases the risk of there being transmissibility .
I have no doubt about that , ” Fauci said .

President Donald Trump says he doesn’t trust masks or facial coverings, believing they’re possibly exacerbating, not limiting, the spread of coronavirus across the United States.
The president made comments indicating his mistrust of masks in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, which was published this week on Thursday.
Trump said he believes masks and facial coverings don’t work to prevent COVID-19 infections because people fidget with them too much.
“They put their finger on the mask, and they take them off, and then they start touching their eyes and touching their nose and their mouth,” he explained. “And then they don’t know how they caught it?”
Trump also told the publication that he believes some Americans who wear masks are doing so out of spite toward him, perhaps to signal disapproval of his presidency more than out of legitimate concern for preventing the spread of the disease.
The president notoriously doesn’t wear a mask in public for what appears to be reasons of vanity, telling reporters earlier this year that he worried how he might be perceived while speaking to world leaders if he had a covering on his face.
“I just don’t want to be doing — I don’t know, somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk, the great Resolute Desk, I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens. I don’t know, somehow, I don’t see it for myself,” Trump said in April.
Trump’s refusal to wear a mask or facial covering runs counter to recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That agency says that masks should be worn whenever possible, if one has to venture out into public.
Yet, in spite of these warnings from the CDC, some have viewed Trump’s refusal to wear a mask and have adopted it for themselves, whether out of vanity too, or for a number of other reasons, including as part of a new culture war issue. Indeed, recent polls have found that Trump supporters are less likely to wear a facial covering in public than are members of the general public.
Scientific study on the use of masks couldn’t be clearer, however — they absolutely work to stop the spread of COVID-19. One study found that, between the dates of April 8 and May 15, between 230,000 and 450,000 cases of the disease may have been prevented due to mandates in areas where masks were required.
Trump and many of his supporters refuse to adhere to what scientific research has to say on the issue. Such disdain for science, according to White House coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci, is troubling and becoming too common among Americans overall.
Speaking on the Department of Health and Human Services’ podcast “Learning Curve,” Fauci, who also serves as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said he believes adherence to the advice of health experts (such as stay-at-home orders in a number of states) has saved “millions of lives” over the past few months. But too many do not trust science in a general sense, he added.
“One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are — for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable — they just don’t believe science and they don’t believe authority,” Fauci said on the program.
Fauci has frequently contradicted the president’s rosy outlook on coronavirus. As Trump has suggested over the past few weeks that the disease is diminishing — in spite of tens of thousands of Americans contracting it on a daily basis — Fauci has issued more serious warnings about COVID-19.
“In a period of four months, it has devastated the whole world. And it isn’t over yet,” Fauci said last week, with the added warning given that the disease wouldn’t “burn itself out.”
On masks specifically, Fauci is in support of people wearing them when they’re out and about, noting in an interview earlier this month with CNBC that not doing so might result in dire outcomes.
“When you have crowds of people together and you have the lack of wearing a mask, that increases the risk of there being transmissibility. I have no doubt about that,” Fauci said.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-19--Prisons Are Responding to COVID by Putting More People in Solitary Confinement

Corrections officials are confining people to their cells in prisons , jails , and detention centers at alarming rates in response to COVID-19 , but advocates say the practice risks wider transmission of the disease , and are calling instead for large-scale decarceration .
A report released this week by the Unlock the Box Campaign , a national coalition of legal , medical , and religious groups , found that federal and state prison systems across the country have subjected upward of 300,000 people to solitary confinement in response to the public health crisis .
That count excludes many thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or camps , but not necessarily in their cells , according to Jean Casella , co-director of Solitary Watch , which is part of the coalition .
Many of those trapped in small cells in lockdown — for up to 22 to 24 hours per day , with limited access to mess halls , showers , and common areas — are confined with cellmates , a practice decried by advocates as deadly .
“ We ’ re hoping that what ’ s going on with the pandemic and the protests and the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent changes in our prison system , ” Casella said .
“ But we ’ re in danger of losing the ground that we ’ ve gained in reducing the use of solitary.
” Such measures , according to the report , are not just inhumane and unnecessary , but are most likely contributing to the spread of COVID-19 within prisons and jails , and in the communities around them .
In a Tuesday press call , Brie Williams , founder and director of Amend , a group of medical and public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ San Francisco , said “ the use of indiscriminate solitary confinement in response to COVID-19 deters people from reporting symptoms.
” She added that “ this in turn threatens the health of all those who live and work in the facilities.
” While the report recommends a number of public health measures to reduce the spread of the disease — such as rapid testing to isolate sick people and divide others into “ cohorts ” based on their infection status — the report recommends first and foremost that jails and prisons decarcerate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Releasing people from correctional facilities before the virus spreads further is … the swiftest and surest way of protecting the wider communities to which both incarcerated people and staff will return , ” the report reads .
“ The short stays and high turnover rates in local jails , in particular , mean infections that begin behind bars do not stay there.
” And reducing the number of incarcerated individuals , the report says , will create “ more of the space necessary for social distancing and the health care resources necessary for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as many as 200,000 people enter often cramped , unsanitary U.S. jail facilities and as many leave to re-enter their communities .
In New York City jails , nearly 30 percent of the roughly 20,000 people admitted during the first half of 2019 stayed for four or fewer days .
Staff members also come and go each day , adding to the turnover .
Prisons , which have less frequent turnover but can have similarly unhgyenic conditions , have also become the country ’ s most persistent hot spots , reporting high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A number of jails and prisons around the country have heeded the calls of public health experts to decarcerate .
In April , the state of California temporarily suspended its cash bail system for certain low-level offenses to reduce the number people held pretrial .
In Denver , officials decreased the jail population by as much as 41 percent by letting out medically vulnerable individuals .
In early April , the Bureau of Prisons locked down all of its 122 facilities in response to growing outbreaks inside .
Just two weeks ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its facilities , this time stripping incarcerated people of all communication with the outside world and with a completely new justification : to maintain “ the good order and security ” of federal prisons amid nationwide protests against police brutality .
The surge in the use of isolation is especially alarming to advocates , Casella said on the call , because the movement to abolish solitary confinement has made significant progress over the last decade .
Since 2011 , when the United Nations special rapporteur on torture decried the practice as a form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it has come under scrutiny by President Barack Obama , Pope Francis , Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy , and a growing number of health experts , judges , and lawmakers around the country .
And advocates also say there is reason to fear that isolation implemented as an emergency response to COVID-19 will remain in place long-term .
According to the report ’ s authors , the modern use of solitary confinement can be traced back to the 1980s , when the Bureau of Prisons responded to unrest in facilities with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case of Marion , a federal prison in Illinois that , in 1983 , was put on lockdown following the deaths of three people inside .
The prison remained on lockdown for 23 years , until it was eventually renovated and converted .
“ The COVID crisis could last for years , ” Williams said on the call , adding that the oft-repeated 12- to 18-month timeline for the development of a vaccine is just an estimate .
“ We can ’ t continue doing this , for multiple months and years @ @ @ @

As many as 300,000 people nationwide have been subjected to solitary confinement in response to the coronavirus.
Corrections officials are confining people to their cells in prisons, jails, and detention centers at alarming rates in response to COVID-19, but advocates say the practice risks wider transmission of the disease, and are calling instead for large-scale decarceration.
A report released this week by the Unlock the Box Campaign, a national coalition of legal, medical, and religious groups, found that federal and state prison systems across the country have subjected upward of 300,000 people to solitary confinement in response to the public health crisis. That count excludes many thousands more who are locked down in dorms or camps, but not necessarily in their cells, according to Jean Casella, co-director of Solitary Watch, which is part of the coalition.
Many of those trapped in small cells in lockdown — for up to 22 to 24 hours per day, with limited access to mess halls, showers, and common areas — are confined with cellmates, a practice decried by advocates as deadly.
“We’re hoping that what’s going on with the pandemic and the protests and the pandemic are going to lead to positive and permanent changes in our prison system,” Casella said. “But we’re in danger of losing the ground that we’ve gained in reducing the use of solitary.”
Such measures, according to the report, are not just inhumane and unnecessary, but are most likely contributing to the spread of COVID-19 within prisons and jails, and in the communities around them.
In a Tuesday press call, Brie Williams, founder and director of Amend, a group of medical and public health experts at the University of California, San Francisco, said “the use of indiscriminate solitary confinement in response to COVID-19 deters people from reporting symptoms.” She added that “this in turn threatens the health of all those who live and work in the facilities.”
While the report recommends a number of public health measures to reduce the spread of the disease — such as rapid testing to isolate sick people and divide others into “cohorts” based on their infection status — the report recommends first and foremost that jails and prisons decarcerate, or release people held there.
“Releasing people from correctional facilities before the virus spreads further is … the swiftest and surest way of protecting the wider communities to which both incarcerated people and staff will return,” the report reads. “The short stays and high turnover rates in local jails, in particular, mean infections that begin behind bars do not stay there.”
And reducing the number of incarcerated individuals, the report says, will create “more of the space necessary for social distancing and the health care resources necessary for containing and treating COVID-19.”
Each week, as many as 200,000 people enter often cramped, unsanitary U.S. jail facilities and as many leave to re-enter their communities. In New York City jails, nearly 30 percent of the roughly 20,000 people admitted during the first half of 2019 stayed for four or fewer days. Staff members also come and go each day, adding to the turnover.
Prisons, which have less frequent turnover but can have similarly unhgyenic conditions, have also become the country’s most persistent hot spots, reporting high infection rates even without widespread testing.
A number of jails and prisons around the country have heeded the calls of public health experts to decarcerate. In April, the state of California temporarily suspended its cash bail system for certain low-level offenses to reduce the number people held pretrial. In Denver, officials decreased the jail population by as much as 41 percent by letting out medically vulnerable individuals.
In early April, the Bureau of Prisons locked down all of its 122 facilities in response to growing outbreaks inside. Just two weeks ago, the agency again locked down all of its facilities, this time stripping incarcerated people of all communication with the outside world and with a completely new justification: to maintain “the good order and security” of federal prisons amid nationwide protests against police brutality.
The surge in the use of isolation is especially alarming to advocates, Casella said on the call, because the movement to abolish solitary confinement has made significant progress over the last decade. Since 2011, when the United Nations special rapporteur on torture decried the practice as a form of torture prohibited by human rights law, it has come under scrutiny by President Barack Obama, Pope Francis, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and a growing number of health experts, judges, and lawmakers around the country.
And advocates also say there is reason to fear that isolation implemented as an emergency response to COVID-19 will remain in place long-term. According to the report’s authors, the modern use of solitary confinement can be traced back to the 1980s, when the Bureau of Prisons responded to unrest in facilities with emergency lockdowns.
Casella cited in particular the case of Marion, a federal prison in Illinois that, in 1983, was put on lockdown following the deaths of three people inside. The prison remained on lockdown for 23 years, until it was eventually renovated and converted.
“The COVID crisis could last for years,” Williams said on the call, adding that the oft-repeated 12- to 18-month timeline for the development of a vaccine is just an estimate. “We can’t continue doing this, for multiple months and years on end.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-06-19--Congressional Democrats Supported Violent Force Against Protesters in 2010

The use of lethal force by police , National Guard , and other security forces has come under increasing scrutiny in the wake of the George Floyd killing and resulting uprisings .
Congressional Democrats have begun speaking out against police-perpetrated killings as well as the use of excessive force against protesters and journalists across the country , such as the notorious incident in Lafayette Park across from the White House late last month .
Democrats have rejected the notion that if some members of an initially nonviolent crowd fight back when attacked by security forces , it therefore legitimates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident , much less justifying lethal force .
However , 10 years ago this week , a majority of congressional Democrats went on record defending Israel ’ s killing of 10 passengers and crew on the Mavi Marmara , which was sailing in international waters as part of a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for the besieged Gaza Strip .
The Israelis shot 10 people aboard the ship to death , including five who were not resisting .
Autopsy reports reveal that most of the victims of the Israeli raid were shot in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , Furkan Dogan , a 19-year-old U.S. citizen , was — according to an autopsy and eyewitness accounts , confirmed in a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights — initially shot filming the raid and then fatally shot in the face at point-blank range while lying wounded on the deck .
At least 48 activists suffered gunshot wounds and scores of others were badly beaten .
Israeli commandos initiated the attack on the ship using stun grenades , tear gas , paintballs and rubber-cased steel bullets , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their helicopters prior to Israeli soldiers boarding the ship .
The initial response from those on board was to try to fend off the attackers with water hoses while attempting to form a defensive cordon around the wheelhouse to prevent the attackers from seizing the ship .
Crew used railings and other improvised weapons to defend against the attackers .
Despite this , Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz ( D-Florida ) , former chair of the Democratic National Committee , insisted that , “ The Israeli Navy worked to plan a nonviolent interception of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldiers ’ lives were at risk ” and were attacked “ while trying to peacefully escort this ship to shore.
” Similarly , then-Rep. Gary Peters ( D-Michigan ) , now a U.S. senator , insisted that the killings were all “ acts of self-defense.
” Rep. Mike Quigley ( D-Illinois ) claimed the responsibility for the killings were “ those who chose to run an internationally recognized blockade and attack uniformed personnel.
” Though there were no guns found on board any of the ships , Quigley insisted that the activists “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main ship.
” In a letter to President Barack Obama dated June 17 , 2010 , 329 out of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives referred to Israel ’ s May 31 attack on the unarmed sailors as an act of “ self-defense ” which they “ strongly support.
” Similarly , a June 21 Senate letter — signed by 87 out of 100 senators — went on record “ fully ” supporting what it called “ Israel ’ s right to self-defense.
” The House letter insisted , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Mavi Marmara were shot in the back at point-blank range , that “ Israeli forces used necessary force as an act of self-defense and of last resort.
” Similarly , the Senate letter refers to the murders of passengers and crew resisting the illegal boarding of their vessel in international waters as a situation where the Israeli raiders were “ forced to respond to that attack ” when they “ arrived ” on the ship .
The House letter also claimed that the other ships in the flotilla were “ commandeered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though passengers on the other ships , despite their completely nonviolent resistance , were tasered , brutally beaten , tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets , with House Majority leader Steny Hoyer ( D-Maryland ) insisting “ there was no violence ” on the other ships .
Similarly , the Senate letter insisted that , in spite of these potentially fatal beatings and other assaults , “ Israeli forces were able to safely divert five of the six ships challenging the blockade.
” This tradition of fabricating incidents to justify lethal violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country .
Given the eagerness of congressional Democrats to utilize such deliberate misrepresentations to justify actions by a foreign government , even when it takes the life of a U.S. citizen on the high seas , raises questions as to whether the Democrats are actually serious about transparency and accountability regarding the use of force .
Just as Trump has tried to label nonviolent protesters “ terrorists , ” congressional Democrats made similar false accusations regarding the flotilla .
Organizers and endorsers of the humanitarian aid effort included such reputable U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Peace , Pax Christi , the American Friends Service Committee , Women ’ s International League for Peace and Freedom , the Resource Center for Nonviolence , War Resisters League , Women in Black , and others .
Supporters of this nonviolent effort to bring humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza Strip also included such Israeli groups as Yesh Gvul , Coalition of Women for Peace , New Profile and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions , among others .
Despite this , Rep. Elliot Engel ( D-New York ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee , insisted that the ships were actually “ filled with hate-filled provocateurs bent on violence ” and claimed that the organizers of the flotilla have “ links to Hamas and reportedly played a role in the attempted Millennium bombing in Los Angeles.
” Rep. Jerrold Nadler ( D-New York ) argued that Israel ’ s attack on the unarmed flotilla laden with humanitarian supplies was part of the country ’ s effort to “ defend herself against terrorism.
” Rep. Brad Sherman ( D-California ) , then chair of the House Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nonproliferation and trade , called for the prosecution of U.S. citizens who were involved with or on board the flotilla .
Despite the participation of large numbers of pacifists on the ships , Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-California ) claimed they were “ jihadist provocateurs ” and Engel — who steers the Democratic Party ’ s foreign policy agenda in Congress — claimed that the flotilla “ was really a Trojan Horse designed to attack the Israelis.
” Majority Leader Hoyer ( D-Maryland ) insisted that “ Israel — rightfully so — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preventing the humanitarian supplies from reaching Gaza .
Trump ’ s tweet that the elderly Catholic pacifist assaulted by police in Buffalo , New York , could have been part of what he considers a terrorist group was widely ridiculed .
Yet equally bizarre claims that peace and human rights groups supporting the mission of Mavi Marmara were instead involved in a plot to support terrorism seem to have largely been forgotten .
Democratic politicians ’ calls for transparency in investigations of police-perpetrated killings are also questionable in light of their rejection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flotilla attack .
Despite concerns over a whitewash in the internal Israeli investigation , the Senate letter supported Israel ’ s alleged intention to carry out “ a thorough investigation of the incident , ” insisting that Israel “ has the right to determine how its investigation is conducted.
” Democrats ’ rejection came in spite of a public opinion poll that showed a clear majority of Americans — including 65 percent of Democrats — favored an international inquiry over allowing Israel alone to investigate the circumstances of the attack .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support independent investigations of police misconduct .
A decade later , despite Israel ’ s right-wing prime minister , Benjamin Netanyahu , subsequently apologizing for the attack , it appears that none of the Democrats who made these statements or signed these letters have backed away from their claims .
They have not received much pressure to do so .
Many are in leadership positions in the party and have been repeatedly endorsed by progressive organizations for reelection .
Even this year , despite the heightened awareness of such crimes , groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which are normally highly selective in their endorsements , are still backing such candidates .
The support for the flotilla attack was not simply because these Democrats wanted to appear “ pro-Israel.
” Scores of pro-Israel Democrats refused to sign the letters or defend the attack with no apparent damage to their political careers .
It raises the question , despite recent rhetoric to the contrary , as to whether their support for the Israeli assault constitutes a dangerous attitude about the rights of a government to kill with impunity , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those in uniform , a belief that nonviolent direct action can constitute “ terrorism , ” and rejection of independent accountability .
The denials , rationalizations and false narratives these members of Congress utilized to defend the killings of the activists by the Israeli military are far too similar to those which have been used to defend the murders of Black people by U.S. police .
Across the country , police and city officials are finally being held to account for such cover-ups .
So should these members of Congress .

The use of lethal force by police, National Guard, and other security forces has come under increasing scrutiny in the wake of the George Floyd killing and resulting uprisings. Congressional Democrats have begun speaking out against police-perpetrated killings as well as the use of excessive force against protesters and journalists across the country, such as the notorious incident in Lafayette Park across from the White House late last month.
Democrats have rejected the notion that if some members of an initially nonviolent crowd fight back when attacked by security forces, it therefore legitimates the targeting of protesters or those recording the incident, much less justifying lethal force.
However, 10 years ago this week, a majority of congressional Democrats went on record defending Israel’s killing of 10 passengers and crew on the Mavi Marmara, which was sailing in international waters as part of a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for the besieged Gaza Strip. The Israelis shot 10 people aboard the ship to death, including five who were not resisting. Autopsy reports reveal that most of the victims of the Israeli raid were shot in the head at close range.
One of them, Furkan Dogan, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen, was — according to an autopsy and eyewitness accounts, confirmed in a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights — initially shot filming the raid and then fatally shot in the face at point-blank range while lying wounded on the deck. At least 48 activists suffered gunshot wounds and scores of others were badly beaten.
Israeli commandos initiated the attack on the ship using stun grenades, tear gas, paintballs and rubber-cased steel bullets, with soldiers firing down on the activists from their helicopters prior to Israeli soldiers boarding the ship. The initial response from those on board was to try to fend off the attackers with water hoses while attempting to form a defensive cordon around the wheelhouse to prevent the attackers from seizing the ship. Crew used railings and other improvised weapons to defend against the attackers. Despite this, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-Florida), former chair of the Democratic National Committee, insisted that, “The Israeli Navy worked to plan a nonviolent interception of the flotilla and only used force when soldiers’ lives were at risk” and were attacked “while trying to peacefully escort this ship to shore.”
Similarly, then-Rep. Gary Peters (D-Michigan), now a U.S. senator, insisted that the killings were all “acts of self-defense.” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Illinois) claimed the responsibility for the killings were “those who chose to run an internationally recognized blockade and attack uniformed personnel.” Though there were no guns found on board any of the ships, Quigley insisted that the activists “shot Israeli soldiers as they landed on the main ship.”
In a letter to President Barack Obama dated June 17, 2010, 329 out of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives referred to Israel’s May 31 attack on the unarmed sailors as an act of “self-defense” which they “strongly support.” Similarly, a June 21 Senate letter — signed by 87 out of 100 senators — went on record “fully” supporting what it called “Israel’s right to self-defense.”
The House letter insisted, despite the fact that several of those killed on the Mavi Marmara were shot in the back at point-blank range, that “Israeli forces used necessary force as an act of self-defense and of last resort.” Similarly, the Senate letter refers to the murders of passengers and crew resisting the illegal boarding of their vessel in international waters as a situation where the Israeli raiders were “forced to respond to that attack” when they “arrived” on the ship.
The eagerness of congressional Democrats to utilize such deliberate misrepresentations to justify actions by a foreign government raises questions as to whether the Democrats are actually serious about transparency and accountability regarding the use of force.
The House letter also claimed that the other ships in the flotilla were “commandeered peacefully and without incident,” even though passengers on the other ships, despite their completely nonviolent resistance, were tasered, brutally beaten, tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets, with House Majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) insisting “there was no violence” on the other ships. Similarly, the Senate letter insisted that, in spite of these potentially fatal beatings and other assaults, “Israeli forces were able to safely divert five of the six ships challenging the blockade.”
This tradition of fabricating incidents to justify lethal violence is also regularly used by police departments across the country. Given the eagerness of congressional Democrats to utilize such deliberate misrepresentations to justify actions by a foreign government, even when it takes the life of a U.S. citizen on the high seas, raises questions as to whether the Democrats are actually serious about transparency and accountability regarding the use of force.
Just as Trump has tried to label nonviolent protesters “terrorists,” congressional Democrats made similar false accusations regarding the flotilla. Organizers and endorsers of the humanitarian aid effort included such reputable U.S. peace groups as CODEPINK, Jewish Voice for Peace, Pax Christi, the American Friends Service Committee, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the Resource Center for Nonviolence, War Resisters League, Women in Black, and others.
Supporters of this nonviolent effort to bring humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza Strip also included such Israeli groups as Yesh Gvul, Coalition of Women for Peace, New Profile and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, among others.
Despite this, Rep. Elliot Engel (D-New York), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, insisted that the ships were actually “filled with hate-filled provocateurs bent on violence” and claimed that the organizers of the flotilla have “links to Hamas and reportedly played a role in the attempted Millennium bombing in Los Angeles.” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) argued that Israel’s attack on the unarmed flotilla laden with humanitarian supplies was part of the country’s effort to “defend herself against terrorism.” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California), then chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade, called for the prosecution of U.S. citizens who were involved with or on board the flotilla.
Despite the participation of large numbers of pacifists on the ships, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) claimed they were “jihadist provocateurs” and Engel — who steers the Democratic Party’s foreign policy agenda in Congress — claimed that the flotilla “was really a Trojan Horse designed to attack the Israelis.” Majority Leader Hoyer (D-Maryland) insisted that “Israel — rightfully so — invoked its right to self-defense” by preventing the humanitarian supplies from reaching Gaza.
Trump’s tweet that the elderly Catholic pacifist assaulted by police in Buffalo, New York, could have been part of what he considers a terrorist group was widely ridiculed. Yet equally bizarre claims that peace and human rights groups supporting the mission of Mavi Marmara were instead involved in a plot to support terrorism seem to have largely been forgotten.
Democratic politicians’ calls for transparency in investigations of police-perpetrated killings are also questionable in light of their rejection of a UN or other impartial investigation of the flotilla attack. Despite concerns over a whitewash in the internal Israeli investigation, the Senate letter supported Israel’s alleged intention to carry out “a thorough investigation of the incident,” insisting that Israel “has the right to determine how its investigation is conducted.”
Democrats’ rejection came in spite of a public opinion poll that showed a clear majority of Americans — including 65 percent of Democrats — favored an international inquiry over allowing Israel alone to investigate the circumstances of the attack. This raises questions as to whether Democrats actually support independent investigations of police misconduct.
A decade later, despite Israel’s right-wing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, subsequently apologizing for the attack, it appears that none of the Democrats who made these statements or signed these letters have backed away from their claims. They have not received much pressure to do so. Many are in leadership positions in the party and have been repeatedly endorsed by progressive organizations for reelection. Even this year, despite the heightened awareness of such crimes, groups like Progressive Democrats of America and Peace Action, which are normally highly selective in their endorsements, are still backing such candidates.
The support for the flotilla attack was not simply because these Democrats wanted to appear “pro-Israel.” Scores of pro-Israel Democrats refused to sign the letters or defend the attack with no apparent damage to their political careers. It raises the question, despite recent rhetoric to the contrary, as to whether their support for the Israeli assault constitutes a dangerous attitude about the rights of a government to kill with impunity, an expansive definition of “self-defense” by those in uniform, a belief that nonviolent direct action can constitute “terrorism,” and rejection of independent accountability.
The denials, rationalizations and false narratives these members of Congress utilized to defend the killings of the activists by the Israeli military are far too similar to those which have been used to defend the murders of Black people by U.S. police. Across the country, police and city officials are finally being held to account for such cover-ups. So should these members of Congress.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.