democracynow--2020-09-09--175 Years in a U.S. Prison? Extradition Trial of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Begins in London

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to turn right now to London .
This week , WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is appearing in court for the first time in six months , after his extradition hearing was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic .
Assange has been held in London ’ s high-security Belmarsh prison since he was arrested in April 2019 at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London , where he had taken refuge for almost seven years .
As Assange arrived at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 new charges from a U.S. indictment filed in June .
Assange is wanted in the United States for exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan .
He faces 175 years for espionage and hacking charges .
On Tuesday , the proceedings were briefly adjourned after Assange shouted , quote , “ Nonsense !
” as James Lewis , a lawyer acting for the U.S. government , told a witness that Assange was facing extradition proceedings over the publication of the names of informants , and not for handling leaked documents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clive Stafford Smith testifying that documents published by WikiLeaks had exposed , quote , “ grave violations of law , ” such as targeted U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan .
The judge warned Assange he would be removed from the courtroom if he yelled again .
Protests in defense of Assange and press freedom have taken place in London and in cities around the world .
This is Julian Assange ’ s father , John Shipton , speaking Monday as he left the London courthouse .
AMY GOODMAN : For more , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jennifer Robinson , the human rights attorney who ’ s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010 .
She ’ s joining us during the court ’ s lunch break right outside the courthouse .
Jen Robinson , welcome back to Democracy Now !
You are seeing Julian Assange for the first time in six months .
He ’ s been at the high-security Belmarsh prison for a year and a half , and then under lockdown because of COVID .
Can you describe , well , what it ’ s like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time and what these charges are against him , including the new ones that were just brought ?
So , we saw Julian for the first time in six months as a result of the COVID shutdown .
He hasn ’ t had any social or legal visits since the pandemic broke out , which has left him incredibly isolated in prison .
And it was surprising to us to see that he has lost a lot of weight .
And we , of course , have continuing concerns about his health , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside the embassy and now in a high-security prison in these circumstances .
Of course , you mentioned in your opening that we now have had not one , but two superseding indictments .
He was arrested on a second superseding indictment on Monday that the Department of Justice issued in June .
We were first told that it made no substantive difference , and we ’ re now told that those new allegations , which include allegations related to Edward Snowden , providing assistance to the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden , now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form part of separate criminal allegations if he is returned to the United States .
This is part of what we say the U.S. government is trying to shift the goalposts , as it were .
We heard from our defense counsel in court on Monday that , of course , this is perhaps in response to the strength of our case that the U.S. government is now shifting and changing its case , almost 18 months after they started and after the closing and submission of evidence from both parties .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process in any kind of extradition case , and certainly one as unprecedented as this .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Jennifer Robinson , what about these new hacking allegations , bringing them so late in the process here as the hearing has started ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : I think adding these additional , quote , “ hacking ” allegations , which are general and questionable and , of course , are denied by Mr. Assange , I think is the Department of Justice ’ s attempt to try and shift the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , the evidence that we ’ ve heard this week and seen in the publications around the world , evidence of war crimes , human rights abuse , corruption the world over .
It is a clear press freedom case .
And the attempts by the Department of Justice to somehow create this as a hacking case , when there is absolutely no evidence of any hacking by Mr. Assange , I think , demonstrates their desire to move away from the important issues on press freedom .
We ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — in the evidence this week from Clive Stafford Smith , the founder of Reprieve , about the importance of WikiLeaks ’ disclosures about U.S. extraordinary rendition , torture , and , importantly , drone strikes and extrajudicial killings in Pakistan , and how those disclosures have been essential in his work , both in terms of holding the U.S. government accountable for those actions in Pakistan , but also with respect to his Guantánamo litigation in the United States .
We ’ ve also heard evidence from professor Mark Feldstein about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment that this case represents and the history of the Espionage Act being threatened against journalists by various presidents , including Roosevelt and Nixon , and now , in this case , by President Trump himself .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Specifically , you mentioned Mark Feldstein ’ s testimony and the evidence he presented .
One of the interesting things , as I ’ ve reviewed that statement of his , was not only his historical look at how the press in America for many — really , for a couple of hundred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he also talks about how the First Amendment doesn ’ t protect the press as an industry , but as a technology .
Could you — for our viewers and listeners who are not aware of professor Feldstein ’ s testimony , could you elaborate on that portion of his evidence ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Well , Professor Feldstein explained at some length the importance of the First Amendment and how it protects every American citizen and any person within U.S. jurisdiction , their ability to — their free speech .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media ’ s ability to communicate with sources , receive information and publish it in the public interest .
What we ’ re seeing — what he pointed out about the danger of this particular case is the breakdown of the distinction between sources and journalists .
So , we ’ ve often seen that sources who make unlawful or unauthorized disclosures are prosecuted and can face criminal prosecution as a result of their disclosures .
But historically , that has never been directed at the media .
The First Amendment is understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishing that information in the public interest , which is exactly what WikiLeaks did .
And in this case , what the Trump administration is alleging is that Julian Assange , by virtue of having communications with Chelsea Manning , receiving information from Chelsea Manning and publishing that information , is somehow conspiring and is conspiring in the underlying criminal act .
And we ’ ve seen this same prosecution strategy now rolled out in Brazil by President Bolsonaro against Glenn Greenwald .
That ’ s why this is so dangerous , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists engage in all day , every day , across the United States and elsewhere around the world , which is why The New York Times and The Washington Post have both , in their editorials , said that this is criminalizing public interest journalism and news gathering practices that have been used for decades .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to explain to people that Jen Robinson is standing outside the courtroom at the lunch break , and there are many protesters who are there , as there have been protesters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange is in the midst of a month-long extradition hearing , whether he will be extradited to the United States .
We wanted to turn to Julian in his own words .
We haven ’ t been able to speak to him in Belmarsh prison , but I went to London and interviewed him when he had political exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2015 .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Julian Assange inside the Ecuadoran Embassy before he was taken a year and half ago by British police and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is Nils Melzer , the United Nations special rapporteur on torture , who visited Julian last year in London ’ s high-security Belmarsh prison .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Nils Melzer , the United Nations special rapporteur on torture , who visited Assange at Belmarsh .
Jen Robinson , for people who aren ’ t familiar with Julian Assange ’ s case , if you can talk about what he is — the underlying charges here , where Britain will decide whether to extradite him to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ?
What was it that WikiLeaks released , the millions of documents around Afghanistan , Iraq , etc.
?
And what was Chelsea Manning ’ s role in this , and the significance of what she did ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Well , Julian has been charged under the Espionage Act , the first time in the history of the United States , for receiving , publishing — receiving and publishing classified U.S. information .
That includes the “ Collateral Murder ” publication , the Iraq rules of engagement , which demonstrates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iraq and Afghan war logs , which demonstrated that the United States government was not sharing the truth about what was actually happening in those conflicts , including the killing of more than 15,000 civilians in the context of the Iraq War .
And he ’ s also being prosecuted in relation to the State Department cables and the publication of those cables , which revealed human rights abuse and corruption the world over .
These are incredibly important publications , for which he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism .
And he faces 175 years in prison for doing his job as a journalist and as a publisher .
That ’ s why this case is so dangerous .
And as you ’ ll be hearing , the evidence that will be heard over the next four weeks is from journalists , from NGOs , such as Reprieve — is what we heard from yesterday — talking about the importance of these leaks , how they ’ ve been used in terms of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation , in terms of holding governments to account for their wrongdoing , and more evidence also about the prison conditions that Julian will face if he is in fact returned to the United States to face prosecution .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Jen Robinson , could you talk about the fact that it was President Trump , when he was running for president , as a candidate , actually said in public statements that he loved WikiLeaks , and he urged them , if they had information on the Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to release them , that now it is the Trump administration that is seeking to prosecute him and extradite him back to the United States ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : That ’ s right .
There ’ s certainly been a change in approach from President Trump , from prior to being elected and now in his role as president .
What we saw was a change in position from the Trump administration .
We now know that there was no indictment under the Obama administration .
Of course , that whole process was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the indictment was not issued until well into the Trump administration .
And we had indications that the Trump administration was going to take a different approach , when Mike Pompeo , as head of the CIA , declared that WikiLeaks is a hostile nonstate intelligence agency and that they would be working to take WikiLeaks down and that Julian ought not benefit from First Amendment protections , followed very quickly by statements by the attorney general , Jeff Sessions , saying it was a priority to prosecute WikiLeaks .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that .
We see an indictment where Julian faces 175 years in prison .
This is part of , we say , the Trump administration ’ s attack on journalism , and war on whistleblowers and journalism .
And it is a precedent that will be used against journalists not just in the United States , but journalists around the world , because the most dangerous thing about this — and a position that the United States attorney has made clear in his evidence before this court — is that not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jurisdiction over journalists and publishers outside of the United States for publishing information about the United States , they are also saying that they will exercise that jurisdiction , but at the same time foreign publishers and journalists will not benefit and should not benefit from First Amendment protections .
And that should be very concerning for journalists everywhere around the world .
AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , many of the news organizations in the United States worked with Julian Assange , like The New York Times , like The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq and Afghanistan .
Have they come out to the extent that you would like to see , and would it make a difference ?
As well , if you can talk about what you expect to see over this month ?
Is Daniel Ellsberg testifying today , one of the most famous whistleblowers in the world ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : That ’ s correct .
So , we will be seeing over the next four weeks evidence from a number of experts on the free speech implications of this indictment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his own experience as the leaker of the Pentagon Papers .
We ’ ll be hearing evidence from expert witnesses about the nature of the grand jury process , the nature of the U.S. prosecution process and the prison conditions inside prison .
AMY GOODMAN : And the role of U.S. press , so significant because it ’ s the U.S. that ’ s seeking the extradition of Julian Assange , again , for which he would face 175 years in prison ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Historically , I think the position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ ve been saying since 2010 that this was a risk and that if this precedent would be sought as against WikiLeaks , it could be used against The New York Times and other media organizations and journalists .
But since this indictment was issued by the Trump administration , we ’ ve seen unanimous responses , from The Washington Post , from The New York Times , from news organizations and free speech NGOs the world over , that this is a dangerous precedent for journalism and for freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be released immediately .
We ’ ve had a resolution from the Council of Europe calling on the U.K. to release Julian because of the danger of this precedent for press freedom .
So , I think that it is true to say that there is , I think , a chorus of mainstream media organizations , NGOs , and indeed some governments , that say that this case is dangerous and it ought to be shut down .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Jen Robinson , how is Julian Assange ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation in the prison with COVID and the potential for him to be exposed ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Well , as I explained , we haven ’ t been able to visit him in prison since the pandemic broke out .
All social and legal visits were canceled , which means he ’ s been even more isolated than he was before in this high-security prison .
Because of his long-term — having been effectively in prison long-term , his seven-and-a-half years inside the embassy and now inside the prison , he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with other health concerns , which make him particularly susceptible to COVID .
It has been difficult to even have videoconferencing with him , because of his doctor ’ s advice that he shouldn ’ t be moving within the prison because of the risk of contracting COVID .
And there have , in fact , been a number of deaths , COVID deaths , inside the British prisons since the outbreak of the pandemic .
So , we ’ ve been very concerned about his health from a pandemic perspective , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a result of this long-term imprisonment .
And it ’ s very unusual .
This is a publisher who is being held on remand in a high-security prison because of an indictment and an extradition request from the Trump administration .
You know , it is having a serious impact on his health .
And we will be hearing further evidence , psychiatric evidence , about the impact this has had on Julian , and what will happen to him and the doctor ’ s concerns for him , if he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AMY GOODMAN : Is there any discussion between your team , Julian Assange ’ s legal team , and the Trump administration over a pardon ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : That will be the subject of evidence in these proceedings , so you ’ ll have to wait to see what happens in court .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we , of course , will continue to follow the case of Julian Assange .
He has been in captivity , either in political exile inside the Ecuadorian Embassy or at the high-security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this point , the last six months in almost total lockdown at the high-security prison because of the pandemic .
We ’ ll continue to cover this case .
Jennifer Robinson , human rights attorney who ’ s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010 , speaking to us right outside the courthouse during the lunch break of the case around Julian Assange .
When we come back , we look at how decades of U.S. military intervention in Central America has led to the ongoing migrant crisis .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lovato , author of the new book Unforgetting .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to turn right now to London. This week, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is appearing in court for the first time in six months, after his extradition hearing was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Assange has been held in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison since he was arrested in April 2019 at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, where he had taken refuge for almost seven years. As Assange arrived at the courthouse Monday, he was arrested on 18 new charges from a U.S. indictment filed in June. Assange is wanted in the United States for exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. He faces 175 years for espionage and hacking charges.
On Tuesday, the proceedings were briefly adjourned after Assange shouted, quote, “Nonsense!” as James Lewis, a lawyer acting for the U.S. government, told a witness that Assange was facing extradition proceedings over the publication of the names of informants, and not for handling leaked documents. The comment was a response to witness Clive Stafford Smith testifying that documents published by WikiLeaks had exposed, quote, “grave violations of law,” such as targeted U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. The judge warned Assange he would be removed from the courtroom if he yelled again.
Protests in defense of Assange and press freedom have taken place in London and in cities around the world. This is Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, speaking Monday as he left the London courthouse.
JOHN SHIPTON: I think the case is a fraud against the court. That’s what I think: fraud against the court applied by the American Department of Justice. Julian is an Australian citizen. The publications are in the United Kingdom. And yet he is kidnapped and judicially abducted to the United States to spend 175 years in jail.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to London for an update from Jennifer Robinson, the human rights attorney who’s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010. She’s joining us during the court’s lunch break right outside the courthouse.
Jen Robinson, welcome back to Democracy Now! You are seeing Julian Assange for the first time in six months. He’s been at the high-security Belmarsh prison for a year and a half, and then under lockdown because of COVID. Can you describe, well, what it’s like to see him now for the first time and what these charges are against him, including the new ones that were just brought?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Good morning, Amy.
So, we saw Julian for the first time in six months as a result of the COVID shutdown. He hasn’t had any social or legal visits since the pandemic broke out, which has left him incredibly isolated in prison. And it was surprising to us to see that he has lost a lot of weight. And we, of course, have continuing concerns about his health, given the long-term impacts of being both inside the embassy and now in a high-security prison in these circumstances.
Of course, you mentioned in your opening that we now have had not one, but two superseding indictments. He was arrested on a second superseding indictment on Monday that the Department of Justice issued in June. We were first told that it made no substantive difference, and we’re now told that those new allegations, which include allegations related to Edward Snowden, providing assistance to the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, now are part of the case and could form part of separate criminal allegations if he is returned to the United States.
This is part of what we say the U.S. government is trying to shift the goalposts, as it were. We heard from our defense counsel in court on Monday that, of course, this is perhaps in response to the strength of our case that the U.S. government is now shifting and changing its case, almost 18 months after they started and after the closing and submission of evidence from both parties. It is a very unusual and highly irregular process in any kind of extradition case, and certainly one as unprecedented as this.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jennifer Robinson, what about these new hacking allegations, bringing them so late in the process here as the hearing has started?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think adding these additional, quote, “hacking” allegations, which are general and questionable and, of course, are denied by Mr. Assange, I think is the Department of Justice’s attempt to try and shift the case away from the Manning disclosures and, of course, the evidence that we’ve heard this week and seen in the publications around the world, evidence of war crimes, human rights abuse, corruption the world over. It is a clear press freedom case. And the attempts by the Department of Justice to somehow create this as a hacking case, when there is absolutely no evidence of any hacking by Mr. Assange, I think, demonstrates their desire to move away from the important issues on press freedom.
We’ve heard already in the evidence this case — in the evidence this week from Clive Stafford Smith, the founder of Reprieve, about the importance of WikiLeaks’ disclosures about U.S. extraordinary rendition, torture, and, importantly, drone strikes and extrajudicial killings in Pakistan, and how those disclosures have been essential in his work, both in terms of holding the U.S. government accountable for those actions in Pakistan, but also with respect to his Guantánamo litigation in the United States.
We’ve also heard evidence from professor Mark Feldstein about the unprecedented nature of the attack on First Amendment that this case represents and the history of the Espionage Act being threatened against journalists by various presidents, including Roosevelt and Nixon, and now, in this case, by President Trump himself.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Specifically, you mentioned Mark Feldstein’s testimony and the evidence he presented. One of the interesting things, as I’ve reviewed that statement of his, was not only his historical look at how the press in America for many — really, for a couple of hundred years was a highly partisan press, but he also talks about how the First Amendment doesn’t protect the press as an industry, but as a technology. Could you — for our viewers and listeners who are not aware of professor Feldstein’s testimony, could you elaborate on that portion of his evidence?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, Professor Feldstein explained at some length the importance of the First Amendment and how it protects every American citizen and any person within U.S. jurisdiction, their ability to — their free speech. And, of course, it protects the media’s ability to communicate with sources, receive information and publish it in the public interest.
What we’re seeing — what he pointed out about the danger of this particular case is the breakdown of the distinction between sources and journalists. So, we’ve often seen that sources who make unlawful or unauthorized disclosures are prosecuted and can face criminal prosecution as a result of their disclosures. But historically, that has never been directed at the media. The First Amendment is understood to protect the media in receiving and publishing that information in the public interest, which is exactly what WikiLeaks did. And in this case, what the Trump administration is alleging is that Julian Assange, by virtue of having communications with Chelsea Manning, receiving information from Chelsea Manning and publishing that information, is somehow conspiring and is conspiring in the underlying criminal act.
And we’ve seen this same prosecution strategy now rolled out in Brazil by President Bolsonaro against Glenn Greenwald. That’s why this is so dangerous, because this is the kind of activity that journalists engage in all day, every day, across the United States and elsewhere around the world, which is why The New York Times and The Washington Post have both, in their editorials, said that this is criminalizing public interest journalism and news gathering practices that have been used for decades.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to explain to people that Jen Robinson is standing outside the courtroom at the lunch break, and there are many protesters who are there, as there have been protesters in cities around the world, as Julian Assange is in the midst of a month-long extradition hearing, whether he will be extradited to the United States. We wanted to turn to Julian in his own words. We haven’t been able to speak to him in Belmarsh prison, but I went to London and interviewed him when he had political exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2015.
JULIAN ASSANGE: The U.S. government, in terms of its attack on WikiLeaks, has tried to construct a theory which, if permitted, will be the end of national security journalism, not just in the United States, but also about the United States. That claim is that journalists can’t solicit information from sources and to solicit information is to be involved in a conspiracy. And —
AMY GOODMAN: An accomplice to the conspiracy.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah. And the United States, in terms of the charge types that it’s trying to charge me with — those include conspiracy and conspiracy to commit espionage — this is rubbish. We cannot tolerate this at the political level or the media level.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Julian Assange inside the Ecuadoran Embassy before he was taken a year and half ago by British police and he was put in the Belmarsh prison. This is Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, who visited Julian last year in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison.
NILS MELZER: I spoke with him for an hour just to get a good first impression. Then we had a physical examination for an hour by our forensic expert, and then we had the two-hour psychiatric examination. And all three of us had the same impression — and, well, I had certainly an impression, and the medical doctors had a diagnosis, that they — we all came to the conclusion that he showed all the symptoms that are typical for a person that has been exposed to psychological torture over an extended period of time.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, who visited Assange at Belmarsh. Jen Robinson, for people who aren’t familiar with Julian Assange’s case, if you can talk about what he is — the underlying charges here, where Britain will decide whether to extradite him to the United States, where he faces 175 years? What was it that WikiLeaks released, the millions of documents around Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? And what was Chelsea Manning’s role in this, and the significance of what she did?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, Julian has been charged under the Espionage Act, the first time in the history of the United States, for receiving, publishing — receiving and publishing classified U.S. information. That includes the “Collateral Murder” publication, the Iraq rules of engagement, which demonstrates war crimes in Iraq. It includes the Iraq and Afghan war logs, which demonstrated that the United States government was not sharing the truth about what was actually happening in those conflicts, including the killing of more than 15,000 civilians in the context of the Iraq War. And he’s also being prosecuted in relation to the State Department cables and the publication of those cables, which revealed human rights abuse and corruption the world over.
These are incredibly important publications, for which he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the Sydney Peace Prize, won the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism. And he faces 175 years in prison for doing his job as a journalist and as a publisher. That’s why this case is so dangerous.
And as you’ll be hearing, the evidence that will be heard over the next four weeks is from journalists, from NGOs, such as Reprieve — is what we heard from yesterday — talking about the importance of these leaks, how they’ve been used in terms of political movements, in terms of human rights litigation, in terms of holding governments to account for their wrongdoing, and more evidence also about the prison conditions that Julian will face if he is in fact returned to the United States to face prosecution.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jen Robinson, could you talk about the fact that it was President Trump, when he was running for president, as a candidate, actually said in public statements that he loved WikiLeaks, and he urged them, if they had information on the Hillary Clinton emails, the supposed disappeared emails, to release them, that now it is the Trump administration that is seeking to prosecute him and extradite him back to the United States?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: That’s right. There’s certainly been a change in approach from President Trump, from prior to being elected and now in his role as president. What we saw was a change in position from the Trump administration. We now know that there was no indictment under the Obama administration. Of course, that whole process was secret because of the grand jury process. But the indictment was not issued until well into the Trump administration.
And we had indications that the Trump administration was going to take a different approach, when Mike Pompeo, as head of the CIA, declared that WikiLeaks is a hostile nonstate intelligence agency and that they would be working to take WikiLeaks down and that Julian ought not benefit from First Amendment protections, followed very quickly by statements by the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, saying it was a priority to prosecute WikiLeaks. And now we’ve seen the outcome of that. We see an indictment where Julian faces 175 years in prison.
This is part of, we say, the Trump administration’s attack on journalism, and war on whistleblowers and journalism. And it is a precedent that will be used against journalists not just in the United States, but journalists around the world, because the most dangerous thing about this — and a position that the United States attorney has made clear in his evidence before this court — is that not only is the U.S. government seeking to exercise jurisdiction over journalists and publishers outside of the United States for publishing information about the United States, they are also saying that they will exercise that jurisdiction, but at the same time foreign publishers and journalists will not benefit and should not benefit from First Amendment protections. And that should be very concerning for journalists everywhere around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, many of the news organizations in the United States worked with Julian Assange, like The New York Times, like The Washington Post, in exposing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have they come out to the extent that you would like to see, and would it make a difference? As well, if you can talk about what you expect to see over this month? Is Daniel Ellsberg testifying today, one of the most famous whistleblowers in the world?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: That’s correct. So, we will be seeing over the next four weeks evidence from a number of experts on the free speech implications of this indictment. Daniel Ellsberg will also be giving evidence about his own experience as the leaker of the Pentagon Papers. We’ll be hearing evidence from expert witnesses about the nature of the grand jury process, the nature of the U.S. prosecution process and the prison conditions inside prison.
AMY GOODMAN: And the role of U.S. press, so significant because it’s the U.S. that’s seeking the extradition of Julian Assange, again, for which he would face 175 years in prison?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Historically, I think the position of the U.S. press has been disappointing. We’ve been saying since 2010 that this was a risk and that if this precedent would be sought as against WikiLeaks, it could be used against The New York Times and other media organizations and journalists. But since this indictment was issued by the Trump administration, we’ve seen unanimous responses, from The Washington Post, from The New York Times, from news organizations and free speech NGOs the world over, that this is a dangerous precedent for journalism and for freedom of the press, and that Julian ought to be released immediately. We’ve had a resolution from the Council of Europe calling on the U.K. to release Julian because of the danger of this precedent for press freedom. So, I think that it is true to say that there is, I think, a chorus of mainstream media organizations, NGOs, and indeed some governments, that say that this case is dangerous and it ought to be shut down.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jen Robinson, how is Julian Assange’s health? What’s the situation in the prison with COVID and the potential for him to be exposed?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, as I explained, we haven’t been able to visit him in prison since the pandemic broke out. All social and legal visits were canceled, which means he’s been even more isolated than he was before in this high-security prison.
Because of his long-term — having been effectively in prison long-term, his seven-and-a-half years inside the embassy and now inside the prison, he has a number of respiratory issues, along with other health concerns, which make him particularly susceptible to COVID. It has been difficult to even have videoconferencing with him, because of his doctor’s advice that he shouldn’t be moving within the prison because of the risk of contracting COVID. And there have, in fact, been a number of deaths, COVID deaths, inside the British prisons since the outbreak of the pandemic. So, we’ve been very concerned about his health from a pandemic perspective, but also seeing a decline in his health as a result of this long-term imprisonment.
And it’s very unusual. This is a publisher who is being held on remand in a high-security prison because of an indictment and an extradition request from the Trump administration. You know, it is having a serious impact on his health. And we will be hearing further evidence, psychiatric evidence, about the impact this has had on Julian, and what will happen to him and the doctor’s concerns for him, if he is returned to prison in the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Is there any discussion between your team, Julian Assange’s legal team, and the Trump administration over a pardon?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: That will be the subject of evidence in these proceedings, so you’ll have to wait to see what happens in court.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we, of course, will continue to follow the case of Julian Assange. He has been in captivity, either in political exile inside the Ecuadorian Embassy or at the high-security Belmarsh prison, for over eight years at this point, the last six months in almost total lockdown at the high-security prison because of the pandemic. We’ll continue to cover this case. Jennifer Robinson, human rights attorney who’s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010, speaking to us right outside the courthouse during the lunch break of the case around Julian Assange.
When we come back, we look at how decades of U.S. military intervention in Central America has led to the ongoing migrant crisis. We’ll speak with Salvadoran American journalist Roberto Lovato, author of the new book Unforgetting. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-09-09--Headlines for September  9, 2020

Headlines for September  9, 2020

In California , three firefighters are fighting for their lives after a massive fire tore through their station at the @ @ @ @ @ .
They were among 14 firefighters who deployed emergency shelters as flames overtook their position @ @ @ @ @ just one of at least 85 raging across the West Coast — with red flag @ @ @ @ @ the Canadian border in Washington state .
Fires this year have burned more than 2 @ @ @ @ @ even before the start of September and October , historically the state ’ s worst @ @ @ @ @ Governor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday his state needed to adapt to the realities of the @ @ @ @ @ Gavin Newsom : “ But I quite literally have no patience for climate change deniers @ @ @ @ @ completely inconsistent , that point of view , with the reality on the ground , @ @ @ @ @ experiencing .
You may not believe it intellectually , but your own eyes , your @ @ @ @ @ story .
”

In California, three firefighters are fighting for their lives after a massive fire tore through their station at the Los Padres National Forest overnight. They were among 14 firefighters who deployed emergency shelters as flames overtook their position. The Dolan Fire is just one of at least 85 raging across the West Coast — with red flag warnings from San Diego to the Canadian border in Washington state.
Fires this year have burned more than 2 million acres across California — even before the start of September and October, historically the state’s worst months for fires. California Governor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday his state needed to adapt to the realities of the climate crisis.


democracynow--2020-09-10--"Democratic Public Health": Big Pharma Relies on Developing World While Limiting Access to Treatment

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh , as we continue to look at medical experimentation and also how COVID-19 vaccine trials are unfolding globally .
On Wednesday , India reported nearly 96,000 new COVID cases , a new daily record , just two days after it surpassed Brazil as the country second hardest hit by the virus , after the United States .
This comes as the Indian company enlisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s experimental COVID-19 vaccine is pushing ahead with its own clinical trial , even as safety concerns led the British drugmaker to halt its tests this week .
For more , we are also joined by Kaushik Sunder Rajan , professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago , author of the book Pharmocracy : Value , Politics , and Knowledge in Global Biomedicine .
And we ’ re still joined by Harriet Washington , the medical ethicist , author of Medical Apartheid : The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before we are also talking to Professor Rajan , Harriet Washington , you mentioned Pfizer in Nigeria .
It ’ s a notorious 1996 drug experiment that Pfizer conducted on sick children in Nigeria , when researchers selected 200 children at an epidemic hospital for an experimental trial .
About a hundred of the kids were given an untested oral version of the antibiotic Trovan .
Researchers did not obtain signed consent forms .
Medical personnel said Pfizer did not tell their parents their children were getting the experimental drug .
Eleven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including deafness , muteness , paralysis , brain damage , loss of sight , slurred speech .
After an 11-year legal battle , Pfizer paid compensation to four families .
About 10 years ago , we spoke to Musikilu Mojeed , a Nigerian journalist who worked on this story for the NEXT newspaper in Lagos .
He described what Pfizer did in Nigeria .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Musikilu Mojeed , a Nigerian journalist who worked on this issue .
Medical apartheid , global , I guess you could say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think this is such a critical experiment for us to understand today .
HARRIET WASHINGTON : Well , it ’ s actually one of many .
Research design in the developing world is supposed to be governed by the same laws as the U.S .
Researchers are supposed to adhere to U.S. law .
The problem is , there ’ s little or no oversight .
We only take researchers ’ word that they are conforming and making sure there ’ s informed consent .
And abuses such as happened in Kano , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie .
A doctor admitted having deceitfully claimed that there had been the certification that was required .
They forged the form after the research was already conducted .
And so , abuses abound because there ’ s very little oversight and because there ’ s a different attitude toward people in the developing world .
I think the best illustration of that in regard to coronavirus-19 is what happened in April , when two French doctors suggested , quite openly , that trials , that were ethically troubled because they were placebo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the West , be brought to Africa instead , where there were abundance of subjects who had no medical care and would grasp at whatever straw was offered them , and it could be conducted on people like prostitutes .
So , this kind of — there was a lot of outrage over their statements , but what they were saying is something I have seen stated in medical journals repeatedly .
They ’ re not the only ones saying this .
And more to the point , they ’ re not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted in the developing world often dispenses with informed consent .
A variety of excuses are offered for it .
And sometimes researchers are not honest about what they have done .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Professor Kaushik Sunder Rajan , if you could comment on what Harriet has just said , and talk about some of your concerns with clinical trials being held among vulnerable populations , not just here in the U.S. , but around the world , including India , where you ’ ve studied them ?
KAUSHIK SUNDER RAJAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having me on .
It ’ s a pleasure to be on the show .
So , you know , it ’ s ironic .
Nine years ago almost exactly to this day , you may recall that Michele Bachmann was on a tirade against the HPV vaccine in the Republican primary .
And Bachmann ’ s anti-vaccine position was roundly and correctly condemned by scientists and the public health community .
And it highlighted — but at the very same time , a major scandal was erupting around some experimental demonstration studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So this highlighted the fact that they are good reasons to be concerned about clinical trials in vaccines , but they ’ re not Michelle Bachmann ’ s reasons .
So I want to start by saying here that the critical issue is not whether vaccines are good or bad , but , as you ’ ve already talked about , some of the ethical issues surrounding their production , their distribution and rollout .
But even more , I would suggest what is at stake is a democratic public health , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HPV vaccine studies in India , the key question was about accountability : Who is held accountable by whom and how ?
These studies were demonstration studies on the vaccine being conducted prior to the rollout of the vaccine as part of India ’ s national immunization program .
And in the process , seven girls who belonged to Indigenous populations , who were on the study , died .
Now , it was never established that the girls died because of the vaccine or because of the studies , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correlation .
However , commissions of inquiry set up after the study showed substantial procedural violations had occurred , including failure to obtain adequate consent for the studies from the parents of the girls .
There were multiple institutional entities involved in the studies , both Indian state institutions but also U.S. not-for-profits , including the Gates Foundation-funded Program for Appropriate Technology in Health , or PATH .
And for me , the critical issue here is , of course , that there were ethical lapses — that is serious .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable , in spite of sustained civil society advocacy and media attention .
And some of this is because these clinical studies are so extensively brokered , with so many different kinds of public and private entities insourcing and outsourcing both the science and the ethics , that responsibility becomes almost a kind of shell game .
So it ’ s very hard , unless there ’ s gross intentional fraud , to say this is this entity ’ s fault .
But the other part of it is that when the studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t show up .
They issued vehement defenses of their action in Western public health journals and to colleagues here , but civil society and community health advocates in India never got the answers that they were demanding .
And that , more than anything else , is the lingering ground for anger , which is that you can ’ t have a genuinely public health without genuine public accountability .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Professor Sunder Rajan , also if you could talk about the question of access ?
The people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines are not necessarily those who first get the vaccine once one is approved .
KAUSHIK SUNDER RAJAN : Yes , I think that ’ s potentially true .
And I think that if we ’ re thinking about COVID , for instance , questions of manufacturing scale-up , distributive justice , rollout , supply chain — all of these are going to be nightmarishly complicated logistical questions .
But I think you ’ re raising a more fundamental point , which is that a pandemic or a disease , or a response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is never just a biological problem .
It ’ s always inherently a social problem .
And a vaccine solves the biological part of that problem , but unless it ’ s allied to democratically accountable , socially inclusive mechanisms of distribution and access , there are always going to be problems .
And we can speculate upon what that might mean in relation to COVID , but what I want to suggest is that there ’ s , of course , a critical issue of an essential artifact being produced that needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that the question here might be even broader than that , right ?
So , we have a situation at this moment where early , optimistic estimations for how long a COVID vaccine would take suggested 18 months to two years , and even that would have been remarkable .
But there ’ s been such an unprecedented amount of research being done globally on COVID towards both therapeutic and vaccine development , that I have biologist friends who are telling me that it ’ s not unreasonable to expect a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
And then there is a question of whether and how that would be made equitably accessible .
But I think there ’ s also a question beyond that of social infrastructures , right ?
Because what we ’ re dealing with is — I mean , you had mentioned vulnerable populations .
I would prefer to say “ underserved ” populations .
“ Vulnerability ” suggests an inherent weakness in the population .
“ Underserved ” suggests that populations have been failed .
The South Side of Chicago is not vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , the question of what kinds of social infrastructure are required to ensure access to underserved populations , I think , is an essential one .
AMY GOODMAN : And , Harriet Washington , as we wrap up , what can instill public trust at this point ?
And the issue of patents ?
The U.S. , for example — and this is true around the world — has put billions into these vaccines .
Who gets the patent ?
And that means who gets the profit .
Shouldn ’ t this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HARRIET WASHINGTON : The patent system is what separates the people of the developing world from the medications that they have proved to be safe and efficacious .
We rely upon them to help us test our medications .
A good proportion of research is now done in the developing world by U.S. researchers and U.S. companies .
And yet , when the drugs are developed , the people there do not have access to them because they ’ re priced beyond their ability to pay .
Companies can do that because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in my book Deadly Monopolies that U.S. patent law need to be changed .
It should not govern the distribution of medication .
It ’ s what ’ s responsible for the high prices and the lack of availability to people who need it most .
I do also want to say something I think is really important in terms of domestic issues .
And that is that we are framing this conversation erroneously .
We ’ re talking about the need to recruit more and more people of color .
The figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
African Americans represent 13.3 % of people in the country .
So , Fauci is suggesting that twice our representation should be in these vaccine trials .
Why ?
Unfortunately , this is a subtle form of blaming the victim .
By hanging the success of vaccine design on African Americans and Hispanic people , we ’ re imparting responsibility that is not fair , because , in reality , their fear , their reticence to engage in vaccine design is not the problem .
The problem is the untrustworthiness of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address both things .
We can ’ t just talk about African American and Hispanic behavior and not talk about a healthcare system that is creating a situation where logical people have a rational fear of participating in vaccine — [ inaudible ] AMY GOODMAN : We have to leave it there .
I want to thank you , Harriet Washington , for joining us , author of Medical Apartheid , and Kaushik Sunder Rajan , professor of anthropology at University of Chicago .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh @ @ @ @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, as we continue to look at medical experimentation and also how COVID-19 vaccine trials are unfolding globally. On Wednesday, India reported nearly 96,000 new COVID cases, a new daily record, just two days after it surpassed Brazil as the country second hardest hit by the virus, after the United States. This comes as the Indian company enlisted to manufacture a billion doses of AstraZeneca’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine is pushing ahead with its own clinical trial, even as safety concerns led the British drugmaker to halt its tests this week.
For more, we are also joined by Kaushik Sunder Rajan, professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago, author of the book Pharmocracy: Value, Politics, and Knowledge in Global Biomedicine. And we’re still joined by Harriet Washington, the medical ethicist, author of Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present.
Before we are also talking to Professor Rajan, Harriet Washington, you mentioned Pfizer in Nigeria. It’s a notorious 1996 drug experiment that Pfizer conducted on sick children in Nigeria, when researchers selected 200 children at an epidemic hospital for an experimental trial. About a hundred of the kids were given an untested oral version of the antibiotic Trovan. Researchers did not obtain signed consent forms. Medical personnel said Pfizer did not tell their parents their children were getting the experimental drug. Eleven children died. Others suffered disabling injuries, including deafness, muteness, paralysis, brain damage, loss of sight, slurred speech. After an 11-year legal battle, Pfizer paid compensation to four families. About 10 years ago, we spoke to Musikilu Mojeed, a Nigerian journalist who worked on this story for the NEXT newspaper in Lagos. He described what Pfizer did in Nigeria.
MUSIKILU MOJEED: Pfizer just went in, you know, briefly, and there was so much confusion in Nigeria. Nigeria needed help. There was this epidemic. The country just needed help from wherever, you know. And Pfizer came on a humanitarian ground. Nigeria accepted. And at the time, we had military dictatorship. Things were so bad. There was no order in the country. There was no proper procedures whenever following most of the things that happened at the time. So, really, at the time, Nigerians were grateful to Pfizer, and we never knew, until it broke out in the press several years later, and Nigerians were really, really outraged.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Musikilu Mojeed, a Nigerian journalist who worked on this issue. Medical apartheid, global, I guess you could say. Tell us further about why you think this is such a critical experiment for us to understand today.
HARRIET WASHINGTON: Well, it’s actually one of many. Research design in the developing world is supposed to be governed by the same laws as the U.S. Researchers are supposed to adhere to U.S. law. The problem is, there’s little or no oversight. We only take researchers’ word that they are conforming and making sure there’s informed consent. And abuses such as happened in Kano, Nigeria, show us that sometimes people lie. A doctor admitted having deceitfully claimed that there had been the certification that was required. They forged the form after the research was already conducted. And so, abuses abound because there’s very little oversight and because there’s a different attitude toward people in the developing world.
I think the best illustration of that in regard to coronavirus-19 is what happened in April, when two French doctors suggested, quite openly, that trials, that were ethically troubled because they were placebo trials, falling out of favor in the West, be brought to Africa instead, where there were abundance of subjects who had no medical care and would grasp at whatever straw was offered them, and it could be conducted on people like prostitutes. So, this kind of — there was a lot of outrage over their statements, but what they were saying is something I have seen stated in medical journals repeatedly. They’re not the only ones saying this. And more to the point, they’re not the only one doing it. The research conducted in the developing world often dispenses with informed consent. A variety of excuses are offered for it. And sometimes researchers are not honest about what they have done.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Kaushik Sunder Rajan, if you could comment on what Harriet has just said, and talk about some of your concerns with clinical trials being held among vulnerable populations, not just here in the U.S., but around the world, including India, where you’ve studied them?
KAUSHIK SUNDER RAJAN: Sure, Nermeen. And thanks for having me on. It’s a pleasure to be on the show.
So, you know, it’s ironic. Nine years ago almost exactly to this day, you may recall that Michele Bachmann was on a tirade against the HPV vaccine in the Republican primary. And Bachmann’s anti-vaccine position was roundly and correctly condemned by scientists and the public health community. And it highlighted — but at the very same time, a major scandal was erupting around some experimental demonstration studies of the HPV vaccine in India. So this highlighted the fact that they are good reasons to be concerned about clinical trials in vaccines, but they’re not Michelle Bachmann’s reasons.
So I want to start by saying here that the critical issue is not whether vaccines are good or bad, but, as you’ve already talked about, some of the ethical issues surrounding their production, their distribution and rollout. But even more, I would suggest what is at stake is a democratic public health, because if we think about something like the HPV vaccine studies in India, the key question was about accountability: Who is held accountable by whom and how?
These studies were demonstration studies on the vaccine being conducted prior to the rollout of the vaccine as part of India’s national immunization program. And in the process, seven girls who belonged to Indigenous populations, who were on the study, died. Now, it was never established that the girls died because of the vaccine or because of the studies, and it’s quite possible that there was no correlation. However, commissions of inquiry set up after the study showed substantial procedural violations had occurred, including failure to obtain adequate consent for the studies from the parents of the girls. There were multiple institutional entities involved in the studies, both Indian state institutions but also U.S. not-for-profits, including the Gates Foundation-funded Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, or PATH.
And for me, the critical issue here is, of course, that there were ethical lapses — that is serious. But it was also that no one was held accountable, in spite of sustained civil society advocacy and media attention. And some of this is because these clinical studies are so extensively brokered, with so many different kinds of public and private entities insourcing and outsourcing both the science and the ethics, that responsibility becomes almost a kind of shell game. So it’s very hard, unless there’s gross intentional fraud, to say this is this entity’s fault.
But the other part of it is that when the studies erupted in scandal, PATH didn’t show up. They issued vehement defenses of their action in Western public health journals and to colleagues here, but civil society and community health advocates in India never got the answers that they were demanding. And that, more than anything else, is the lingering ground for anger, which is that you can’t have a genuinely public health without genuine public accountability.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Sunder Rajan, also if you could talk about the question of access? The people who participate in clinical trials for these vaccines are not necessarily those who first get the vaccine once one is approved.
KAUSHIK SUNDER RAJAN: Yes, I think that’s potentially true. And I think that if we’re thinking about COVID, for instance, questions of manufacturing scale-up, distributive justice, rollout, supply chain — all of these are going to be nightmarishly complicated logistical questions.
But I think you’re raising a more fundamental point, which is that a pandemic or a disease, or a response to a disease, a vaccine, is never just a biological problem. It’s always inherently a social problem. And a vaccine solves the biological part of that problem, but unless it’s allied to democratically accountable, socially inclusive mechanisms of distribution and access, there are always going to be problems. And we can speculate upon what that might mean in relation to COVID, but what I want to suggest is that there’s, of course, a critical issue of an essential artifact being produced that needs to be made equitably accessible.
But I think that the question here might be even broader than that, right? So, we have a situation at this moment where early, optimistic estimations for how long a COVID vaccine would take suggested 18 months to two years, and even that would have been remarkable. But there’s been such an unprecedented amount of research being done globally on COVID towards both therapeutic and vaccine development, that I have biologist friends who are telling me that it’s not unreasonable to expect a successful vaccine by the end of the year. And then there is a question of whether and how that would be made equitably accessible.
But I think there’s also a question beyond that of social infrastructures, right? Because what we’re dealing with is — I mean, you had mentioned vulnerable populations. I would prefer to say “underserved” populations. “Vulnerability” suggests an inherent weakness in the population. “Underserved” suggests that populations have been failed. The South Side of Chicago is not vulnerable, it’s underserved. And so, the question of what kinds of social infrastructure are required to ensure access to underserved populations, I think, is an essential one.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Harriet Washington, as we wrap up, what can instill public trust at this point? And the issue of patents? The U.S., for example — and this is true around the world — has put billions into these vaccines. Who gets the patent? And that means who gets the profit. Shouldn’t this be made available free to all?
HARRIET WASHINGTON: The patent system is what separates the people of the developing world from the medications that they have proved to be safe and efficacious. We rely upon them to help us test our medications. A good proportion of research is now done in the developing world by U.S. researchers and U.S. companies. And yet, when the drugs are developed, the people there do not have access to them because they’re priced beyond their ability to pay. Companies can do that because of U.S. patent law. And I argued in my book Deadly Monopolies that U.S. patent law need to be changed. It should not govern the distribution of medication. It’s what’s responsible for the high prices and the lack of availability to people who need it most.
I do also want to say something I think is really important in terms of domestic issues. And that is that we are framing this conversation erroneously. We’re talking about the need to recruit more and more people of color. The figures given by Dr. Fauci, 27%? African Americans represent 13.3% of people in the country. So, Fauci is suggesting that twice our representation should be in these vaccine trials. Why? Unfortunately, this is a subtle form of blaming the victim. By hanging the success of vaccine design on African Americans and Hispanic people, we’re imparting responsibility that is not fair, because, in reality, their fear, their reticence to engage in vaccine design is not the problem. The problem is the untrustworthiness of the U.S. healthcare system. We have to address both things. We can’t just talk about African American and Hispanic behavior and not talk about a healthcare system that is creating a situation where logical people have a rational fear of participating in vaccine — [inaudible]
AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there. I want to thank you, Harriet Washington, for joining us, author of Medical Apartheid, and Kaushik Sunder Rajan, professor of anthropology at University of Chicago. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Stay safe.


democracynow--2020-09-10--COVID Vaccine Trials Seek Black & Latinx Participants, But History of Medical Apartheid Sows Mistrus

COVID Vaccine Trials Seek Black & Latinx Participants, But History of Medical Apartheid Sows Mistrust

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
President Donald Trump acknowledged Wednesday he publicly downplayed the threat of the coronavirus even as he received briefings in early February about the severity of the looming pandemic .
Trump was responding to a reporter who asked if he misled the public in order to reduce panic .
AMY GOODMAN : Trump ’ s admission came hours after Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump called Rage , along with taped conversations with the president .
In a February 7th phone call , Trump told Woodward about what he learned about the coronavirus from Chinese President Xi Jinping .
AMY GOODMAN : Now , again , that was President Trump on February 7th .
But the White House would not declare a national emergency on COVID-19 until March 13th .
The revelations come as the U.S. death toll from COVID-19 reached 190,000 on Wednesday .
This comes as Trump ’ s push to release a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warp Speed , could be slowed by a lack of participation in vaccine trials by African American , Indigenous and Latinx people , many of whom mistrust the healthcare system , even as the coronavirus disproportionately impacts these same communities .
A National Institutes of Health report attributed part of this mistrust to , quote , “ the historical legacy of mistreatment at the hands of the medical profession.
” The most notorious abuse of African Americans at the hands of the medical establishment was the Tuskegee syphilis experiment .
In 1932 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African American men with syphilis , studying the disease ’ s progression when purposefully left untreated .
The subjects were given useless placebos and tracked over decades as their symptoms worsened , even though penicillin was identified as a reliable treatment in 1945 .
Syphilis can disfigure , cause dementia , blindness , extreme chronic pain and death .
Repeated concerns with the unethical study were ignored until a whistleblower ’ s account of the experiment to the press in 1972 shut it down .
Well , on Tuesday , the NIH attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of TV commercials on the BET network , the Oprah Winfrey Network , Telemundo and Univision , like this ad , which features a series of Black people .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re joined now by Harriet Washington , medical ethicist , author of Medical Apartheid : The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present .
Her latest book , A Terrible Thing to Waste : Environmental Racism and Its Assault on the American Mind .
Welcome back to Democracy Now !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to talk global issues in a moment , but for people who are not familiar , for example , with the Tuskegee experiment and what that experiment means , which you lay out so well in your book Medical Apartheid , how this could possibly happen , I wanted to go to a 1993 documentary about the Tuskegee experiments called Deadly Deception , which addresses how Black men were lured into the Tuskegee experiment with assurances they were actually receiving medical care , many told spinal taps were a form of treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject Herman Shaw and medical historian Vanessa Gamble .
AMY GOODMAN : That clip from a 1993 documentary about the Tuskegee experiment called Deadly Deception .
This experiment , Harriet Washington , went on for 40 years ?
HARRIET WASHINGTON : Yes , it did .
It ’ s the longest instance of unethical medical experimentation in Western history .
However , it ’ s one study .
My book Medical Apartheid documents centuries of studies , many , if not most , of which were far worse than Tuskegee .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them with us , a kind of short journey with us to the — I mean , it ’ s hard to talk about this — to the experimentation on African Americans in this country ?
HARRIET WASHINGTON : Of course .
You know , it ’ s 500 pages and four centuries , so I can ’ t possibly summarize it .
But they range from things like pouring boiling water on the backs of slaves to treat them for typhoid ; to removing slaves ’ arms and legs simply to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amputation were done ; to locking women in literally a cage , a small laboratory , on the property of Dr. James Marion Sims , and then subjecting them to reproductive surgeries , that were experimental , over the course of five years at least ; and then , also , removing the jawbone of a slave despite his protests ; testing vaccine on slaves ; testing other novel procedures and appropriating the bodies of slaves in order to test modalities , in order to use them for various experiments , and also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anatomical dissection , as medical training material — postmortem racism .
These things were so prevalent that most Northern medical schools had contracts with Southern medical schools to get the bodies of dead Black people , because they didn ’ t want to use dead whites in this manner .
It was considered disrespectful .
The history is extremely extensive .
It goes on for a very long time .
And frankly , it has not ended .
When it comes to vaccine , I actually find more troubling , far more troubling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good parallel for this problem — more recent problems with vaccines , vaccine experiments that have been very — have been unethical and exploitative , and other procedures , especially in the developing world , that have been exploitative , that have caught the attention of African Americans and others .
So , even the recent history of vaccine abuse has been very troubling and caused a lot of reticence .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Harriet Washington , could you talk about how widespread the knowledge is of the older medical experiments that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think that history , as opposed to the treatment of Latinx and African Americans in the medical world today — to what extent is knowledge of that medical history kind of a disincentive for people to enroll in the vaccine trials now , as opposed to the continuing discrimination against Latinx and Black communities now ?
HARRIET WASHINGTON : I would not put those things in opposition to each other .
They both contribute .
But it ’ s important to realize that the written history of medicine , the canon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience of African Americans .
You simply would not find this history detailed in other history of medicine books .
Until Medical Apartheid was published , it was ignored .
It was certainly documented in the past in old journals , in medical doctors ’ own research reports , but no one had collected it .
So you find , in academia , there is very little knowledge of that ; however , amid African American communities , there is a great extensive knowledge of it , because there had been a rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had those in their families who had been subjected to experimental abuse , and this knowledge was prevalent and passed on .
So , we had the unusual situation where African Americans were quite conversant with the history .
They may not have known — they probably could not have known — the details that I got from reading medical journals , because they were not allowed access to the medical journals , but they knew these things were occurring .
But in terms of history of medicine canon , they were routinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reluctance , until Medical Apartheid was published and scholars could see how carefully I had documented the things that I had described .
Only then was there an admission that these things actually happened within academia .
AMY GOODMAN : Dr. Fauci , the infectious disease specialist , says that if you look at the trials that are taking place in the United States today , Moderna has 16 % Latinx participation , Pfizer has 11 % Latinx participation , Moderna has only 10 % Black participation , and Pfizer only 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participation and 27 % Black participation .
When we come back , we ’ re going to go global with you , Harriet Washington .
Again , Harriet Washington is a medical ethicist and author of Medical Apartheid : The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present .
She mentioned a Pfizer test in Nigeria , and we ’ ll talk about that , look at South Africa , India and beyond .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
President Donald Trump acknowledged Wednesday he publicly downplayed the threat of the coronavirus even as he received briefings in early February about the severity of the looming pandemic. Trump was responding to a reporter who asked if he misled the public in order to reduce panic.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think if you said in order to reduce panic, perhaps that’s so. The fact is, I’m a cheerleader for this country. I love our country. And I don’t want people to be frightened. I don’t want to create panic.
AMY GOODMAN: Trump’s admission came hours after Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward published bombshell excerpts from his forthcoming book about Trump called Rage, along with taped conversations with the president. In a February 7th phone call, Trump told Woodward about what he learned about the coronavirus from Chinese President Xi Jinping.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It goes through air, Bob. That’s always tougher than the touch. You know, the touch, you don’t have to touch things, right? But the air, you just breathe the air, and that’s how it’s passed. And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than your — you know, your — even your strenuous flus. … This is more deadly. This is 5 per — you know, this is 5% versus 1% and less than 1%. You know, so this is deadly stuff.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, again, that was President Trump on February 7th. But the White House would not declare a national emergency on COVID-19 until March 13th. The revelations come as the U.S. death toll from COVID-19 reached 190,000 on Wednesday.
This comes as Trump’s push to release a vaccine before the November election, called Operation Warp Speed, could be slowed by a lack of participation in vaccine trials by African American, Indigenous and Latinx people, many of whom mistrust the healthcare system, even as the coronavirus disproportionately impacts these same communities. A National Institutes of Health report attributed part of this mistrust to, quote, “the historical legacy of mistreatment at the hands of the medical profession.”
The most notorious abuse of African Americans at the hands of the medical establishment was the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service recruited 400 African American men with syphilis, studying the disease’s progression when purposefully left untreated. The subjects were given useless placebos and tracked over decades as their symptoms worsened, even though penicillin was identified as a reliable treatment in 1945. Syphilis can disfigure, cause dementia, blindness, extreme chronic pain and death. Repeated concerns with the unethical study were ignored until a whistleblower’s account of the experiment to the press in 1972 shut it down.
Well, on Tuesday, the NIH attempted to overcome the legacy and helped launch a series of TV commercials on the BET network, the Oprah Winfrey Network, Telemundo and Univision, like this ad, which features a series of Black people.
NIH AD: We know that someone somewhere is full of hope and strength and wants to take action, and who will take a step forward to hug her grandkids, walking the walk and rolling up their sleeves to go back to normal sooner. Volunteer to find the COVID-19 vaccine.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Harriet Washington, medical ethicist, author of Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. Her latest book, A Terrible Thing to Waste: Environmental Racism and Its Assault on the American Mind.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Harriet Washington. We’re going to talk global issues in a moment, but for people who are not familiar, for example, with the Tuskegee experiment and what that experiment means, which you lay out so well in your book Medical Apartheid, how this could possibly happen, I wanted to go to a 1993 documentary about the Tuskegee experiments called Deadly Deception, which addresses how Black men were lured into the Tuskegee experiment with assurances they were actually receiving medical care, many told spinal taps were a form of treatment. This clip includes interviews with Tuskegee subject Herman Shaw and medical historian Vanessa Gamble.
NARRATOR: This letter, sent to each man before his spinal tap, claimed it was a very special free treatment.
MACON COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. REPORT: “Some time ago you were given a thorough examination and since that time we hope you have gotten a great deal of treatment for bad blood. You will now be given your last chance to get a second examination. This examination is a very special one and after it is finished you will be given a special treatment if it is believed you are in a condition to stand it.”
HERMAN SHAW: [reading] “This examination is a very special one and after it is finished you will be given a special treatment if it is believed you are in a condition to stand it. … REMEMBER THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE FOR A SPECIAL FREE TREATMENT.”
VANESSA GAMBLE: The men were told that the spinal taps were a treatment. That shows you some of the deception and deceit involved in the study. And these are physicians saying this, so that it has a certain power and authority of physicians saying this.
NARRATOR: On each subject, they performed physicals and blood tests. And to maintain the appearance of treatment, the doctors gave the men placebos — vitamins, aspirins and tonics — all useless against syphilis.
HERMAN SHAW: There are three different type of medicine: the little round pill, sometimes they gave us a capsule, and then they would give us a little vial of liquid medicine. Everybody got the same thing.
VANESSA GAMBLE: These were men who weren’t going to question the system, who weren’t going to question the government doctors, who weren’t going to be out there picketing and writing and protesting about it. These were men in Macon County, Alabama. Who’s going to speak for them?
AMY GOODMAN: That clip from a 1993 documentary about the Tuskegee experiment called Deadly Deception. This experiment, Harriet Washington, went on for 40 years?
HARRIET WASHINGTON: Yes, it did. It’s the longest instance of unethical medical experimentation in Western history. However, it’s one study. My book Medical Apartheid documents centuries of studies, many, if not most, of which were far worse than Tuskegee.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you go through just some of them with us, a kind of short journey with us to the — I mean, it’s hard to talk about this — to the experimentation on African Americans in this country?
HARRIET WASHINGTON: Of course. You know, it’s 500 pages and four centuries, so I can’t possibly summarize it. But they range from things like pouring boiling water on the backs of slaves to treat them for typhoid; to removing slaves’ arms and legs simply to show medical students how the procedures of amputation were done; to locking women in literally a cage, a small laboratory, on the property of Dr. James Marion Sims, and then subjecting them to reproductive surgeries, that were experimental, over the course of five years at least; and then, also, removing the jawbone of a slave despite his protests; testing vaccine on slaves; testing other novel procedures and appropriating the bodies of slaves in order to test modalities, in order to use them for various experiments, and also to use their bodies after death for anatomical dissection, as medical training material — postmortem racism.
These things were so prevalent that most Northern medical schools had contracts with Southern medical schools to get the bodies of dead Black people, because they didn’t want to use dead whites in this manner. It was considered disrespectful. The history is extremely extensive. It goes on for a very long time. And frankly, it has not ended.
When it comes to vaccine, I actually find more troubling, far more troubling than Tuskegee — which is not a good parallel for this problem — more recent problems with vaccines, vaccine experiments that have been very — have been unethical and exploitative, and other procedures, especially in the developing world, that have been exploitative, that have caught the attention of African Americans and others. So, even the recent history of vaccine abuse has been very troubling and caused a lot of reticence.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Harriet Washington, could you talk about how widespread the knowledge is of the older medical experiments that you were speaking of, and what role you think that history, as opposed to the treatment of Latinx and African Americans in the medical world today — to what extent is knowledge of that medical history kind of a disincentive for people to enroll in the vaccine trials now, as opposed to the continuing discrimination against Latinx and Black communities now?
HARRIET WASHINGTON: I would not put those things in opposition to each other. They both contribute.
But it’s important to realize that the written history of medicine, the canon, has been carefully curated to elide the experience of African Americans. You simply would not find this history detailed in other history of medicine books. Until Medical Apartheid was published, it was ignored. It was certainly documented in the past in old journals, in medical doctors’ own research reports, but no one had collected it.
So you find, in academia, there is very little knowledge of that; however, amid African American communities, there is a great extensive knowledge of it, because there had been a rich oral tradition passed on. Many people had those in their families who had been subjected to experimental abuse, and this knowledge was prevalent and passed on. So, we had the unusual situation where African Americans were quite conversant with the history. They may not have known — they probably could not have known — the details that I got from reading medical journals, because they were not allowed access to the medical journals, but they knew these things were occurring.
But in terms of history of medicine canon, they were routinely ignored. And there was a lot of reluctance, until Medical Apartheid was published and scholars could see how carefully I had documented the things that I had described. Only then was there an admission that these things actually happened within academia.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Fauci, the infectious disease specialist, says that if you look at the trials that are taking place in the United States today, Moderna has 16% Latinx participation, Pfizer has 11% Latinx participation, Moderna has only 10% Black participation, and Pfizer only 8%. Fauci recommends 37% Latinx participation and 27% Black participation.
When we come back, we’re going to go global with you, Harriet Washington. Again, Harriet Washington is a medical ethicist and author of Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. She mentioned a Pfizer test in Nigeria, and we’ll talk about that, look at South Africa, India and beyond. Stay with us.