democracynow--2020-01-15--Phyllis Bennis on Dem Debate: Support for Combat Troop Withdrawal Is Not Enough to Stop Endless Wars

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : In the final debate before the Iowa caucuses , six Democratic candidates took to the stage Tuesday night in Des Moines .
For the first time this election cycle , every candidate on the stage was white : former Vice President Joe Biden ; Senators Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar ; former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ; and billionaire investor Tom Steyer .
On Monday , New Jersey Senator Cory Booker announced he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving only one black candidate , former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick , but Deval Patrick did not make the cut for this latest debate .
AMY GOODMAN : Tuesday ’ s debate marked the first time Senators Sanders and Warren openly sparred .
At the end of the night , Warren refused to shake the hand of her longtime friend and colleague , Sanders .
The debate took place as the Senate prepares for the historic impeachment trial of President Trump .
Sanders , Warren and Klobuchar are all expected to leave the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate trial .
On Tuesday , Senator Klobuchar called on the Senate Republican leadership to allow for witnesses at the impeachment trial .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : In addition to impeachment , much of the debate focused on foreign policy .
Senator Sanders warned President Trump about going to war with Iran .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : During the debate , Senator Elizabeth Warren called for the U.S. war in Afghanistan to end .
AMY GOODMAN : But some of the other Democratic candidates disagreed with calls by Senators Warren and Sanders to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderator Wolf Blitzer .
AMY GOODMAN : We turn now to Phyllis Bennis , fellow the Institute for Policy Studies , written a number of books , including Understanding the US-Iran Crisis .
Phyllis , your overall response , as basically they opened up on the issue of foreign policy last night in the final debate before the Iowa caucus ?
PHYLLIS BENNIS : Thanks , Amy .
You know , I think one of the things that was important to see last night was that all of the Democratic candidates , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the progressives , as well as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , were vying with each other essentially to see who could be more critical of the Iraq War .
They all have said that at various points , but last night it was very overt that this was a critical point of unity for these candidates .
Now , whether that says much about the prospects for the Democratic Party is not so clear , but I thought that was an important advance , that there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half this country is , which is strongly against wars .
And those two clips that you just used , from Elizabeth Warren and from Bernie Sanders , I think , spoke to where there are those differences between the progressive side and the others , where you have from Sanders and Warren a clear sense that it ’ s not only about what are we going to do specifically right now about Afghanistan , what are we going to do specifically around Iran , those questions — they address those , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Elizabeth Warren spoke about recognizing that there are not military solutions for every problem , that ’ s been the tendency of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party for the last 20-plus years .
When Bernie Sanders said that the focus is on the cost of these wars and it ’ s not the right use of our money , that was important .
Now , of course , in both cases , they could have gone further .
They could have made a specific reference to using half the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion , which is half the military budget , using that to pay for a Green New Deal , Medicare for All , free college education , all of the various social programs that there was debate about where is the money going to come from .
All of them , in the past — it ’ s interesting .
You know , one of the things that was not pushed by the moderators is the fact that back in June all of the Democratic candidates who were asked the question , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poor People ’ s Campaign — were asked , “ Would you cut the military budget , specifically ?
” Every one of them said yes .
And yet none of the journalists are pushing them to say , “ OK , we ’ ve established you will cut the military budget .
Let ’ s talk specifics .
How much would you cut ?
Would you use the decision about which programs to cut as something you would tell us now ?
Where would the money go ?
” Nobody ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a commitment that they made .
So there are some problems , but I think that it was important that we saw these very clear and strong positions .
Now , on the specifics , I think there were some serious limitations , in two ways .
On the one hand , on the specific question of withdrawing troops , everybody basically said , “ I would leave troops.
” Elizabeth Warren said , “ I would withdraw all the combat troops.
” We have to recognize combat troops are not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since about 2011 .
The killing of civilians , in particular , is being carried out by Special Forces , by bombing , by drones .
We heard the same thing from various other candidates , all of whom said they would leave some behind .
And the question is , when we start saying we ’ re going to pull out the combat troops , in a sense , that ’ s the easier part .
It ’ s the larger numbers in most cases , but it ’ s not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very violent activities that are continuing to kill children and women and old people in and around Afghanistan , Iran , Iraq — sorry , not in Iran yet — in Iraq , in Syria , in Somalia , in other countries , with these bombings and other Special Forces activities , with the assassination .
That was carried out by Special Forces with drones , not by combat troops .
So , withdrawing combat troops is an important step .
It ’ s not really enough .
PHYLLIS BENNIS : The other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw just one — just one other point .
We saw a limitation in terms of the issue of American exceptionalism .
Across the board , particularly , of course , from the more centrist candidates , but really across the board , there was a focus on what ’ s going to happen to Americans — American jobs , American soldiers .
We didn ’ t hear about human rights in the rest of the world , even on a day after a U.S. citizen had died in custody as a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t hear about the rights of people in these countries .
And that , I think , is something that we in the social movements need to be pressing all the candidates much more firmly .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Phyllis , I wanted to ask you — in terms of the fact this was billed as focusing so much on foreign policy , there were a lot of foreign policy questions that did not come up at all .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : The attempt by the Trump administration at regime change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arabia , or even policy , the Trump administration policy , toward Ukraine and Russia .
PHYLLIS BENNIS : Right .
There were huge lapses .
I think it was inevitable , and perhaps even appropriate , that the main focus was on the question of wars , the “ global war on terror ” — although that term wasn ’ t used — because that ’ s been the urgency of recent days and recent weeks .
That ’ s where U.S. troops are deployed and are responsible for the deaths of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s where the vast majority of money — 53 cents out of every federal discretionary dollar goes to the military .
So , in all of those ways , it was perhaps appropriate to keep the main focus on the issues of the existing wars .
But , obviously , leaving out the question of Israel-Palestine , policy towards Russia , towards Ukraine — all of Latin America , all of Africa were left out of the debate , out of the equation .
Human rights was left out of the equation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s the assumption that somehow it ’ s OK for people to be running for president as centrists or as progressives and not necessarily have to talk about that every time they talk about what it means to be the president .
They talked some about what it means to be the commander-in-chief .
They didn ’ t talk enough about what it means to be the diplomat-in-chief .
There were references .
Bernie Sanders referenced , Elizabeth Warren referenced the need for more diplomacy .
Others did , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has left the State Department completely diminished , that massive numbers of people have left the State Department .
The professionals , not the political appointees , have left the State Department .
So , at any point when somebody says , “ Oh , finally , we need to get back to diplomacy , ” will there be any competent diplomats ready and able to carry that out ?
So there were huge questions that were not addressed .
But I think this was a turning-point moment in the campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the candidates that they had to take seriously the question of their position not only on the past wars — which was important , watching Biden immediately say , “ I was wrong , ” although he went on to say that he would do essentially some of the same things — but recognizing that it was also important to have positions , not as specific as they should have been , not clarifying that , for example , sanctions are an act of war and not an alternative to war — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called them out on the lack of focus on international law and the role of the United Nations , although Bernie Sanders spoke about rebuilding the United Nations .
I ’ m not even sure that he meant to say the U.N. rather than the U.S. , but he did say the U.N. , or one of our jobs is to rebuild the U.N. That was important .
But all of these things are missing .
But it is seems to me it was a way in , because all of the candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different integrity , let ’ s say , but many referenced the question of the role of movements being important .
And I think that ’ s something that we , outside of the political arena , have to take very seriously .
These folks are not going to move further than we push them to move .
At the end of the day , it comes back to the movements outside , not just what the candidates say on the debate stage .
Very few talked about the fact that right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new War Powers Act that would focus on Iran .
Pete Buttigieg said we need a new War Powers Act .
That ’ s wrong .
But we ’ re going to need a movement to say we need to have the end of the existing authorizations for the use of military force , not new ones ; get rid of the old ones and stop authorizing illegal wars .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to break and then come back to our discussion .
Speaking of movements , right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moines , Liz Theoharis and Reverend Barber were leading a Poor People ’ s March once again .
They were demanding that the media televise a national discussion on the part of the candidates on poverty .
This is Democracy Now !
Phyllis Bennis is with the Institute for Policy Studies .
We ’ ll be back in a minute with our roundtable .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In the final debate before the Iowa caucuses, six Democratic candidates took to the stage Tuesday night in Des Moines. For the first time this election cycle, every candidate on the stage was white: former Vice President Joe Biden; Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar; former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and billionaire investor Tom Steyer. On Monday, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker announced he’s dropping out of the presidential race, leaving only one black candidate, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, but Deval Patrick did not make the cut for this latest debate.
AMY GOODMAN: Tuesday’s debate marked the first time Senators Sanders and Warren openly sparred. At the end of the night, Warren refused to shake the hand of her longtime friend and colleague, Sanders.
The debate took place as the Senate prepares for the historic impeachment trial of President Trump. Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar are all expected to leave the campaign trail to serve as jurors in the Senate trial. On Tuesday, Senator Klobuchar called on the Senate Republican leadership to allow for witnesses at the impeachment trial.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: We’ve asked for only four people as witnesses. And if our Republican colleagues won’t allow those witnesses, they may as well give the president a crown and a scepter. They may as well make him king. And last time I checked, our country was founded on this idea that we didn’t want to be ruled by a king.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In addition to impeachment, much of the debate focused on foreign policy. Senator Sanders warned President Trump about going to war with Iran.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: What we have to face as a nation is that the two great foreign policy disasters of our lifetimes were the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Bost of those wars were based on lies. And right now what I fear very much is we have a president who is lying again and could drag us into a war that is even worse than the war in Iraq.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: During the debate, Senator Elizabeth Warren called for the U.S. war in Afghanistan to end.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: On the Senate Armed Services Committee, we have one general after another in Afghanistan who comes in and says, “You know, we’ve just turned the corner, and now it’s all going to be different.” And then what happens? It’s all the same for another year. Someone new comes in, and we’ve just turned the corner. We’ve turned the corner so many times, we’re going in circles in these regions. This has got to stop.
AMY GOODMAN: But some of the other Democratic candidates disagreed with calls by Senators Warren and Sanders to bring U.S. troops home. This is debate moderator Wolf Blitzer.
WOLF BLITZER: Just to be clear, Vice President Biden, would you leave troops in the Middle East, or would you pull them out?
JOE BIDEN: I would leave troops in the Middle East in terms of patrolling the Gulf where we have to — where we are now, small numbers of troops. And I think it’s a mistake to pull out the small number of troops that are there now to deal with ISIS.
WOLF BLITZER: Senator Klobuchar, what’s your response?
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: I would leave some troops there, but not in the level that Donald Trump is taking us right now. Afghanistan, I have long wanted to bring our troops home. I would do that. Some would remain for counterterrorism and training. In Syria, I would not have removed the 150 troops from the border with Turkey. I think that was a mistake. I think it made our allies and many others much more vulnerable to ISIS. And then, when it comes to Iraq, right now I would leave our troops there, despite the mess that has been created by Donald Trump.
WOLF BLITZER: Senator Warren, leave combat troops, at least some combat troops, in the Middle East, or bring them home?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: No, I think we need to get our combat troops out. You know, we have to stop this mindset that we can do everything with combat troops. Our military is the finest military on Earth, and they will take any sacrifice we ask them to take. But we should stop asking our military to solve problems that cannot be solved militarily.
WOLF BLITZER: Senator Sanders?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Wolf, in America today, our infrastructure is crumbling. Half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. Eighty-seven million people have no healthcare or are underinsured. We’ve got 500,000 people sleeping out on the streets tonight. The American people are sick and tired of endless wars, which have cost us trillions of dollars. Our job is to rebuild the United Nations, rebuild the State Department, make sure that we have the capability of bringing the world together to resolve international conflict diplomatically and stop the endless wars that we have experienced.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Phyllis Bennis, fellow the Institute for Policy Studies, written a number of books, including Understanding the US-Iran Crisis.
Phyllis, your overall response, as basically they opened up on the issue of foreign policy last night in the final debate before the Iowa caucus?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Thanks, Amy. You know, I think one of the things that was important to see last night was that all of the Democratic candidates, including the right wing of the group, as well as the progressives, as well as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, were vying with each other essentially to see who could be more critical of the Iraq War. They all have said that at various points, but last night it was very overt that this was a critical point of unity for these candidates. Now, whether that says much about the prospects for the Democratic Party is not so clear, but I thought that was an important advance, that there’s a recognition of where the entire base of half this country is, which is strongly against wars.
And those two clips that you just used, from Elizabeth Warren and from Bernie Sanders, I think, spoke to where there are those differences between the progressive side and the others, where you have from Sanders and Warren a clear sense that it’s not only about what are we going to do specifically right now about Afghanistan, what are we going to do specifically around Iran, those questions — they address those, as well — but the broader questions. When Elizabeth Warren spoke about recognizing that there are not military solutions for every problem, that’s been the tendency of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party for the last 20-plus years. When Bernie Sanders said that the focus is on the cost of these wars and it’s not the right use of our money, that was important.
Now, of course, in both cases, they could have gone further. They could have made a specific reference to using half the military budget, for example, $350 billion, which is half the military budget, using that to pay for a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college education, all of the various social programs that there was debate about where is the money going to come from. All of them, in the past — it’s interesting. You know, one of the things that was not pushed by the moderators is the fact that back in June all of the Democratic candidates who were asked the question, in a forum that was sponsored by the Poor People’s Campaign — were asked, “Would you cut the military budget, specifically?” Every one of them said yes. And yet none of the journalists are pushing them to say, “OK, we’ve established you will cut the military budget. Let’s talk specifics. How much would you cut? Would you use the decision about which programs to cut as something you would tell us now? Where would the money go?” Nobody’s pushing them to remind them that that was a commitment that they made. So there are some problems, but I think that it was important that we saw these very clear and strong positions.
Now, on the specifics, I think there were some serious limitations, in two ways. On the one hand, on the specific question of withdrawing troops, everybody basically said, “I would leave troops.” Elizabeth Warren said, “I would withdraw all the combat troops.” We have to recognize combat troops are not the ones who have been killing people probably since about 2011. The killing of civilians, in particular, is being carried out by Special Forces, by bombing, by drones. We heard the same thing from various other candidates, all of whom said they would leave some behind. And the question is, when we start saying we’re going to pull out the combat troops, in a sense, that’s the easier part. It’s the larger numbers in most cases, but it’s not the troops that are actually carrying out the very violent activities that are continuing to kill children and women and old people in and around Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq — sorry, not in Iran yet — in Iraq, in Syria, in Somalia, in other countries, with these bombings and other Special Forces activities, with the assassination. That was carried out by Special Forces with drones, not by combat troops. So, withdrawing combat troops is an important step. It’s not really enough.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Phyllis —
PHYLLIS BENNIS: The other point that I think was where we saw just one — just one other point. We saw a limitation in terms of the issue of American exceptionalism. Across the board, particularly, of course, from the more centrist candidates, but really across the board, there was a focus on what’s going to happen to Americans — American jobs, American soldiers. We didn’t hear about human rights in the rest of the world, even on a day after a U.S. citizen had died in custody as a political prisoner in Egypt. We didn’t hear about the rights of people in these countries. And that, I think, is something that we in the social movements need to be pressing all the candidates much more firmly.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Phyllis, I wanted to ask you — in terms of the fact this was billed as focusing so much on foreign policy, there were a lot of foreign policy questions that did not come up at all.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Absolutely.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Israel-Palestine situation.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The attempt by the Trump administration at regime change in Venezuela, the relations with Saudi Arabia, or even policy, the Trump administration policy, toward Ukraine and Russia.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Right. There were huge lapses. I think it was inevitable, and perhaps even appropriate, that the main focus was on the question of wars, the “global war on terror” — although that term wasn’t used — because that’s been the urgency of recent days and recent weeks. That’s where U.S. troops are deployed and are responsible for the deaths of people around the world. That’s where the vast majority of money — 53 cents out of every federal discretionary dollar goes to the military. So, in all of those ways, it was perhaps appropriate to keep the main focus on the issues of the existing wars.
But, obviously, leaving out the question of Israel-Palestine, policy towards Russia, towards Ukraine — all of Latin America, all of Africa were left out of the debate, out of the equation. Human rights was left out of the equation. And those are huge problems. And there’s the assumption that somehow it’s OK for people to be running for president as centrists or as progressives and not necessarily have to talk about that every time they talk about what it means to be the president.
They talked some about what it means to be the commander-in-chief. They didn’t talk enough about what it means to be the diplomat-in-chief. There were references. Bernie Sanders referenced, Elizabeth Warren referenced the need for more diplomacy. Others did, as well. Nobody talked about the fact that Trump has left the State Department completely diminished, that massive numbers of people have left the State Department. The professionals, not the political appointees, have left the State Department. So, at any point when somebody says, “Oh, finally, we need to get back to diplomacy,” will there be any competent diplomats ready and able to carry that out? So there were huge questions that were not addressed.
But I think this was a turning-point moment in the campaign, in the sense of the understanding from all the candidates that they had to take seriously the question of their position not only on the past wars — which was important, watching Biden immediately say, “I was wrong,” although he went on to say that he would do essentially some of the same things — but recognizing that it was also important to have positions, not as specific as they should have been, not clarifying that, for example, sanctions are an act of war and not an alternative to war — nobody called them on that. Nobody called them out on the lack of focus on international law and the role of the United Nations, although Bernie Sanders spoke about rebuilding the United Nations. I’m not even sure that he meant to say the U.N. rather than the U.S., but he did say the U.N., or one of our jobs is to rebuild the U.N. That was important. But all of these things are missing.
But it is seems to me it was a way in, because all of the candidates referenced, in different ways and with different integrity, let’s say, but many referenced the question of the role of movements being important. And I think that’s something that we, outside of the political arena, have to take very seriously. These folks are not going to move further than we push them to move. At the end of the day, it comes back to the movements outside, not just what the candidates say on the debate stage. Very few talked about the fact that right now the Senate has in front of it a new War Powers Act that would focus on Iran. Pete Buttigieg said we need a new War Powers Act. That’s wrong. But we’re going to need a movement to say we need to have the end of the existing authorizations for the use of military force, not new ones; get rid of the old ones and stop authorizing illegal wars.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to our discussion. Speaking of movements, right outside, at Drake University in Des Moines, Liz Theoharis and Reverend Barber were leading a Poor People’s March once again. They were demanding that the media televise a national discussion on the part of the candidates on poverty. This is Democracy Now! Phyllis Bennis is with the Institute for Policy Studies. We’ll be back in a minute with our roundtable.


democracynow--2020-01-15--Headlines for January 15, 2020

Headlines for January 15, 2020

Iranian leaders say they will seek to file a criminal case against the United States at the International Criminal Court over the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani .
This is Iranian judiciary spokesperson Gholamhossein Esmaili .
Gholamhossein Esmaili : “ Our intention is to file a criminal case against the U.S. military , against the U.S. government and against the U.S. president himself in the Islamic republic , in Iraq and in the International Criminal Court.
” This comes as , in the United States , a revised version of a war powers resolution aimed at limiting President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military action against Iran without congressional approval appears to have garnered enough votes to pass the Senate , after two more Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana — came out supporting the resolution .
A similar version of the legislation has already passed the House .
Meanwhile , The New York Times has obtained security camera footage that shows two missiles hitting Ukrainian Airlines Flight 752 , which crashed shortly after takeoff in Tehran a week ago , killing all 176 people aboard .
The plane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by the Iranian military after Iran fired ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq that house Iraqi and U.S. troops in retaliation for Soleimani ’ s assassination .

Iranian leaders say they will seek to file a criminal case against the United States at the International Criminal Court over the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. This is Iranian judiciary spokesperson Gholamhossein Esmaili.
Gholamhossein Esmaili: “Our intention is to file a criminal case against the U.S. military, against the U.S. government and against the U.S. president himself in the Islamic republic, in Iraq and in the International Criminal Court.”
This comes as, in the United States, a revised version of a war powers resolution aimed at limiting President Trump’s ability to take further military action against Iran without congressional approval appears to have garnered enough votes to pass the Senate, after two more Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana — came out supporting the resolution. A similar version of the legislation has already passed the House.
Meanwhile, The New York Times has obtained security camera footage that shows two missiles hitting Ukrainian Airlines Flight 752, which crashed shortly after takeoff in Tehran a week ago, killing all 176 people aboard. The plane, headed to Kiev, was mistakenly shot down by the Iranian military after Iran fired ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq that house Iraqi and U.S. troops in retaliation for Soleimani’s assassination.


democracynow--2020-01-17--At U.S. Border, Poor & Inaccurate Interpretation for Mayan-Language Speakers Can Lead to Deportation

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
As the U.S. continues to use hostile policies to stop people from seeking refuge and asylum in the United States , we look at a key problem that ’ s preventing migrants from getting due process , and in many cases getting them deported : inadequate translation for indigenous asylum seekers who speak Mayan languages .
Guatemala has a population of 15 million people .
At least 40 % of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a quarter of a million Guatemalan migrants have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border .
At least half of them are Mayan .
Many speak little or no Spanish .
That ’ s the focus of a New Yorker magazine article headlined “ A Translation Crisis at the Border.
” I had a chance to interview the author of that article , Rachel Nolan , at Constitutional Plaza in Guatemala City .
She is an assistant professor of international relations at Boston University .
And we spoke to Odilia Romero , Zapotec @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Front of Indigenous Organizations for 25 years .
I started by asking Rachel Nolan to lay out her piece .
And so , in Guatemala , you do pay a very small fee to get a birth certificate .
So when he was asked had he paid for the birth certificate of his daughter , he answered yes .
And the Border Patrol agent used that answer as supposed evidence that he had paid for a false birth certificate , which was not true .
And on the basis of that , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months .
And because Mario only speaks Mam , he was not able to understand what was happening and why his daughter was separated from him .
Again , Mam is his primary language , and he speaks very little Spanish , if at all .
So he was answering yes , yes , yes , to try to ingratiate himself to the authorities , to try to control was what was clearly a very fearful situation .
Suddenly , we just started getting these calls .
We have : “ We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zapotec .
We need Mam.
” And suddenly everybody ’ s calling us .
We were getting calls from social media , texts .
And at that point , you know , we didn ’ t know what to do , because there were so many .
And the agencies will call us and say , “ I need Zapoteco.
” And I will get on the phone , because they wouldn ’ t know what kind of — what variant of Zapotec .
So I will get on the phone ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were just getting those calls to us and trying — figuring how to solve a problem , right ?
So , some of the things that we went — we went to Texas , actually , and we went to some of the detention centers .
And we found out people weren ’ t getting an interpreter .
People didn ’ t know how to identify the languages .
So we launched a campaign , one training more interpreters throughout the U.S .
So we ’ ve been training interpreters in Chicago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York this month .
In California , everywhere that we can , where these different variants of languages existed .
That way , we are able to respond to some of the needs that we ’ re having at the border and we ’ re going to continue having at the border .
ODILIA ROMERO : I took the test with one of the companies .
And as an ethical interpreter , I know I did not pass the test .
But when they came back with the result , they said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to go interpret in immigration court in Zapotec.
” And I asked , “ Well , how did you check ?
Like , how do you know that I was interpreting adequately ?
” And they told me , “ We have a methodology , so you ’ re good to go.
” So then we had our other trilingual interpreters take the test .
And they all , being ethical and being trained by us , were like , “ We did not pass this test .
We are not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they do not care there .
And , you know , some of the things for us as an indigenous interpreter , we were seeing , well , these aren ’ t making sense to us .
We can not interpret word per word .
In the case of asylum , in my language , I will have — I will have to say that you can — you have to leave , because you could no longer be here because you ’ re afraid that someone within this community or within this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right ?
And if I say “ refugee , ” I ’ m afraid for my life that someone ’ s going to kill me .
So they ’ re two different things .
So , if our interpreters do not know the difference between asylum and between refugee , they will not be able to convey the message .
So we have to — so we have to train them what are these words , because a lot of these pro-profit language agencies , all the interpreters that they have , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] , asilo , reshnabo [ phon . ]
, or refugio .
That ’ s not being said anything to that individual or to that detainee , as opposed to , you know , [ speaking Zapotec ] , which is a very different thing than just reshnabo [ phon . ]
, asilo .
I will tell you about a case about a man that his child was taken away .
And he told me in Zapotec , “ When they took my children away , the tears just fell out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rain in August in our region.
” If I interpret that literally , it doesn ’ t make any sense to Western world , right ?
But these are the way , in the case of Zapoteco , is how he told me .
“ And when I finally was on the bus , the tears just popped out , like the hail after the rain.
” And that doesn ’ t make any sense , because the sentences are not very clear .
So I need to be able to convert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this man , when his child was taken away , I mean , he didn ’ t know .
He agreed to meet these — this was at the Department of Social Services .
He went there because they had called the police on him , because the child wasn ’ t growing .
And when they got there , they just like , “ OK , sign these papers.
” The kids were taken away , and he didn ’ t know what happened .
But then there ’ s the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest ally or our biggest enemy will be the Spanish-English interpreter .
If they notice that we ’ re not making coherent sentences , they should stop us and ask , “ Are you understanding what asylum is ?
Can I explain it to you ?
” as opposed to just continuing .
And I mention the Spanish-English interpreters because there are very few trilingual interpreters in the U.S .
Most of them are bilingual , so they have to work with a relay interpreter , which is a Spanish-English interpreter , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if that Spanish and English interpreter just continues to interpret it without questioning , if they ’ re seeing that we ’ re borrowing a lot of Spanish words , they should stop us .
And this is who you have to work with .
So , instead of saying , “ This interpreter is not doing their interpreting adequately , ” stop and say , “ How can I help you ?
Like , how can I explain asylum for you ?
Do you know where , you know , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , we have a lot of challenges , so we ’ re trying to solve them little by little .
So , just to give one example , when we were speaking on the phone , Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told me that of the kind of worst cases of families that were separated at the border under Trump ’ s “ zero tolerance ” policy — and I will remind everyone that that policy is officially over , but the separations are ongoing .
At least 900 families have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy over a year ago .
But Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told me that of those over 4,000 families that were separated — and one parent , at least , was deported back to their country of origin without their child — of those 4,000 cases , Lee Gelernt of the ACLU estimated that 10 to 20 % affected Mayan-language-speaking Guatemalans .
That ’ s an enormous — that ’ s not just of the Guatemalan asylum seekers .
That ’ s of all of the families separated .
So , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what most surprised me when I began reporting this story .
AMY GOODMAN : Rachel Nolan ’ s piece in The New Yorker is “ A Translation Crisis at the Border.
” We ’ ll link to it at democracynow.org .
Odilia Romero is a Zapotec interpreter with the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations .
For the full conversation , go to democracynow.org .
Monday : Dr. Martin Luther King special .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. As the U.S. continues to use hostile policies to stop people from seeking refuge and asylum in the United States, we look at a key problem that’s preventing migrants from getting due process, and in many cases getting them deported: inadequate translation for indigenous asylum seekers who speak Mayan languages.
Guatemala has a population of 15 million people. At least 40% of them are indigenous. In the past year, a quarter of a million Guatemalan migrants have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border. At least half of them are Mayan. Many speak little or no Spanish.
That’s the focus of a New Yorker magazine article headlined “A Translation Crisis at the Border.” I had a chance to interview the author of that article, Rachel Nolan, at Constitutional Plaza in Guatemala City. She is an assistant professor of international relations at Boston University. And we spoke to Odilia Romero, Zapotec interpreter, indigenous leader with the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations for 25 years. I started by asking Rachel Nolan to lay out her piece.
RACHEL NOLAN: Well, thank you so much for having me, Amy. In the course of reporting the story for The New Yorker, I found that many migrants who reach the U.S.-Mexico border are not given access to Mayan-language translation at all. In fact, during credible-fear interviews, during which migrants have to lay out why they’re afraid of returning to their country of origin, many Mayan-language speakers from Guatemala are forced to do so in Spanish, which is a language that they do not speak.
So I’ve heard cases of people being deported after signing papers that they don’t understand. I’ve heard cases of families being separated and children isolated, spoken to in Spanish, which is a language that they don’t understand. And many Mayan-language speakers who are attempting to gain asylum, I’ll say — they’re not migrating into the United States seeking work; they’re attempting to access asylum — and they’re only often given access to Mayan-language translation at their final court date, if at all.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us a story, one of the people profile? This also goes to the horrific issue of the separation of parents and their children, how you begin your piece.
RACHEL NOLAN: I wanted to focus this story not just on the Mayan-language speakers who have been the victims of some of these immigration policies, but also on those Mayan-language speakers who are doing their best to help. There’s a large community, of which Odilia is a part — and it’s an honor to have her on the program with me — mostly based in California, although throughout the United States, that are providing Mayan-language translation to immigrants crossing the U.S. border.
And one of those people that I was able to speak with at great length and profile and follow is Oswaldo Vidal Martín, who is a Mam-language speaker. Mam is one of 22 mutually unintelligible Mayan languages. And Oswaldo is based in Fruitvale, which is in the kind of Oakland area of California. And Oswaldo was actually called to the border about a year ago, during the family separation crisis, and asked to interpret for several lawyers at the Texas Civil Rights Project. And he and many other Mayan-language translators went, in both paid and volunteer capacity, to the border.
And one of the families that he encountered was that of Mario Perez Domingo, who was a Mam-language speaker separated from his 2-year-old girl at the border because the Border Patrol had asked — had asked him whether he had paid for a birth certificate for his 2-year-old daughter with whom he was traveling. Now, Mario does not speak Spanish very well. Like many Mayan-language speakers in Guatemala, he speaks enough to go to the store, maybe sell tomatoes in the market, but not to navigate a complex legal interview. And so, like many indigenous-language speakers at the border, he was afraid and was answering yes to many of the questions that he was asked.
And so, in Guatemala, you do pay a very small fee to get a birth certificate. So when he was asked had he paid for the birth certificate of his daughter, he answered yes. And the Border Patrol agent used that answer as supposed evidence that he had paid for a false birth certificate, which was not true. And on the basis of that, he was separated from his daughter for several months. And because Mario only speaks Mam, he was not able to understand what was happening and why his daughter was separated from him. Again, Mam is his primary language, and he speaks very little Spanish, if at all. So he was answering yes, yes, yes, to try to ingratiate himself to the authorities, to try to control was what was clearly a very fearful situation.
And only once Oswaldo, the Mam-language translator from California, arrived on the scene in Texas was Mario’s lawyer able to get all of the details of the case and work toward reuniting Mario Perez Domingo with his daughter, which eventually happened, but they were separated for a number of months because of language issues.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Odilia Romero into this conversation. If you could explain what the crisis you confronted was, what you saw, and how you saw, with this massive crackdown on migrants along the border, that the lack of interpretation was leading so many people to be either deported or separated from their children, and then what you did about it?
ODILIA ROMERO: Well, our experience at the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations — for short, I will call it FIOB — was, suddenly we started getting calls. And a little bit I wanted to tell you the history of interpreting in California for indigenous people started in 1996 and ’97 by the FIOB training Mayans and Mexican indigenous interpreters. So people knew of our existence.
Suddenly, we just started getting these calls. We have: “We need K’iche’. We need Zapotec. We need Mam.” And suddenly everybody’s calling us. We were getting calls from social media, texts. And at that point, you know, we didn’t know what to do, because there were so many. And the agencies will call us and say, “I need Zapoteco.” And I will get on the phone, because they wouldn’t know what kind of — what variant of Zapotec. So I will get on the phone; it turned out to be Chinanteco. They were just getting those calls to us and trying — figuring how to solve a problem, right?
So, some of the things that we went — we went to Texas, actually, and we went to some of the detention centers. And we found out people weren’t getting an interpreter. People didn’t know how to identify the languages. So we launched a campaign, one training more interpreters throughout the U.S. So we’ve been training interpreters in Chicago, in D.C. We’re going to New York this month. In California, everywhere that we can, where these different variants of languages existed. That way, we are able to respond to some of the needs that we’re having at the border and we’re going to continue having at the border.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to this issue of the for-profit, over-the-phone translations that take place and how it jeopardizes the legitimate asylum claims of so many indigenous people. If you could lay this out for us and then talk about the philosophy behind your translation, interpretation service?
ODILIA ROMERO: I took the test with one of the companies. And as an ethical interpreter, I know I did not pass the test. But when they came back with the result, they said, “Excellent, you’re ready to go interpret in immigration court in Zapotec.” And I asked, “Well, how did you check? Like, how do you know that I was interpreting adequately?” And they told me, “We have a methodology, so you’re good to go.” So then we had our other trilingual interpreters take the test. And they all, being ethical and being trained by us, were like, “We did not pass this test. We are not going to go do it.” So, they do not care there.
And one of the things for us is the way that interpreting was developed was by Spanish-English interpreters. And nobody thought about us on how to develop a manual, on a code of ethics. Nothing was thought within us when these interpretation rules were developed.
And, you know, some of the things for us as an indigenous interpreter, we were seeing, well, these aren’t making sense to us. We cannot interpret word per word. In the case of asylum, in my language, I will have — I will have to say that you can — you have to leave, because you could no longer be here because you’re afraid that someone within this community or within this pueblo is going to hurt you, right? And if I say “refugee,” I’m afraid for my life that someone’s going to kill me. So they’re two different things. So, if our interpreters do not know the difference between asylum and between refugee, they will not be able to convey the message. So we have to — so we have to train them what are these words, because a lot of these pro-profit language agencies, all the interpreters that they have, they borrow Spanish — reshnabo [phon.], asilo, reshnabo [phon.], or refugio. That’s not being said anything to that individual or to that detainee, as opposed to, you know, [speaking Zapotec], which is a very different thing than just reshnabo [phon.], asilo.
So, that’s at the level we’ve gone in our language program to talk about how do we think about these words. How do we think from the immigration language, to the court language, to the medical language? How do we put it into our words? How do we describe it, right? Because it is asilo, asylum. It’s very easy to just translate from Spanish, interpret from Spanish to English. However, for us, it’s very descriptive, so we have to train our interpreters.
But the for-profit language agencies, it’s not about the human rights of the detainees. It’s about making money, who gets the bid. I’ve gotten calls from these companies: “Can you just take the calls?” “I can’t, because I don’t know what variant of Zapotec it is.” “Just take the call. Zapotec is Zapotec.”
So, what we’re doing is training from a very different point as the standard models that they exist in the Spanish-language, Spanish-interpreting schools. We had to develop our own curricula. We had to develop our own glossary. We had to develop everything for ourselves as indigenous people. So it’s a lot of work.
But I think it’s so important that we’re trained, because the life of a person depends on us as the interpreters. If I go to a hospital and I’m not instructed how to give my child a medicine in my language, I might put him at risk. If I go to the court and I don’t know how to say “asylum” and I don’t understand the court system, I could be that tool to deport the person.
AMY GOODMAN: So you have to understand as much Western culture and what’s happening here in the United States as you do indigenous culture.
ODILIA ROMERO: Yes, you have to understand the Western culture very well and then be able to convert it to an indigenous world, in the same way an indigenous worldview to the Western world.
I will tell you about a case about a man that his child was taken away. And he told me in Zapotec, “When they took my children away, the tears just fell out of my eyes and my face like the rain in August in our region.” If I interpret that literally, it doesn’t make any sense to Western world, right? But these are the way, in the case of Zapoteco, is how he told me. “And when I finally was on the bus, the tears just popped out, like the hail after the rain.” And that doesn’t make any sense, because the sentences are not very clear. So I need to be able to convert that into the Western world. And this man, when his child was taken away, I mean, he didn’t know. He agreed to meet these — this was at the Department of Social Services. He went there because they had called the police on him, because the child wasn’t growing. And when they got there, they just like, “OK, sign these papers.” The kids were taken away, and he didn’t know what happened.
And so, we need to know both worlds, like what do the Department of Social Services do, what is the immigration languages, what is the vocabulary. Otherwise, we’re not being useful to indigenous people as interpreters. And we really have to be ethical about it and be honest if I don’t know the word.
But then there’s the other issue that we have, is our biggest ally or our biggest enemy will be the Spanish-English interpreter. If they notice that we’re not making coherent sentences, they should stop us and ask, “Are you understanding what asylum is? Can I explain it to you?” as opposed to just continuing. And I mention the Spanish-English interpreters because there are very few trilingual interpreters in the U.S. Most of them are bilingual, so they have to work with a relay interpreter, which is a Spanish-English interpreter, and that makes it much more difficult. And if that Spanish and English interpreter just continues to interpret it without questioning, if they’re seeing that we’re borrowing a lot of Spanish words, they should stop us. And this is who you have to work with. So, instead of saying, “This interpreter is not doing their interpreting adequately,” stop and say, “How can I help you? Like, how can I explain asylum for you? Do you know where, you know, the calendar is in immigration court?” So, we have a lot of challenges, so we’re trying to solve them little by little.
AMY GOODMAN: As you stand there in Guatemala City, Rachel Nolan, if you could talk about what most surprised you as you did this piece for The New Yorker, as you did your research, “A Translation Crisis at the Border,” and what you feel, what are people saying, needs to happen now?
RACHEL NOLAN: I was shocked at the extent of the problem, frankly. When I called Lee Gelernt of the ACLU and asked him, you know, “To what extent are the issues that are affecting all Central American asylum seekers in the United States affecting indigenous-language speakers?” he said, “It’s enormous. They’re disproportionately affected. All of the problems that Spanish-language asylum seekers face are exacerbated if they speak Mayan languages.”
So, just to give one example, when we were speaking on the phone, Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told me that of the kind of worst cases of families that were separated at the border under Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy — and I will remind everyone that that policy is officially over, but the separations are ongoing. At least 900 families have been separated since the official end of that policy over a year ago. But Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told me that of those over 4,000 families that were separated — and one parent, at least, was deported back to their country of origin without their child — of those 4,000 cases, Lee Gelernt of the ACLU estimated that 10 to 20% affected Mayan-language-speaking Guatemalans. That’s an enormous — that’s not just of the Guatemalan asylum seekers. That’s of all of the families separated. So, the kind of scale of the problem was what most surprised me when I began reporting this story.
AMY GOODMAN: Rachel Nolan’s piece in The New Yorker is “A Translation Crisis at the Border.” We’ll link to it at democracynow.org. Odilia Romero is a Zapotec interpreter with the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations.
For the full conversation, go to democracynow.org. Monday: Dr. Martin Luther King special.


democracynow--2020-01-17--4 Years Seeking Justice: Daughter of Slain Indigenous Environmental Leader Berta Cáceres Speaks Out

In Honduras , a new report by the Violence Observatory at the Honduran National Autonomous University says that at least 15 women have been murdered in the first 14 days of this year .
Violence against women , LGBTQ people , indigenous leaders and environmental activists has skyrocketed in Honduras under the U.S.-backed government of President Juan Orlando Hernández .
The report comes nearly four years after the Honduran indigenous environmental activist Berta Cáceres was shot dead inside her home in La Esperanza , Honduras , by hired hitmen .
Last month in the capital of Tegucigalpa , seven men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in prison for her killing in March 2016 .
At the time of her assassination , Cáceres had been fighting the construction of a major hydroelectric dam on the Gualcarque River on sacred Lenca land in southwestern Honduras .
In November 2018 , a court ruled that Cáceres ’ s killing was ordered by executives of the Honduran company behind the Agua Zarca dam , known as DESA , who hired the convicted hitmen .
Cáceres won the Goldman Environmental Prize for her work protecting indigenous communities and for her environmental justice campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In December , we sat down with one of her daughters , Laura Zúñiga Cáceres , in Madrid , Spain , where she was receiving a human rights award .
“ This is a late conviction .
It has been almost four years of seeking justice .
It is the product of a rather difficult and painful process that has been putting us as victims in direct dispute with a murderous and aggressive state , and they produced the minimum consequences that the state could have given , ” Zúñiga Cáceres says .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, as we turn to Honduras, where a new report by the Violence Observatory at the Honduran National Autonomous University says at least 15 women have been murdered in the first 14 days of this year. Violence against women, LGBTQ people, indigenous leaders, environmental activists has skyrocketed in Honduras under the U.S.-backed government of President Juan Orlando Hernández.
The report comes nearly four years since Honduran indigenous environmental activist Berta Cáceres was shot dead inside her home in La Esperanza, Honduras, by hired hitmen. Last month in the capital of Tegucigalpa, seven men were sentenced to up to 50 years in prison for her killing. At the time of her assassination, Cáceres had been fighting the construction of a major hydroelectric dam on sacred Lenca land in southwestern Honduras. Berta Cáceres was assassinated in March of 2016. In November of 2018, a court ruled her killing was ordered by executives of the Honduran company behind the Agua Zarca dam, known as DESA, who hired the convicted hitmen to carry out the killing. At least two of the men involved in the murder were trained by U.S. military forces. Berta Cáceres’s assassination came a year after she won the Goldman Environmental Prize for her work protecting indigenous communities and for her environmental justice campaign against the massive dam. This is Berta Cáceres speaking in 2015.
BERTA CÁCERES: [translated] In our worldviews, we are beings who come from the earth, from the water and from corn. The Lenca people are ancestral guardians of the rivers, in turn protected by the spirits of young girls, who teach us that giving our lives in various ways for the protection of the rivers is giving our lives for the well-being of humanity and of this planet.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Berta Cáceres giving her acceptance speech at the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize ceremony.
Well, just a few weeks ago, I had a chance to sit down with one of Berta’s daughters, Laura Zúñiga Cáceres. I sat down with her in Madrid, Spain, where she was receiving a human rights award. I don’t usually get to see her. She lives in the same town where her mother was murdered, in La Esperanza. I began by asking Laura about whether she felt the recent sentencing of her mother’s assassins had served justice.
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] Well, first of all, this is a late conviction. It has been almost four years of seeking justice. It is the product of a rather difficult and painful process that has been putting us, as victims, in direct dispute with a murderous and aggressive state. And they produce the minimum consequences that the state could have given. We continue talking about my mom’s intellectual killers and that those who were captured and convicted were the weakest people within the criminal structure that attacked my mom.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us what happened and who you believe is responsible for her death, including the men who actually pulled the trigger, but right on up to who you believe ordered her murder?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] My mom was a fighter defending the Lenca indigenous territory that is in southwestern Honduras. She was also defending the territory against the concession of our rivers. Specifically, there was a very important struggle in defense of the Gualcarque River, which is a sacred river for the Lenca people.
What this struggle involves is the plans to build a dam, the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam, which is being built by a company called DESA, whose most important partner is the Atala Zablah family. And this company is the one that we have held responsible, and that there is even a tribunal that has said is responsible for the murder of my mother. So we understand that the partners of this company are those who participated in the murder of my mom. On top of that, after an investigation, we have collected evidence that connects this family with the murder of my mother. So, they are the ones that are still missing.
Today there are seven men who were convicted who are associated with the responsibility of the physical murder of my mother. Those are the people who were the gunmen, who participated by shooting my mother. Within those seven men who were convicted, there are two people closely linked to the DESA company. One of them is the company’s former security chief, and the other is the environmental manager. So we are worried, because there are military elements there, too. There is one more person who is being tried, who is the general manager of the company DESA, a person who is a military member who participated in the intelligence of the state and who applied that knowledge to persecute and assemble the murder of my mom and other defenders of the Gualcarque River.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the evidence you have that the family that owns the dam were directly involved? And was that evidence presented at trial?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] Well, we have collected 33 previous threats that were made against my mother. Most of the threats were linked to DESA right before the murder of my mother. In addition to this, based on information that the Public Ministry provided to us, we managed to see chats and communication between members of the company with their employees, in which they talk about attacks against COPINH, as well as what my mother’s work and activism implied for them and the company. In addition to that, there is also a chat that directly links the general manager of DESA with the gunmen, in which my mother’s murder is coordinated. There are also chats showing how the general manager of DESA gives information to the Atala Zablah family members. I think that their involvement is very evident, and it illustrates a little how this network functions with military behaviors.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about the U.S. connection here. Seven men were convicted and sentenced for your mother’s murder. Two of those men, one was a former Army lieutenant trained by the United States, the other a Special Forces major also trained by the United States. U.S.-trained military men, quote, “provided logistical support and a gun in the plot to kill Cáceres.” Can you talk about what you know about the U.S. connection?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] I believe that what we have seen since the coup is how extractivism has massively entered into our country. And through that extractivism, we see how the military are able to gain control of these extractive companies. Since the coup, they became entrepreneurs. And we also witness how the government of the United States is complicit and allows the installation of this coup. Then we see how the United States government continues to support governments in Honduras which are highly repressive and violators of human rights. The United States supports these governments, particularly in the area of militarization.
And at the time of my mother’s murder, one of the things that caught our attention is that it was said that members of the FBI were investigating her killing, which the U.S. Embassy never clarified, even though it was not true, and the U.S. Embassy allowed the Honduran state to create that false narrative.
But the most obvious evidence about how soldiers are trained by the U.S. government to kill land and water defenders is the training that both Mariano Díaz Chávez and David Castillo received from the United States and that aided them in carrying out the murder of my mother. The United States government has also never cut funding for the government of Juan Orlando Hernández, which is a dictatorship that continues to kill and that continues to generate impunity on my mom’s case and other cases.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about the independent investigation that was done? Who was involved with it? And what do you think further needs to happen at this point?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] Since the beginning, on the first day after my mom was murdered, we demanded for an international commission to investigate her killing, because we already knew the state had been complicit of this murder. An investigation team was offered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, but the state did not allow it.
Then we called on international jurists with experience in cases of genocide, disappearances and other state crimes, that could participate and do an independent investigation. People from Guatemala, Colombia, the United States and the Netherlands were involved in this commission. With the information provided by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the findings were systematized, and this report came out more than a year and a half ago. That was also when it became known that the Public Ministry of Honduras, the top prosecutors, already had evidence to prosecute more people involved in my mother’s murder but had not done so.
What is left for us to really have justice? I think there are at least two things. The first is the capture and prosecution and condemnation of the intellectual authors of my mother’s murder. And the second, which is very important, is the cancellation of the Gualcarque River concession, because to this day, even after the murder of my mother and after the murder of more than six people, the company DESA owns the river, meaning it has the power to do whatever it wants with that river. And it is outrageous. There is a blatant impunity in this case, and therefore ongoing persecution against a lot of land and water defenders in Honduras. But to start with the process of justice, I think it’s those two crucial points.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you put your mother’s murder into a larger context, what she was trying to accomplish in Honduras and what your family, what you as a member of COPINH, the environmental group in La Esperanza — you live where she lived — what you’re trying to do right now? What should people understand about the struggle?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] Well, I believe that one of the things to understand about Honduras is that we are existing within a coup and a highly repressive and militarized dictatorship. In this context, COPINH has been fighting since 1992. My mom was the coordinator of this organization. And what they continue to seek is to protect the natural resources that the Lenca indigenous people have protected for more than 500 years. Their fight is also protecting the lives of the people who are there, on their land.
We, as COPINH, work with women, with children, with culture, from a plural vision that proposes other forms of life that have nothing to do with the destruction of this planet. I believe that strengthening the good things of the Lenca people, and being able to articulate with other communities the struggles for justice, is a little bit of the work my mother was doing and what many people have been doing here. COPINH is in the southwestern part of Honduras, and there are many other communities that are participating in this struggle, fighting to build a new vision for the world.
My mom’s proposal had to do with the refoundation of Honduras. It had to do with freedom of thought, with the right to be happy. For that, my mom was murdered. This murder also tried to end the organization, COPINH. We are made up of many, many people who continue to fight, putting our bodies in the frontlines. And what the murder of my mom marked was the need to really build a new society.
AMY GOODMAN: You’re here in Madrid. The president of Honduras is here in Madrid, Juan Orlando Hernández. He just tweeted, when he arrived, “We’re not going to Madrid to ask for anything. We are demanding what is just. Honduras is one of the three most affected countries in the world by climate change. Green funds are urgent to confront the emergency that is destroying our sources of water, forests, agriculture and existence.” What do you have to say to the president of Honduras?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] I think it is very cynical of him to say that, especially when he has been complicit in the destruction of our country and subjecting our people to great violence. It is true that the Honduran people are experiencing great consequences for the destruction of the planet, but Juan Orlando Hernández has used state funds to invest in the militarization of our country, to invest in repression, in persecuting defenders of the Earth. And that is why we are seeing these murders, we are seeing people imprisoned. We are living in a situation in which life in Honduras is compromised. And for Juan Orlando Hernández to appropriate the rhetoric and discourse of those of us who are putting our bodies at risk, it generates a lot of indignation, especially since he has been one of the people who has ensured impunity in the murder of my mom.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the price that women pay, in particular, in the fight for climate justice?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] Just like the land and our territory is violated and destroyed, so are our bodies. And that is something that is a constant in countries like Honduras. We know that we are at risk. We know that they kill us, that they rape us, that they attack our families.
I think it also has a lot to do with uprooting, with history, because it is women who safeguard history and the way of managing natural resources. And when we are displaced or violated against, that social fabric is also broken and lost. When these threats and murders happen, it is also the destruction of present and future life. I think it also changes the direction of how we are imagining our future, because we have to face and resist a very, very aggressive model destroying us.
But I also believe that it is women who are carrying out resistance, leadership. My mom’s leadership is just one story, but when we go to other communities, we find great women leaders. And that also has to do with generating alliances that allow us to strengthen ourselves.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about how the climate crisis affects Honduras. The way people understand Honduras in the United States who aren’t Honduran is that it’s part of the Northern Triangle and that many of the refugees, the migrants that are coming, trying to come into the United States, are from your country. How does the climate affect their actions?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] I believe that this is a crisis also caused by a model of dispossession and aggression towards the planet and towards our countries, which are destined to be areas that only extract our goods. Then we see that this system of dispossession, which is an extractive system, creates the dispossession of the land, which is the place where many people manage to survive, manage to weave their life, their culture. And this is one of the first steps toward fleeing, towards migration.
But we also see, for example, how the destruction of our territories, of our rivers, is also causing the lands to dry, that the rain patterns are changing. So this causes the crops to dry out. We also saw, the year before, in our Lenca community, how corn could not be harvested because it did not rain. So there were no opportunities. In the southern part of Honduras, we are also seeing droughts. In the capital, there was a water crisis. There was no water, and that generates instability. It is generating the need to flee.
But I believe that the central thing is this model of dispossession that takes away our territories, our natural resources, our goods, destroys them and pushes us out of the places where we grew up and that had fostered our survival.
AMY GOODMAN: Your mother was an incredibly brave woman. You are following in her footsteps. What gives you the courage, and what gives you hope?
LAURA ZÚÑIGA CÁCERES: [translated] I think the will to fight first comes from the indignation over the assassination of my mother, and thinking, “What would my mother do?” Because I believe that one of the things that I seek, and a lot of other people seek, is the power to honor her through our lives and through what gives me hope.
I believe that it is the Lenca people, which is a rebel community. It is a community that is joyful, even in times when it seems that there is no hope. There is laughter. There is a lot of creativity to face the violent situations we live through. I think that encourages me a lot. In spite of everything, I stay in Honduras because it is the place that gives me energy to continue.
AMY GOODMAN: Laura Zúñiga Cáceres, one of the daughters of the slain Honduran indigenous environmental leader Berta Cáceres. Laura was speaking to us in Madrid, Spain, outside the U.N. climate summit.
When we come back, the translation crisis at the border. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-17--"They Must Conduct a Full and Fair Trial": Senators Sworn in for Historic Trump Impeachment Trial

For just the third time in history , the U.S. Senate has opened a trial to determine if a sitting @ @ @ @ @ office .
The Senate trial comes a month after the House impeached President Trump for @ @ @ @ @ political rival Joe Biden .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who will preside @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , later swore in senators who will serve as jurors when the trial @ @ @ @ @ This comes as more information is coming to light about the actions of President Trump @ @ @ @ @ Thursday , the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the White House Office of Management and @ @ @ @ @ withholding $ 400 million in aid money to Ukraine even though the funds had been @ @ @ @ @ speak with attorney John Bonifaz , co-founder and president of Free Speech for People and @ @ @ @ @ Demands It : The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump .
”

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: For just the third time in history, the U.S. Senate has opened a trial to determine if a sitting president should be removed from office. The Senate trial comes a month after the House impeached President Trump for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. On Thursday, Congressman Adam Schiff, one of seven House impeachment managers, addressed the Senate.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the presidency in that using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election. … President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the impeachment trial in the Senate, later swore in senators who will serve as jurors when the trial officially begins on Tuesday.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: At this time, I will administer the oath to all senators in the chamber in conformance with Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution and the Senate’s impeachment rules. Will all senators now stand or remain standing and raise their right hand? Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?
SENATORS: I do.
AMY GOODMAN: After that, each senator stepped up and signed the oath book.
While the impeachment trial is beginning in the Senate, more information is coming to light about the actions of President Trump and his associates. On Thursday, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the White House Office of Management and Budget violated federal law; they broke the law by withholding $400 million in aid money to Ukraine even though the funds had been allocated by Congress. The GAO wrote, quote, “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” unquote.
Meanwhile, pressure is growing on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to allow witnesses to testify during the Senate trial. On Thursday, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said it’s likely she would support a motion to call witnesses, just as she did in 1999 during President Clinton’s impeachment trial. One potential witness is Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born businessman and former associate of Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said this week, in a series of interviews, the president was fully aware of efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Parnas is under federal indictment.
To talk more about the impeachment trial, we go to Massachusetts to speak with attorney John Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, co-author of The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump.
John, you have been calling for this for several years. Talk about the significance of what we have witnessed over the past few days, the whole ceremony about the Senate impeachment trial, and what’s about to happen.
JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, thank you, Amy, for having me.
This is a serious moment for our nation. Our democracy and our Constitution are on the line. And what we’ve seen over these past few days is that this is a very solemn occasion. The Senate must now take up these serious charges against this president issued by the House of Representatives, and they must conduct a full and fair trial. And the very fact that you have the chief justice of the United States, who only presides over the Senate for an impeachment trial — and the third time in our history this is happening — both take the oath to do impartial justice but then also administer that oath for every United States senator, and then each one signs the oath book, they all have taken now that oath, a separate oath from the one they took when they assumed the office at the United States Senate to defend and protect our Constitution. And so, each and every senator now must comply with that oath and must conduct a full and fair trial, hearing witnesses, demanding the documents, and not engaging in the cover-up that this president has engaged in so far to try to protect himself and his associates.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, talk about what he’s on trial for, and explain what it means if he were found guilty. Does that mean automatic removal from office?
JOHN BONIFAZ: The president is on trial for abuse of power and abuse of the public trust. These are precisely the kinds of charges that the framers envisioned when they placed the impeachment clause in the Constitution: crimes against the state. And these abuses of power come out of the Ukraine scandal, where this president illegally solicited foreign assistance from the Ukrainian government to assist his re-election campaign. And he engaged in extortion and bribery in the process, misusing nearly $400 million of U.S. funds, to try to hold back those funds from the Ukrainian government to get what he wanted, which was the announcement of an investigation against a political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. And, you know, this is the kind of misuse of the office that the framers feared. And the idea that we would have a president who would so engage in that kind of abuse of office, in violation of the oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution, means that he must now face this trial. And the House was right to issue these articles of impeachment.
You’re right, Amy, that we at Free Speech for People have been calling for accountability for this president’s abuses of power since the moment he took the oath of office, violating the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses and treating the Oval Office as a profit-making enterprise at the public expense. And he’s repeatedly abused his power since that time. But I think what we now see is a president who must face a trial. And yes, if he is removed by the Senate, there is no further appeal. The Senate has the sole power to engage in this impeachment trial and removal. And he will be removed from the office if the Senate votes to convict.
AMY GOODMAN: So let’s talk about the issue of witnesses — it looks like up to five Republican senators are weighing whether to call for witnesses — and what exactly this means.
JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, as we know, every trial requires witness testimony. You know, what the House has done is effectively an indictment against the president, and that indictment now must be heard in the United States Senate with a full and fair trial. And these witnesses must be brought forward. In the Johnson impeachment trial, there were 41 witnesses that were heard. There were three witnesses heard in the Clinton impeachment trial, but then many other witnesses had been deposed during the Ken Starr investigation.
Here what we have is a Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, claiming that there shall be no witnesses, that somehow we don’t need any evidence to be heard in the U.S. Senate. But what’s appeared to happen over the past several days is that a number of Republican senators are breaking away from Mitch McConnell. We’ll see when the vote finally occurs on this question. But if 51 senators, which would be at least four Republican senators joining the 47 Democratic senators, vote to have witnesses, then there will be witnesses. And some of these witnesses have yet to come forward because they’ve been part of this cover-up this president has required: Mick Mulvaney, the chief of staff for the White House; John Bolton, the national security — former national security adviser; Lev Parnas, certainly, the associate who has now come forward talking about how the president knew all about this scheme. So, these witnesses need to become brought forward, as well as the documents that the White House has withheld under the president’s direction. The senators cannot be complicit in this cover-up.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Lev Parnas, the Soviet-born businessman, former associate of Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, now under federal indictment, speaking to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
LEV PARNAS: See, this was the whole key. They would constantly — every time somebody would meet Zelensky, they would, like, agree, and then they would walk it back. So, they announced something about corruption, that he’s going to be on a corruption, but that Giuliani blew his lid on that, saying, “That’s not what we discussed,” that it wasn’t supposed to be a corruption announcement. It has to be about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and Burisma.
RACHEL MADDOW: He said the name Biden needs to be spoken, was his insistence?
LEV PARNAS: Always, always.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lev Parnas emphatically says the president knew, and he was in on conversations with the president about this, but he is under federal indictment. If Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, had not held off on handing over the articles of impeachment, would this have been included? And then, what about people like Republican Senator Susan Collins saying, “This all should have been dealt with in the House. We’re not going to deal with this”?
JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, first, we know that Senator Mitch McConnell said, right at the time that the House voted on the articles of impeachment in December, that he was working directly with the White House, in coordination 100%, and that he was therefore going to not allow for any witnesses and force a quick dismissal of these charges in the Senate. So, yes, Speaker Pelosi was correct to hold back those articles until there was some understanding of what could happen. And once some of these senators came forward and said they would like to hear from witnesses, then it became clear that Senator McConnell would not necessarily be able to control these proceedings entirely and get a quick dismissal. He’s already now said that, in fact, there’s not an appetite for quick dismissal in the Senate, despite some senators trying to advocate for that.
So I do think that we’re going to hear opening arguments next week, and then there will be this crucial vote on whether there are witnesses. But as for Senator Collins’s claim, it’s completely specious. I mean, what we, again, have from the House is an indictment, but that does not mean that further witnesses that come forward, further documents that come forward, shall not be heard by the United States Senate. And this is, again, directly related to the oath that she and every other senator has taken to do impartial justice. They must not be complicit with this cover-up and with a criminal enterprise operating out of the Oval Office. They must conduct themselves according to that oath.
AMY GOODMAN: John Bonifaz, I want to thank you for being with us, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, co-author of The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump.
When we come back, we turn to Honduras, where at least 15 women have been murdered in the first two weeks of this year. We’ll look at the case of Berta Cáceres and the men who have been imprisoned for her murder. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-17--Headlines for January 17, 2020

Headlines for January 17, 2020

For just the third time in history , the Senate has opened an impeachment trial to determine if a sitting president should be removed from office .
On Thursday , Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts swore in senators who will serve as jurors when the trial officially begins on Tuesday .
Roberts called on the lawmakers to render “ impartial justice , ” although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said he is not an impartial juror .
He ’ s facing increasing pressure to call witnesses during the trial , as new information continues to emerge about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine to investigate his political rival , Joe Biden , ahead of this year ’ s presidential election .
On Thursday , the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the White House ’ s Office of Management and Budget broke the law by withholding the nearly $ 400 million in aid to Ukraine , which had already been allocated by Congress .
Also on Thursday , FBI agents visited the home and business of Connecticut congressional candidate Robert Hyde , who has been thrust into the center of the impeachment story after newly revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliani associate Lev Parnas about surveilling then-U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch .
In one message , Hyde wrote , “ They are willing to help if we/you would like a price .
… Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money.
” Hyde denies he was offering to harm or assassinate the ambassador , who was later told by State Department officials that she had to leave the country immediately .
Ukrainian officials have opened a criminal investigation into the potential surveillance — before the U.S. has announced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more on the impeachment trial after headlines .

For just the third time in history, the Senate has opened an impeachment trial to determine if a sitting president should be removed from office. On Thursday, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts swore in senators who will serve as jurors when the trial officially begins on Tuesday. Roberts called on the lawmakers to render “impartial justice,” although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said he is not an impartial juror. He’s facing increasing pressure to call witnesses during the trial, as new information continues to emerge about President Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, ahead of this year’s presidential election.
On Thursday, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget broke the law by withholding the nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine, which had already been allocated by Congress.
Also on Thursday, FBI agents visited the home and business of Connecticut congressional candidate Robert Hyde, who has been thrust into the center of the impeachment story after newly revealed text messages showed Hyde communicating with former Giuliani associate Lev Parnas about surveilling then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. In one message, Hyde wrote, “They are willing to help if we/you would like a price. … Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money.” Hyde denies he was offering to harm or assassinate the ambassador, who was later told by State Department officials that she had to leave the country immediately. Ukrainian officials have opened a criminal investigation into the potential surveillance — before the U.S. has announced a similar investigation. We’ll have more on the impeachment trial after headlines.